State-of-the-Art on the Use of Bituminous Subballast on ...jrose/papers/Paulo Teixeira-BR2A WS...

State-of-the-Art on the Use of Bituminous

Subballast on European High-Speed Rail Lines

Paulo Fonseca Teixeira

Assistant Professor,

Technical University of Lisbon (IST)

- State-of-the-Art on the Use of Bituminous Subballast on European High-Speed Rail Lines - 2Paulo F. Teixeira (2009)

1. CURRENT HIGH-SPEED TRACK DESIGN TRENDS AND CHALLENGES

(SPANISH CASE STUDY).

2. THE USE OF BITUMINOUS SUBBALLAST IN THE ROME-FLORENCE LINE

3. SPANISH STUDIES ON THE INTEREST OF USING A BITUMINOUS

SUBBALLAST

4. CURRENT APPLICATION OF BITUMINOUS SUBBALLAST IN EUROPE

INDEX

European

HS Network

Situation as at 02.2008

Information given by the Railways

v > 250 km/h

180 < v < 250 km/h

Other lines

v > 250 km/h Planned

UIC - High-Speed Updated 22.02.2008 – OG/IB

Valladolid

Zaragoza

Vitoria

Madrid

Valencia

Barcelona

Pristina

Podgorica

Sarajevo

Skopje

St.Petersburg

Oulu

Tampere

Turku

Napoli

Roma

Nice

Torino

Marseille

Málaga

Lisboa

Sevilla

Tirana

Thessaloniki

Zagreb

Bologna

Ljubljana

Sivas

Sofia

Ankara

KayseriKonya

TallinnStockholm

Helsinki

Riga

Minsk

PoznanBerlin

Budapest

Praha

Gdansk

Warszawa

Katowice

Wien

KrakowNürnberg

Bratislava

Zürich

München

Strasbg

Milano

Bordeaux

Toulouse

Alicante

Coruña

FkftLux

Köln

Kiev

Chisinau

Bucuresti

Athinai Izmir

Brux

Moskva

Lyon

Oslo

Göteborg

Kobenhavn

Nantes

Paris

Hannover

Hamburg

Amsterdam

LondonBristol

Dublin

EdinburghGlasgow

Bursa

Istanbul

Vilnius

Vigo

Porto

Beograd

1st

generation


FIRST GENERATION OF HIGH-SPEED

BALLASTED TRACKS

FRANCE

• TGV only; Reduced

Nº structures; Fast

construction

•Low stiffness of the

fastening system

•High stiffness of the

setting bed

GERMANY

• Mixed traffic; High

Nº structures; Slow

construction

• Very high stiffness

of the fastening

system


of the setting bed

ITALY SPAIN

• Mixed traffic;

High Nº structures;

Slow construction

• Average stiffness

of the fastening

system

• Very high

stiffness of the

setting bed

• Mixed traffic;

Reduced Nº

structures; Very

fast construction


of the fastening

system

• High stiffness of

the setting bed

Average stiffness Very high stiffness High stiffness High stiffness


RAIL

UIC60

RAILPAD VERTICAL STIFFNESS

30 kN/mm to 500 kN/mm

SLEEPER (TWIN BLOCK or MONOBLOCK)

SLEEPER SPACING: 0,60 - 0,63m

Weight:

245 kg

300-400kg

Effective area:

0,24m2

0,30-0,40m2

HIGH-SPEED BALLASTED

TRACK STRUCTURE

IN EUROPE

BALLAST

SUB-BASE

SUB- BALLAST

BOTTOMING

TRACK BED

SETTING BED

TRACK

FORMATION

BALLAST

SUB-BASE

SUB- BALLAST

BOTTOMING

TRACK BED

SETTING BED

TRACK

FORMATION

SETTING BED

BALLAST : Size distribution (mm) 25/50, 23/63, 30/60

Minimum thickness (cm) 30 to 40 cm

SUB-BALLAST : GRANULAR-ONLY LAYER (except Italy)


Required Bearing Capacity : 80 to 120 MPa (top of sub-ballast)

RAIL

UIC60

RAIL

UIC60







Weight:

245 kg

300-400kg

Effective area:

0,24m2

0,30-0,40m2



Weight:

245 kg

300-400kg

Effective area:

0,24m2

0,30-0,40m2

HIGH-SPEED BALLASTED

TRACK STRUCTURE

IN EUROPE

BALLAST

SUB-BASE

SUB- BALLAST

BOTTOMING

TRACK BED

SETTING BED

TRACK

FORMATION

BALLAST

SUB-BASE

SUB- BALLAST

BOTTOMING

TRACK BED

SETTING BED

TRACK

FORMATION

SETTING BED






BALLAST

SUB-BASE

SUB- BALLAST

BOTTOMING

TRACK BED

SETTING BED

TRACK

FORMATION

BALLAST

SUB-BASE

SUB- BALLAST

BOTTOMING

TRACK BED

SETTING BED

TRACK

FORMATION

SETTING BED






CURRENT HIGH-SPEED TRACK DESIGN IN EUROPE


EmbankmentsStiff sections:

Bridges, viaducts

Culverts, underpass

Stiffness variations

Typical Maintenance problems (track geometry) are

due to bearing capacity variations (known since the

beginning)

How much does these problems cost? Is it worth to fix it?

IMPROVEMENT OF HIGH-SPEED BALLASTED TRACK DESIGN:

WHAT ARE THE MOST RELEVANT CHALLENGES?

• Reduce mean maintenance cycles

• Homogeneize maintenance cycles along a route…


Very few studies published concerning the Influence of track structural

configuration on track maintenance needs in high-speed lines

ANALYSIS OF THE MAINTENANCE

NEEDS OF A HIGH-SPEED LINE

(during 15 years)

IMPROVEMENT OF HIGH-SPEED TRACK DESIGN: WHAT

ARE THE MOST RELEVANT CHALLENGES?

Madrid-Sevilla 942 km of single track

Maintenance works records during

the first 15 years of operation (1992-

2007)

Dynamic and geometric track

inspection records in the first 15 years

of operation (1992-2007)

-180 records-

Database (CENIT-UPC):


AVE TRAINS: Max. wheel load 17,2t

Unsprung mass: 3,94 ton /motored bogie; 3,66 ton / trailing bogie

TRAFFIC IN THE MADRID-SEVILLE LINE (ROLLING STOCK)

17,18t 17,18t 17,1t 17,1t 13,54t 13,54t 16,77t 16,77t 16,23t

16,23t 16,10t 16,10t 16,05t 16,05t 16,8t 16,8t 16,9t

16,9t 16,2t 16,2t 13,16t 13,16t 17,10t 17,10t 17,18t 17,18t

17,18t 17,18t 17,1t 17,1t 13,54t 13,54t 16,77t 16,77t 16,23t

16,23t 16,10t 16,10t 16,05t 16,05t 16,8t 16,8t 16,9t

16,9t 16,2t 16,2t 13,16t 13,16t 17,10t 17,10t 17,18t 17,18t

TALGO 200 TRAINS:

Max. wheel load 22,5 t

Unsprung mass 5,6 ton /motored bogie

2,6 ton / trailing bogie


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

3500

15

30

45

60

75

90

105

120

135

150

165

180

195

210

225

240

255

270

285

300

315

330

345

360

375

390

405

420

435

450

465

Punto kilométrico

Velo

cid

ad

(km

/h)

Velocidad AVE (km/h)

Velocidad Talgo (km/h)

Sp

ee

d (

Km

/h)

Kilometer

Mora Calatrava Hornachuelos

Maintenance Centre

Ave Speed (km/h)

Talgo Speed (km/h)

TRAFFIC IN THE MADRID-SEVILLE LINE (SPEED)


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

abr-

92

ago

-92

dic

-92

abr-

93

ago

-93

dic

-93

abr-

94

ago

-94

dic

-94

abr-

95

ago

-95

dic

-95

abr-

96

ago

-96

dic

-96

abr-

97

ago

-97

dic

-97

abr-

98

ago

-98

dic

-98

abr-

99

ago

-99

dic

-99

abr-

00

ago

-00

dic

-00

abr-

01

ago

-01

dic

-01

abr-

02

ago

-02

dic

-02

Tiempo

Nú

me

ro d

e c

irc

ula

cio

ne

s p

or

se

nti

do

y d

ía (

lab

ora

ble

)

AVE LD

AVE LZ

Talgo

Num

ber

of tr

ain

s p

er

day a

nd d

irection

(weekday)

AVE LD AVE LZ Talgo

Time

Nowadays about 50 trains /day (25.000 gross ton/day/direction): Modest traffic

when compared to other European high-speed lines

TRAFFIC IN THE MADRID-SEVILLE LINE (TRAFFIC VOLUME)


Manutenção

de aparelhos

44%

Manutenção

de vía

41%

Materiais

3%

Controlo

geométrico

9%

Esmerilagem

de carril

1%

Tratamento

herbicida

2%

Madrid-Sevilla High-speed line Maintenance costs

41% - Tamping, profiling, stabiliz.

TRACK SYSTEM (40% of total maintenance costs):

Mean cycles?


Dados recompilados (operações de ataque de via pesado)

VIA 1 VIA 2

Ano operação 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Hornachuelos

Calatrava

0

0,05

0,1

0,15

0,2

01/01/92 01/01/94 01/01/96 01/01/98 01/01/00 01/01/02 01/01/04 01/01/06

Den

sid

ad d

e b

ateo

s (k

m b

atea

do

s/km

de

línea

/mes

)

CALAT+HORN Polinómica (CALAT+HORN)

TRACK GEOMETRY MAINTENANCE WORKS


GENERAL EVOLUTION OF THE MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS

Track length annually tamped (km)

8070

90 90 90 90

175

200

175

230

200

160

160

75

140

90

1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002

Year

Calatrava

Hornachuelos

MAINTENANCE

BASE SECTION

TRACK

KILOMETRES

AVERAGE TRACK

LENGHT TAMPED

ANNUALLY (KM)*

LENGTH TAMPED /

TRACK LENGTH

CALATRAVA 147x2 = 294 km 95 95 = 32%

294

HORNACHUELOS 154x2 = 308 km 170 170 = 55%

308

?

traffic

speed

maintenance

“On condition”


GENERAL EVOLUTION OF THE TRACK GEOMETRIC QUALITY

EMBANKMENT HEIGHT (meters) LINE SECTION CORRESPONDING TO

MAINTENANCE BASE AT < 1 From

1 to 10

From

11 to 20 > 20

CALATRAVA

HORNACHUELOS

70%

60%

25%

22%

2%

14%

3%

4%

Greater tamping needs in Hornachuelos section ? INFRASTRUCTURE

CHARACTERISTICS

High embankment height in the Hornachuelos section

18%


MAINTENANCE WORKS

INFLUENCE OF THE EMBANKMENT HEIGHT

A. López Pita, P.

Teixeira, Ubalde L. et al.

(JRRT, 2007).

0,000

0,020

0,040

0,060

0,080

0,100

0,120

0,140

Den

sid

ad

de

ba

teo

s (

km

tra

bajo

s d

e b

ate

o/k

m l

ínea

/me

s)

VÍA 1 VÍA 2 TOTAL

Hay túnel Hay paso inferior Hay pontón Hay marco Hay alcantarilla Hay sifón Valor medio

MAINTENANCE WORKS

INFLUENCE OF THE HETEROGENEITIES

Difficult to correlate –depends on maintenance work policy


REQUIRED TRACK GEOMETRIC QUALITY

UIC 518 standards:

QN1 quality level: Correction of the defects as part of ordinary track

maintenance work.

QN2 quality level: Program maintenance in the short runs to remove defects.

QN3 quality level: Acceptable, but undesirable (high priority for correction).

SPECIFIC DEFECTS QN1 (mm) QN2 (mm)

LONGITUDINAL LEVELING

ALIGNMENT

4.0

4.0

8.0

6.0

AVERAGE DEFECTS IN QN1 (mm) QN2 (mm)

LONGITUDINAL LEVELLING

ALIGNMENT

1.0

0.7

1.3

1.0

GENERAL EVOLUTION OF TRACK QUALITY

Madrid-Seville (1992-2002): 90 % of the track above QN2 level

For 200 < Vmáx < 300 km/h


0,000

0,100

0,200

0,300

0,400

0,500

0,600

0,700

0,800

Va

lor

me

dio

de

la

de

sv

iac

ión

es

tán

da

r d

e l

a s

eñ

al

me

did

a

en

tra

mo

s d

e 2

00

m (

mm

)

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

enero

2005

julio

2006 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

enero

2005

julio

2006 TOTAL

No hay viaducto ni transición Hay viaducto Hay transición

VÍA 1 VÍA 2

ANALYSIS OF THE GEOMETRICAL QUALITY

Standard deviation (NL 3-25m) - Longitudinal levelling

No viaduct or transition Viaduct Transition


ANALYSIS OF DYNAMIC TRACK INSPECTION RECORDS

150 inspections in the period 1992-2002 (15 per year)

a vv: vertical accelerations on vehicle body

a TV: transversal accelerations on vehicle body

a VA: vertical accelerations on axle box

a LB: lateral accelerations on the bogie

Recording vehicle

ACCELERATION (m/s2)

avv atv ava alb RECOMMENDED ACTION

< 1

From 1 to 2

From 2.1 to 2.5

> 2.5

< 1.5

From 1.6 to 2

From 2.1 to 2.5

> 2.5

ava < 30

30<ava < 50

50< ava < 70

ava> 70

alb< 2

2< alb< 4

4< alb <6

alb > 6

Normal level of control

Thorough level of control

Programmed correction

Immediate correction

“exceedance level density”

Nº of times the intervention

level was exceeded / km / nº

of inspections



Distribution of “exceedance level”

70%



Distribution of “exceedance level” along the time in one section

Need to correlate with maintenance operations and track section features

(presence of switches, expansion equipment, viaducts, embankments,…)

0,10

0,15

0,20

0,25

0,30

0,35

0,40

0,45

0,50

01-01-92 31-12-93 31-12-95 30-12-97 30-12-99 29-12-01 29-12-03 Date

Exeed

ence leve

l de

nsity



Distribution of “exceedance level” along the time in one section DISPERSION

Need to correlate with maintenance operations and track section features

(presence of switches, expansion equipment, viaducts, embankments,…)

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

31

7

32

4

33

2

33

9

34

7

35

4

36

2

36

9

37

7

38

4

39

2

39

9

40

7

41

4

42

1

42

9

43

6

44

4

45

1

45

9

46

6

47

0

Expander

Switches

Kilometer

Den

sit

y o

f E

xeed

ing

s

(exceedin

gs p

er

km

/nº

of

auscultations)



ANALYSIS OF THE INFLUENCE OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE CHARACTERISTICS

Division of the line into 10m sections infrastructure characteristics

(switches and expansion device were filtered)

TRACK SECTION

CONSIDERED

EXCEEDANCE LEVEL

DENSITY(EXCEEDANCE Nº/KM OF

TRACK/INSPECTION)

RELATIVE

RATE

Track section without any

switches, expansion

devices, bridges or

embankments

0.075 100

Track section on

embankment, without any

switches, expansion devices

or bridges

0.094 125

Track section on bridge 0.159 194

Track section at beginning

of bridge-natural

infrastructure transition

0.259 315

Track section over culvert 0.487 594

Track section (on ballast) in

tunnel 0.026 32

If we consider the overall transition section (40m) track deterioration is 6

times higher than in plain track…


stejj CMIRCM

j

jj

línealínea

steLIR

LCMCM

100

How much can we save if we fix those problems?

752,79

2737,58

1984,16

1163,41

2342,21

2157,71

1639,82

3468,94

35,85

2400,91

2343,37

1589,79

24744,49

14263,08

6276,49

15110,06

31989,64

10537,76

5808,68

8551,66

16853,53

27557,05

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000

Hay desvíos

Hay túnel

Hay viaducto

Hay transición de viaducto

Hay puente

Hay transición de puente

Hay pasos inferiores

Hay pontones

Hay marcos

Hay alcantarillas

Hay tubo o sifón

No hay desvíos ni obras de fábrica

Mínimo Máximo

57652,04

63803,72

Bridges &

transitions Different types of culverts, underpasses, etc.

Fixing stiffness problems:

REDUCTION OF 15%


Maintenance

costs

Slab track

PlataformaCapa de sub-balasto en material bituminoso

PlataformaCapa de sub-balasto en material bituminoso

Conventional high-speed track

Increasing track superstructure elasticity

(low-stiffness pads, USPs..)

Intermediate level of improvement of high-speed track design

-

-+

+Construction

costs

Improving track substructure

bearing capacity

HIGH SPEED TRACK DESIGN FOR LOW MAINTENANCE COSTS


IMPROVING TRACK SUPERSTRUCTURE DESIGN

= f ( b . )Degradation (ballast settlement)

Pad stiffness

(KN/mm)

b

50 100 500

- 20 / 30%

Pad stiffness

(KN/mm)

b

50 100 500

-20 % ?

DB

Possibility of using very soft rail pads -

(evaluation of train-track dynamic behaviour, rail

rotation problems)

Is there a lower limit for this reduction of vertical stiffness?

Pad stiffnessD

eg

rad

ati

on

?

50 KN/mm

25 KN/mm

facts

facts

frequency

Vib

ratio

n v

elo

city

conventional track: rail UIC 60,

sleeper B 70, rail pad Zw 687a

(spring coefficient 500 kN/mm)

improved track: rail UIC 60,

sleeper B 75, high resilient rail

fastening system


conventional track: rail UIC 60,

sleeper B 70, rail pad Zw 700


Main lines: Hannover – Würzburg

Stuttgart - Mannheim (1991)

Increased resiliency due

to maintenance behaviour

Test sections: Comparison of the

long term behaviour between ballastless and ballasted track

W. Stahl (2004)

ICE V = 250 km/h


IMPROVING TRACK SUPERSTRUCTURE DESIGN

French TGV trials

(Sauvage and Fortin, 1982)


TRACK DESIGN FOR LOW MAINTENANCE

OPTIMIZATION OF TRACK VERTICAL STIFFNESS FOR HIGH-SPEED

LINES (TRACK SUPERSTRUCTURE DESIGN)

MAINTENANCE COSTS +

ENERY COSTS

Source: Teixeira / López Pita, 2003

costs )


IMPROVING TRACK SUBSTRUCTURE

DESIGN FOR STIFFER BALLAST SUPPORT

Ev2 > 80 a 120 toEv2 > 200 MPa (bituminous)

Stiffness of the ballast support (HSL):

Ev2 > 180 MPa (granular cement)






SUBBALLAST

4. APPLICATION OF BITUMINOUS SUBBALLAST IN EUROPE

INDEX


HIGH-SPEED TRACK DESIGN IN ITALY

Initial design: Granular layer treated with cement (“misto-cementato”)

The use of bituminous sub-ballast appears as an alternative to the granular

layer treated with cement proposed by some contractors, due to:

Increase on work performance on the construction of the layer

Easy to run through the platform with heavy vehicle once built, no matter what

climatic conditions were found

The lack of granular material on the construction area

Savings on the transport of material

(bituminous layer needed aprox. 40% less granular material)


USE OF BITUMINOUS SUB-BALLAST IN ITALY

The tehcnical solution proposed by contractors was accepted by the

technical department of FS

3 trials were built:

5 km en el tramo

Figline-Firenze ( )

3 km en el tramo

Barsano-Città de Pieve

( )

11,2 km en el tramo

Settebagni-Stimigliano

( )

Good practical results Bituminous sub-ballast was accepted as an

option for the next sections of the Rome-Florence line and future lines


EXPERIENCE GAINED ON THE USE OF BITUMINOUS SUB-BALLAST IN

THE ROME-FLORENCE HIGH-SPEED LINE

LONG TERM BEHAVIOUR

Good structural behaviour short and long term (altough lack of

studies comparing the behaviour of bituminous subballast vs

granular subballast).

Overall track renewal already performed in the first sections:

Still no evidence of track fatigue limit

Bituminous subballast was in better state than expected

(ballast protection)

No major technical problem when replacing the ballast layer






SUBBALLAST

4. APPLICATION OF BITUMINOUS SUBBALLAST IN EUROPE

INDEX


COULD THE USE OF BITUMINOUS SUB-BALLAST IMPROVE CURRENT

HS BALLASTED TRACK DESIGN ?

GRANULAR

SUBBALLASTBITUMINOUS

SUBBALLAST

Could this solution be feasible for future Spanish high-speed lines?

A) What should be the design characteristics to meet Spanish HS standards?

B) In what terms these solutions can reduce track maintenance needs?

C) In what conditions it is more cost-effective than using a granular sub-ballast?

?


layer 4 bedrock

layer 3 subgrade

layer 2 sublayer

layer 1 ballast

Beam Element

Spring

Symmetry

Line

Tie

Rail

Linear elasticity and Non linear elasticity

Elasto-plasticity

27,2

31,5

35,2

40,5

24,1

27,1

29,6

33,2

24,923,4

22,2

20,2

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

25 50 100 500

Rigidez de la placa de asiento (kN/mm)

Te

ns

ión

ve

rtic

al s

ob

re la

pla

tafo

rma

(k

Pa

)Ep = 80 MPa

(QS3)

Ep = 50 MPa

Ep =25 MPa

(QS2)

-1.2

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Maximum Vertical Stresses (kN/m2)z (m)

Bituminous 12cm Sub-ballast

Granular Sub-ballast

Multilayer (KENTRACK)

FEM (Ansys, CESAR)

A) TRACK DESIGN WITH BITUMINOUS SUBBALLAST


Algorithm (Bachiller, 2004) to calculate the dynamic overloads produced

by the different high-speed vehicles, considering the following parameters:

Geometric quality of the track (longitudinal level)

Track vertical stiffness

Distribution of masses of the vehicle

Maximum running speed (up to 350 km/h)

Masa no

suspendida

m

Masa semisuspendida

ssM

K1 C1

ss

11

M

K frecuencia propia

1 factor de amortiguamiento

Masa suspendida

sM

K2 C2

s

22

M

K frecuencia propia


K0 C0 K0 rigidez

de la vía C0

m

K00 frecuencia propia


Defectos aleatorios del carril S

V constante



1. AVE 101 - Alstom – Vmáx = 300 km/h

(Madrid – Sevilla)

VEHICLES CONSIDERED IN THIS STUDY

17,18t 17,18t 17,1t 17,1t 13,54t 13,54t 16,77t 16,77t 16,23t

16,23t 16,10t 16,10t 16,05t 16,05t 16,8t 16,8t 16,9t

16,9t 16,2t 16,2t 13,16t 13,16t 17,10t 17,10t 17,18t 17,18t

17,18t 17,18t 17,1t 17,1t 13,54t 13,54t 16,77t 16,77t 16,23t

16,23t 16,10t 16,10t 16,05t 16,05t 16,8t 16,8t 16,9t

16,9t 16,2t 16,2t 13,16t 13,16t 17,10t 17,10t 17,18t 17,18t



2. AVE 102 - TALGO / BOMBARDIER – Vmáx. = 350 km/h

(Madrid – Barcelona)

17t 17t 17t 17t 15t 16,1t 17t 17t 17t

16,8t 16t 16,3t 17t 17t

17t 15,4t 15t 17t 17t 17t 17t

17t 17t 17t 17t 15t 16,1t 17t 17t 17t

16,8t 16t 16,3t 17t 17t

17t 15,4t 15t 17t 17t 17t 17t




3. AVE 103 - SIEMENS – Vmáx. = 350 km/h

(Madrid – Barcelona)




20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

20 30 40 50

Espesor de sub-balasto granular (cm)

Te

ns

ión

ve

rtic

al s

ob

re la

pla

tafo

rma

(k

Pa

)55 65 75 85

Espesor total [balasto + sub-balasto]- (cm)

Ep = 80 MPa

(QS3)

Ep = 50 MPa

Ep =25 MPa

(QS2)

Líneas de alta velocidad francesas

Ed = 9000 MPa

38,6

35,7 35,2

33,7

32,2

30,829,6

28,8

25,024,1

23,422,5

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

6 8 10 12 14 16

Espesor de sub-balasto bituminoso (cm)

Te

ns

ión

ve

rtic

al s

ob

re la

pla

tafo

rma

(kP

a)

Ep = 80 MPa

(QS3)

Ep = 50 MPa

Ep =25 MPa

(QS2)

RESULTS for: Subgrade vertical stress level

GRANULAR SUBBALLAST

A thickness of 12cm a 14cm can be considered, at least, equivalent to the

30cm granular layer required on the spanish high-speed standards.

BITUMINOUS SUBBALLAST


Thickness


Bituminous sub-ballast (12cm-14cm) will fulfill the usual HS track requirements


Sub-ballast

(12 a 14 cm)

Bituminous layer

Min

imu

m lif

e-c

yc

le

Sugrade

Subgrade

a

b

BALASTO

SUB-BALASTO

PLATAFORMA

Ev2 = 80 MPaBALASTO

SUB-BALASTO

PLATAFORMA

Ev2 = 80 MPa

Subgrade

Sub-ballast

Ballast

Road traffic design (construction period)

Subballast fatigue


35 cm

12-14 cm30 cm

Sugrade

Reference: QS3 soil (min. Ev2=80MPa)

Bituminous subballast

(conventional road base mix)*

Form layer / Frost protection layer

Ballast

Thicknesses

(Minimum values)

* e.g. Spanish S20 mixture –according to Spanish roadway standards

35 cm

12-14 cm30 cm

Sugrade

Reference: QS3 soil (min. Ev2=80MPa)

Bituminous subballast

(conventional road base mix)*

Form layer / Frost protection layer

Ballast

Thicknesses

(Minimum values)

* e.g. Spanish S20 mixture –according to Spanish roadway standards



POSSIBLE ADVANTAGES RELATED TO TRACK

MAINTENANCE COSTS AND LIFE CYCLE

Track mean settlement

Differential settlements

(vertical stiffness variations)

Subgrade life cycle

OTHER ADVANTAGES...

Construction process (no

damages during the construction

period) and quality control

B) POSSIBLE INTEREST OF BITUMINOUS SUBBALLAST


TRACK MEAN SETTLEMENT

Source: Selig & Waters, 1994



Vertical accelerations in ballast for v=300km/h

-4.0

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12

Granular Sub-ballast

Bituminous h12 Sub-ballast

Comparing Vertical accelerations inside tracks with

Granular and Bituminous Sub-ballast

for speeds of 300 and 350 km/h

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

under sleeper in ballast on sub-ballast under formlayer

Acelz

(m

/s2)

Granular sb v350

Bituminous 12cm sb v350

Granular sb v300

Bituminous 12cm sb v300

P. Ferreira -IST (2007)

Vibration

attenuation at very

high speeds



3m distance

Without bituminous

sub-ballast

With Bituminous

sub-ballast

Gro

un

d v

ibra

tio

n s

peed

(m

m/s

ec)

0,6 to 1

0,3 to 0,4

Source: Buonanno (2000)

Buonanno & Mele (2000)

Undergoing experimental measurements in France (TGV Est) and

Italy (Torino-Novara)

-Experimental results-



Source: Bergreen (Banverket)

Bearing capacity homogeneizationB) POSSIBLE INTEREST OF BITUMINOUS SUBBALLAST


Rome-Florence high-speed line

- Analysis of track geometry record (4 years) -

2 equivalent sections with 40km

length each

• One with bituminous sub-ballast

• One with cement-treated

granular sub-ballast

Same traffic

Same superstructure

Study (2005-2006):

CENIT-UPC & UNIROMA (DITS)

Evaluate possible benefits of

bituminous sub-ballastSource: CENIT-UPC / UNIROMA (DITS)





Study (2005-2006):

CENIT-UPC & UNIROMA (DITS)

Difficult to find solid

conclusions in plain track

Source: CENIT-UPC / UNIROMA (DITS)



TRANSITIONS BRIDGE-EMBANKMENT PROBLEMS

Granular sub-ballast

treated with cement

Track Deterioration

x 2,5

trackPlain

sTransition

_



Bituminous sub-

ballast

x 4

Bituminous sub-ballast seems to be positive to reduce

the effects of abrupt vertical stiffness variations

Viaduct /

Bridge Abutment

40 m (Transition)

PK PK

Source: CENIT-UPC /

UNIROMA (DITS)



Bituminous sub-ballast offers better protection against environmental

conditions along subgrade lifetime:

Water proof

Helps maintaining moisture content (Rose et al., 2003)

Longer life cycle of the subgrade

Quantitative estimation of this impact need some field tests results

Track long-term behaviour depends on the evolution of formation quality

LONG-TERM BEHAVIOUR


Subgrade

Bituminous sub-ballast

Subgrade

BITUMINOUS

SUB-BALLASTGRANULAR

SUB-BALLAST



Source: Rose, Brown et al., 2000

SUBGRADE LIFE CYCLE

Moisture content near optimum moisture content with bituminous sub-ballast

(Long-term monitoring at 2 sites , after 15-16 years)



Variation of moisture content and track settlement

(CODE-BRIGHT)

IST - UPC

LONG-TERM BEHAVIOUR


Subgrade


Subgrade

BITUMINOUS

SUB-BALLASTGRANULAR

SUB-BALLAST

LONG-TERM BEHAVIOUR


Subgrade


Subgrade

BITUMINOUS

SUB-BALLASTGRANULAR

SUB-BALLAST

BCR2A 2009 PAPER (Ferreira, Teixeira and Cardoso)

Bituminous

cross section

Granular

cross

section

Videos/BituminousLiquidSaturation.mpg.avi



Videos/GranularLiquidSaturation.mpg.avi





ANALYSIS OF THE INVESTMENT (CONSTRUCTION) COSTS

(In Spain)

Need to balance benefits in Maintenance with higher investments…

Is that so? How much?

In synthesis, It is expected that track maintenance costs

should be lower by using a bituminous sub-ballast


RESULTS (Synthesis)

Evaluation of costs for granular

sub-ballast

Source: Current tracks under

construction / recently built

Evaluation of costs for

bituminous sub-ballast

Source: Current roadways under

construction / recently built

RESULTS (Synthesis)

Cost highly sensitive to

distances from quarry

(local availability of material is a

key factor)

Cost sensitive to prices of

bitumen (petrolium)

C) INVESTMENT COST ANALYSIS (SPANISH HSL)


Evaluation of costs for granular

sub-ballast

3. ANALYSIS OF THE INVESTMENT (CONSTRUCTION) COSTS

Evaluation of costs for

bituminous sub-ballast Coste de construcción medio ponderado

(fuente: constructoras)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150

Distancia de transporte (km)

Co

ste

med

io p

on

dera

do

(€/m

^3)

Material Transporte Puesta en obra

Transport distance

Granular layer Cost

(€/m3)

Material

Transport

Laying

Sensibilidad del coste de la capa de subbalasto respecto al coste

del betún para distintas dosificaciones

-10%

-8%

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

-30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30%

Variación coste betún

Var

iaci

ón

co

ste

sub

bal

asto

bitu

min

oso

4,00%

4,25%

4,50%

4,75%

5,00%

Bitumen cost

Bituminous layer cost

Bitumen content


For transport distances higher than 70 to 80 km, bituminous layer gets less expansive…


Coste de construcción medio ponderado de la capa de

subbalasto por km de línea

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160

Distancia de transporte del subbalasto granular (km)

10^

3 €

Granular

Bituminoso

(4,5%)Condiciones

Feb 05

Cmg<Cmb Cmg>Cmb

COSTE POR KM DE LÍNEA CON SUB-BALASTO BITUMINOSO Condiciones febrero 05

COSTE POR KM DE LÍNEA CON SUB-BALASTO

GRANULAR

COSTE POR KM DE LÍNEA CON SUB-BALASTO BITUMINOSO

(nov 05)

Bituminous

sub-ballast

Granular

sub-ballast


Prognosis of costs for future High-Speed lines to be built in Spain …


“Factibility indicator” of finding

suitable granular materialDensity of quarries

Very High

High

Medium

Low

Very low


Prognosis of costs for future High-Speed lines to be built in Spain …


Perpiñán

Figueras

Barcelona

Girona

Tarragona

Lérida Zaragoza

Huesca

Castellón

Valencia

Teruel

44,4

182,8

481

95

79

173

78

58

Pamplona

Castejón

de Ebro

65

Logroño 76,3

Vitoria

Burgos 89,2

180 San Sebastián

Bilbao Gijón

Santander El Ferrol

La Coruña

Santiago de Compostela

69

63,6

Vigo

Pontevedra Orense 130

85

Lugo

98 103

Cuenca

177,2

144,5 Madrid

Valladolid

179

28 Olmedo

Lubián

200

115

León

Palencia

Alar del

Rey 75

126

Oviedo Pola de Lena 49,7

Salamanca

Játiva

La Encina

Alicante

Murcia

Cartagena

59,5

41,2 Albacete

Motilla del Palancar

Calatayud

Soria

62,8

Almería

199,6

Granada

Málaga

Utera

Cádiz

144

Sevilla

Huelva

97

258

Córdoba

Jaén

471

155

70

213,8

62 Badajoz Mérida

Cáceres 74

267

24,4

Algeciras

Toledo

Alcázar de San Juan

Sin identificar

Corredor sur

Corredor de levante

Corredor noroeste

Corredor suroeste

Corredor noreste

Corredor atlántico

Corredor cantábrico

Corredor norte

Corredor mediterráneo

Conexiones internacionales

Muy baja

Baja

Media

Alta

Muy alta

< 40

< 40

< 40

40-55

40-55

40-55

55-80

55-80

55-80

55-80 55-80

55-80

80-90

80-90 80-90

80-90

55-80

80-90

> 90

> 90

> 90

> 90

> 90

> 90 > 90

> 90

< 40

40-55

55-80

80-90

> 90

40-55

> 90

> 90

> 90

> 90 55-80

55-80

55-80

80-90

> 90

> 90

40-55

55-80

55-80

55-80

55-80

55-80

55-80 55-80

55-80 > 90

Very High

High

Medium

Low

Very low

Indicator calibrated with data of lines under construction range of

transport distance per region

1.197,041.138,61

0

200

400

600

800

1.000

1.200

1.400

1.600

1.800

2.000

GRANULAR BITUMINOSO

Tipo de subbalasto

Co

ste

en

millo

ne

s d

e E

uro

s

Coste max

Media

Coste mín

Maximum

Average

Minimum

- 5%

BITUMINOUS


BALAST

SUBGRADE

hb

Slope with bituminous sub-ballast (3%)

Slope with granular sub-ballast (5%)

Ballast savings = ( - )

SAVINGS IN BALLAST MATERIAL…

Around 200 m3 per km of track approximately 5% of sub-ballast cost…


SYNTHESIS OF INVESTMENT COSTS

Confirmed that the use of bituminous might be a cost-effective possible

solution (depending on local availability of granular material)






SUBBALLAST

4. CURRENT APPLICATION OF BITUMINOUS SUBBALLAST IN EUROPE

INDEX


CURRENT APPLICATION OF BITUMINOUS

SUBBALLAST IN EUROPE

• In National design Standards:

• Switerzland (conventional lines

• Czech Republic (conventional lines)

• Italy (new high-speed lines)

•Under evaluation (test sites) - to be included in future national standards?

•France (high-speed)

• Finland

• Spain (high-speed)


1.200 km

1.900.000 m3 of

bituminous material

THE USE OF BITUMINOUS SUBBALLAST IN ITALY


Thickness H 12 cm

Stone Aggregate

- Large fraction

LA coefficient < 30%

Crushed 90 % min

Imbibition coefficient ? 0.015 %

- Fine fraction

Natural sand vol./crusher ratio 1 / 2

Equivalent in Sand < 70

- Filler

Through ASTM 200 sieve = 70 %

Bitumen

- Type 50 / 70

- Percentage 4.1 – 4.7

Best possible percentage to

establish on the basis of

Marshall tests

- Filler / bitumen volumetric ratio 1.5 / 2

Mix

- Marshall stability min 1,000 daN

- Marshall slippage 2 - 4 mm

- Marshall rigidity min 250 daN/mm² - Loss of stability max 25% (Comparison between stability

in original samples and samples placed in

water for 24 hours at 60°C)

- Residual gaps 3 - 6 %

- Resistance to indirect traction > 8 daN/cm²

THE USE OF BITUMINOUS SUBBALLAST IN ITALY


TECHNICAL VISIT: LINE MILANO-TORINO (NOVARA, MAY 2004)

TORINO

MILANONOVARA

SUBGRADE + HIGHLY COMPACTED SOIL LAYER ( “SUPERCOMPATATTO”)


LAYING THE BITUMINOUS MIX



COMPACTATION



INFRAESTRUCTURE AFTER LAYING THE BITUMINOUS LAYER (1/2)

“Supercompattato” Bituminous sub-ballast



FWD



CURRENT TRIAL SECTIONS IN SPAIN

Barcelona-french Border HS line

Sils-Riudellots


S25 D20


2 different bituminous mixes


FIRST APPLICATIONS IN SPAIN


CEDEX – Spanish National Laboratory -

- Full scale Experimental tests -


CURRENT TRIAL SECTION IN FRANCE

TGV Est

High-speed line



Zone d’expérimentation grave-bitume

Déblai Remblai A niveauRéférence

P A P A P A P AJ

A

P

J

Accéléromètres sur traverses : 4 fois 10 accéléromètres (1/blochet)

Capteurs de pression sous traverses : 2 fois 2 capteurs de pression (1/blochet)

Jauges de contraintes dans la grave bitume : 8 jauges

Mesure de charge de roue (identification + localisation)

Paulo F. Teixeira

[email protected]

Thanks for your attention !!!

State-of-the-Art on the Use of Bituminous Subballast on

European High-Speed Rail Lines

mailto:[email protected]

State-of-the-Art on the Use of Bituminous Subballast on ...jrose/papers/Paulo Teixeira-BR2A WS...

Documents

Transcript of State-of-the-Art on the Use of Bituminous Subballast on ...jrose/papers/Paulo Teixeira-BR2A WS...