esveld presentation cetra

8/17/2019 Esveld Presentation CETRA

1/33

1

E CS

www.esveld.com

CETRA 17-18 May 2010, Opatija, Croatia

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INHIGH-SPEED TRACK

Coenraad Esveld

Presentation at CETRA 2010


2/33

2

E CS

www.esveld.com


Country Networklength [km]

Scheduled trains Test run speed record Average speed offastest train

China 6,552 431 km/h (maglev)350, 330, 300, 200-250 km/h(conventional)

502 km/h (maglev)394 km/h (conventional)

313 km/h

Japan 2,459 300, 275, 260 km/h (conventional) 581 km/h (maglev)443 km/h (conventional)

256 km/h

France 1,700 320, 300, 280, 210 km/h 574 km/h 272 km/h

Germany 1,290 300, 280, 250, 230 km/h(conventional)

550 km/h (maglev)406 km/h (conventional)

226 km/h

Spain 1,272 300, 250 km/h 404 km/h 236 km/hItaly 815 300, 260, 200 km/h 368 km/h 178 km/h

South Korea 412 300, 240 km/h 355 km/h 200 km/h

Taiwan 336 300, 240 km/h 315 km/h 245 km/h

Turkey 245 250 km/h 303 km/h


3/33

3

E CS

www.esveld.com


HSL MAP EUROP2009


4/33

4

E CS

www.esveld.com


KTX TRACK WITH MONOBLOCK SLEEPER

Seoul – Pusan412 km double track


5/33

5

E CS

www.esveld.com


BALLASTLESS TRACK

Reduced height;No flying ballast particles;

High lateral resistance;Low maintenance, hence higher availability;

Increased service life.

Pro

ContraInvestment costs.


6/33

6

E CS

www.esveld.com


SHINKANSEN TRACK TAIWANRoute length 336 km


7/33

7

E CS

www.esveld.com


Route length 336 km

SHINKANSEN TRACK TAIWAN


8/33

8

E CS

www.esveld.com


RHEDA 2000 SLAB TRACK


9/33

9

E CS

www.esveld.com


R H E D A 2 0 0 0 S

L A B T R A

C K

Pad stiffness< 35 kN/mm


10/33

10

E CS

www.esveld.com


BÖGEL PREFAB SLAB TRACK


11/33

11

E CS

www.esveld.com


EMBEDDED RAIL STRUCTURE

3 km test track near Best


12/33

12

E CS

www.esveld.com


HSL TRACK THE NETHERLANDS


13/33

13

E CS

www.esveld.com



14/33

14

E CS

www.esveld.com


ANALYSES FOR HIGH-SPEED TRACK Longitudinal forces, especially at long bridges;Static design;Dynamics:

Wave propagation in soft soils;

Long wave vehicle track interaction;Short wave wheel rail interaction;


15/33

15

E CS

www.esveld.com


CRITICAL TRAIN SPEED

On soft soils propagation of Rayleigh waves is a major issue;Dutch solution: piled foundation (low viaduct).

ρ GCC TR =≈


16/33

16

E CS

www.esveld.com


11 22 33 44

xx

zz

φφ

Rail padRail pad

Sleeper Sleeper

BallastBallast

Car bodyCar body

BogieBogie

WheelsetWheelset

Hertzian springHertzian spring

Primary suspensionPrimary suspension

Secondary suspensionSecondary suspension

SubstructureSubstructure

RailRail11 22 33 44

xx

zz

φφ

Rail padRail pad

Sleeper Sleeper

BallastBallast

Car bodyCar body

BogieBogie

WheelsetWheelset





RailRail11 22 33 44

xx

zz

φφ

Rail padRail pad

Sleeper Sleeper

BallastBallast

Car bodyCar body

BogieBogie

WheelsetWheelset




11 22 33 44

xx

zz

φφ

Rail padRail pad

Sleeper Sleeper

BallastBallast

Car bodyCar body

BogieBogie

WheelsetWheelset





RailRail11 22 33 44

xx

zz

φφ

Rail padRail pad

Sleeper Sleeper

BallastBallast

Car bodyCar body

BogieBogie

WheelsetWheelset





RailRail11 22 33 44

xx

zz

φφ

Rail padRail pad

Sleeper Sleeper

BallastBallast

Car bodyCar body

BogieBogie

WheelsetWheelset





RailRail

Criteria: Passenger Comfort (car body acceleration) andWheel Rail Forces with associated stresses and deformations


17/33

17

E CS

www.esveld.com


10-1

100

101

102

103

10-8

10-6

10-4

10-2

100

10 2

104

Waveband [m]

P o w

e r S p e c r a l

D e n s i t y [ m m 2 s ]

Combined and NSTO (short waves) profile


18/33

18

E CS

www.esveld.com


0 200 400 600 800 1000-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12Vertical rail level geometry (Combined)

Distance [m]

V a r i a t i o n [ m m ]


19/33

19

E CS

www.esveld.com


DYNAMICS ANALYSIS• Vertical car body accelerations (passenger comfort)


20/33

20

E CS

www.esveld.com


WavebandLevel

Umax [mm] [mm]

3 – 25 m 4.6058 1.0296

25 – 70 m 3.8831 1.3849

70 – 180 m 6.4151 2.7211

0 – 5 m 2.3161 0.30047

0 – 10 m 4.4263 0.70446

0 – 150 m 7.4245 2.5974

Whole profile 10.5941 3.2093


21/33

21

E CS

www.esveld.com


WHEEL/RAIL CONTACT

Headchecks and squats are majorproblems in Holland;Main remedy is early grinding;Special anti headcheck profiles.

ROLLING CONTACT FATIGUE

CONFORMITY OF PROFILESEquivalent conicity 0.025 - 0.15.


22/33

22

E CS

www.esveld.com


HEADCHECKS

E CS


23/33

23

E CS

www.esveld.com


HEADCHECKS

E CS


24/33

24

E CS

www.esveld.com


SQUATS

E CS


25/33

25

E CS

www.esveld.com


Using a slab with reinforcement at the neutral line (e.g. Rheda2000):

No bending stiffness thus massive soil improvements required.Slab with reinforcement at top and bottom of the slab:

bending strength,relatively high reinforcement ~1.5 % for B35;only very limited soil improvements necessary.

Using bridge or bridge like structures as a substructure:Restricted influence on the bending stresses in the track slab.

SLAB TRACK DESIGN

E CS


26/33

26

E CS

www.esveld.com


FORCE-BASED ASSESSMENT OF WELDS

E CS


27/33

27

E CS

www.esveld.com


RAILPROF MEASURING DEVICE

E CS


28/33

28

E CS

www.esveld.com


HSL SOUTH IN THE NETHERLANDS

London

Paris

Amsterdam

CologneBrussels

Rotterdam

Antwerp

Schiphol airport

Rheda 2000 total: 6 3 k m s i n g l e t r a c k

E CS


29/33

29

E CS

www.esveld.com


CONTRACT INFRASPEEDPublic Private PartnershipPerformance Based - Availability Payment

Verification and Validation in accordance with EN 50126Functional Specification:

Availability (99%);Bi-directional operation at full line speed;Operational speed of 300 km/h;Minimum operational Headway of 180 seconds;Technical specification for interoperability.

E CS CETRA 17 18 M 2010 O ij C i


30/33

30

E CS

www.esveld.com


PILED FOUNDATION HSL-SOUTH

35 m 35 m

Rheda 2000 slab Concrete supporting structure

RailS o l u t io n o n S o f t S o i l

E CS CETRA 17 18 M 2010 O tij C ti


31/33

31

E CS

www.esveld.com


Gap due to differential settlement Gap due to rotation of the substructure

Largest gap according to calculations: 0.7 mmTests carried out at TU Delft: 0, 1 and 2.5 mm

Dynamic load 55 kN, 2 million load cyclesNo damage at concrete interface, intermediate geotextile layer and slab

GAP TESTS CARRIED OUT AT TU DELFT

Gap

Geotextile

E CS CETRA 17 18 May 2010 Opatija Croatia


32/33

32

E CS

www.esveld.com


TEST SET UP AT TU DELFT

E CS CETRA 17 18 May 2010 Opatija Croatia


33/33

33

E CS

www.esveld.com


CONCLUSIONSBoth ballasted and non-ballasted track structures are suitable for HSL;

Availability and minimum life cycle cost are increasingly important;therefore trend towards slab track;Slab tracks are still far from optimal;Dynamics plays a crucial role in track design:tight standards for running surface andsufficient resilience in the track components;Wheel – rail interface should be well designed and maintained;Quality is a key factor in both construction and maintenance.

esveld presentation cetra

Documents