Original Article

Proc IMechE Part F:

J Rail and Rapid Transit
Experimental comparison of the lateral 0(0) 1–10
! IMechE 2015

resistance of tracks with steel slag ballast Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

and limestone ballast materials DOI: 10.1177/0954409715623577

pif.sagepub.com

Morteza Esmaeili, Reza Nouri and Kaveh Yousefian

Abstract
Extending the use of continuous welded rails by eliminating the weak points (expansion joints) of a railway track
especially in sharp curves, which has resulted in increasing the operational speed and axle load of rolling stocks, enhances
the special attention to the issue of track lateral resistance. In this regard, the ballast layer interaction with sleepers plays
a crucial role in providing the track lateral stability. In many railway projects supplying the appropriate ballast materials
has encountered serious restrictions owing to the lack of qualified ore and also their long distance to the project’s site.
With the development of steel industry, the quantity of production and accumulation of steel slag as a waste material has
increased. In recent years, a great deal of attention has been paid to the use of this material as railway ballast. According
to the physical and mechanical characteristics of steel slags, such as high specific gravity and the granular roughness
respect to the limestone ballast, the usage of slag ballast can improve the track lateral stability. In this research, many field
experiments were conducted on tracks with steel slag ballast and limestone ballast materials considering the same
gradation. In this matter, several single tie push tests were carried out on both tracks with various ballast geometries.
The ballast depth was considered as 30, 40, and 50 cm and the shoulder ballast width was equal to 30 and 40 cm.
Moreover, the shoulder ballast height was chosen 0 and 10 cm. Consequently, the lateral resistance of both tracks was
measured and compared in the same conditions. In overall, the obtained results confirmed a 27% increase in lateral
resistance of track with steel slag ballast respect to that with limestone ballast.

Keywords
Ballasted railway track, lateral resistance, steel slag ballast, limestone ballast, single tie push test, ballast geometry

Date received: 11 July 2015; accepted: 17 November 2015

are known as its most usual deficiencies.3,4 The lateral

Introduction
Track lateral resistance is one the most effective par-
ameters for assurance of good performance and safety
of ballasted tracks. Providing sufficient lateral resist-
ance in many old railway tracks including sharp
curves with radius less than 400 m is usually possible
with the usage of rail joints.1 Rail joints are known as
the weakest parts of a railway track structure and
cause more deviances in superstructure and substruc-
ture components.2 Therefore, the rate of track devi-
ation, which increases by raising the speed and axle
load of train, enhances the destructive effects of rail
joints. For this reason, omitting the rail joints and
using the long continuous welded rails (CWRs) is con-
sidered as a common solution by railway engineers.
Increasing the durability of rail and the rolling stock
under fatigue, CWR tracks also reduce the cost of
maintenance and eventually overcome the disadvan-
tages of track with rail joints. Despite the mentioned
advantages of CWR technology, occasionally track
buckling and rail failure due to rail thermal stresses
resistance of CWR tracks is one of the most vital fac-
tors to prevent track buckling.5 In other words, track
lateral resistance is considered as the track reaction
against lateral applied forces parallel to the long
axis of sleepers or perpendicular to the long axis of
rails. These forces usually originates from the lateral
component of frictional forces between rail and wheel,
buckling, and centrifugal forces in curves.6
To increase the lateral resistance of railway tracks,
the lateral stiffness must be improved. The lateral stiff-
ness of track is affected by several factors such as
ballast type and condition (in-situ compaction),
weight, shape, and spacing of sleepers, type of rails
School of Railway Engineering, Iran University of Science and
Technology, Iran
Corresponding author:
Morteza Esmaeili, School of Railway Engineering, Iran University of
Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran.
Email: m_esmaeili@iust.ac.ir

Downloaded from pif.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on January 1, 2016

2 Proc IMechE Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 0(0)
and fasteners, and the applied lateral forces on track
by moving trains.7,8 Typically, it is possible to provide
sufficient lateral resistance for the track by substitut-
ing the ballast materials with appropriate and high
quality materials.9
Slag is a by-product material, which is produced
during the production process of metals such as steel,
copper, nickel, and so on. This material includes metal-
lic and non-metallic stable oxides typically containing
20% of melted form of initial metal core. Besides the
economic benefits, recycling these materials reduces
environmental pollutions and preserves the natural
rock sources. After molting the iron core, a heavy
phase is formed that perches in a lower level and the
additional mine core material produces another phase
with lower specific gravity which consequently perches
over the last phase. The later phase is called slag. The
slag produced in this stage called blast furnace slag.
Molten materials are not pure enough. These materials
are poured again in furnace. So, during the refine pro-
cess, a new slag is produced which is called steel slag.
The volume of slag produced in the USA in 2012 will
be estimated to reach to 16 million tons.10 An average
production rate for both steel and blast furnace slags in
Europe till 2010 was 45 million tons.11 Referring to the
last report from Australia, the rate of slag production
was 3.4 million tons.12 According to the latest statistics
from Japan in 2012, 24 million tons blast furnace slag
and 13.5 million tons steel slag were produced.13,14 In
Iran, Mobarakeh Steel Company annually produces
9.5 million tons slag while the Isfahan Steel
Company production capacity is about 0.4 million
tons of blast furnace slag and 0.4 million tons steel
slag.15 Furthermore, the annual capacity of
Khuzestan steel company is 0.5 million tons of blast
furnace slag. Regarding the high volume of slag pro-
duction in Iran and all over the world, the usage of this
material seems a challenging issue.
For this reason, nowadays, the steel slag is used as
a valuable raw material in different sections, including
road infrastructure, water rivers treatment, concrete
and asphalt cement production.16–20 In recent years,
the application of this waste material for railway bal-
last production has been proposed. For instance, in
Canada and for Toronto-Montreal double railway
route, two different ballast layers of granite and slag
materials with 30 cm of depth were adopted.21
Moreover, in Denver and Rio Grande railway line,
the slag ballast was executed.22,23 In Brazil, utilization
of the steel slag ballast in railway construction started
from 1996.24 The Seixal Company in Portugal also
used steel slag to stabilize the pavement in railway
tracks.25 In the states of America, steel slag is used
for various applications such as railways ballast, con-
crete aggregates, concrete block production and road
base construction. For example, the steel slag ballast
was used for dressing and raising the rails on major
western main line near to California-Nevada border.26
In Iran, the steel slag ballast was adopted in a test
Downloaded from pif.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on January 1, 2016
track as a part of Hassan Abad-Diziche railway route
in Isfahan province.15
Reviewing the technical literature reveals various
methods for increasing the lateral resistance in bal-
lasted tracks such as using frictional sleepers,27,28 use
of vertical wings in wooden and concrete sleepers29,
utilizing the Y-shaped sleepers and installation of lat-
eral wings and frame sleeper.30–33 As a special case,
application of in situ polyurethane geo-composite
beams known as Xia Track has been proposed to
improve the passive shoulder resistance of a railway
track.34,35 On account of its high specific gravity and
frictional specifications respect to the limestone ballast,
the application of steel slag ballast in ballasted tracks
increases the track lateral resistance. This issue has not
been studied in previous research works in the field of
ballasted railway tracks. Therefore, the present study
was allocated to investigation of steel slag ballast
effects on increasing the track lateral resistance in com-
parison with the limestone ballasted track.
In the literature, various methods have been pro-
posed for assessing the lateral resistance of a ballasted
track comprising single tie (sleeper) push test (STPT),
panel displacement test, mechanical track displace-
ment test, derailment wagon test, the continuous
dynamic measurement, and the lateral tensile test in
the middle of sleeper.1 Among the mentioned meth-
ods, the STPT is known as the most popular method
in railway experiments.7 In this study, for investigat-
ing the effect of steel slag ballast on the track lateral
resistance in comparison with the limestone ballasted
track, a test track was constructed including 18 slee-
pers nine of which were embedded in the slag ballast
layer and the others were located inside the limestone
ballast layer. The middle sleeper in each part was
released from the rails for conducting the STPT.
During the STPTs various ballast depths of 30, 40,
and 50 cm as well as shoulder ballast widths of 30
and 40 cm were examined. Moreover, the shoulder
ballast height was set to two different values of
0 and 10 cm. Finally, a detailed comparison of
STPTs results were accomplished for both track
parts at the same geometrical conditions.
Test track specifications and parameters
Steel slag and limestone ballasts specifications
In this research, the steel slag of Mobarakeh Steel
Company was used. This slag was produced by elec-
tric arc furnace method. In this method, cool scrap
steel is poured in furnace and heated by three elec-
trodes. The electricity passes between the electrodes
and creates an arc electric. The heat generated by
the arc melts scraps. During the melting process, the
lime is added to the furnace to form a non-metallic
product and simultaneously the oxygen is blown
into the furnace to purify the steel. At the last stage,
steel and molten slag will be poured into caldron
Esmaeli et al.
separately. After cooling, the steel slag is crushed to
appropriate sizes of 2–6 cm, which can be used as
crushed ballast materials.15
On the other hand, the limestone ballast was pro-
vided from one of the rocky mountains of Isfahan city
called Iran-kuh. This kind of ballast was extracted
from limestone mine and crushed into appropriate
Figure 1. Limestone ballast.
Figure 2. Steel slag ballast.
Table 1. Steel slag and limestone ballast specifications.
Feature
Granular unit weight
Los Angles abrasion
Micro-Deval abrasion
Peak mobilized angle of internal friction
Downloaded from pif.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on January 1, 2016
3
dimensions of ballast material. Sieve analyses were
done on steel slag and limestone ballast materials
according to the ASTM C136 to define their accurate
gradation.36 Both steel slag and limestone ballasts
gradations are in the category of grade four based
on the specifications of the Iran code 301 for ballasted
railway track superstructure.37 Figures 1 and 2 show
the samples of the steel slag and limestone ballasts.
Mechanical and physical specifications of limestone
and steel slag ballasts were evaluated based on the
relevant ASTM standards and presented in Table 1.
According to this table, the more granular unit weight
of steel slag ballast relative to the limestone ballast
leads to the more lateral resistance in track corres-
pondingly. Regarding the abrasion resistance, the
slag steel ballast has shown more resistance than
the lime stone ballast in both Los Angeles and
Micro-Deval tests which results in less degrading
and crushing during the track operation. These tests
were carried out in accordance with ASTM stand-
ards.38,39 Furthermore, the better abrasive perform-
ance of slag ballast respect to limestone ballast
increases the maintenance period of ballast and
decreases the maintenance costs as well. As shown
in Table 1, the peak mobilized friction angle of steel
slag ballast is also more than that of limestone ballast.
This parameter has been obtained from direct shear
test results conducted based on the ASTM D3080.40
The superiority of steel slag ballast parameters to
limestone ballast can be accounted as positive signs
for increasing the track lateral resistance which is the
main issue of the next section of the present study.
Test plan and methodology
The plan of the test track with 12 m length is shown in
Figure 3. It was divided into two equal parts each of
which was constructed by limestone and steel slag bal-
last sections, respectively. As shown in this figure, the
selected single sleepers in each part for STPT was
located in the middle to minimize the boundary effects
on the obtained results. The rail profile of the test track
was UIC60 and the type of concrete sleepers was B70
with spacing of 60 cm. The geometrical and mechanical
properties of B70 concrete sleeper have been shown in
Table 2. They were fully embedded in each ballast sec-
tion forming full depth of crib sections. The fastening
Lime
Unit stone ballast Steel slag Standard
t/m3 2.63 3 ASTM C127
percent 25 18.2 ASTM C535
percent 12.4 7.2 ASTM D6928
degree 43.16 46.94 ASTM D3080
4 Proc IMechE Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 0(0)

Figure 3. The test track plan containing limestone and steel slag ballasts parts for STPT.

from track vertical stability point of view, the ballast

Table 2. The B70 sleeper characteristics. depth should be less than 50 cm. Thus, in this research,
three different ballast thicknesses of 30, 40, and 50 cm
Parameter Unit Value
were chosen for both parts of the test track. From lat-
Permissible axle loads Ton 25 eral track stability standpoint, the shoulder width has
Maximum speed Km/h 250 an important role. In this regard, increasing the shoul-
Concrete volume Liter 114 der width of ballast up to 40 cm leads to enhancement
Weight (without rail fastening) Kg 280 of track lateral resistance.42,43 In this study, two shoul-
Length mm 2600 der widths of 30 and 40 cm were used during the tests
Width mm 300
whereas the Iran code of practice 301 proposes the
40 cm value for this parameter. The geometrical dimen-
Sleeper height mm 234
sions of the test track are depicted in Figure 6.
Height of rail-seat center mm 214
In all STPTs, the ballast shoulder side slope was set
Height of sleeper center mm 175 to 1:1 and the sleeper maximum lateral displacement
Total base area cm2 6800 was limited to the 2 mm. According to the STPT
device setting, the force-displacement results were
evaluated at each 0.5 mm lateral displacement. For
system was Pandrol e-clip. This kind of fastening was all of tests, the lateral force corresponding to 2 mm
chosen to facilitate the loading jack fixation and ease of sleeper lateral displacement was considered as the
installation of displacement sensor to measure the lat- lateral resistance of sleeper. Table 3 represents the
eral movement of sleeper. Figure 4 shows the STPT arrangement of STPTs. It should be noted that all
device and its set up. of the tests were repeated three times and their aver-
For a single sleeper, the lateral resistance comprises age was reported for each test. In order to simplify the
three parts namely friction of ballast at the bottom of results presentation, an acronym was assigned to each
sleeper (base zone), side friction of ballast and sleeper test which contained: No: test number, BK: ballast
(crib zone) and the passive resistance of shoulder bal- kind, BD: Ballast depth, SW: shoulder width, and
last at the end of sleeper (shoulder zone).2,41,42 In the SH: shoulder height. In this regard, the SB and LB
other word, when the ballast undergoes the lateral refer to steel slag and limestone ballasts, respectively.
force, it mobilizes the lateral resistance in conjunction
with sleeper in three different parts as follows:
Results and discussion
(a) The ballast–sleeper interaction at the end of slee- The mentioned STPTs in previous section were car-
per (shoulder ballast portion) ried out on the test track including both steel slag and
(b) The ballast–sleeper interaction at the bottom of limestone ballast layers. In following, the associated
sleeper (base ballast portion) results will be presented for each ballast section in a
(c) The ballast–sleeper interaction at the both sides of comparative manner in order to gain an insight into
sleeper in the longitudinal direction of sleeper the lateral resistance characteristics of mentioned bal-
(crib ballast portion) last layers. To do so, the effects of ballast depth,
shoulder width, and shoulder height on sleeper lateral
These three mechanisms are shown in Figure 5. resistance are separately investigated.
On the basis of the Iran Code 301 requirements, a
suitable thickness of ballast layer reduces the pressure
under sleeper to an allowable bearing capacity for sub-
The effect of ballast depth on lateral resistance
grade. Therefore, the ballast thickness in main tracks In Figures 7(a) and (b), the STPTs force-displacement
shouldn’t be chosen less than 30 cm. On the other hand, diagrams are presented for both ballast types with

Downloaded from pif.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on January 1, 2016

Esmaeli et al.
Figure 4. STPT set up including: (a) loading jack, (b) displacement sensor, (c) data acquisition system with battery.
Figure 5. Lateral resistance components that interact with
ballast.
various depths of 30, 40, and 50 cm at ballast widths
of 30 and 40 cm. As evidenced by Figure 7(a), in the
ballast thickness of 30 cm and shoulder width of
30 cm, the average mobilized lateral resistance by
steel slag ballast for two different shoulder ballast
heights of 0 and 10 cm is 9.4% more than that by
limestone ballast while this value is about 16.3% in
the case of 40 cm shoulder width (Figure 7(b)). When
the ballast thickness increases to 40 cm, the above
mentioned differences alter to 52.1% and 23% for
the shoulder widths of 30 and 40 cm. Alternatively,
by increasing the ballast depth to 50 cm, the afore-
mentioned values change to 42.2% and 18.92%,
respectively.
It is obvious that the maximum difference between
STPTs results for two categories of ballast materials
take places in the ballast thickness of 40 cm. The occur-
rence of maximum lateral resistance at the ballast
thickness of 40 cm clearly shows the dependency of
STPT results to the mechanical interaction of ballast
layer with the sleeper base and the subgrade as well.
It should be stated that when the sleeper is
embedded in the ballast layer, the shoulder and crib
Downloaded from pif.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on January 1, 2016
5
ballasts play their mentioned roles in mobilizing
the lateral resistance of ballasted track for whole bal-
last depths. While the portion of resistance caused
by the bottom of sleeper remarkably depends on the
ballast layer thickness. For low ballast thickness,
the shear lateral force distribution from the sleeper
base to subgrade is under influence of the ballast
frictional interaction with both sleeper base and the
subgrade. When the ballast thickness increases,
the frictional interaction of ballast layer with its inter-
faces with sleeper base and subgrade is going to
be minimized and the pure shear (frictional) behavior
of ballast is mobilized in the form of ballast
layer sliding over the ballast layer. So, in the experi-
mental tests carried out in the present study, it can be
claimed in many cases, by increasing the ballast
layer thickness, the track lateral resistance has been
decreased.
In brief, according to the Figure 7, by increasing
the ballast depth from 30 to 40 cm and 40 to 50 cm,
the average lateral resistance of steel slag ballast (for
two different shoulder widths and heights) increased
and decreased by 114.5% and 6%, respectively.
Whereas these value were obtained as 51.87% and
9.5% for limestone ballast.
The effect of ballast shoulder width
on lateral resistance
As demonstrated in Figure 8, for ballast depth of
30 cm, by increasing the shoulder ballast width
from 30 to 40 cm, the average lateral resistance of
6 Proc IMechE Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 0(0)

Figure 6. Geometrical dimensions of the test track section with variable parameters.

resistance relative to the limestone ballast with

Table 3. Lateral resistance test planning on the test panel. shoulder width of 40 cm.

Test Ballast Shoulder Shoulder

number depth (cm) width (cm) height (cm)
The effect of ballast shoulder height on lateral
resistance
1 30 30 0
2 30 30 10 One of the effective parameters in providing the
3 30 40 0
ballasted track lateral resistance is the mobilized pas-
sive pressure by the shoulder ballast at the end of
4 30 40 10
sleepers. It is expectable that the increase in shoulder
5 40 30 0
height leads to increase of the track lateral resistance.
6 40 30 10 This is caused by the increased weight of ballast at the
7 40 40 0 end of sleeper and the shoulder ballast shear strength
8 40 40 10 during the passive force mobilization as well. As illu-
9 50 30 0 strated in Figures 8–10, due to changing the ballast
10 50 30 10 shoulder height from 0 to 10 cm, the STPT results for
11 50 40 0 various ballast depths and shoulder ballast widths
12 50 40 10 have increased in average about 5.8% for the lime-
stone ballasted track while this value has achieved
around 3.2% for the steel slag ballasted track. It can
be approximately claimed that this parameter
test track with steel slag ballast) for two different has caused the same effect on STPT results for both
shoulder ballast heights of 0 and 10 cm) has ballast types.
increased 7.5% while this value is approximately In summary, according to the Figure 11 it can be
1% for limestone ballast. In the case of ballast concluded that in all conditions, the lateral resistance
depth of 40 cm, the mentioned growth in the shoul- of steel slag ballasted track is more than that of lime-
der ballast width has enhanced the average lateral stone ballasted track especially in the case of ballast
resistance of test track with steel slag ballast about depth of 40 cm where the maximum difference is
31%, whereas this value is around 61.76% for lime- occurred. The ballast shoulder height in both ballast
stone ballast as shown in Figure 9. As illustrated in types has increased the lateral resistance, although
Figure 10, when the ballast depth increases to 50 cm, this increase is negligible and can be ignored
by increasing the ballast width from 30 to 40 cm, the from practical standpoint. Moreover, in the ballast
average lateral resistance of steel slag ballast and depth of 40 cm, the shoulder height parameter also
limestone ballast parts of test track have increased had the maximum effect on the lateral resistance
12 and 24.5%, respectively. According to the Figures phenomenon.
8 and 10, it can be observed that the steel slag ballast
with less shoulder width in comparison with the lime-
stone ballast has produced more lateral resistance,
Conclusion
which shows the effect of ballast material on the lat- In this article, the effect of utilizing the steel slag bal-
eral resistance phenomenon. In Figure 9, it can be last in comparison with common limestone ballast in
seen that in steel slag ballast with less shoulder width ballasted railway tracks on increasing the track lateral
compared to the limestone ballast less lateral resist- resistance was investigated. In this regard, an exten-
ance has been generated, which shows the effect of sive laboratory STPTs were performed on a test track
ballast material on the lateral resistance of sleeper. In including two separate parts of limestone and steel
overall, by averaging the results presented in Figures slag ballast layers. The STPTs in each part was imple-
8–10, it can be claimed that the steel slag with shoul- mented on the middle sleeper to avoid any probable
der ballast width of 30 cm has indicated more lateral boundary effects and consequently various ballasts

Downloaded from pif.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on January 1, 2016

Esmaeli et al. 7

(a) 18 (b) 18

Lateral resistance - kN
Lateral resistance - kN
16 BK SH 16
14 BK SH
14
12 SB - 0 12 SB - 0
10 SB - 10 10 SB - 10
8 8
6 LB - 0 6 LB - 0
4 4
LB - 10 LB - 10
2 2
0 0
30 40 50 30 40 50
Ballast depth - cm Ballast depth - cm

Figure 7. Lateral resistance versus ballast depth for limestone and slag ballasts: (a) for shoulder width of 30 cm and (b) for shoulder
width of 40 cm. BK: ballast kind; SH: shoulder height; SB: slag ballast; LB: limestone ballast.

8 No BK BD SW SH
7 1- SB - 30 - 30 - 0

6 2- SB - 30 - 30 - 10
Lateral force - kN

5 1- LB - 30 - 30 - 0

4 2- LB - 30 - 30 - 10

3 3- SB - 30 - 40 - 0

2 4- SB - 30 - 40 - 10

1 3- LB - 30 - 40 - 0
4- LB - 30 - 40 - 10
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Lateral displacement - mm

Figure 8. Force-displacement diagrams for ballast depth of 30 cm including shoulder width of 30 and 40 cm with and without
shoulder height. No: number of test; BK: ballast kind; BD: ballast depth; SW: shoulder width; SH: shoulder height; SB: slag ballast; LB:
limestone ballast.

18
No BK BD SW SH
16 5- SB - 40 - 30 - 0
14 6- SB - 40 - 30 - 10
Lateral force - kN

12
5- LB - 40 - 30 - 0
10
6- LB - 40 - 30 - 10
8
7- SB - 40 - 40 - 0
6
8- SB - 40 - 40 - 10
4
2 7- LB - 40 - 40 - 0

0 8- LB - 40 - 40 - 10
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Lateral displacement - mm

Figure 9. Force-displacement diagrams for ballast depth of 40 cm including shoulder width of 30 and 40 cm with and without
shoulder height. No: number of test; BK: ballast kind; BD: ballast depth; SW: shoulder width; SH: shoulder height; SB: slag ballast; LB:
limestone ballast.

Downloaded from pif.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on January 1, 2016

8 Proc IMechE Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 0(0)

16
No BK BD SW SH
14
9- SB - 50 - 30 - 0
12

Lateral force - kN
10- SB - 50 - 30 - 10
10 9- LB - 50 - 30 - 0
8 10- LB - 50 - 30 - 10
6 11- SB - 50 - 40 - 0
4 12- SB - 50 - 40 - 10
2 11- LB - 50 - 40 - 0
0 12- LB - 50 - 40 - 10
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Lateral displacement - mm

Figure 10. Force-displacement diagrams for ballast depth of 50 cm including shoulder width of 30 and 40 cm with and without
shoulder height. No: number of test; BK: ballast kind; BD: ballast depth; SW: shoulder width; SH: shoulder height; SB: slag ballast; LB:
limestone ballast.

NO BK SH
1- LB - 0
2-SB - 0
18
Sleeper lateral resistance - kN

3- LB - 10
4- SB - 10 16
5- LB - 0
6- SB - 0 14
7- LB - 10 12
8- SB - 10 10
9- LB - 0
10- SB - 0 8
11- LB - 10 6
12- SB - 10
13- LB - 0 4
14- SB - 0 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
15- LB - 10
16- SB - 10
0
17- LB - 0
18- SB - 0 SW = 30 cm SW = 40cm SW = 30 cm SW = 40cm SW = 30 cm SW = 40cm
19- LB- 10
20- SB - 10
21- LB - 0 BD = 50 cm
22- SB - 0 BD = 30 cm BD = 40 cm
23- LB - 10
24- SB - 10

Figure 11. Histograms of sleeper lateral resistances for all conditions with different geometries. No: number of test; BK: ballast kind;
BD: ballast depth; SW: shoulder width; SH: shoulder height; SB: slag ballast; LB: limestone ballast.

geometries were examined in this matter. The major (c) In the case of zero shoulder height, the ratio of lat-
quantitative findings of these experiments can be sum- eral resistance of steel slag to the limestone ballast
marized as follows: was averagely 1.28 whereas for the ballast shoulder
height of 10 cm, this ratio has been raised to 1.26.
(a) In average, in the ballast depth of 30 cm, the lat- (d) An increase in ballast shoulder width in both bal-
eral resistance of slag steel was obtained 1.13 last types led to an increase in the lateral resist-
times more than that of limestone ballast while ance. However, this increase for steel slag
these value for ballast depths of 40 and 50 cm ballasted track with 30 cm shoulder width was
were 1.38 and 1.31, respectively. 2.8 times higher than that for limestone ballasted
(b) For shoulder ballast width of 30 cm, the lateral track with 40 cm shoulder width.
resistance of steel slag has been averagely (e) Considering all STPTs results, it can be concluded
achieved 1.35 times more than that of limestone that the test track with steel slag ballast has aver-
ballast. However, in shoulder width of 40 cm this agely shown 27% more lateral resistance than the
amount was 1.19 times. track with limestone ballast.

Downloaded from pif.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on January 1, 2016

Esmaeli et al.
On the basis of the obtained results, the application
of steel slag instead of limestone ballast material is
suggestible from both technical and economical
points of view. It was shown that the steel slag ballast
could improve the performance of ballasted track
from the lateral resistance perspective. Moreover, by
recycling the steel slag as a waste material the eco-
nomical saving is expectable.
Acknowledgment
We are grateful to the program managers: L Barikani,
H Yazdani, and A Amrolahi.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial
support for the research, authorship, and/or publication
of this article: This work was supported by the Iranian
Railway Research Center (S-2430).
References
1. Zakeri J-A, Mirfattahi B and Fakhari M. Lateral resist-
ance of railway track with frictional sleepers. P I Civil
Eng Transp 2012; 165: 151–155.
2. Zakeri JA. Lateral resistance of railway track. INTECH
Open Access Publisher, 2012.
3. Skyttebol A, Josefson BL and Ringsberg JW. Fatigue
crack growth in a welded rail under the influence of
residual stresses. Eng Fract Mech 2005; 72: 271–285.
4. Kish A and Samavedam G. Track buckling prevention:
theory, safety concepts, and applications. Technical
report, DOT/FRA/ORD-13/16,DDTS.020104,5301,
Alexandria, VA, USA, 2013.
5. Esveld C. Modern railway track. MRT-Productions, a
subsidiary of ECS, Zaltbommel, The Netherlands,
2001.
6. Selig ET and Waters JM. Track geotechnology and sub-
structure management. Thomas Telford, 1994.
7. Kish A. On the fundamentals of track lateral resistance.
American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of
Way Association, 2011.
8. Berggren E. Railway track stiffness: dynamic measure-
ments and evaluation for efficient maintenance. Doctoral
Thesis, Royal Institute of Technology (KTH),
Aeronautical and Vehicle Engineering, Div. of Rail
Vehicles, Stockholm, 2009.
9. Ryan M and Hunt G. SFT & Stability of CWR. Rail
Safety and Standards Board, 2005.
10. for Changing World USGS-Science. Iron and steel slag
end-use statistics 2003.
11. EuroSlag. Statistical data 2010.
12. Membership Annual Survey Results. Australasian (iron
and steel) Slag Association, Inc, 2012.
13. Nippoin Slag Association. Production and uses of blast
furnace slag in Japan 2013.
14. Nippoin Slag Association. Production and uses of steel
slag in Japan 2013.
Downloaded from pif.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on January 1, 2016
9
15. Riva Tahghigh Company. Product information, steel
slag production for use in railway construction. Steel
slag recovery, Isfahan. www.rivatahghigh.com (2014).
16. Sofilic T, Mladonavic A and Sofilic U. Characterization
of the eaf steel slag as aggregate for use in road con-
struction. Chem Eng 2010; 19: 117–123.
17. Nicolae M, Vı̂lciu I and Zǎman F. X-ray diffraction
analysis of steel slag and blast furnace slag viewing
their use for road construction. UPB Sci Bull 2007;
69: 99–108.
18. Wang G and Emery J. Technology of slag utilization in
highway construction. Quebec City, Quebec: Annual
Conference of Transportation Association of Canada,
2004.
19. Lun Y, Zhou M, Cai X, et al. Methods for improving
volume stability of steel slag as fine aggregate. J Wuhan
Univ Technol Mater Sci Ed 2008; 23: 737–742.
20. Takahashi T and Yabuta K. New application of iron
and steel making slag. NKK Technical Report-Japanese
Edition. 2002: 43–48.
21. Calla C. Two layered ballast system for improved per-
formance of railway track. PhD Dissertation. Coventry
University, UK, 2003.
22. Canadian National, Railway Investigation Report.
Main-Track Derailment. Report Number R07T0110.
2007.
23. Railway Investigation Report. R03t0080. Canadian
Pacific Railway. 2003.
24. Moreira RFT and Filho, PSB. BOF slag use as ballast,
ArcelorMittal Tubarao Experience. 2010.
25. Artificial aggregates, advanced materials for sustainable
world. Hrasco Metals Co.
26. National Slag Association. Steel furnace slag, an ideal
railroad ballast. Technical report, NSA 173–3,
Alexandria, Virginia, 2007.
27. Zakeri JA, Esmaeili M, Kasraei A, et al. A numerical
investigation on the lateral resistance of frictional slee-
pers in ballasted railway tracks. Proc IMechE, Part F: J
Rail and Rapid Transit. Epub ahead of print 25 July
2014. DOI: 10.1177/0954409714543507.
28. Zakeri JA and Barati M. Utilizing the track panel dis-
placement method for estimating vertical load effects on
the lateral resistance of continuously welded railway
track. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit
2013; 229: 262–267.
29. Montalbán Domingo L, Real Herraiz JI, Zamorano C,
et al. Design of a new high lateral resistance sleeper and
performance comparison with conventional sleepers in
a curved railway track by means of finite element
models. Lat Am J Solids Struc 2014; 11: 1238–1250.
30. Lichtberger B. Track compendium: formation, perman-
ent way, maintenance, economics. Eurailpress, 2005.
31. Ciotlăuş M and Köllo00 G. Increasing railway stability
with support elements. Special Sleepers, 2012.
32. Liegner N. Investigation of the internal forces of the
first track constructed with Y-shape steel sleepers
under operation in Hungary summary of results of
research. Civ Eng 2005; 48: 115–130.
33. Czyczula W and Bogacz R. Mechanics of track struc-
ture with Y-shaped steel sleepers in sharp curves. Appl
Mech Mater 2008; 9: 71–88.
34. Woodward PK, Kennedy J, Medero GM, et al.
Application of in situ polyurethane geocomposite
beams to improve the passive shoulder resistance of
10
railway track. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid
Transit 2011; 226: 294–304.
35. Zakeri JA, Bakhtiari A, Kasraei A, et al. Introduction
and application of Xiatrack in ballasted railway track
First Iranian Conference on Geotechnical Engineering.
2013 (in Persian).
36. ASTM C136, Standard test method for sieve analysis of
fine and coarse aggregates. American Society for Testing
and Materials, 1996.
37. Iran 301 code. Railway superstructure general technical
specification. 2005.
38. ASTM C535, Standard test method for resistance to deg-
radation of large-size coarse aggregate by abrasion and
impact in the Los Angeles machine. American Society for
Testing and Materials, 2003.
39. ASTM D6928, Standard test method for resistance of
coarse aggregate to degradation by abrasion in the
Downloaded from pif.sagepub.com at Middle East Technical Univ on January 1, 2016
Proc IMechE Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 0(0)
micro-deval apparatus. American Society for Testing
and Materials, 2003.
40. ASTM D3080, Standard test method for direct shear test
of soils under consolidated drained conditions. American
Society for Testing and Materials, 1998.
41. Le Pen L. Track behaviour: the importance of the sleeper
to ballast interface. University of Southampton, 2008.
42. Le Pen L and Powrie W. Contribution of base, crib, and
shoulder ballast to the lateral sliding resistance of rail-
way track: a geotechnical perspective. Proc IMechE,
Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 2011; 225: 113–128.
43. Kabo E. A numerical study of the lateral ballast resist-
ance in railway tracks. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail and
Rapid Transit 2006; 220: 425–433.