A Study of the Effect of Global Track Stiffness and its

Variations on Track Performance: Simulation and Measurement

Martin X. D. Li and Eric G. Berggren

Banverket, Operations Division, Infrastructure, Track & Civil Engineering
SE-781 85 Borlange, Sweden

Summary: This paper investigates the effect of vertical track stiffness, and its variations along the track, on
track perfOlmance with focus on dynamic responses of track due to parametric excitations. Two approaches for
calculating global track stiffness, a static one based on Zimmellllann's theory, and a dynamic one based on the
track model used in the dynamic vehicle-track interaction program DIFF, are discussed. A Rolling Stiffness
Measurement Vehicle (RSMV) has been developed at Banverket and measurements have been carried out over
hundreds kilometre long tracks. This paper presents a statistical analysis of the collected results and provides in-
formation of track stiffness and its variation on typical Swedish tracks.

Index Terms: Track stiffness, vehicle-track interaction, rolling stiffness measurement vehicle (RSMV)

1 INTRODUCTION fers to the essential requirement 'Technical compatibili-

Track stiffness (wheel load divided by track deflection)
is a basic parameter of track design which influences the
bearing capacity of track, the dynamic behaviour of vehi-
cle and, in particular, the quality of track geometry and
the life of track components. In general, relatively high
track stiffness is beneficial as it provides sufficient track
resistance to applied loads and results in decreased track
deflection, which reduces track deterioration. However,
velY high track stiffness leads to increased dynamic forces
in the wheel-rail interface as well as on sleepers and bal-
last, which may cause wear and fatigue of track compo-
nents. Also, a particular problem is changes in track
stiffness along the track, which causes variations in vehi-
cletrack interaction forces and leads to differential settle-
ment and therefore differential track geometry deteriora-
tion and potentially vibration problems.
Many research works and literature surveys on track stiff-
ness have been published over the years (See e. g. [1 ] -
[ 5 ] and references there in). However, understandings
about track stiffness and its effect on track perfollnance
are far from complete. This is observed by the fact that
there is not yet a European standard for vertical track
stiffness available, and, more remarkably, in the CUlTent
version of both TSI HS INF and TSI CR INF track stiff-
ness remains as an 'open point' [6 ] [7 J. This means
that track stiffness is known as a basic parameter that re-
ty'. However, CUlTent state-of-the-art knowledge and ex-
isting results are not sufficient to derive consensus rules
and specifications. Hence, further research and studies
are required in order to develop a rational approach to the
track design/construction so that the track stiffness and
its variations are within an acceptable range of values, or
ideally, to achieve an optimum track stiffness. Also, it is
important to be able to measure track stiffness using tech-
niques which give accurate, repetitive and reproducible
results so that track pelfollllance of existing lines can be
evaluated and appropriate decisions regarding track main-
tenance may be made.
This paper discusses two approaches for calculating global
track stiffness, a static one based on Zimmermann's theo-
ry [8 ] and a dynamic one based on the track model used
in the dynamic vehicletrack interaction program DIFF
[ 9 ] . DIFF is also used to investigate the effect of track
stiffness on dynamic responses of track and vehicle due to
parametric excitations, i. e. sleeper spacing and stiffness
variations but not track irregularities etc. A great deal of
research has been conducted in this area, see e. g. the
works done by OscarssOli [10 ] ,Lundqvist et al. [11 ] ,
Frohling et al. [12], Wu and Thompson [13 ] and also
others reviewed by Hunt [ 1 ] and BUlTOW at al. [ 2 ] .
Compared with previous studies, a new effort is made in
this study to use the spatially varying ballast/ subgrade
stiffness derived directly from the measured results by

246
9 th International Heavy Haul Conference ,2009
RSMV [5] as input data in DIFF simulations. Determi-
ning input data for ballast/ subgrade has been a very com-
plex task for simulating vehicle-track interaction prob-
lems. The approach used here provides a good solution to
this task and makes the track models in DIFF more close
to reality.
During recent years, several techniques for continuous
measurement of vertical track stiffness have been devel-
oped [5 J. Most of these techniques measure the static
track stiffness only. The Swedish vehicle (RSMV) is a
rebuilt two-axle freight wagon and can measure dynamic
stiffness up to 50 Hz. Up to now, measurements have
been carried out over track sections of totally several
hundreds km long and a large number of data have been
generated. This paper presents a statistical analysis of the
measured results and gives us a good understanding about
track stiffness and its variations at Swedish railway net-
work. Such infomlation is very useful when the decision
on what are acceptable track stiffness ranges will be
made.
2 TRACK STIFFNESS: DEFINITION AND
CALCULATION APPROACHES
Following the most general understanding, track stiffness
k (or more precisely global vertical track stiffness) can
be defined as the ratio between the vertical force Q exer-
ted on top of one rail and the vertical track displacement
10 as
k(t) =Qi!l or k(f) = Q(f) (1)
1O(t) 10 (f)
By this generic definition, we obtain the so-called dy-
namic track stiffness, which is a function of time t as it is
dependent on the applied load, or a function of excitation
frequency f when evaluations are made in the frequency
domain.
2. 1 Static Approach: Beam on Continuous Elastic
Foundation (Zimmermann's Theory)
Conventional track calculations are based on a static ap-
proach developed by Zimmermann in the 1 860 s. Follow-
ing this approach, we consider an infinite long beam
( rail) with a bending stiffness EI, which is loaded by a
vertical force Q at x = 0, and is supported by an elastic
foundation with distributed stiffness kc , kc =k,l a, where
a is the spacing between sleepers and ks is the discrete
support stiffness of rail pad, ballast and sub-
grade. Goveming differential equation for the problem
combining with boundary conditions derives the solutions
for rail displacement w, rail sectional moment M and
pressure force on sleeper F as follows (For details see
[8 ])
247
nL3 Ixl x Ixl
1O(x) =~eT( cos - +sin-) (2)
. 8EI L L
QL Ixl x Ix I
M(x) =-eT ( cos - + sin-) (3)
4 L L
Here L is the so-called characteristic length of the track
and is detelmined by
(5)
And ks is detelmined as the series stiffness of pad stiff-
ness kpad and ballast/ subgrade stiffness kbs by
1 1 1
-=-+- (6)
ks kpad kbs
Therefore, following the definition in Eq. (1), we ob-
tain the global static track stiffness according to
Zimmermann's theory as
(7)
We observe that global track stiffness is a function of the
structural properties of the rail, rail pad, sleeper and bal-
last/ subgrade.
In Table 1, the calculated results according to this static
approach are presented for three typical track structures:
Track A is 'soft' , due to low ballast/ subgrade stiffness
and has a global track stiffness of 31. 6 kN/ mm, Track B
is 'normal' with a global track stiffness of 78. 0 kN/
mm, and Track C is 'stiff' due to both stiff pad and bal-
last/ subgrade and has a global stiffness of 171. 5 kN/
mm. All three tracks are loaded by a vertical force Q =
100 kN which is used as the reference wheel load in the
UIC project dealing with vertical elasticity of ballastless
track [4 J. (No dynamic amplification factor by
Eisenmann's method [8] is taken into account. ) From
Table 1, we observe that low track stiffness leads to large
rail displacement and bending moment, while high track
stiffness leads to high pressure force on sleepers. There-
fore, a good compromise is needed. According to track
experts and also Ref. [4], the common value for vertical
rail displacement should be in a range of 1 to 2 mm for a
reference wheel load of 100 kN, which leads to the track
stiffness in a range of 50 to 100 kN/mm. Pita et al [14 ]
proposed an optimal stiffness value for high-speed lines a-
bout 70-80 kN/mm. Results shown in Table 1 agree well
with these statements. In next sections, these three track
structures will be further analyzed by use of a dynamic
approach.
9 th International Heavy Haul Conference ,2009

rigid masses. Each discrete rail pad and ballast/ subgrade

2. 2 Dynamic Approach: DIFF Model for Dynamic
Vehicle-track Interaction
Most of the models originally presented for dynamic vehi-
cle-track interaction can also be used for evaluating the
global dynamic track stiffness. In this study, the comput-
er program DIFF [9 ] developed at CHARMEC since the
late 1980s is used. The DIFF model for tracks used in
this study consists of one rail of finite length (100 sleeper
bays) , discretely supported via rail pads by sleepers on
ballast/ subgrade. The rail is modelled by eight beam ele-
ments per sleeper bay. The (half) sleepers are treated as
is modelled as an elastic spring and viscous damper in
parallel, respectively. Such a modelling process can in
fact be considered as applying a finite element discretiza-
tion and the following structural dynamic equations are
derived
Mii + Cll + Ku =F (8)
in which M, C and K are the mass, damping and stiff-
ness matrices of the track, respectively, and F is the ap-
plied load vector. In the frequency domain, the above e-
quations can be written as

Table 1 Results for three track structures according to the static approach (Zimmermann's theory)

, ,
Track A: soft' Track B: normal' Track C: 'stiff'

Stiffness of rail pad kpaA kNI mm] 70 70 500

Stiffness of ballastlsubgrade kb' [kN/mm] 10 50 100

Stiffness of discrete support k,[ kN/mm] 8. 75 29.2 83. 3

Characteristic length L [m] 1. 175 0.870 0.669

Global track stiffness (static) k[ kN/mm] 31. 6 78.0 171. 5

Rail displacement [mm] 3. 16 1. 28 O. 58

Rail sectional moment [kN. m] 29.4 21. 7 16.7

Pressure load on sleeper [kN] 27.7 37.4 48.6

( -(iM +iwC +K) . U(w) =F(w) (9)

Letting F be a unit load vector acting at an excitation po-
sition on rail, the solution of U at the same position is
called the track receptance and its inverse is the global
dynamic track stiffness we are seeking for.
Then, dynamic vehicle-track interaction is considered.
The vehicle model is a (half) wheelset with unsprung
mass M", =1 025 kg, wheel load Q =100 kN and speed v
=200 km/h. The dynamic interaction problem is solved
by using an extended state-space vector approach and a
complex modal supelPosition. Details about mathematical
models and solution techniques in DIFF can be found in
Ref. [9].
3 SIMULATION RESULTS
3. 1 Track with Constant Stiffness
Figure 1 shows the calculated global dynamic track stiff-
ness for the three tracks discussed already in Section 2.
We observe that dynamic track stiffness has a trend to in-
crease as frequency increases, i. e. , the tracks get stiffer
at higher frequency ranges. Resonances in the low fre-
quency range can be observed, which implies rail and
sleepers are vibrating in phase on the ballast. The softer
the track is, the lower the resonance frequency becomes.
At f = 0 Hz, we obtain also the global static track stiff-
ness. As shown in Table 2, the results obtained by the
hvo approaches are almost identical, indicating that the
static approach by Zimmermann's theory is (and only)
sufficient for calculating static track stiffness.

Numerical results obtained by DIFF simulations are pres-

ented in this section, first for the three tracks with con-
stant track stiffness and then for a track section with spa-
tially varying stiffness.

248
 1h
9 International Heavy Haul Conference ,2009

Dynamic responses of the track due to parametric excita-

tions (sleeper spacing only) are presented in Figure 2 to
Figure 5, and also in Table 2. We observe that high
track stiffness results in increased dynamic forces both in
wheel-rail interface and on sleepers, and when ballast!
subgrade is soft low track stiffness leads to increased rail
moment, rail displacements and sleeper accelerations.
- ~ - Track A: soft We also observe that dynamic contributions due to the
- - - Tcack B: normal parametric excitation of sleeper spacing are very small.
Tcack C: stiff
However, they are expected to increase very much, when
o 200 400 600 800 1000 other dynamic excitations e. g. due to track irregularities
Frequellcy[HzI are taken into account.
Figure 1 Magnitude of dynamic tracl{ stiffness obtained
by DIFF simulation. Comparison of three
track structures.

Table 2 Results for three track structures according to the dynamic approach (DIFF simulation)

, , ,
Track A: soft' Track B: normal ' Track C: stiff'

Static track stiffness (static approach) k[ kN/mmJ 31. 6 78.0 171. 5

Static track stiffness (DIFF simulation) k [kN/mmJ 31. 8 77.9 171. 1

Dynamic stiffness, minimum kmin [kNI mm ] 15.6 65.4 166. 1

First resonance frequency f when k =kmin [ Hz] 35 64 61

Wheel-rail contact forces Q [kN ] 100.6 100. 5 101.8

Rail displacement IV [mm ] 3.22 1. 28 0.58

Rail sectional moment M [kN. mJ 29. 8 22. 1 17.2

Sleeper acceleration a, [m/S2 ] 12.9 6.6 7.9

Pressure load on sleeper F, [ kN ] 26. 7 37.3 48.3

102 -10

I13
---v"-:~~:~:---
0

IO
~
S 20
. . , . . . . Track A: soft 'i;J ---Tcack B: normal
~ . - . - Tcack C: stiff
~-~- Tcack B: normal 30
96 Tcack C: stiff
15 20 25 30 35 40
Sleeper no
15 20 25 30 35 40
Sleeper no Figure 3 Rail moment at 'Sleeper bay 25 ' .
Comparison of three tracks. A :
Figure 2 Wheel-rail forces due to parametric excitations 'soft', B: 'normal' and C: 'stiff'.
of sleeper spacing. Comparison of three
tracks. A: 'soft' , B: ' normal' and C: 'stiff'

249
9 th International Heavy Haul Conference ,2009

5 The dynamic responses of track and vehicle due to para-

i
..,<l0
0
metric excitations (sleeper spacing and varying stiffness)
are presented in Figure 7 for the wheelrail contact force,
Figure 8 for the displacement at the contact point and
~ -5
Figure 9 for the wheel acceleration, respectively. In Fig-
"" ure 8, the results for a track with constant ballast/ sub-
'"
.... -10
"
fr grade stiffness kbs = 50 kN/mm are also plotted for com-
..!l
Ul
-15 parison. As demonstrated in these figures, varying track
15 20 25 30 35 40
Sleeper no
stiffness do introduce variations of the wheel-rail contact
force and the track deflection, which are believed to be
Figure 4 Acceleration of 'Sleeper 25 '. Comparison of one of the main reasons that cause the deterioration of
three tracks. A: 'soft' , B: 'normal' and C:
track geometry, and also introduces variations of the
'stiff' .
wheel acceleration, which influences the rolling stock lid-
-10
ing comfort.
0
10
~ 105
"g 20
.9
~
il 30 "~
fr <S
. . . , . .. Track A: soft
@ 40 , . ]
- - - Tcack B: nOITIlal ~
50 " Tcack C: stiff " 95
60 ~
15 20 25 30 35 40
Sleeper 110 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Sleeper no
Figure 5 Pressure load on 'Sleeper 25 '. Comparison of
three tracks. A: 'soft' , B: 'normal' and C: Figure 7 Wheel-rail contact forces due to spatially
'stiff' . varying track stiffness

3. 2 Track with Spatially Varying Stiffness 0.6 ,-'--;::=::!:====::c:=:==::::!::====r:::::::::::;-i

A track section about 65 m long (100 sleeper bays) be- 10.8 - - - track with varing stifilless
.....• , ref. track with constant stiffness

tween the Swedish cities of Falun and Borlange is consid-

ered and the data of varying track stiffness has been ob-
tained by measurement (Figure 6). Based on the meas-
ured results and Zimmelmann's theory, the stiffness of
It> 12
'B .

u~ 1.4
••••••• ~ •• '••••••• ~ ••• , ...... I ••••

each discrete support is calculated by Eq. (7) and, as-

suming the stiffness of rail pads are known (kpad = 70
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
kN/mm is adopted here), the varying stiffness of bal- Sleeper no
last! subgrade can be obtained by Eq. (6) and used as
Figure 8 Displacement at contact point due to spa-
the input data in DIFF's track model. Figure 6 compares
tially varying track stiffness
the track stiffness by RSMV measurement and by DIFF
simulation, and a good agreement is achieved.
200 6
180 - - - Measurement N 4
160
- - - DIFF simulation
.~ ' - Ballastisubgrade i
j 140 r,
' .. Railpad ..,15
.... ~
g 120 0)
<> -2
100
~ "'"
..,"
0)
!§ 80 ........ . -4
,., "
~
,> '-.c,,'
Ul '-., ..... ...... ,,,..,..
'-"'-of'"
,
60
40
- .- "- -6
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Sleeper no
20
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Figure 9 Acceleration response of wheel. Tracl{
Sleeper no
with spatially varying stiffness
Figure 6 Track with spatially varying stiffness.
Comparison between measurement and DIFF simulation.

250
9 11> International Heavy Haul Conference ,2009

mainly concrete sleepers with a mix of soft and stiff pads

and 50/60 kg rails, though a smaller portion of wooden
4 CONTINUOUS MEASUREMENT OF
sleepers is also present. Finally Track 3 between Varberg
DYNAMIC TRACK STIFFNESS (RSMV) and Gothenburg (48 km) on the Western Main Line car-
ries the same type of traffic as Track 2, although there
4. 1 Measurement Principle are only concrete sleepers, soft pads and 60 kg rails.

The track is dynamically excited through two oscillating ,,;. ;"..". ~-

0.8··········;···· ..... :.... , .... ~......... .

masses above an ordinary wheel axle of a two-axle freight § , ,-
wagon as shown in Figure 10. The track stiffness is calcu- .., 0.6 ...........; . . . . . . . . . ;. I .. . ( .... ;........ ..

lated from the measured axle box forces and accelerations

as described thoroughly in [5 J. Dynamic stiffness is a
i
~
0.4·,·· .... · ..; . . . . .
. "j':' /. .... ,.. ;.......... .
/
0.2 ..
complexvalued quantity, represented by its magnitude ____ .,.;____ ______- L_ _ _ _ _ _- J

O
~
~
~
~
~
and phase. While magnitude is the direct relation be- o 50 100 150 200
tween applied load and deflection (kN/mm) ,phase is a
Stiffness magnitude [kN/mm]
measure of deflection-delay by comparison with force.
The phase has partial relationship with damping proper- - Track 1

1
0.8
ties and ground vibration. " ... "" .. Track2

oscinit~gnm~----------
0.61-=:::f===TI='a=Ckj:3=-___ 4-__..J.:"-'__-l
U 0.4 " .. :......... (~: "':''':''';-1 .~....... ..
0.2 .. , ~: •. ~ .... ~ ., ~~!. ••• ~ •• ~.;: .......

O~~!~'~'~"~-~-~---~~------~----~
/
/ ,, -80 -60 -40 -20 o
/
Stiffuess phase [degrees]

Force Figure 11 Cumulative distribution of dynamic track

transducer stiffness (at 11. 4Hz) for three different
Speed v tracks.

.....;......... .
........:... .".,.,
........ -
0.8
• , ; I

"0
'"§ 0.6 , . , . . . . .. ··········it·········:··········
......... ......./ ..:...... ... ;......... .
Figure 10 Measurement principle (one side only) of ~ 0.4 ~ '

~
0.2 ....:... ......
/ ~ :.......... ;......... .
RSMV.
0
0 50 100 150 200
The RSMV has been in use smce 2004 and several Stiffness magnitude [kN/mm]
hundreds kilometre long tracks have been measured. The
reasons for measurement have varied between for example -Wood
0.8
research questions and investigations of specific Issues, .1;"
- - - Concrete
e. g. upgrading of a track for higher axle load. ~ 0.6 .... :........• :..•.•.••. ~ •...... J. ....... .
@ 0.4 ... -;........ .;......... :..... '/' .:........ .
u · . ,.;
4. 2 Results and Analysis

The objective of this section is to provide statistical infor-

0 ·
-80
--
0.2 ...• ;••..••... ;.•...•.•.,;.;.'!'..
·
-60
........
-40 -20 o
mation of stiffness and its variation on typical Swedish Stiffness phase [degrees]

tracks. Statistics are given for three different kinds of
tracks (Figure 11, Table 3). A compilation of a larger
assembly divided by sleeper type is also shown in Figure
12 and Table 3. Track 1 between Falun and Borlange
(24 km) carries mixed traffic with up to 25 ton maximum
axle load. There are 50 kg rail and wooden sleepers at
this track. Track 2 between Alvesta and Hassleholm (93
km) is a part of the Southem Main Line carrying both
freight traffic up to 22. 5 ton maximum axle load and pas-
senger traffic up to 200 kmlh maximum speed. There are
Figure 12 Cumulative distribution of dynam-
ic track stiffness for two types of
sleepers on Swedish tracks.
As can be seen from the upper part of Figure 11, stiffness
magnitude can vary considerably between different
tracks. Track 1 built with wooden sleepers and 50 kg rail
evince distinct lower values of stiffness as compared with
the other two tracks. The substmcture of Track 1 is gener-
ally of good condition (mostly moraine). When stiffness

251
 1h
9 International Heavy Haul Conference ,2009

phase is considered, Track 3 differs from the others as and variations in track stiffness along the track should be
shown in the lower part of Figure 11. At this track there avoided as much as possible.
are portions of soft clay along the track, which in most
cases are strengthened with lime cement columns. Clay A statistical analysis of the measured track stiffness by
substmcture appears with large stiffness phase delays for RSMV for hundreds kilometre long tracks has been car-
lower frequencies when dynamically excited. ried out, which provides a good understanding about
track stiffness and its variations on typical Swedish
If a larger subset of completed Swedish stiffness measure- tracks.
ments is considered, the cumulative distribution separa-
ted by sleeper type can be seen in Figure 12. The differ-
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ence in stiffness magnitude is obvious, although rail
weight for wooden sleepers is 43/50 kg as compared with
50/60 kg for concrete sleeper which supports the differ- This work f01111s part of the activities in the project INNO-
ence even more. Stiffness phase seems generally unaffect- TRACK, see www.innotrack.net. The authors are grate-
ed by track superstmcture. ful to adj. Prof. J. C. O. Nielsen at Chalmers University
of Technology in Gothenburg for providing the computer
Basic statistics for all cases discussed above are shown in program DIFF for this study and thanks also go to Prof.
Table 3.
M. Berg at Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) 111
Stockhoh11 for helpful comments and suggestions.
Table 3 Statistics from stiffness measurement
(one rail) REFERENCES
Track 1 Track 2 Track 3 Wooden Concrete
Fln-Blg Av-Hm Vh-G sleepers sleepers [ 1 ] Hunt G. A. , Review of the Effect of Track Stiffness
24 kill 93 km 48 kill 58 kill 470 km on Track Performance, RSSB, Research Project
T372, Febmary 2005.
Mean mag. [ 2 ] Burrow M. , Teixeira P. , Dahlberg T. and Berggren
65 122 108 49 101
[kN/mlll]
E. , Track Stiffness Considerations for High Speed
Railway Lines, to appear in the book by Scott N. P.
Std mag.
16 44 33 21 37 (ed. ) Railway Transportation: Policies, Technology
[kN/mm]
and Perspectives, Nova Publishers, (in print).

Mean phase [3] Meissonmier F. , EUROBALT II European Research

-22 -25 -43 -23 -27
[ degrees] for an Optimised Ballasted Track, Final Report
Technical Part-7S/00 1127/E lIDC , 2000.
Std phase
11 17 19 14 18
[degrees] [ 4] VIC, Project I/03/U/283 - Ballastless Track-Ver-
sion 2005 -08 -02, Draft - Vertical Elastici ty of Bal-
lastless Track.

[ 5 ] Berggren E., Railway Track Stiffness-Dynamic

5 CONCLUDING REMARKS
Approaches for calculating static and dynamic track stiff-
ness, the effect of track stiffness and its variations on
track pelfo1111ance with focus on dynamic responses .of
track due to parametric excitations have been investiga-
ted. The numerical results obtained in this study demon-
strate the following understandings: if ballast/ subgrade is
very soft, global track stiffness will be low, which leads
to increased responses of rail displacement, rail sectional
moment and sleeper acceleration j on the other hand, if
both pads and ballast! subgrade are very stiff, global
track stiffness will be high, which leads to increased re-
sponses of dynamic forces in wheel-rail intelface and on
sleepers and wheel accelerations. Thus a good compro-
mise is needed to order to achieve optimal track stiffness
Measurements and Evaluation for Efficient Mainte-
nance, PhD thesis, KTH, Stockholm 2009.
[ 6] Directive 96/48/EC - Interoperability of the Trans-
European High Speed Rail System, Technical Spec-
ification for Interoperability, Subsystem Infrastmc-
ture, 96/48-ST13 part 2, TSI-INS, 23.06.2006.
[7] ERA, IU-INF-081212-TSI3. 0, Interoperability U-
nit, Final Draft TSI, Version 3. 0, Trans-European
Conventional Rail System, Subsystem Infrastmcture ,
12/12/2008.
[ 8 ] Esveld C. , Modem Railway Track, Second Edition.
MRT-Productions, Zaltbommel, The Netherlands,
2001.

252
9 Ii> International Heavy Haul Conference, 2009
[ 9] Nielsen J. C. O. , Train/Track Interaction: Coupling
of moving and stationary dynamic systems- theoreti-
cal and experimental analysis of railway track struc-
tures considering wheel and track imperfections, PhD
thesis, CTH, Gothenburg, Sweden, 1993.
[ 10 ] Oscarsson J. , Dynamic train-track-ballast interac-
tion with unevenly distributed track properties, Ve-
hicle Syst. Dyn. , 37 (Supplement), (2003), pp
385-396.
[ 11 ] Lundqvist A. , Dynamic Train/Track Interaction -
Hanging sleepers, track stiffness variations and
track settlement, Thesis No. 1159, LiTH,
Linkoping, Sweden, 2005.
253
[ 12] Frohling R. D. , Low frequency dynamic vehicle-
track interaction: modelling and simulation, Vehi-
cle Syst. Dyn. , 28 (Supplement), (1998), pp.
3046.
[13 ] Wu T. X. and Thompson D. J. , Influence of ran-
dom sleeper spacing and ballast stiffness on the vi-
bration behaviour of railway track, Acta Acustica,
Vol 86(2) , (2000), pp313-321.
[14] L6pez Pita A. , Teixeira P. F. and Robuste F. ,
High speed and track deterioration: the role of
vertical stiffness of the track, Proc. Instn
Mech. Engrs, Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit,
Vol. 218, Part F, (2004), pp 3140.