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

net/publication/284572339

Embankment design and construction for a major rail upgrade project in

Western Australia

Article  in  Australian Geomechanics Journal · June 2013

CITATIONS READS

0 1,942

3 authors, including:

Srijib Chakrabarti Lani Cheenikal

Coffey 4DGeotechnics
15 PUBLICATIONS   253 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

PhD project in Monash University View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Lani Cheenikal on 25 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

EMBANKMENT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FOR A MAJOR
RAIL UPGRADE PROJECT IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Srijib Chakrabarti1 Lani Cheenikal2 and Gurpreet Singh1
1
Principal, 2Associate, Coffey Geotechnics Pty Ltd.

ABSTRACT
Australia is one of the largest iron ore producing countries in the world. As a result of increased international demand
for iron ore, development of new open pit mines with associated infrastructure has been on the rise in Western
Australia. Design and construction of new rail lines and duplication along existing rail lines have been one of the key
issues for timely delivery of iron ore from mine to port. This paper presents geotechnical issues associated with the
design and construction of a major rail duplication project in the Pilbara Region in Western Australia that include cuts
and embankments up to 20m height. The geotechnical issues include geotechnical investigation, sourcing borrow
materials for construction of embankments including sub ballast capping, slope stability, settlement and construction
methods. A variety of rock formations were encountered along the alignment comprising igneous, sedimentary and
volcanics with variable degree of weathering. Slope stability assessment was undertaken using limit equilibrium
method, kinematic analysis concept and visual assessment. Deformation analyses were undertaken using PLAXIS
computer program. Geotechnical investigation, selection of parameters for engineering analysis and method of design
during the construction stage are discussed in this paper.

1 INTRODUCTION
Australia is the world’s largest iron ore exporter and as a producer, ranks second behind China (Geoscience Australia,
2013). In 2009, Australia produced over 393.9 million tonnes predominantly for export. Although iron ore resources
occur in all the Australian States and Territories, almost 90% of identified resources (totalling 31.5 billion tonnes) occur
in Western Australia, 80% of which occurs in the Hamersley Province, one of the world’s major iron ore provinces.
The ores from major mines in Western Australia’s Hamersley Province of Pilbara region are hauled from working faces
to crushing and screening plants using heavy trucks. The processed ore is then transported for further blending to port
sites. Most of the iron ores are transported to the ports by rail. Construction of the rail results in the formation of deep
cuts and high embankments along the alignment. This paper presents design issues of a major duplication of a 290km
long railway in the Pilbara Region of Western Australia.

2 RAIL EMBANKMENT
Predominant loading on the rail embankment was the rail axle loading as noted in Table 1.

Table 1 - Information on Axle Loading

Description Value

Nominal axle load 40 kN

No. of wheels per axle 2 nos.

Track Condition Index (TCI) 30 and 40

Design operating speed 90 km/h

Sleeper spacing 675mm

Rail Seat Load (RSL) 114 kN (for TCI of 30) and

138 kN (for TCI of 40)

Average dynamic sleeper/ballast contact 310 kPa (for TCI of 30) and
pressure 380 kPa (for TCI of 40)

1
TCI is an indicator of the rail track condition. TCI value ranges between 30 or less for very good track condition and 69
for a track in very bad condition. RSL is the proportion of dynamic wheel loads that are transferred to the rail seat of
the sleeper and then transferred through the sleeper to the ballast and formation.
The total rail formation typically comprised the following layers from top:
• Ballast layer under sleeper;
• Sub ballast capping (SBC) layer;
• Transition layer (750mm thickness below SBC);
• General Embankment;
• Prepared Foundation.
The ballast and SBC layers are generally considered as the main parts of the rail formation. The embankment
(including the transition layer i.e. top 750mm of embankment) is sometimes considered as part of ‘bulk earthworks’.

3 EMBANKMENT MATERIALS

3.1 SOURCE OF MATERIALS

Embankment materials were sourced predominantly from cuts along the rail formation and also from borrow areas
located adjacent to the rail alignment and included the following:
• Rock and granular fill (weathered granite, siltstone, sandstone, schist, banded iron formation);
• Residual and colluvial soils; and
• Pindan sand (silty sand/clayey sand).
In borrow areas, excavation of test pits and dozer ripping trials were undertaken and the materials were selected based
on the results of the following laboratory tests:
• Particle size distribution;
• Atterberg limit; and
• Soaked California Bearing Ratio.
Rocks used in the rock fill embankment were sourced locally and generally of between slightly and highly weathered
conditions and rock strength assessed in the field varied between medium to very high strength.
The Shear-Normal Function (Barton 2008, Fell et al. 2005) was considered to assess the angle of internal friction
property of rock fill materials used in the Mohr-Coulomb material model.
The Shear-Normal Function takes account of the normal stress on the granular materials when determining the shear
strength parameters of these materials.
Barton (2008) and Barton & Kjærnsli (1981) suggested the following relationship to assess peak shear strength (ζ).
ζ = σn tan (R log S/ σn + Ør) (1)
Where σn = normal stress; R = equivalent roughness; S = equivalent strength of particles; Ør = residual angle of friction.
Barton (2008) provides methods of assessment of R, S and Ør.
Fell et al. (2005) suggested the following relationship to assess secant angle of internal friction for various ranges of
normal stresses.
′

    
′ (2)
Where
′ is secant friction angle;
′ is normal stress; a and b are functions of angularity rating, fines content,
coefficient of curvature and Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS); c = -0.3974.
A triaxial stress condition is adopted in assessment of shear strength of rock fill materials based on Barton (2008). Other
factors influencing the shear strength, i.e. the UCS, Ør and angularity conditions were selected from results of
geotechnical investigation.

2
Uniaxial Compressive Strength (UCS) values of 5MPa and 30MPa were adopted to assess the average angle of internal
friction value. The Granite rocks, with average UCS values greater than 30MPa, are likely to be stronger than Talc-
Chloride Schist rocks based on results of previous geotechnical investigation. .
Given the above, values of friction angle (phi Ø) noted in Table 2 were assessed based on Barton (2008) and adopted in
Limit Equilibrium (SLOPEW) analysis to assess the slope stability against circular slip failure. Sensitivity analyses
were undertaken using shear normal function for Talc-Chloride Schist rocks based on Barton (2008).
Table 2 Rock Properties

Description of Rockfill Material Average Angle of Internal Remarks

Friction 0

Talc-Chloride Schist 420 Barton (2008), Fell et al. (2005)

Granite or Equivalent 450

4 METHOD OF ANALYSIS AND DESIGN APPROACH

Slope stability analyses of the embankments were undertaken using SLOPEW computer program. Elastic settlement of
the embankment under the rail loading was assessed using PLAXIS computer program. It was understood that regular
maintenance of the embankment would be carried out e.g. repair of areas with loss of materials /erosion and shallow
slip failures at embankment surface etc.

4.1 FACTOR OF SAFETY

A literature survey was undertaken and requirements of minimum Factors of Safety (FOS) against global circular slip
failure noted in various standards are presented in Table 3.
Table 3 Requirement of FoS (Global Slope Stability)
Type of Loading / Minimum FoS Requirement Reference
Structure
Static/Permanent 1.5 Department of Navy, USA (1982); US Federal
Highway Administration (2003); US Army Corps
of Engineers (2003), Fell et al. (2005)
Earthquake/Temporary 1.1 US Federal Highway Administration (2003)
1.15 - 1.2 Department of Navy, USA (1982)

4.2 EMBANKMENT SLOPE STABILITY

Embankment slope stability was assessed for normal, flood and earthquake conditions using Limit Equilibrium method.
A horizontal acceleration coefficient or hazard factor of 0.12 was adopted for seismic analysis. Shallow slip failure
(e.g. 0.3m depth from surface) and erosion was not considered in the analysis as these would likely to be addressed by
the ongoing visual assessment and maintenance program.
Based on the results of the analysis, embankment slopes of 1V:1.5H and 1V:2H were adopted for rock fill and Pindan
sand materials respectively. These slope values are consistent with the slopes of existing rail embankments in the
Pilbara region of WA.
A SLOPEW output for normal condition is presented as Figure 1.

3
 Rail Load on Sub Ballast Capping Layer
FOS = 1.45
Transition Layer

Embankment

Embankment Base/Foundation

Figure 1: Typical SLOPEW Output

4.3 STABILITY OF CUT SLOPES

Cut slope batters of 1V:2H and 1V:1H were generally adopted for sand/gravel/extremely weathered rock and rock
respectively. The cut slope batters were selected based on assessment of performance of existing cut slopes in the
region and results of Limit Equilibrium analysis and kinematic analysis based on defect orientation in rocks.
The slope instability of cut batters was assessed based on “Practice Note Guidelines for Landslide Risk Management”
and the slope instability risk assessment procedure published in Australian Geomechanics Society (AGS) publication,
March 2007. Slope instability assessment of a cut located at approximately CH 200km is provided in Table 4. Regular
monitoring and maintenance was suggested to reduce the risk of shallow instability at some locations. Photographs of
the embankment at cut and fill areas are presented as Figure 2.

Figure 2: Photographs of Fill and Cut Slopes

Table 4: Summary of Slope Instability Risk Assessment

Scenario Potential Hazard Possible Initiating Likelihood Consequence Risk

No Circumstances
1 Deep seated instability through Saturation of materials in Rare Minor Very Low
less weathered rock. the cut.

2 Shallow slip failure of RS-XW Excess moisture, erosion. Likely Insignificant Low
materials within the cut batters.

4
4.4 SUBBALLAST CAPPING LAYER THICKNESS

Classification and Strength Properties

Property requirements for the SBC materials based on the Project Specifications were as follows:
• Liquid Limit of not greater than 36%;
• Plasticity Index between 4% and 17%;
• Linear Shrinkage of not greater than 10% ; and
• 4-day soaked CBR of not less than 40% at 97% MMDD.
Subballast layer thickness requirement was assessed for two Track Condition Index (TCI) values, based on the
information noted in Table 1. It should be noted that lower TCI represent tracks in better condition, while higher TCI
represent tracks in poorer condition.
Method of Assessment
Requirement of thickness for the cover (ballast and subballast) materials over the embankment fill or subgrade was
assessed based on empirical relationship noted in Ravitharan et al. (1997) and Ravitharan and Martin (1996) as follows:
 = (Pa 1.5(l-g)B)/[3(l-g)+B]zTan (3)
Where Pa = average sleeper/ballast contact pressure (kPa);  = pressure at a depth z below the sleeper/ballast
interface (kPa); l= sleeper length (m); g = distance between rail centres (m); z = depth below the sleeper; Ø = average
angle of internal friction of ballast and subballast (degrees).
Thickness requirement for ballast/subballast has been assessed to satisfy the condition that the pressure due to axle load
on the surface (  ) is less than or equal to the allowable bearing pressure on the surface (subballast or embankment
fill). The maximum allowable bearing pressure is assessed based on Equation 4.
Bearing Pressure = 31.681 x CBR 0.6105 (4)
The layer thickness requirements (ballast and subballast) assessed using Equation 1 have been verified using the
following methods noted in Selig and Waters (1995):
a) Talbot equation noted in the AREA (U.S.) Engineering Manual;
b) Japanese National Railways (JNR) equation noted in the AREA (U.S.) Engineering Manual;
c) Love’s equation noted in the AREA (U.S.) Engineering Manual; and
d) British Railways method.
The Talbot and JNR equations are empirical. The Love’s equation is based on Boussinesq solution for stress in an
elastic body due to an applied surface point load. The British Railways method adopt threshold stress concept.
Sensitivity analyses were carried out for two average angle of internal friction values (Ø) for the ballast and subballast
materials as follows:
• Ø = 350 based on Ravitharan and Martin (1996) and Bureau of Transport Economics (1980); and
• Ø = 400 based on Selig and Waters (1995) and reports on geotechnical investigation.

SBC Layer Thickness Requirement

The ballast and subballast thickness requirements over formation (with CBR ≥ 10%), assessed based on three methods,
are presented in Table 5.

5
 Table 5 – Cover (Ballast/Subballast) Requirement over Embankment Fill

TCI TCI =30 TCI =40

Average Ø Ø = 350 Ø = 400 Ø = 350 Ø = 400

Method 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

Total Thickness 450 330 490 370 330 490 540 380 580 450 380 580
(Ballast +
Subballast)
(mm)

Ballast 200 160 250 160 160 250 240 200 300 200 200 300
Thickness
(mm) over
Subballast

Subballast 250 170 240 210 170 240 300 180 280 250 180 280
(CBR ≥ 40%)
Thickness
(mm)

Note: Method 1: Ravitharan et al (1997); Method 2:AREA (US)- Talbot; Method 3:AREA (US) - JNR

4.5 VERTICAL SETTLEMENT UNDER RAIL LOAD

Assessment of the vertical settlement under the axle loading has been undertaken using PLAXIS 2D, a finite element
analysis computer program (Version 8.6). Use of PLAXIS model to analyse railway track and substructure in Australia
was reported by Shahin (2008). Erosion of the embankment was not considered in PLAXIS analysis as it would likely
be addressed by an ongoing monitoring and maintenance program. The following input parameters are adopted in the
PLAXIS analysis based on Selig and Waters (1995).
Table 6 Input Parameters adopted in PLAXIS Analysis

Description Value

Load below the 2.6m long Sleeper 310 kPa

Ballast Modulus E 250 MPa

Peak Angle of Internal Friction (Ø) for Ballast 400

Subballast Modulus E 150 MPa

Peak Angle of Internal Friction (Ø) for Subballast 380

Embankment Fill/Formation (CBR 10%) Modulus E 100 MPa

Peak Angle of Internal Friction (Ø) for Embankment Materials 350

The modulus values noted in Table 6 were adopted for analysis under dynamic loading. Based on the analysis, a vertical
elastic settlement of about 4mm was assessed under the sleeper due to the applied pressure of about 310 kPa at the
sleeper/ballast interface. It should be noted that a three-fold increase in the vertical displacement may be expected
under long term repeated loading. A PLAXIS output is presented as Figure 3.

6
 Vertical Displacement mm

Maximum Vertical Displacement 3.33mm

Figure 3: Typical PLAXIS Output

5 CONCLUDING REMARKS
The following conclusions were made based on the results of the slope stability and settlement analyses for rail
embankments.
• Limit Equilibrium and other analysis including visual assessment of slopes can be successfully adopted for
embankment design and risk assessment. This is subject to ongoing monitoring and regular maintenance
program.
• Finite Element Analysis method can be successfully adopted to assess deformation of embankment under rail
load.

• The construction of rail embankments were completed in 2012 and the performance of the rail track have been
satisfactory to date. It is acknowledged that the embankments are to go through a few wet seasons before
performance can fully be assessed. Erosion or minor shallow slip failures are to be addressed by ongoing
monitoring and maintenance program.

6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Most of the information in this paper has come from geotechnical investigation reports prepared by Coffey Geotechnics
Pty Ltd on a major rail upgrade project in Pilbara Region of WA.

7 REFERENCES

1. Barton, N. and Kjærnsli, B. (1981) Shear Strength of Rockfill, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
Vol. 107, No. GT7
2. Barton, N. P. (2008) Shear Strength of Rockfill, Interfaces and Rock joints and Their Points of Contact in Rock
Dump Design, ISBN 978-0-9804185-3-8
3. Department of the Navy, USA (1982) NAVFAC DM-7.1

7
 4. Fell, R., Macgregor, P. and Stapledon, D. (2005) Geotechnical Engineering of Embankment Dams, ISBN 90
5410 128 8
5. Ravitharan, S.S. and Martin, M. (1996) Reduced Track Maintenance Through Engineered Ballast and Sub-
Ballast Design, Proceedings of the 11th International Rail Track Conference, Adelaide, P 752
6. Ravitharan, S.S. and Martin, M. (1996) Reduced Track Maintenance Through Engineered Ballast and Sub-
Ballast Design, Proceedings of the 11th International Rail Track Conference, Adelaide, P 752
7. US Army Corps of Engineers (2003) Engineer Manual - Slope Stability
8. US Federal Highway Administration (2003) Report – FHWAD-IF-030017, Geotechnical Circular No. 7
9. Geoscience Australia (2013) Extracted from Geoscience Australia website (www.ga.gov.au/minerals/mineral-
resources/iron-ore.html)

View publication stats