FLOATING SLAB TRACK -

CHATSWOOD TRANSPORT INTERCHANGE

Author: Adam Brunskill

Academic Qualfications: B(hons) Civil Engineering
Company of Affiliation: Laing O’Rourke

INTRODUCTION

Chatswood Transport Interchange (CTI) is one of NSW’s largest transport PPP project and
particularly notable for all works taking place in the centre one of the largest CBD’s in the
state.

Laing O’Rourke is undertaking the design and construction of the new CTI-IW contract on
behalf of the PPP developer. The contract value is approximately $165m. This paper will
focus the difficulties and challenges faced by the design and construction team during the
development of Floating Slab Track (FST) system.

1.0 PROJECT OUTLINE

The CTI is a redevelopment of the existing Chatswood transport interchange and will serve as
one of the terminating stations for the Epping to Chatswood Rail Link (ECRL previously
known as PRL). The “old” interchange comprised of a single island platform and undercover
bus interchange, refer to Figure 1. The “new” interchange will comprise of two island
platforms and a partially undercover bus interchange.

Figure 1. Cross Section of the North Track Slab showing the new bus interchange below.

Also included in the CTI is a new underground concourse, three new levels of underground
parking, two new rail bridges (on either side of the CTI) and new commercial / retail centre
above. (see figure 2)
 Figure 2 - Cross Section through the CTI Structure.

In addition, provision has been made to construct three high rise apartment towers on the CTI
footprint. The towers will share the same structural support columns as the remainder of the
CTI building. The largest tower (41 stories) will be located directly above the commercial /
retail area known as the podium (centre build). (see figure 3). The four tracks are located
directly below the podium therefore there was a risk that noise and structure born vibration
(known as regenerated noise) could be transmitted from the track to the lower levels of the
towers> As a result of the concerns about regenerated noise the Ministers Condition of
Consent limited structure borne noise levels inside apartments to 40dBa for 95% of train
pass-bys.
 Figure 3 - Cross Section through the CTI Structure and future tower

1.1 Structures
There are five distinct structures within the CTI site. The track fixing for each area is as
follows:

1. Help Street Bridge - Single span bridge (31m) with Direct Fixed Track and ‘Egg’ type
acoustical isolation rail fasteners spaced at 600mm

2. North Track Slab - Suspended Slab (122m) with Direct Fixed Track and Eggs
Spaced at 700mm, plus a swing nose crossing on Delkor Eggs.
 3. Centre Build - Suspended slab (150m) with Floating Slab Track and Eggs Spaced
at 700mm

4. South Track Slab - Suspended slab (55m) with Direct Fixed Track and Eggs Spaced
at 700mm

5. Albert Ave Bridge - Single span bridge (26m) with Direct Fixed Track and Eggs
Spaced at 600mm

1 2 3 4 5

Figure 4 CTI Layout

The trains will run through the CTI suspended slabs from bridge to bridge, approximately
350m in length each track. The track needed to be suspended to allow for the underground
car parks / concourse in the centre build and south track slab and also to allow for the bus
interchange on the north track slab.

2.0 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

As mentioned previously the CTI development has made provision for the construction of
three new high rise apartment towers. These towers are located on the CTI footprint and
share the same structural members as the rest of the CTI structure. Therefore regenerated
noise from trains was a major issue when designing the track and the design concentrated on
isolating the CTI structure and towers from the rail corridor.

The track support structure design was principally driven by the requirement to achieve the
Ministers Condition of Consent for structure born noise inside the future apartment buildings.
The structure born noise criteria imposed by the Ministers Conditions of Consent in different
spaces within the development are presented in the table below.

Space Noise Level Assessment Operating Conditions

(dBA) Parameter
Station Concourse 60# LAmax (Fast) Regenerated train noise
Ticket office and staff 60# LAmax (Fast) Regenerated train noise
offices
Bus terminal 60# LAmax (Fast) Regenerated train noise
Residential living 40# LAmax (Fast) Regenerated train noise
and sleeping areas

Commercial and retail AS 2107-2000 plus 5 dBA# Regenerated train noise

spaces
# Must be designed such that at least 95% of train events comply with these criteria.

Table 1. Design Criteria – Structure Bourne Rail Noise

Space AS 2670.2:1990 Assessment Parameter Operating

criterion curve Conditions
Station platforms Curve 30# Max 1 second RMS Trains
Station concourse Curve 8# Max 1 second RMS Trains
Ticket office and Curve 8# Max 1 second RMS Trains
station staff offices
Bus terminal Curve 8# Max 1 second RMS Trains and buses
Station retail Curve 4# Max 1 second RMS Trains and buses
outlets
Residential living Curve 1.4# Max 1 second RMS Trains and buses
and sleeping
areas
Other commercial Curve 4# Max 1 second RMS Trains and buses
and retail spaces
# Must be designed such that at least 95% of train events and 95% of bus events comply with
these criteria.

Table 2 Design Criteria – Structure Bourne rail and bus vibrations

2.1 DESIGN CRITERIA

• A 50 year design life for track support systems, including noise and vibration
mitigation measures
• RailCorp Standard C 3304 – Specification for Vibration Isolated Rail Fasteners
• Operating axle-load 137kN & Unsprung mass 1340-2160kg (max 250kN @ 60km/hr)
• Max dynamic deflection (lateral and vertical) 4.5mm

Noise testing was undertaken at North Sydney to gather vibration data from existing trains
traveling on a suspended structure for use in structure born noise modeling. The north shore
line south of North Sydney station is on a viaduct as it approaches the Sydney Harbour
Bridge. Results of the testing are shown in the following table.

Test Vehicle Near Track (SB) Far Track (NB)

1 Tangara 68 69
DDSU 65 59
2 Tangara 66 62
DDSU 62 61
3 Tangara 64 64
DDSU 63 60

Table 3 estimated noise levels

Options
In order to meet the required criteria for noise and vibration the following options were
considered.

1. Isolation under the Podium using a Floating Track Slab + smaller sections using
column isolators
2. Isolation under the Podium and beyond using a floating track slab
3. Isolating the future Apartment Tower 1 on resilient supports at the Residential
Amenity Level, possibly in combination with a floating track slab
4. Separating the Rail Track Slab from building and isolating on column isolators

2.2 PROCESS
• Extensive co-operation between stakeholders and engineers, including a 4 day
workshop. Key stakeholders were:
o RailCorp
o TIDC
o CRI
• Schematic vibration isolation design accomplished through detailed option
development and discussion for achieving the regenerated rail noise criterion to
select the option that best integrated with the existing architectural and structural
design for further analysis.

2.3 THE SYSTEM CONCEPT

The agreed option was Option 2, which involved isolation under the podium using a floating
track slab. There were however two different types of FST system that was considered.

1. Large cast in-situ concrete slabs measuring 14m in length on Gerb Springs. This
system was considered relative easy to install however presented issues regarding
replacement.

2. Small FST units on rubber pads which would allow only 4 Delkor eggs per block.
This system was considered relatively easy to install. The blocks could be removed if
required for maintenance and replacement of the bearings.

The design consultant and the construction team both favouring the smaller rubber supported
FST units. The detailed design progressed with the smaller FST units, however in order to
ensure that right system had been chosen the team looked overseas to confirm the decision.

3.0 THE HONG KONG EXPERIENCE

Laing O’Rourke senior management decided to send a fact finding team to Hong Kong. The
team consisted of the Laing O’Rourke Design Manager, Civil Construction Engineer
responsible for the FST installation and the Track Engineer responsible for the track
construction. The purpose of the trip was to meet with the two rail authorities in Hong Kong
(KCR and MTR) and gain from their vast experience using this type of track form.

Facts from the meeting with KCR

• Similar Slab unit size and mass (compared to smaller units proposed by Laing
O’Rourke)
• Similar pad design and configuration
• Pads manufactured by Trelleborg Queensland Rubber
• Delkor resilient fixings used on KCR
• Axle loads comparable to NSW loadings
• Higher line speed
• FST proven to be best performing slab isolation system on KCR (test data taken)
• Design being refined with each project
• Upstand kerbs on either side of slab used for derailment containment. Unable to use
central upstand due to signalling equipment.
 Image 1 KCR Floating Track Slab Units

Facts from the meeting with MTR

• Slab design is more complex than CTI IW and KCR. Bottom up rail construction has
been used previously
• Axle loads comparable to NSW loadings
• Similar slab size and mass
• Higher line speed (especially Airport link)
• MTR use Low Vibration Track (LVT), Isolated Slab Track (IST), and Floating Slab
Track (FST) on network
• FST proven to be best performing slab isolation system on MTR (test data taken).
• MTR have FST which has been in service since 1981 with no maintenance problems.

The experience gained from visiting the authorities in Hong Kong confirmed the decision to
continue with the smaller units. It proved that the design was consistent with other FST in
use. Small changes were made to the fixing arrangements of the side pads and to the
construction methodology as a result of the trip.

The final agreed CTI FST system was individual FST precast concrete blocks measuring
1.35m width x 2.7m in length, similar to KCR in Hong Kong. The height of the FST block
would vary between 320mm on the sides to 570mm in the centre. This step up in the centre
was a result of increasing the mass of the unit. Due to the height restrictions in the floors
below and the fixed RL for the track, the FST block was narrower than preferred by the design
consultant 320mm. The mass of the FST unit was increased to compensate for the reduction
in width by increasing the thickness of the centre of the FST unit 570mm. The additional
concrete in the centre of the track also acted as a guard rail. Details of the FST unit are
shown below.
The FST system would comprise of the following:

The precast concrete FST block

4 rubber support bearings below in each corner for each block
4 rubber side pads for each block, ie 2 either side
2 longitudinal pads for each block, ie 1 either side
4 Delkor Eggs per FST block.

Based on this system the design consultant predicted noise levels in the future apartments
would be as follows:

95% of Trains on Near 95% of Trains on Far Tracks

Tracks
Predicted Highest Noise 36-40 32-38
Level in Apartments, LAmax
dB(A)

Table 4 - Predicted Noise Levels

In order to achieve the required acoustic performance, the side and longitudinal bearings had
to be installed under compression, adding a new level of difficulty to the construction. The
installation of the FST and the pre-compression would require a construction solution that
would be quick, simple and cost effective.
4.0 CONSTRUCTION
The construction of FST was new to Australia for heavy rail applications and to the Laing
O’Rourke civil and track crews. As mentioned above the specified compression in the side
and longitudinal pads introduced a problem which had not been experienced before by our
crews.

In order to resolve this issue our civil construction team (lead by Engineer, Andy Thompson,
Engineer responsible for FST installation) constructed a “mock up” of the FST, which include
the FST units and a base slab with side walls, as per the invert slab which the FST would sit.
The size of the “mock up” was large enough to fit 3 FST units. The track team spent 2 weeks
using various installation methods that had been proposed. The biggest issue was holding
the compression in the pads. Finally a system using temporary supports between the FST
units was developed that allowed the FST units to be installed under compression and that
did not allow the compression to be lost during installation. Using this system, the installation
of 150 linm of FST units (150m each track) would take five days, which included final QA
checks.

The positioning of the FST blocks for each track, were undertaken during a weekend (one
weekend for each track). All the precast blocks were transported to site and lifted into the
track-well using the site tower crane. The blocks had the bearings already pre-fitted by the
precaster therefore the site crew only needed to level up each location (on the invert slab) to
ensure that the blocks would not rock. A frame was constructed that would replicate the
bearing locations of the blocks. The frame would be placed into position (relevant to the
location of each FST block) and tested by rocking side to side to ensure that the location was
level. Packing was placed prior to placing the block in its final position if the frame rocked. A
forklift was used to transport the blocks in the trackwell.

The side pads were designed to specified thickness. Installation of these side pads also
required a specified compressive force however the side walls they would bear upon could
vary between +/- 20mm due to construction tolerances. Based on the Hong Kong experience
the side pad design was changed to allow the insertion of HDPE packers. These packers
were used to make up the difference between construction tolerance and design. This took
the onus off the civil crew to meet unreasonable construction tolerances. This system proved
to be quick and simple to install and remove (if required) the side pads.

Image 2 Positioning of rail onto FST. Jacking of slab to install side pads.

Once the FST was in place the track could be installed.

The track construction methodology for the entire CTI was based upon a top down
construction system. This system was successfully used by Laing O’Rourke (formerly
Barclay Mowlem) for the direct fixed track construction on the Bondi Junction Turnback
Project. It was also noted that KCR in Hong Kong used Top Down Construction methodology
and MTR agreed that Top Down Construction was the fastest of the two methods to
construction direct fixed or FST track (where both top down and bottom up were used).

The advantage of the Top Down method is that the finish level of the concrete invert can vary
(ie. allowing for construction tolerance) therefore the track construction is not totally based on
getting the exact level on the invert to therefore get the correct rail level. This system was
proven to be fast and effective in getting the track geometry within the specified +/- 4mm for
level, line and superelevation.

“Iron Horse” track supports were used to suspend the rail at the correct level, alignment,
gauge and superelevation. After final survey checks the track supports (in this case Delkor
nd
Eggs) could be concreted or grouted into position either within a 2 stage slab or onto grout
pads. This system worked successfully on the North and South Track Slabs as well as both
Help St and Albert Ave bridges.

Image 3 Track construction using Iron Horse Track Supports on South Track Slab.
`
The concrete guard rail on the FST units made it impossible to use the Iron Horses. The Iron
Horse track support works by holding the rail from the underside which means there needs to
be a clear space between the rail. This meant that the construction of the track on the FST
would have to be done one rail at a time. Another issue that complicated the construction of
the track on the FST was that the Down NSL track was on a curve with 35mm superelevation.

The construction of the track on the FST was undertaken (as mentioned above) one rail at a
time. The low rail was constructed first. Using a “1 in 4” construction sequence, the
baseplates were fixed into position. The rail was adjusted using a digital inclinometer to
ensure that the 1 in 20 cant was achieved. Once all the “1 in 4” baseplates were fixed and
checked the remaining baseplates were grouted into position using a grout pump.

The construction of the high rail was then done using the low rail as a guide. Again the same
method was used to level and line the rail. A gauge stick was used to measure gauge and
the superelevation before final grouting.

This system of track fixing was slower and more tedious than the track constructed using the
“Iron Horse” track support. More time was taken on QA checks and was more labour
intensive to construct. Total construction time for each length of track (150m) on the FST was
3 weeks however the results achieved for accuracy to design alignment were equivalent to
that of the direct fixed track.

Image 4 Completed installation of Floating Track

5.0 CONCLUSION
Initial monitoring has shown compliance with the design requirements set down by the
Minister and Key Stakeholders, However final validation of the Floating Track Slab success
will come with completion of the Eastern portion of the project.

The Chatswood Transport Interchange has provided an opportunity to take an internationally

used track system and adapt it to the Australian market.
The Floating Track system used at Chatswood has enabled the interaction of a transport
interchange encompassing Rail and road within close proximity of a multi tower high rise
development.