See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/283473467

Rail-Structure Interaction Analysis of Sliding Slab Track on Bridge

Article · March 2015

DOI: 10.1115/JRC2015-5661

CITATIONS READS
3 3,438

6 authors, including:

Kyoung-Chan Lee Seung Yup Jang

Pai Chai University Korea National University of Transportation (Uiwang)
52 PUBLICATIONS   364 CITATIONS    70 PUBLICATIONS   1,065 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Dong Ki Jung
Korea Railroad Research Institute
6 PUBLICATIONS   15 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Self-Healing green concrete View project

Development of Next-Generation Smart Railroad Bridge View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Seung Yup Jang on 22 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the 2015 Joint Rail Conference
JRC2015
March 23-26, 2015, San Jose, CA, USA

JRC2015-5661

RAIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION ANALYSIS OF SLIDING SLAB TRACK ON BRIDGE

Kyoung-Chan Lee*, Seung Yup Jang Hyung-Kyoon Byun, Hyo-Ki Park

and Dong-Ki Jung and Tae-Sock Yang

High-Speed Railroad System Research Center, Technical Division, SYSTRA Korea

Korea Railroad Research Institute, Seoul, South Korea
Uiwang-City, Gyeonggi-do, South Korea

ABSTRACT continuous span bridge usually has an economical cross-section

Continuous welded rail (CWR) on a bridge structure for the bridge girder, pier and foundation and better dynamic
typically experiences a large amount of additional longitudinal characteristics compared to simple span bridge, and its
axial forces due to longitudinal rail-structure (or track-bridge) application eventually will reduce the construction cost of the
interaction under temperature change and train vertical and railway infrastructure.
traction/braking load effect. In order to reduce the additional
INTRODUCTION
axial forces, a special type of fastener, such as zero longitudinal
restraint (ZLR) and reduced longitudinal restraint (RLR) or rail Continuous Welded Rail (CWR) refers to a continuous rail
expansion joint (REJ) should be applied. Sliding slab track extended more than 200m, which reduces vibration or impact of
system is developed to reduce the effect of rail-structure the running train and provides enhanced ride quality and easy
interaction through the application of a low-frictional sliding maintenance. Particularly when running at high speed more than
layer between slab track and bridge structure. This study presents 250km/h or faster, CWR is essential to ensure the running
a track-bridge interaction analysis of the sliding slab track and stability. CWR has expansion joints at both ends, and movable
compares them with conventional fixed slab track on bridges. zone within which elastic displacement occurs with temperature
Various types of span length and longitudinal profiles of bridges variation is extended by 100m at both ends. Between movable
are considered in the analysis, which also include multiple zones, there is an immovable zone where rail stress occurs
continuous spans and extra-dosed bridges. The analysis found without elastic displacement by the temperature variation. In the
that the sliding slab track can reduce the additional axial forces immovable zone, free expansion or contraction of rail with
of the continuous welded rail from 80% to 90%, and the temperature variation is constrained, which induce a significant
difference is more significant for long and continuous span additional axial stress for the rail. Therefore, it is necessary to
bridge. By the application of the sliding slab track, the use of any confirm buckling stability by compressive stress for high
other special type of rail fasteners or REJ can be avoided. In temperature at summer, and fracture by tensile stress for cold
addition, span length will not be restricted by the rail-structure temperature at winter.
interaction effect in planning the railway bridge layout. In an embankment or tunnel line, track bed barely displaces
Continuous span bridge has been usually avoided for railway longitudinally due to temperature variation, and thus rail stress
bridges, but it is preferred for the application of the sliding slab becomes constant at the immovable zone. But as bridge tends to
track because the interaction effect can mostly be removed. A expand or contract due to temperature variation, longitudinal

1 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

displacement of bridge deck is transferred to rail, causing a Design criteria [1-3] specify that additional stress on rail
change in additional axial force at the immovable zone of CWR, caused by temperature variation, traction/braking load and
and interaction between track and bridge inevitably occurs. bridge deflection shall be limited to a maximum of 72MPa
Generally, since the axial force variation is greater at the bridge during compression, and of 92MPa during tension. But when it
support, it is necessary to evaluate the effect through an comes to slab track, as the lateral bearing capacity of the track is
interaction analysis in order to prevent the fracture or buckling almost infinite, 92MPa is applied both to tensile and
of rail by stress caused by the additional axial force. compression.
In addition to the change of axial force resulting from Additional stress on rail caused by interaction tends to
temperature variation, a longitudinal load caused by traction and increase in proportion to expansion length on the bridge, which
braking induce a displacement of bridge pier and deck into the refers to the maximum expansion length from bridge supports;
longitudinal direction of the railway line, which is then that is, a span length in the case of a simple bridge and the
transferred to the connected rail through ballast and fasteners and distance from the fixed (not roller) support to bridge end in the
eventually causes additional axial forces to the rail on bridges. case of a continuous bridge. When connected to a continuous
The effect caused by train traction/braking load is the bridge, the distance between the fixed supports is the maximum
largest at the region of bridge support location, and thus this expansion length. The longer the expansion length, the greater
point is close to the point at which the largest axial force change the displacement on the bridge, and thus a large additional stress
occurs due to the temperature variation. In addition, vertical is caused by interaction. Generally, when the expansion length is
deflection by train self-weight load is another reason to induce within 80m for a concrete or steel composite bridge or within
the rail stress change. To summarize the aforementioned 60m for a steel bridge, the additional stress caused by interaction
concepts, additional axial force occurs on the rail due to will not exceed the allowable limit. So in the past, the expansion
temperature variation and train weight and traction/braking load, length was limited to control the additional stress in the rail
and the effect related to temperature load accounts for 50~70% without any interaction analysis. But when the expansion length
of the total additional axial force, while 20~40% of the effect is is restricted, span length is also limited, making it difficult to
related to traction/brake load and 5~10% is related to vertical apply a continuous bridge, and thus a simple bridge has been
load. become an easy option, although which is less cost-effective.

Fig. 1 Longitudinal profile of sliding slab track for two successive simple span bridges

Fig. 2 Longitudinal profile of sliding slab track for three span continuous bridges

2 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

 Currently, additional stress on rail is evaluated through the slab track (hereinafter referred to as “Sliding Slab Track”) and
analysis of track-bridge interaction. Choi et al. [4, 5] proposed a evaluates the additional stress on CWR through an analysis of
design chart for evaluating CWR additional axial force and track-bridge interaction, thereby evaluating the stress reduction
displacement for both a high-speed railroad and a traditional in interaction by sliding slab track.
railroad. Sliding slab track has a low frictional sliding layer between
If the additional stress on the rail caused by track-bridge track slab and bridge deck in order to prevent the thermal
interaction exceeds the allowable limit due to inevitably expansion of bridge from being transferred to rail through slab
choosing longer expansion length, various solutions to reduce track. In a sliding slab track, anchors are installed to transfer
the interaction effect has been applied. traction/brake load to the pier and abutment. The anchor fixes
First, the interaction effect could be reduced by increasing slab track to bridge deck on bridge supports and abutment region
the stiffness of bridge girder, pier and foundation to reduce the which are not affected by temperature variation. As seen in Fig.
displacement; however, this may lead to an overly conservative 1, when a simple span bridge adjoins, a sliding layer is placed
bridge design resulting an increase in construction cost. between the bridge and slab deck and anchors are installed on
Second, when additional stress on the rail exceeded the fixed supports and abutment. On a continuous bridge as seen in
allowable limit only near the support region, zero longitudinal Fig. 2, anchors are installed on fixed support and abutments so
restraint (ZLR) fasteners are placed near the supports to release as to transfer traction/brake load to pier and abutment.
longitudinal constraints converting them to rail displacements in
order to partly reduce the interaction. This method may easily TRACK-BRIDGE INTERACTION ANALYSIS METHOD
control the additional stress on the rail, but is partial in terms of According to the existing track-bridge interaction analysis
its effectiveness for stress reduction, and the gap between clamp [1, 5], modeling is carried out by linking longitudinal track
and rail needs to be maintained frequently. resistance caused by track and fastener using a bilinear nonlinear
Third, using reduced longitudinal restraint (RLR) fasteners, spring between the bridge structure and rail. As the concrete
which decrease the longitudinal resistance of the fastener to stiffness of slab track is almost infinite, nonlinear spring has a
22kN/m than the 40kN/m of an ordinary fastener by reducing the spring constant provided by fastener. According to the current
fastening force of the rail over the entire bridge section. This standards [1-3], longitudinal resistance, when train load is not
method reduces the interaction effect by replacing the fasteners applied, is linearly increased until relative displacement is
only, but this solution can reduce the rail stress less than 10 MPa 0.5mm, and then is modeled to bilinear spring with a constant
and increase overall rail displacement. Therefore this cannot be 40kN/m of longitudinal resistance. When train load is applied,
used for the bridge having a longer expansion length the frictional force of the fastener system is increased due to the
Lastly, when additional stress on the rail would be too high vertical load, and thus is considered to have longitudinal
to control with special fasteners when the expansion length is resistance of 60kN/m
longer than 400m, an expansion joint should be placed at the In the conventional rail-structure interaction analysis, the
bridge ends so as to set the absolute value of rail stress to 0 to bilinear spring represents the longitudinal resistance of the track
control the stress. In this method, the expansion length can be system, but a sliding slab track has a sliding layer between the
extended so that this is applied for a long span continuous bridge bottom of the track and the top of bridge deck, in addition to a
or a cable supported bridge. However, a rail expansion joint is spring by fastener, and thus modeling of the sliding layer using
hard to be installed on a curve transition or a vertical slope, nonlinear spring is needed. As the sliding layer has frictional
abutment, bridge must provide a solid base not to generate behavior, displacement theoretically begins to occur at the point
displacement for the joint. Furthermore, regular maintenance of on which a longitudinal load is greater than the frictional force.
the expansion joint must be provided, and an evaluation shall be However, this study takes into account linear behavior until the
carried out to ensure running stability while a train runs at high sliding layer displaces 0.1mm, and then longitudinal resistance
speed on it. as much as frictional force depending on vertical force and
As mentioned earlier, there are many methods available to frictional coefficient. Frictional coefficient of sliding layer was
deal with additional stress on rail caused by track-bridge assumed as 0.3, referring to 0.2~0.3 as identified from the case
interaction, but they are limited in their capacity to reduce the in China [9]. Cross-sectional dimension of slab track shall be
interaction, or may cause subsidiary problems. As an alternative determined at the detailed design stage, but in this study, it is
approach to mitigate the interaction from the perspective of the assumed to be 3.0m wide and 0.5m high. UIC-60 rail, which is
track system, this study proposes a slab track system that has a commonly used for high speed rail, was adopted. Longitudinal
sliding layer between the top of bridge deck and the bottom of

3 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

frictional resistance by sliding layer was calculated as in below Table 1 Sectional and material properties of the modelling
equation, taking slab track and rail weight into account, and as a Sectional
Part Material Property
result, 11.4kN/m was obtained, which corresponds to 30% of the Property
longitudinal resistance of 40kN/m provided by a conventional E = 2.1 E+5 MPa
fastener. Rail ν = 0.3 UIC-60 rail
α = 1.2 E-5
Fs = μ N = μ (Wslab+Wrail) fck = 35 MPa
= 0.3(24.52kN/m3×(3.0m ×0.5m) + (2×0.6kN/m)) Slab E=2.88 E+4 MPa W 3000 mm ×
Track ν = 0.18 H 500 mm
= 11.4 kN/m
α = 1.0 E-5

Where, unloaded : bilinear 40kN @ 0.5 mm at every 1m

Fs : frictional force of sliding layer Fastener
loaded : bilinear 60kN @ 0.5 mm under rail
μ : frictional coefficient of sliding layer
N : normal force
Sliding Frictional coefficient. = 0.3 at every 1m on
Wslab : unit weight of concrete track slab (24.52 kN/m3)
Layer Bilinear 11.4kN @ 0.1 mm bridge
Wrail : unit weight of two pieces of UIC-60 rail

While modelling for existing interaction analysis comprises Table 2 Track-bridge interaction analysis cases
three layers, which are bridge, rail and nonlinear spring Total Max.
simulating the fastener, the modelling of sliding slab track as Bridge Type Span arrangement Symbol bridge expansion
seen in Fig. 3 comprises the bridge, slab track, rail, and a length (L) length(m)
nonlinear spring layer simulating the sliding layer between 25m × 1 span SS25 25m →
concrete track and bridge and another nonlinear spring layer 30m × 1 span SS30 30m →
simulating the longitudinal resistance of fastener. Simple Span
35m × 1 span SS35 35m →
The sectional and material properties of each part are as
indicated in Table 1, and load-displacement diagram of nonlinear 40m × 1 span SS40 40m →
springs to simulate the fastener and sliding layer is shown in Fig. 25m × 5 spans 5SS25 125m 25m
4. To evaluate the stress variation of CWR at both ends of bridge, 30m × 5 spans 5SS30 150m 30m
5 Simple
it is extended by more than 100m in both directions. RLR Spans 35m × 5 spans 5SS35 175m 35m
40m × 5 spans 5SS40 200m 40m
25m × 10 spans 10SS25 250m 25m

10 Simple 30m × 10 spans 10SS30 300m 30m

Spans 35m × 10 spans 10SS35 350m 35m
40m × 10 spans 10SS40 400m 40m
Fig. 3 Schematic drawing of analysis model for sliding slab track
on simple span bridge 40m × 10 spans +
continuous span
20 simple 23CS40 920m 80m
(40m+40m+40m)
spans + 40m × 10 spans
+3
continuous 40m × 10 spans +
spans continuous span (40m
23CS60 940m 100m
+60m + 40m)
+ 40m × 10 spans
continuous spans (50m
+ 80m +50m) ED_FF 180m 80m
Extra-dosed support : MFFM
Bridge continuous spans (50m
+ 80m +50m) ED_FM 180m 130m
Fig. 4 Non-linear spring properties support : MFMM

4 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

fastener with reduced longitudinal resistance can be applied to maximize the load effect. Vertical load considered the load effect
mitigate the interaction on the bridge, but in this study, a at the point where traction/brake load reaches the peak, and in
conventional type of fastener with the same longitudinal this study, a passenger train load as given in KRL-2012 standard
resistance as the embankment section was used to directly live load [1] (0.75 KRL-2012) was adopted. Interaction effect
compare the interaction effect by track system. was evaluated through analyzing three load conditions and
The loads to be considered in analyzing track-bridge combining them linearly, and sequential analysis in which
interaction are temperature load, traction/brake load and train traction/brake load is imposed while temperature load is being
vertical load, and temperature load was applied based on ±25ºC applied was excluded.
for bridge and +40ºC and -50ºC for rail. Traction load of 25kN/m Sanguine and Requejo [10] revealed that rail axial force was
over 33m and brake load of 15kN/m over 200m were used to evaluated up to 19% larger in a conservative manner, whereas
rail displacement was evaluated up to 17% smaller in an
unconservative manner, by comparing a simple superposition
analysis to sequential complete analysis. Given that there is no
displacement limitation for slab track and the study is focused on
axial force, it is concluded that applying simple superposition
analysis procedure is appropriate.
Since existing track-bridge interaction analysis [1-3] does
not include the slab track in the modeling, it is not necessary to
apply temperature load on the track, but in analyzing sliding slab
track interaction, slab track should be included in the modeling,
and thus temperature load shall be applied to track slab as well
as to the rail. As there is no specific standard for temperature for
(a) Fixed slab track slab track, the same temperature as bridge structure was applied.
Temperature variation 10ºC across the bridge cross-section was
considered [2,11] for designing the slab track cross-sectional
dimension and reinforcements; however, this will not affect on
the longitudinal rail-structure interaction analysis since the
cross-section temperature variation involves only with flexural
bending stresses on the slab.
In the sliding slab track, as shown in Figs 1 and 2, track
before and after bridge continues and the track is fixed to the
bridge deck by anchors on fixed supports, so that the track slab
and bridge are fixed by rigid links on top of fixed supports.
Conventional fixed slab tracks are modelled (Fig. 5(a)) to
compare the result of interaction analysis, bridge and track are
(b) Sliding slab track
fixed by cam-plate over the entire bridge section and the track is
Fig. 5 Bridge and slab track modelling discontinuous at bridge ends and thus is not mechanically
connected to the embankment section or the track on the
neighboring bridge.
Interaction analysis was performed on a short span bridge
with a span length of 25m ~ 40m which is commonly applied to
railroad bridge, and evaluation was further carried out for the
case of a 5-span continuous bridge and a 10-span continuous
bridge to identify the effect of continuous spans. Moreover, a
40m-span simple bridge for 10 spans with a three 40m-span
continuous bridge at the center to increase the expansion length
to 80m and a 3-span continuous bridge with a central span length
of 60m were also included in the analysis. Finally, interaction
Fig. 6 Extra-dosed bridge modeling
analysis of an extra-dosed bridge with a 3-span arrangement of

5 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

50m+80m+50m was carried out. Analysis was performed in two Table 3 Sectional properties of bridge girder
cases: one case in which the girder is fixed to a pier Girder Girder cross- Flexural moment of
longitudinally at the joint between pylon and girder, and the Bridge Type height (h) section area (A) inertia (Iyy)
[m] [mm2] [mm4]
expansion was 80m (ED_FF), the other case in which a fixed
support was applied to one pylon and movable support was 25m Span 3.0 8.20 E+6 1.04 E+13
applied to the other pylon (ED_FM), which results expansion
30m, 35m, 40m,
length of 130m. Analysis result was compared according to the 3.5 8.67 E+6 1.53 E+13
60m Span
different expansion lengths. A total of 16 cases were analyzed,
Extra-dosed Bridge 3.6 ~ 6.5 1.25 E+7 2.15 E+13
and each analyzed case is named with an abbreviation as
indicated in Table 2. Track-bridge interaction analysis was
carried out to conventional fixed slab track and sliding slab track. ANALYSIS RESULT
PSC box girder with 3.5m height and 12.6m width which Maximum rail stresses of 16 cases for fixed track and
was applied to Honam High Speed Railway in Korea was used sliding track are summarized in Table 4. According to the
in the analysis for the cases of span length 30m, 35m, 40m and analysis of track-bridge interaction, it is concluded that the
60m, and 3.6m diameter round pier was applied and the height sliding slab track can reduce the additional rail stress by up to
was assumed to be 10m for all the cases. For the bridge with span 80% to 90% compared to the conventional fixed track (Fig. 7).
length 25m, girder 3.0m and pier diameter 3.2m were applied. In the sliding slab track system, thermal expansion and
Sectional constants of the girders are summarized in Table 3. The contraction of bridge is not transferred to the track because of the
bridges are assumed to be erected on a rigid foundation, while sliding layer, which led to a reduction of the interaction effect of
for ED bridge, stiffness of pile and foundation were included in 83% to 98%. It should be noted that rail stresses due to
the analysis as seen in Fig. 6. traction/brake load is significantly reduced as well as
temperature load.
For a short-span simple bridge, the longer span length, the
greater the expansion/contraction displacement are related to

Table 4 Maximum rail stresses variation due to load effects

Temperature load Train traction/braking and vertical load Total
Analysis
Cases Fixed Track Sliding Track Ratio Fixed Track Sliding Track Ratio Fixed Track Sliding Track Ratio
[MPa] [MPa] [%] [MPa] [MPa] [%] [MPa] [MPa] [%]
SS25 26.58 0.51 2% 15.60 5.24 34% 42.18 5.75 14%
SS30 30.34 0.69 2% 17.56 5.70 32% 47.90 6.39 13%
SS35 36.20 0.87 2% 40.43 6.45 16% 76.63 7.32 10%
SS40 40.70 1.59 4% 30.52 7.06 23% 71.22 8.65 12%
5SS25 33.03 4.45 13% 30.61 6.72 22% 63.64 11.17 18%
5SS30 36.42 4.98 14% 29.88 6.26 21% 66.30 11.24 17%
5SS35 40.90 5.52 13% 42.57 7.63 18% 83.47 13.15 16%
5SS40 44.67 6.23 14% 37.80 7.65 20% 82.47 13.88 17%
10SS25 32.00 5.43 17% 29.61 6.66 22% 61.61 12.09 20%
10SS30 35.83 5.65 16% 25.58 6.26 24% 61.41 11.91 19%
10SS35 40.95 5.93 14% 32.45 7.39 23% 73.40 13.32 18%
10SS40 45.00 6.34 14% 33.73 8.96 27% 78.73 15.30 19%
23CS40 50.76 7.25 14% 40.65 8.67 21% 91.41 15.92 17%
23CS60 62.00 8.00 13% 36.80 6.92 19% 98.80 14.92 15%
ED_FF 123.42 20.14 16% 53.30 8.96 17% 176.72 29.10 16%
ED_FM 151.00 21.40 14% 72.55 8.71 12% 223.55 30.11 13%

6 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

temperature variation, and higher the rail stresses are induced by stress caused by interaction is far below the allowable limit, and
the interaction. While for a 5-span or 10-span continuous bridge, thus it is not necessary to consider using a special type of
the additional stress caused by interaction was increased by up fastener.
to 50% on fixed track while it was increased by 110% on sliding For ED bridge (see Figs 9 and 10), significant additional
slab track compared to short-span simple bridge. The rail stress stress occurred in fixed track both when fixing girder to pier at
increase rate of sliding track was higher than successive the joint between pylon and girder to reduce the interaction so
arrangement of simple bridge, but additional stress on the rail that the expansion length becomes 80m at central span length
was only 10% to 20% that of fixed slab track. In a simple bridge (ED_FF) and the expansion length 130m by changing right
analysis, the expansion length was less than or equal to 40m, and support to movable (ED_FM). When applying fixed support to
thus additional rail stress induced by interaction satisfied the pylon (ED_FF), additional rail stress reached 123MPa at both
allowable limit of 92MPa [1-3] for both fixed and sliding track. ends, exceeding the allowable limit of 92MPa only from
If arranging a simple span bridge with a 40m span by 10 temperature load; when traction/brake load and vertical load was
successive spans and a 3-span continuous bridge at the center included, it reached 177MPa, which is almost double the
(23CS40, 23CS60), additional stress combining temperature, allowable limit. When fixed support was applied to left pylon
traction/brake and vertical load reached 91.41 MPa and 98.80 and movable support to right pylon (ED_FM), the stress due to
MPa in fixed track, which is very close to or exceeded the temperature variation reached 150MPa and 72.6MPa for
allowable limit of 92MPa. On the other hand, it reached 16 and traction/brake load and vertical load, respectively, which totaled
15MPa for the sliding track, indicating a reduction of the 223.6MPa combined.
interaction effect by 83% and 85%, respectively. Considering that the maximum rail stress related to
When including continuous bridge with 60m-long central temperature variation in 3-span continuous bridge (23CS40)
span (23CS60), additional stress on the rail over the entire bridge
related to temperature variation, traction/brake and vertical load
is as described in Fig. 8. In the conventional fixed track, rail
stress varied significantly according to temperature load at the
center span of the continuous span bridge, but in the sliding
track, rail stress fluctuation was insignificant. In the fixed track,
the stress related to traction/brake load and vertical load at the
end of continuous bridge was significant, but this was
considerably reduced in the case of the sliding slab track.
Given the expansion length of the 3-span continuous bridge
is 80m and 100m, respectively, ZLR fastener needs to be applied
to region where rail stress exceeded the allowable limit, or RLR
fasteners should be applied over the entire bridge to deal with
(a) Temperature load
interaction. But in the case of the sliding track, the additional rail

(b) Train traction/braking and vertical load

Fig. 7 Rail stresses under load combination Fig. 8 Rail stresses of 23CS60 bridge case

7 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

with 80m expansion length was 51MPa, the additional rail stress (REJ) should be considered. However, when sliding track was
of 123MPa for the ED bridge with the same expansion length applied, this interaction was reduced considerably and thus ZLR
(ED_FF) seems to be very high, which was attributable to the or REJ need not be considered.
low longitudinal stiffness of the ED bridge pylons and the
stiffness of the foundation pile. In particular, applying fixed CONCLUSION
support to both pylons caused girder expansion due to In railway bridges, additional rail stress occurs due to track-
temperature variation and horizontal rotation of pylon pier, bridge interaction, which results from expansion or contraction
resulting in a vertical displacement of 13.6mm at the mid-span of bridge by temperature variation, vertical displacement by train
and a significant relative displacement between rail and bridge load and longitudinal forces due to train traction/braking load.
at the both ends of the bridge. This interaction effect influences planning and design of railway
As a result of applying sliding track to ED bridge, the effect bridges. Particularly when the expansion length is extended,
of temperature load was reduced by 84% and 86%, respectively, such as on a long span or continuous bridge, the interaction effect
and the effect of traction/brake load by 83% and 87%, is more significant and for this reason, a short-span simple bridge
respectively, and maximum additional stress was only 29MPa has been preferable for a railway bridge. When applying a long-
and 30MPa. Because of the rotation of pylon pier by temperature span or a continuous bridge, it is necessary to provide interaction
load, rail stress around pylon was changed by 20MPa and the reduction measures such as special type of fasteners (ZLR or
effect by traction/brake load was also reduced significantly, to RLR) or rail expansion joint after evaluating the additional rail
9MPa. To deal with additional stress exceeding 92MPa in the stress through the rail-structure interaction analysis.
fixed track, ZLR needs to be applied over the 30m or 40m-long Sliding slab track is able to reduce the influence of the
section at both ends of bridge or installing a rail expansion joint track-bridge interaction by separating the longitudinal behavior

(a) Temperature load (a) Temperature load

(b) Train traction/braking and vertical load (b) Train traction/braking and vertical load

Fig. 9 Rail stresses of ED_FM case Fig. 10 Rail stresses of ED_FF case

8 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

of bridge and track due to installing a low-friction sliding layer sliding slab track can reduce construction cost of the railway
between the bottom of the slab track and the top of the bridge bridge more economically for sub-structure as well as for super-
deck. In this study, 16 cases of span arrangement and bridge structure.
types which are commonly used for railway were chosen, and
the additional rail stresses caused by interaction of conventional
fixed slab track and sliding track were analyzed. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
According to the analysis, sliding slab track reduced the This research was supported by a grant (14RTRP-B067919-
additional rail stress by up to 80% to 90% compared to the fixed 02, entitled to “Development of track and bridge deck structure
track. For a simple span bridge with a span length of 25m to 40m, for reducing track-bridge interaction”) from Railroad
the additional stress of both fixed track and sliding track stayed Technology Research Program funded by Ministry of Land,
within the allowable limit even when arranging 10 spans Infrastructure and Transport of Korean government
successively. When a 3-span continuous bridge with expansion
length of 80m was included, maximum additional stress of fixed
track reached close to the allowable limit of 92MPa, but sliding REFERENCES
track reached 16MPa, indicating a reduction of rail stress by [1] Korea Rail Network Authority (2014) KR C-08080 Track-
83%. When arranging a 3-span continuous bridge with a central Bridge Longitudinal Interaction Analysis.
span length of 60m and a maximum expansion length of 100m, [2] International Union of Railways (2001) UIC Code 774-
the additional stress reached 99MPa, exceeding the allowable 3R2nd edition, Track/bridge Interaction Recommendations
limit of 92MPa. When applying the sliding slab track for this for calculations.
bridge, rail stress was reduced by 85% or to 15MPa within the [3] The European Standard EN 1991-1-2 (2003) Eurocode 1:
allowable limit. For a 3-span continuous extra-dosed bridge with Actions on Structures-Part 2: Traffic loads on bridges,
central span length of 80m, additional rail stress related to Section 6 Rail traffic actions and other actions specifically
temperature load reached 123MPa, exceeding the allowable limit for railway bridges.
when applying fixed support to pylon at both sides, but with [4] I-Y. Choi, H-C. Cho, S-C Yang, J-Y Choi, et al. (2009)
sliding track, it reached 29MPa, indicating an 84% reduction of Development of Design Chart for Investigating an
rail stress. When changing one support to the movable one, the Additional Rail Stress and Displacement on CWR(I) -
expansion length was extended to 130m and additional stress in Design Chart for High Speed Railway Bridge, Journal of
fixed track reached 224MPa, but in sliding track, it reached the Korean Society for Railway, 12(4), pp. 565-573.
30MPa, which was far below the allowable limit of 92MPa. [5] I-Y. Choi, Y-S. Lim, S-C Yang, J-Y Choi (2009)
When sliding track was applied, additional rail stress was within Development of Design Chart for Investigating an
the allowable limit even when the expansion length was more Additional Rail Stress and Displacement on CWR(I) -
than 80m, and thus a device to reduce the interaction effect such Design Chart for Railway Bridge of Conventional Line,
as REJ or ZLR was not required. Journal of the Korean Society for Railway, 12(4), pp. 574-
It was shown that the sliding slab track induce less rail stress 581.
increase comparing to the fixed track. As the sliding slab track [6] J. Ren, R. Xiang, B. Lechner (2009) An innovative slab
does not need to install cam-plates between bridge deck and slab track test-line in China, Proceedings of the 8th International
track, the cross-section and construction of slab track structure Conference.
on bridge can be simplified. Moreover, expansion length of the [7] S. Shuli, Z. Wenjian, W. Zhaohu, S. Wei, et al. (2011)
bridge is not limited due to the rail-structure interaction, which Design of unballasted track bridges on Beijing-Tianjin
allows using a longer and/or continuous span bridges, which are intercity railway, Engineering Sciences, 9(4).
required especially at a railway crossing section, mountainous or [8] X. Rui, R. Juanjuan, Z. Yong (2010) A study of
valley area. When applied to a continuous bridge, the section of compressive stress and compression of hard foam board for
bridge superstructure could possibly be reduced compare to a longitudinally coupled slab track on bridges, Proceedings
simple span bridge, and dimension of the cross-section of the of the 2010 Joint Rail Conference.
bridge can also be reduced, resulting in improved the effect of [9] P. Wang, J. J. Ren, R. Xiang, X. Y. Liu (2012) Influence of
bridge end rotation and a better ride quality as a result. It was rub-plate length on forces and displacements of
also shown that the sliding slab track reduces the interaction longitudinally coupled slab track for a bridge turnout,
effect due to train traction/brake load, which leads to a reduction
in horizontal force to the pier as well. Therefore, application of

9 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

 Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers,
Part F: Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit, 226(3).
[10] M. C. Sanguino, P. G. Requejo (2009) Chapter 9 Numerical
methods for the analysis of longitudinal interaction
between track and structure, Track-Bridge Interaction on
High-Speed Railways, Taylor & Francis Group, London,
UK, pp.95-108.
[11] Korea Rail Network Authority (2014) KR C-14040
Concrete track structure.

10 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

View publication stats