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

net/publication/282288817

Bloss transition - a short design guide

Article · January 2015

CITATIONS READS

0 593

1 author:

Constantin Ciobanu
WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff
3 PUBLICATIONS   0 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Constantin Ciobanu on 29 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 BLOSS TRANSITION – A SHORT DESIGN GUIDE

by Constantin Ciobanu
Senior Permanent Way Engineer, ATKINS
former Railway Track Lecturer, TUCE Bucharest

Abstract

This article describes the main characteristics of the non-linear transition curves used in railway track
alignment design, especially for high speed lines. It proposes a design approach for the Bloss transition curve,
providing additional information useful in the alignment design, based on Network Rail standards and on
international practice. It also suggests some additions and amendments to the Track Design Handbook
(NR/L2/TRK/2049).

Non-linear transitions and their use in alignment design

In alignment design the transition curves are used to provide a smooth variation of the centrifugal acceleration
between alignment segments of different curvature. When needed, the cant transition is applied, in direct
relation with the curvature variation of the transition curve.

There are two types of transition curves from the point of view of the curvature variation:
• transitions with linear curvature variation (clothoid, cubic parabola). For these transitions the variation
of the unbalanced lateral acceleration is constant.
• transition with non-linear curvature variation (Bloss, Ruch, Cosine, Helmert, Sine etc). For these
transitions the unbalanced lateral acceleration is null at both transition ends and usually has a
maximum value usually at the middle of the transition.

Fig 1. The curvature gradient for different transition curves

The classical design approach used in the alignment design is a simplified one, presuming the forces and
accelerations present in vehicle-track interaction as static, with immediate action, response and change. This
approach ignores the longer term response of the vehicle-track system to those actions. The advances in
electronic measurement, on the other hand, can capture and analyse the dynamic variation of the forces and
accelerations allowing to estimate how the track parameters (curvature, cant, cant variation, cant deficiency,
the nature of transition curves) are influencing the riding comfort and the track response forces.
The research and development started around the world in the ‘50s, have proven the necessity of the non-
linear transitions to compensate the significant dynamic effects caused by high speed (Birmann - 1968).

The main disadvantage of the linear transitions is the abrupt appearance and disappearance of the
unbalanced lateral acceleration variation at the ends of the transition.
The significance of this abrupt change increases with the squared speed affecting the riding comfort and
causing inertial response forces that are affecting the track. The use of non-linear transition is considered the
best alternative to avoid this issue at high speed.

The pioneer was Japan, where the cosine (half-sine) transition was installed on the entire Tokaido
Shinakansen line; the first section of 500 km was opened in 1964. Currently on all Shinkansen lines cosine
transitions are installed on all sections with the speed greater than 60mph.
In Europe, Germany was the first to install non-linear transitions, in 1965, on Forchheim-Bamberg line;
currently three types of non-linear transitions curves are used and installed in Germany: Bloss, bi-quadratic
parabola (Helmert) and sinusoidal (Matthews - 2007).
In France, a hybrid solution is installed on both TGV and conventional speed lines. The transition curve used
in France is the clothoid, but a short non-linear transition called doucine is applied at the ends, smoothing the
curvature variation. These doucines are applied also for the cant variation. Their length are 40m for TGV lines
and 20m for conventional lines (Alias - 1984). The use of these doucines was first standardised on SNCF lines
in 1968. A similar approach can be found in several other countries where the Railway infrastructure was
developed with French guidance and influence.

Although the clothoid transition is the transition curve generally used around the world, different high speed
railway administrators have established speed limit for its use, above which the non-linear transition are
installed. For example on the Japanese Shinkansen and Taiwan HSR this limit is 60mph. On the Californian
High Speed line this limit is 100mph (TM 2.1.2 - 2009).

These non-linear transitions are installed both on slab track and on ballasted track. The current track
machines are able to install and maintain several types of non-linear transitions. For the Plasser&Theurer
maintenance machines, four non-linear transitions were available for installation since 1992 on Win-ALC, the
machine software.

Fig 2. The non-linear transitions curves available by default on ALC, the

software use on all Plasser&Theurer maintenance machines
(ALC software snapshot courtesy of Plasser UK)

Currently, the Plasser maintenance machines can install by default 7 non-linear transitions (Fig 2). The
installation and maintenance procedures for these transitions are similarly simple and repeatable as the ones
used for clothoid.

In UK the standardised non-linear curve is the Bloss, described briefly in the Track Design Handbook
NR/L2/TRK/2049 – C.2.6 – Bloss transition curves.
The Handbook provides indicative data, useful in the design process, but there are still a few elements to be
added to provide accurate design guidance.
The equations for cant gradient, rates of change for cant and cant deficiency and other essential information
are still needed in order to provide a good design solution, when using the Bloss transition.
A path towards a design approach is presented below. Some suggested additions to the Track Design
Handbook are also included. The reader should be aware that all the formulas presented in this article refer
only to Bloss (or clothoid – when mentioned) and should not be generalised for other non-linear transitions.

The railway math of Bloss

  
The general equation of the Bloss transition is
=  −    (1), where
 

R is the radius of the circular curve,

L is the length of the transition and
 is the current arc length of the transition.
  

The local curvature of Bloss is

=  
− 
 (2)
 
By derivating (2) the Bloss curvature gradient is obtained: 1 −  (3)


This curvature gradient has a parabolic variation (see fig 3) with a maximum value at the middle point of the
 .
transition, = . This maximum value of Bloss curvature gradient is .
2 

For comparison, the clothoid equivalent of these parameters are:

  
Clothoid curvature = (2a)
 

The clothoid curvature gradient is constant: (3a)


Because of the direct relation between cant and curvature, the same variation will be encountered for the
theoretical cant Et. Graphs of these parameters are presented in fig 3.
Comparing the curvature gradient of the Bloss and the Clothoid (Fig 3) it can be noticed that for the same
transition length L, the Bloss curve has the maximum value 50% higher than the constant value of the
Clothoid.

Fig 3. Curvature and theoretical cant diagrams for Bloss and Clothoid

Although the maximum values for Bloss cant and curvature gradient are 50% of their equivalent for the
clothoid, the average value of these parameters are equal to the ones of the clothoid.

The main difference (from track design perspective) between the two types of curves can be observed in
figure 3 – the sudden appearance and disappearance of curvature gradient at both ends of the clothoid
compared with the Bloss smooth variation, starting and ending in null. This is, in a subtler way, similar to the
difference between a curve without transitions and one with transitions.

The design cant E is applied along the Bloss transition in direct relation with the curvature (2)



() =  
−  (4)


 
The cant gradient is:

1 −  (5)

. 
The maximum value of the cant gradient for Bloss is (6).


The cant gradient for Clothoid, a constant value, is .

The cant deficiency (D = Et – E) will have the same variation. The maximum value of the cant deficiency
. 
gradient for Bloss is (7).

 Fig 4. Cant and cant deficiency for Bloss and Clothoid

Considering (6), (7) and the maximum design speed Vmax [km/h], the rates of change for Bloss can be
computed. As all the other cant gradient parameters, these will have a parabolic variation. For design it is
important mainly the maximum value:

 )*+,
!"#$%& = 1.5 · (8)
.

 )*+,
!"$%& = 1.5 (9)
.

Designing with Bloss

The evaluation of these design parameters and the choice of the minimum length of the Bloss transition
should be based on B1.1 - B2.4 design rules from Track Design Handbook.
The Bloss is mentioned in particular only in two notes of B.2.3: Curving Design Values – Rate of Change of
Cant Deficiency.
The specific maximal value is reached at the middle of the transition but decreases significantly along the non-
linear transitions. Due to this, sometimes the track design standards are allowing a certain increase of the
limits for some of the cant parameters.
In the Handbook a 33% increase in Normal and Maximal Design Values is allowed only for the rate of change
of cant deficiency. Considering this allowance, the following limits will be imposed for Bloss:

Exceptional Design
Parameter/Constraints Normal Design Maximum Design
Value (where different
(Plain line) Values Value
from Max.)
73 mm/s
Permissible speed 46 mm/s (above the 70 mm/s
exceptional value)
Enhanced Permissible speed 46 mm/s 146 mm/s 150 mm/s
 Table 1. The limit values of the Rate of Change of Cant Deficiency of Bloss transition according to the Track
Design Handbook

It can be noticed that the maximum design value for permissible speed is above the 70mm/s exceptional
value. In the following computations the exceptional value will be considered.

The second note where Bloss in mentioned in B.2.3 states: “… If the transition is of the Bloss form, then 1.5
times the average of rate of change of cant deficiency shall be used.” The 1.5 multiplication mentioned here
refers to the maximum value of rate of change of cant deficiency for Bloss.
No allowance is provided in the Handbook 2049 for rates of change of cant.
Based on these conditions, the minimum length of the Bloss can be computed and used in the design.

The minimum length of Bloss transition

The minimum length of the Bloss can be defined following the same procedure used for Clothoid and
presented in Track Design Handbook, B.3.6 Transition Lengths in Relation with Speed, Cant and Deficiency
(This part is a proposed addition to Article B.2.6 of the Handbook).
The minimum transition length presented at B.2.6 is for the linear transition (clothoid). For non-linear
transitions different equations are needed, based on the curvature and cant variation of that specific transition.
For the Bloss transitions the following equations should be used.

a) Minimum length of the Bloss transition based or rates of change of cant

Using (9), the formula for the maximum rate of change of cant for Bloss:
 )*+,
!"$%& = 1.5 .
(9)

and the limits for rates of change of cant from Handbook 2049, B.2.1, the minimum transition length is:
b.1) For the normal design value, 35mm/s
 ./01
35 = 1.5
 3.6

 = 0.011905 ./01 (10)

b.2) For the maximum design value, 55mm/s

 ./01
55 = 1.5
 3.6

 = 0.0075758 ./01 (11)

b) Minimum length of the Bloss transition based or rates of change of cant deficiency

Using (8), the formula for the maximum rate of change of cant deficiency for Bloss:

 )*+,
!"#$%& = 1.5 (8)
.

and the limits for rates of change of cant deficiency from Table 2, based on Handbook 2049, B.2.2, the
minimum transition length is:
c.1) For the normal design value, 46mm/s
# ./01
46 = 1.5
 3.6

 = 0.009058 #./01 (12)

c.2) For the exceptional design value, 70mm/s

# ./01
70 = 1.5
 3.6

 = 0.0059524 #./01 (13)

 c) Minimum length of the Bloss transition based on cant gradient

. 
Considering the maximum cant gradient, 1 in 400, and the maximum value of the cant gradient for Bloss

(6), we have the following equation:
1.5  1000
=
 400

 = 0.6  (14)

Transition curves - looking ahead

A well designed geometry for railway track is of massive importance due to the fact that the rails are the
guiding elements for the vehicle.
The current design approach presumes the variation of the lateral acceleration in a static relation with
curvature and cant variation. This hypothesis was proven to be over-simplified, especially for high speeds,
where the dynamic response of the car to the track geometry variation becomes significant.

Below is presented an example of the difference between the presumed static behaviour and the one that
consider the dynamic response (Klauder – 2006)

Fig 5. Mid-car lateral acceleration felt by seated passengers (Amtrak simulation – Klauder 2006)

The graph presents the mid-car lateral acceleration at seat level, computed for an Amtrak-Acela coach in
normal conditions of riding over a perfectly installed track that includes a transition curve.
It can be noticed the significant difference between the presumed static acceleration and the real one, for the
linear transition. The most important disturbance is at both ends of the clothoid, caused by the sudden change
in lateral acceleration variation (lateral jerk). This disturbance travels away, along the circular curve and
continues to be felt as an oscillatory response due to the initial excitation caused by the transition.
The track lateral reactive forces caused by the coach will have a similar variation and where peak
accelerations are present, increased lateral forces will “hammer” the track, damaging the geometry with an
increased rate. One other parameter that influences significantly the disturbed lateral acceleration is the
classical way of applying the cant – by lifting the outer rail, the rail that guides the car along the track.

In UK the Pway designer encounters this difference between the simplified static and real behaviour when
estimating the quality of the design using a track geometry SD calculator. This correctly simulates the SD
values of a track recording vehicle riding over a perfectly installed geometry.
Even for this presumed perfect geometry the calculator still estimates non-null Alignment SD results, where
transition curves are used. The main cause of these non-null SD values is the dynamic phenomenon
described above, totally ignored in the design process.
Based on these dynamic effects special transition curves can be designed; these curves can consider the
coach as a real moving object and not as a mass point moving by static laws at track centreline level as we
are considering it now in our designs. In USA, Amtrak is testing one such a transition curve based on the
research works of Louis Klauder (the curve named “improved transition” in fig 5). Another transition with
similar properties is the Viennese transition (the Hasslinger curve), now one of the standardised transitions on
Austrian Railways – ÖBB and already available on most of the modern track design software used today
around the world.

Conclusions

A step towards this complex design approach is the use of non-linear transitions. The Bloss transition is the
most common one and proper design guidance should be provided for it by the design standards and its
usage encouraged. The only barrier needed to be overcome now is the knowledge one. Bloss and other non-
linear transitions are already available in all the design software used today and can be installed in a similar
way as the clothoid by all the track construction and maintenance machines.

It must be emphasized that for the same values of the design parameters all the non-linear transitions are
longer than the clothoid. For example the Bloss and cosine transitions are 50% longer and the sine 100%
longer than their equivalent clothoid. Due to the main difference between the linear and non-linear transitions,
most track design standards provide an allowance for the rates of change of cant or cant deficiency. For the
Californian High Speed line these allowances are around 40% for rate of change of cant and around 20% for
rate of change of cant deficiency – for the cosine transition. Even with these allowances the length difference
compared to clothoid is still significant for high speeds. This fact must be well understood and properly used
from early stages of the design. A primary alignment design based on clothoid should take this length
difference into consideration - if the use of non-linear transitions at future stages is desired. If this fact is
ignored, in some very tight sections of the alignment it might compromise the alignment, the maximal design
parameters or even the maximal design speed.

In this article was presented a design approach for the Bloss transition curve, providing additional information
useful in the alignment design, based on Network Rail standards and on international practice.
The main design element that requires proper guidance is the calculation of the minimum allowed length of the
transition. All the others (curvature variation, shift, coordinates etc) can be easily computed by the design
software, once the length was correctly chosen. Most of the geometrical design parameters of the non-linear
transitions are the same as the ones used for linear transitions but, as this article demonstrates for Bloss, the
equations used to calculate these parameters are different and particular to each transition and should not be
generalised. A look into the particularities of the main non-linear transitions will be presented in a future article.

References

1. EN 13803-1 (2010) Railway Applications – Track – Track alignment parameters – Track gauges 1435 and
wider – Part 1: Plain Line
2. NR/L2/TRK/2049 (2010) Track Design Handbook, Network Rail.
3. TM 2.1.2 (2009) Alignment Design Standards for High-Speed Train Operation, California High-Speed
Authority.
4. Alias, Jean (1984) La voie ferre, techniques de construction et d’entretien (The railway track, construction
and maintenance techniques), SNCF – Eyrolles, Paris, France.
5. Birmann, Frederick (1968) Solution theorique et experimentale de problemes pour voies pour grandes
viteses, specialement en ce qui concerne le trace des courbes et des raccords (Theoretical and
experimental solutions regarding the high speed railway track, especially regarding the alignment for
curves and transitions), UIC High Speed Symposium, Vienna, Austria.
6. Klauder, Louis; Pielli, John; Chrismer, Steven (2006) A test of improved spiral geometry on Amtrak’s
Boston Line, Annual Conference Proceedings, AREMA, Landover, USA.
7. Radu, Constantin; Bercu. Mendel (1968) Racordarea curbelor pentru circulatia trenurilor cu viteze mari
(Transition curves for high speed trains), MInisterul Cailor Ferate. Bucuresti, Romania.
8. Matthews, Volker (2007) Bahnbau (Railway construction) Teubner Verlag. Wiesbaden, Germany.

View publication stats