Track Modulus vs. Track Structure —.—.—.—.—.— ‘The traditional method of defining the vertical sup- port condition of the railroad track structure has been the “track modulus.” Track modulus, ofien referred to as the “modulus of elasticity of rail support,” is a theoretical concept that is based on the assumption that the track structure acts as a continuously supported beam — the rail — resting on a uniform layer of springs. This layer of springs represents the remainder of the track structure: ties, ballast, sub-ballast and subgrade. The stiffness of this spring layer along the length of the track is the track modulus, and is usually represented in the literature by the letter “u” or “k”. ‘Track modulus is directly related to the deflection of the track under load (see RT&S, June 1985). That is, the greater the track modulus, the stiffer the track structure and the smaller the deflection of the track under a given axle (or truck) load. Conversely, soft track — track with poor support that has a large deflection under load — has allow track modulus. ‘The most commonly used relationship between deflection and modulus calculates the modulus at a given location using the track deflection directly underneath the loading wheel, the applied wheel (or axle) load, and the stiffness of the rail section. This is based on the “beam on elastic foundation” theory, frst introduced in the 19th century. Studies over the years have related the track modulus to the type of track structure and its subsequent behavior TABLE 1 VALUES OF u at es ‘Wack and Ballast ” 1a Tin x9 xB Gin {fine cinde: ballast. 1m poor condiion 330 spaced 22. ¢ 10 (on loam and clay subgrade 285 Tin.x9in xeon 6-1 anger pata in fr condition on 750 ‘spaced 220. 106 loam and clay subgrade 2.85 6 in. in x8 fe0in Stn. estore on loam and clay roadbed 970 spaced 22. c.t0¢ ood belote ramping 4.850 6n.x8in x8ftOin Sin. limestone on loam and clay roodbed, 4050 spaced 22. €. 10 ater mang 5.851 7n.x91n x8 MON 124, tmestone on loam and clay roadbed, oss .g00d bere ramping 6.85 Tin.x9 in xB 01m. 12a. imestane on ioam and clay roadbed, 1050 ater taming 2.851 Tianx9inxangin. 2fuan crushed limestone on foam and clay 1200 spacee 22 6.10 8.1300 RE Pin. x9 in. BK Gin, 24a. gravel batast plus 8. of heavy hmestone 2300-3000 spaced 22. toc (on well compacted rosdbed 9, 0m RE 7 ix9in xBNOm. Fn gravel ballast on wade, stale roadbed 7500, 2600. 3400 spaced 22 in. c.10¢ ‘Average 200 GEO fastenings 10. 110 RE Jinx in. x8 101 Limestone ballast on wre, stable roadbea 3700, $500, spaced 221 © t0¢ 6200 GEO fastenings ‘Average 5100 “From the Fist and Sian Progress Reports of the Special Commitee on Stresses in Railroad Teck 39.‘A Defiecion range for wack that wl ast ndetnnely Se ee 00.45 (0.50 ‘Maximum Tack Detection (inches) Track Beravir 8 Normal maximum desiable defecion for neavy rack o gue requste combeavon of HexDiky and sutness C Umit desrable defection for tack of ight constucticn 100 5) 1B __ Weak or pooty marae track mat wal erence qucky ‘Values of deflection ae exclusive of any ioosenes or play between rail and plate o late and ive and vepresent delections under aad Figure in track. The extensive research of the Talbot Committee in the 1920s and 1930s" resulted in a commonly referred to table of track characteristics and associated modulus values. This table is shown here. Note that the modulus values range from a very poor track (w = 500 IbvinJfin.) to a very good value of over 5000 Ibv/in,fin. These in tum correspond to deflections of over Ye-in. for the poor track to less than Yerin, for the stiff track. As can be seen in Fig. 1,” the former track is expected to deteriorate. quickly while the latter track is expected to have a very low rate of degradation More recent research has examined the effect of newer track materials on track stiffness. These new mate~ rials include concrete cross-ties and elastic fasteners on both wood and concrete cross-ties. While itis clear that a poor ballast and/or subgrade section will have poor track: Support, and comespondingly a low modulus regardless of the track superstructure, the effect of the tie and fas- tener systems can be noticeable for moderate and good subgrades ‘One recent set of carefully controlled laboratory tests — taken on a good subgrade — compared wood ties with cut spikes, wood! ties with elastic fasteners, and con- crete ties with elastic fasteners.‘ In all three cases, the track modulus was over 4000 Ib Jin./in., corresponding to a deflection of less than Ye-in. However, the effect of the clastic fasteners on wood and the combined concrete ties and elastic fasteners was to increase the vertical modulus by a further 67 percent and 100 percent respectively. (Note: these tests represent one specific set of tests with a specific ballast and subgrade under a simulated truck loading of 33 tons per axle.) These results are presented in Fig This type of behavior, which has been observed else- VERTICAL TRACK MODULUS where as well, suggests that significant increases in track stiffness beyond those val- ues first examined by Talbot are possible. In light of recent studies of the effect of track stiffness on wheel impacis and wheel rail dynamics (RT&S, May 1987), itis not clear that “good” track behavior will continue for these stiff track structures, and in particular the very stiff structures with modulus values exceeding 10,000 Ib./in./in. This issue remains a subject for further research, References 1, Talbot tal, "Report ofthe Special Comaritee on Suesses ine Raliroad Track” Bullen of he American Ray Engineering Acscinon, 918-194, 2. Hay, W-W Rfond Engineering, Second Econ, Jon Wily & Sons, New Yor, 198. 3. Landen J. Re tal, "A Siualation Model of Balls Suppor andthe Mok of Track Easter.” Unversity ZZ Y Was Ws of Mins cv Enger 0% Slla__L2SNYiiia\ Sto is 1 7 a 7 4 Ce tty Teas The Alera Tk ea Storms aswclnosf Ancor eo ez) cmenee REE Za wonnnye | Ra epenber Figure 2 — Vertical Track Modulus 60