Original Article

Proc IMechE Part F:

J Rail and Rapid Transit
Degradation of railway track geometry – 2020, Vol. 234(1) 108–119
! IMechE 2018

Correlation between track stiffness Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

gradient and differential settlement DOI: 10.1177/0954409718819581

journals.sagepub.com/home/pif

Jens CO Nielsen1 , Eric G Berggren2, Anders Hammar3,

Fredrik Jansson3 and Rikard Bolmsvik4

Abstract
Based on the track geometry car recordings performed from 1999 to 2016 on a section of the Swedish heavy haul line
Malmbanan, the vertical track geometry degradation is analysed for wavelengths in the interval 1–25 m. The upper layer
of the subgrade on parts of the rail section is peat (depths of up to 2 m), while it is moraine on others leading to a
significant longitudinal variation in substructure stiffness. The degradation rates of irregularities in the longitudinal level
and the influence of track maintenance (tamping) on the track geometry are studied. In parallel, a method for continuous
measurement of track vertical stiffness along the line, allowing for the detection of track sections with poor support
conditions, is described and demonstrated. Synchronised measurements of the longitudinal level and the track vertical
stiffness are evaluated to determine whether there is a correlation between a high stiffness gradient due to variations in
substructure stiffness and a high growth rate of local track geometry irregularities. It is shown that recurrent severe local
track geometry irregularities often occur on track sections where there is a combination of a low magnitude and a high
gradient in the substructure stiffness. In such cases, tamping may not be a cost-efficient long-term solution to the
problem. Instead, upgrading of ballast and subgrade layers should be considered as an option. It is concluded that
measurement of track vertical stiffness is an efficient method for the maintenance planning of a more robust railway
track, which also minimises the life cycle cost and environmental footprint.

Keywords
Maintenance planning, stiffness gradient, tamping, track geometry degradation, track stiffness measurement

Date received: 29 March 2018; accepted: 25 November 2018

poor support conditions (as indicated by a low mag-

Introduction
Railway track that is subjected to a steady degrad-
ation of track geometry due to poor support condi-
tions (poor state of ballast and/or subgrade) will lead
to problems with track quality. This may have an
influence on ride comfort and traffic punctuality,
and in severe cases on safety.
The present study is part of a project funded by the
Swedish innovation agency VINNOVA, where the
aim has been to investigate the influence of mainten-
ance (tamping) on vertical track geometry (longitu-
dinal level) and to study concrete sleeper design and
support conditions after tamping that reduce long-
term degradation of sleepers and ballast, see Nielsen
et al.1 Digital recordings of track geometry data from
1999 to 2016 have been collected to identify track sec-
tions with recurrent high degradation rates and to
assess the influence of maintenance measures. In par-
allel, a method for continuous measurement of track
vertical stiffness and detection of track sections with
nitude and/or a high gradient in support stiffness) has
been developed and enhanced. This is achieved by a
short-distance sampling of track stiffness along the
line based on multiple measurements of rail deflection
at several positions before and after one bogie of the
track geometry recording car.
In this paper, which is a revised and extended ver-
sion of Nielsen et al.,2 the procedure for track stiffness
measurement is described and demonstrated for
1
Department of Mechanics and Maritime Sciences/CHARMEC,
Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden
2
EBER Dynamics AB, Falun, Sweden
3
Trafikverket, Borlänge, Sweden
4
Abetong AB, Växjö, Sweden
Corresponding author:
Jens CO Nielsen, Department of Mechanics and Maritime Sciences/
CHARMEC, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg
SE-412 96, Sweden.
Email: jens.nielsen@chalmers.se
Nielsen et al.
a section on the Swedish heavy haul line Malmbanan.
Synchronised measurements of longitudinal level and
track vertical stiffness are evaluated to determine
whether there is a correlation between a high rail sup-
port stiffness gradient due to variations in substruc-
ture stiffness and a high rate of track geometry
degradation (severe local irregularities in longitudinal
level). It is argued that such a combination of meas-
urement data, providing extensive knowledge on the
distribution of track support conditions and how
these link to track geometry degradation rates, can
be used as a basis for the design and maintenance
planning of a more robust railway track to minimise
life cycle cost and environmental footprint. In cases
where severe track geometry irregularities are caused
by poor support conditions, tamping may not be a
cost-efficient long-term solution to the problem.
Track geometry, differential settlement
and tamping
The various parts of a ballasted railway track can be
grouped in two subsets: superstructure and substruc-
ture. The superstructure includes the rails, fastening
systems and sleepers, whereas the substructure con-
sists of the ballast, sub-ballast and subgrade.3
Ballast is made up of coarse-sized, angular-shaped,
non-cohesive and uniformly graded granular material.
It is used to provide stability and resilience and to
distribute the load from the track superstructure to
the subgrade. Further, it should allow for drainage
and alleviation to frost, as well as adjustment of
track geometry. The subgrade should provide a
stable foundation for the sub-ballast and ballast
layers, while the sub-ballast is an intermediate granu-
lar layer to prevent the intermixing of ballast and
subgrade.
Track geometry has been measured regularly, using
various types of track geometry recording cars (TRC),
for a long time. In Sweden, since 1997, data are avail-
able in digital format enabling studies of track geom-
etry degradation over the last 20 years. The recorded
longitudinal level is a combination of the unloaded
track irregularity (mainly due to variations in hori-
zontal level of the original ballast surface and subse-
quent differential settlement) and the deflection of the
loaded rail, which is space variant due to irregularities
in the vertical support stiffness.
The requirements by Trafikverket4 (the Swedish
transport administration) on loaded track geometry
after construction, renewal or maintenance are sum-
marised in the literature. It is based on the EN stand-
ard 13848, which stipulates three wavelength intervals
for the evaluation of track geometry: D1 (3–25 m), D2
(25–70 m) and D3 (70–150 m).5 However, in measure-
ments for Trafikverket, the wavelength interval D1 is
extended to 1–25 m.
From 1997, track geometry in Sweden has been
measured using the TRC STRIX with axle load of
109
11 tonnes. These measurements are based on an iner-
tial system and the use of accelerometers mounted in
the car body above the bogie. Displacement trans-
ducers are used to measure the relative displacement
between wheelset and car body. The sampling dis-
tance is 0.25 m. The more recent types of TRC,
IMV100 and IMV200, allow for simultaneous meas-
urement of longitudinal level and track stiffness. The
sampling distance and axle load of IMV100 and
IMV200 are 0.05 m and about 13 tonnes, respectively.
Infranord is the contractor running the measurements
and operates three IMV100 (two-axle motorised vehi-
cle operating at 80 km/h) and one IMV200 (four-axle/
bogie vehicle, loco-hauled, operating at speeds up to
200 km/h).
A best practice guide for optimum track geometry
durability has been issued by the UIC.6 It is concluded
that the most important parameters affecting the deg-
radation of track geometry at a given site are the char-
acteristics and quality of the substructure, track
drainage, ballast, track components and rail surface.
For example, to provide conditions for maximum dur-
ability in track geometry, the substructure needs to be
as homogeneous as possible with a uniform resistance
to dynamic loads. Further, the rail surface needs to be
free of irregularities (rail corrugation, rolling contact
fatigue defects, joints, etc.) inducing dynamic loads,
and the ballast must allow for a good drainage.
An important contribution to the degradation of
track geometry is track settlement, which corresponds
to a reduction in horizontal level of the substructure
over time. Due to dynamic track loading and a vari-
ation in support conditions along the track, the result-
ing differential track settlement leads to irregularities in
track geometry.7 Poor track geometry induces higher
dynamic wheel–rail contact forces and increases the
degradation rate resulting in further track settlement,
and possibly to damage of vehicle and track compo-
nents. For example, sleepers are designed to be sup-
ported below their rail seats but not at their centre.
Poor support conditions, because of settlement at the
rail seats and the development of a ballast concentra-
tion at the sleeper centre, may lead to sleeper cracking
due to bending as the concrete material does not resist
to tensile forces and irregularities in track gauge.
Track maintenance by ballast tamping is applied to
rectify the track geometry. However, track that before
such maintenance had severe local irregularities in
track geometry has often been observed to soon
return to its previous poor state (a feature sometimes
referred to as ‘ballast memory’). Further, it has been
noted that track geometry after tamping will generally
not return to the same level of quality that was mea-
sured when the track was new and that degradation
rate after maintenance will increase with the number
of tampings since track renewal, see Guler et al.8 and
Audley and Andrews.9
In principle, deterioration of longitudinal level of
ballasted track can be described to occur due to two
110
(or three) phases of ballast degradation. In the first
phase directly after track construction, tamping or
renewal, there is a fast deterioration of longitudinal
level caused by the consolidation of ballast. In the
second phase, there is a slower deterioration rate
that principally can be approximated as linear with
the number of load cycles. In this phase, there is a
further reduction of substructure volume due to bal-
last particle rearrangement and particle breakdown
caused by fracture and abrasive wear of the individual
stones, as well as penetration of sub-ballast and sub-
grade into ballast voids and inelastic recovery of sub-
grade after unloading. According to Guler et al.,8
there is a third phase with a quasi-exponential degrad-
ation that marks the end of track life if the track is not
maintained in time.
A review of empirical models for soil settlement is
presented in Dahlberg.10 According to many empirical
formulae that are based on laboratory or field measure-
ments, settlement is a logarithmic function or a power
law of the number of axle passes, see Abadi et al.11
The risk of foundation failure results from an
increase in the pressure transmitted to the subgrade.
In cases where the applied stress exceeds the subgrade
strength, the subgrade generally deforms in one of
three modes: massive shear, progressive shear or plas-
tic deformation.3 Application of ground-penetrating
radar and measurements of vertical track deflection
can be used to provide a better understanding of the
overall conditions of the substructure, see Sussmann
and Thompson.12
The Swedish heavy haul line
The Swedish heavy haul line Malmbanan is a single-
track railway line in the northern part of Sweden.
Traffic is dominated by iron ore freight trains with
0.35
0.3
0.25
Probability [-]
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
30 40 50
Figure 1. Wheel load spectra (histogram of average wheel load) registered in 2013–2016 by the wheel impact load detector at
Harrträsk on the southern branch of Malmbanan.
Proc IMechE Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 234(1)
axle loads 30 tonnes operating from the mines in
Kiruna and Malmberget to the ports in Narvik
(northern branch) and Luleå (southern branch).
Small curve radii and steep gradients in combination
with severe weather conditions put tremendous strains
on infrastructure and rolling stock.13 Winters with
temperatures down to 40  C, generating ground
frost extending deep into the substructure, are fol-
lowed by frost heaves and floods in the springs and
relatively warm summers.
In March 2001, to improve efficiency and reduce
cost of transportation, the maximum axle load of the
heavy haul cars was increased from 25 to 30 tonnes
and the speed of the loaded trains was raised from 50
to 60 km/h. The line is also used by passenger trains
and by other types of freight trains with lower axle
loads and higher speeds. In 2006–2009, the northern
branch was upgraded to 60 kg/m rails, rail fastenings
with 10 mm resilient rail pads and concrete sleepers
designed for axle load 35 tonnes at sleeper distance
0.60 m. In autumn 2015, trials with axle load
32.5 tonnes were initiated on the southern branch
with one train per day (two trains per day from
autumn 2016).
Based on data from the wheel impact load detector
installed at Harrträsk on the southern branch, the
wheel load spectra from the years 2013 to 2016
are shown in Figure 1. The tall bar at the lowest
wheel load is due to the empty heavy haul cars return-
ing to the mines. The annual tonnage has been
14.9 (in 2013), 13.0 (2014), 13.6 (2015) and 14.4
(2016) MGT.
The increasing demands for higher transportation
capacity on Malmbanan induce higher track compo-
nent and substructure degradation and increased
maintenance costs. The challenge is to ensure cost-
effective operation and maintenance while meeting
2013, 929774 axles
2014, 834836 axles
2015, 852398 axles
2016, 861935 axles
60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170
Average wheel load [kN]
Nielsen et al.
the safety regulations. Track geometry degradation on
Malmbanan was evaluated also in Arasteh Khouy.14 It
was concluded that the number of faults is highest in
the period April–July caused by frost heaves, poor
drainage capacity and reduced substructure stability
when temperatures are rising above the freezing point.
Track sections with high rates of track geometry deg-
radation were explained by local variations in sub-
structure properties and by track assets such as
culverts, bridges, switches & crossings, etc.
Track geometry on Malmbanan
To investigate track geometry degradation on the
southern branch of Malmbanan, a 4 km section of
track between Gällivare and Koijuvaara (km 1306–
1310) has been evaluated. The various components
of the superstructure on this section are listed in
Table 1. Before the analysis, the TRC recordings
from 1999 to 2016 were synchronised using informa-
tion on curvature in the track plane. This was fol-
lowed by a manual calibration of position along the
line based on a visual inspection of data. The achieved
accuracy in alignment is in the order of 1 m.
The longitudinal level was calculated by taking the
mean of the vertical geometry (loaded conditions) of
the two rails. Irregularities in the wavelength interval
1–25 m were obtained by applying a fourth-order digi-
tal Butterworth filter (using the zero-phase forward
and reverse digital infinite impulse response filter in
Matlab). For each sampled coordinate along the line,
the standard deviation of the longitudinal level within
a 50 m window (25 m on either side of the given coord-
inate) was evaluated. Finally, the mean of the swept
standard deviation was calculated in 25 m segments.
In addition, to quantify the magnitudes of local irre-
gularities, the maximum depth (peak-to-mean value)
of the longitudinal level within each 25 m segment was
evaluated.
For the studied section of track, the maximum
train speed is 100 km/h. According to the regulations
by Trafikverket, the intervention limit for track main-
tenance is reached when the standard deviation (wave-
length interval 3–25 m evaluated over a distance
of 200 m) is 2.50 mm. Alternatively, the low and
high intervention limits are reached when the
Table 1. Superstructure design on Malmbanan
km 1306–1310.
Component Type
Rail 60E1
Rail pad 10 mm rubber
Sleeper Concrete e-clip 1987
Sleeper distance 600 mm
Under sleeper pad No
Ballast Class 1
111
peak-to-mean value (1–25 m) are 10 and 12 mm,
respectively.
Based on the STRIX and IMV100/IMV200 meas-
urements from June 1999 to February 2016, the swept
standard deviation over time and over a distance of
1000 m (km 1307–1308) is illustrated in a colour map
(see Figure 2(a)). Note that data from 2003 are miss-
ing in the database. Severe growth of vertical track
geometry irregularities is observed at km 1307.35, but
also at km 1307.05, 1307.45 and 1307.65. Further, it is
noted that the longitudinal level has exceeded the
intervention limit for maintenance on repeated occa-
sions. The direction of the loaded heavy haul trains is
in decreasing kilometre-numbers.
For the segment at km 1307.35, the variation
of standard deviation over time is shown in
Figure 2(b). Note that this plot is corresponding to
a vertical cross-section of the diagram in Figure 2(a).
In accordance with the database on performed main-
tenance measures, the abrupt reductions in standard
deviation show that maintenance of track geometry
was performed in October 2002, October 2006,
September 2008, September 2012, October 2014 and
August 2015 (marked by vertical dashed lines).
The degradation rate in mm/year between interven-
tions has been evaluated by fitting a first-order poly-
nomial to the data in a least-squares sense (see the
legend in Figure 2(b)). It is observed that track geom-
etry after maintenance did not return to the quality of
the track after the previous tamping and that degrad-
ation rate increased with each maintenance interven-
tion. This is in agreement with the observations in
UIC,6 Guler et al.8 and Audley and Andrews.9
Close to the end of the service life, the time intervals
between successive maintenance cycles become
shorter leading to that track renewal (including ballast
cleaning and replacement, and ideally upgrading of
subgrade) will be the only remaining option. For the
segment at km 1307.65, the variation of standard
deviation over time is shown in Figure 2(c).
The maximum depth (peak-to-mean value) of
the longitudinal level for the same track section is
shown in Figure 3(a). By comparing Figures 2(a)
and 3(a), it is observed that a severe local irregular-
ity in one 25 m segment has a significant leaking effect
on the swept standard deviation also in the adjacent
segment on either side. For the segments at km
1307.35 and 1307.65, the variation of maximum
depth of the isolated track geometry defect is illu-
strated in Figure 3(b) and (c). The annual variations
of longitudinal level after the tamping in September
2008 may be explained by frost-heave problems in
springs.
It is concluded that these two types of diagram
plotted for a railway line provide a good overview
and assessment of track geometry quality. It is also
an efficient approach to identify problem sections and
a useful document for the planning and assessment of
track maintenance interventions.
112 Proc IMechE Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 234(1)

(a) (b)
3.5

0.54 mm/year, R2 = 0.96

0.77 mm/year, R2 = 0.91
3 0.36 mm/year, R2 = 0.87
2
0.51 mm/year, R = 0.84
2
1.03 mm/year, R = 0.71

2.5

Standard deviation [mm]

2

1.5

0.5

0
Jan-95 Jan-98 Jan-01 Jan-04 Jan-07 Jan-10 Jan-13 Jan-16
Date [month-year]

(c) 3.5

0.33 mm/year, R2 = 0.84

0.49 mm/year, R2 = 0.90
3 0.30 mm/year, R2 = 0.88
2
0.39 mm/year, R = 0.90
2
1.93 mm/year, R = 0.57

2.5
Standard deviation [mm]

1.5

0.5

0
Jan-95 Jan-98 Jan-01 Jan-04 Jan-07 Jan-10 Jan-13 Jan-16
Date [month-year]

Figure 2. Standard deviation of longitudinal level (loaded conditions) measured at irregular time intervals from June 1999 to
February 2016. Wavelength interval 1–25 m. Track position (a) km 1307–1308 (25 m segments), (b) km 1307.35 (50 m segment),
(c) km 1307.65 (50 m segment). Vertical dashed lines indicate times for maintenance by tamping. Legend in (b) and (c) displays
degradation rate (and coefficient of determination R2) between each intervention.

Continuous measurement of are standard. (2) The measurements must be accurate.

One of the challenges is how to eliminate the influence
track stiffness of the longitudinal level in loaded conditions.
Irregularities in track stiffness, and the resulting vari- Another challenge for some measurement systems
ations in rail deflection, are mainly due to two differ- is that relative lateral displacements between the con-
ent contributions. The first contribution is related to ical wheel tread and the rail result in vertical wheel/
variations in the properties of the soil/substructure rail displacements. As the magnitude of such vertical
and usually has a slow variation (long wavelengths). displacements is in the order of 0.5 mm, and flange
The second contribution is related to changing condi- contact in curves easily adds another millimetre, the
tions, including voided sleepers, of the discretely sup- accuracy of the stiffness measurement (where a
ported superstructure (ballast included), and is often normal rail deflection is 0.5–2 mm) is affected if not
closely correlated with the longitudinal level measured properly accounted for.
by the TRC in wavelength interval D1. The development of methods has led to equipment
Procedures for continuous measurement of track with different advantages. For example, the rolling
stiffness have been available for several years. There stiffness measurement vehicle,15 allowing for dynamic
are a couple of important requirements that need to excitation of the track at frequencies up to 50 Hz, is
be met by such a measurement system: (1) The meas- ideal for the detection and characterisation of soft soils
urements must be efficient and should not cause dis- but can only be used at vehicle speeds up to 50 km/h.
ruptions to traffic. A system working together with a Normally, the influences of longitudinal level and rela-
track geometry recording car (TRC) is one way of tive lateral wheel–rail displacements are no problem as
meeting this requirement since TRC measurements the magnitude of the mechanical excitation is
Nielsen et al. 113

(a) (b)

(c) 12
1.02 mm/year, R2 = 0.89
1.34 mm/year, R2 = 0.92
0.88 mm/year, R2 = 0.77
10 2
1.38 mm/year, R = 0.81
2
9.36 mm/year, R = 0.89
Peak to mean value [mm]

0
Jan-95 Jan-98 Jan-01 Jan-04 Jan-07 Jan-10 Jan-13 Jan-16
Date [month-year]

Figure 3. Maximum depth (peak-to-mean value) of longitudinal level (loaded conditions) measured at irregular time intervals from
June 1999 to February 2016. Wavelength interval 1–25 m. Track position (a) km 1307–1308 (25 m segments), (b) km 1307.35 (50 m
segment) and (c) km 1307.65 (50 m segment). See also caption to Figure 2.

considerably higher than the excitations by track geo- of the rail deflection curve contains more information
metry irregularities and vehicle dynamics. The sleeper- than only the maximum displacement. By measuring
passing frequency, and multiples thereof, could cause the rail deflection at several positions, at different dis-
disturbances but if the combination of vehicle speed tances from the wheels of the TRC, it is possible to
and excitation frequency is selected with care this dis- estimate the shape of the deflection curve more accur-
turbance will not affect the measurements. ately. For each sampled coordinate along the line, the
The EBER vertical stiffness approach, see Berggren track stiffness is determined by fitting a track model to
et al.,16 makes use of existing sensors in standard TRC the measured data. By tuning the structural param-
and is therefore easy to use at low cost. However, eters of the model, until the best possible match is
because the deflection curve of a rail on a soft foun- achieved between model and measurement, the
dation has a longer extension than the chord base unknown structural parameters of the supporting
(2 þ 2.5 m) used in the TRC, it has been observed foundation can be estimated. In this study, a single
that the stiffness of very resilient track is overesti- beam (the rail) on an elastic foundation (a Winkler
mated. Further, even if a compensation is applied bed representing the supporting foundation including
based on simulations using a vehicle–track dynamics rail pads, sleepers, ballast and subgrade) has been
software, relative lateral wheel–rail displacements applied but the method can also use more advanced
affect the accuracy of the measurements. Calibration track models for the estimation of further individual
has been found to be another difficult task to solve. structural parameters.
In order to overcome the deficiencies described The principle of the applied approach is illustrated
above, a new procedure based on equipment installed in Figures 4 and 5. The longitudinal level recorded by
on the TRC IMV200 has been developed.17 The shape the TRC is a combination of the unloaded track
114 Proc IMechE Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 234(1)

1.5
Q
Longitudinal level/Rail deflection [mm] 1

0.5

-0.5

-1

-1.5

-2

-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Position [m]

Figure 4. Principle of track stiffness measurement. Dash-dotted line: Longitudinal level without wheel load. Dashed line: Longitudinal
level with wheel load. Solid line: Rail deflection due to wheel load. Circles: Positions of measurements.

(a) 1
(b) 0.2

0
0.5

-0.2
0
Longitudinal level [mm]

-0.4
Rail deflection [mm]

-0.5
-0.6

-1
-0.8

-1.5 -1

-1.2
-2

-1.4
-2.5
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Time of measurement [s] Distance from loaded wheel [m]

Figure 5. (a) Simulation of data corresponding to six sensors on IMV200. One position in track is marked for each sensor.
(b) Remaining estimate of rail deflection from six sensors and best-fit model curve.

geometry irregularity and the deflection of the loaded representing 0.3 s of data collection from six sensors
rail. The longitudinal level without or with the wheel are shown in Figure 5(a). The level at one given pos-
load Q is sketched in Figure 4. The rail deflection is ition along the track is marked in the figure. When the
measured by inertial measurement unit compensated data are collected, one sensor is selected as the master
lasers at different distances from the wheels as the vehi- and is offset the distance to each other sensor.
cle is moving on the track. Each sensor collects longi- Longitudinal level from the master sensor is then
tudinal level in loaded conditions, with the important used to subtract longitudinal level from the other sen-
difference that the level is measured at slightly different sors. After this, the remaining parts are samples of the
load conditions depending mainly on different dis- rail deflection without the influence of the unloaded
tances from the wheel load. Simulation data longitudinal level (see Figure 5(b)).
Nielsen et al. 115

80

70

Winkler bed stiffness per rail side [(kN/mm)/m]

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
1306 1306.5 1307 1307.5 1308 1308.5 1309 1309.5 1310
Position [km]

Figure 6. Evaluated Winkler bed stiffness per rail side versus position along the line. Based on IMV200 measurement in autumn
(October) 2016.

Based on measurements in October 2016 on the of track. The Winkler bed stiffness, stiffness per metre
selected section on Malmbanan over a distance of track with unit ((kN/mm)/m), has been low pass
4 km, the evaluated support (Winkler bed) stiffness filtered at cut-off wavelength 5 m.
per rail is illustrated in Figure 6. The stiffness was According to a geotechnical survey, the upper
recorded for only one of the two rails. The mean layer of the subgrade of most of the track from
value and standard deviation of the support stiffness position km 1307.1 to 1307.6 is peat with a depth of
per rail side are 35 and 14 (kN/mm)/m, respectively. up to about 2 m. The evaluated rail support stiffness is
It is concluded that the variation in stiffness is large very low in this section. However, at the local max-
as indicated by the high standard deviation in imum in stiffness at about km 1307.5 there is no peat
relation to the mean value. In general, the support in the subgrade and the local maximum at km 1307.3
stiffness is relatively low indicating a soft subgrade. is due to a bridge (length 11 m). From about km
1307.7, the subgrade is moraine mixed with sand
Correlation between rail support and silt leading to a higher substructure stiffness.
From km 1307.90 to 1308.20, the track is built in a
stiffness and isolated geometry defects cutting.
For track section km 1307–1308, the longitudinal The calculated gradient of the evaluated Winkler
level measured on two occasions is illustrated in bed stiffness along the line, unit ((kN/mm)/m2), is
Figure 7(a). In agreement with the data presented in shown in Figure 7(c). A positive gradient corresponds
Figures 2 and 3, the dashed (red) line displays the to an increasing support (substructure) stiffness with
bandpass filtered (1–25 m) longitudinal level recorded increasing kilometre-numbers.
before the recent maintenance measure in August It is observed that the most severe local irregula-
2015. The solid (black) line is the corresponding lon- rities in track geometry are occurring on the track
gitudinal level recorded on the same occasion and section where the subgrade stiffness is low due to
with the same IMV200 that was used to measure peat in the upper layers of the foundation. For several
track stiffness. The two curves have been synchronised of the severe local irregularities in vertical track geom-
in position along the line. The positions of the most etry, indicated by the vertical dashed lines in Figure
severe local irregularities in track geometry are iden- 7(a) to (c), there is a high stiffness gradient. On the
tified by vertical dashed lines (cf. Figure 3(a)). moraine section, the track geometry is in better con-
Figure 7(b) illustrates the evaluated Winkler bed dition because the subgrade stiffness is higher and the
stiffness (see ‘Continuous measurement of track stiff- stiffness gradient is relatively stable at a low level.
ness’ section) of the rail support for the same section Based on available data, it is concluded that the
116 Proc IMechE Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 234(1)

(a) (b)
15 80
October 2016 October 2016 (lowpass filter 5 m)
July 2015
70
10

60

Winkler bed stiffness [(kN/mm)/m]

5
Longitudinal level [mm]

50

0 40

30
-5

20

-10
10

-15 0
1307 1307.1 1307.2 1307.3 1307.4 1307.5 1307.6 1307.7 1307.8 1307.9 1308 1307 1307.1 1307.2 1307.3 1307.4 1307.5 1307.6 1307.7 1307.8 1307.9 1308
Position [km] Position [km]

(c) 10
October 2016 (lowpass filter 5 m)
8

6
Stiffness gradient [(kN/mm)/m ]
2

-2

-4

-6

-8

-10
1307 1307.1 1307.2 1307.3 1307.4 1307.5 1307.6 1307.7 1307.8 1307.9 1308
Position [km]

Figure 7. (a) Longitudinal level measured before maintenance in August 2015 and at the same time as the track stiffness meas-
urement in October 2016. (b) Evaluated Winkler bed stiffness per rail side and (c) Winkler bed stiffness gradient. Track position
km 1307–1308.

local irregularities at km 1307.45 and 1307.65 occur springs are observed at km 1308.95. Local irregulari-
due to loaded trains travelling from a section with ties are also observed at km 1308.40, 1308.50 and
higher subgrade stiffness to a section with lower stiff- 1308.70 (see also Figure 8(c)). According to the geo-
ness. The local irregularity at km 1307.35 seems to be technical survey, the track foundation in most of this
generated by loaded trains approaching the transition section is moraine. However, the depth to the moraine
to a bridge. Further, according to data on infrastruc- layer is varying along the track section. The local
ture objects along the line, it is possible that the minima in evaluated track stiffness (see Figure 8(d))
irregularity at km 1307.05 is due to a culvert. Note coincide with positions along the section where the
that since the evaluated rail support stiffness has been depth to the moraine layer is larger (up to about
low pass filtered with cut-off wavelength 5 m, the local 1 m) requiring more filling material with possibly
minima in stiffness cannot be explained by a single, or lower stiffness than the original foundation. Again,
a few adjacent, hanging sleepers. at several of the severe local irregularities in track
The corresponding plots for track coordinates km geometry, there is a high stiffness gradient as indicated
1308–1309 are shown in Figure 8. Based on the STRIX by the vertical dashed lines in Figure 8(e) and the irre-
and IMV100/IMV200 measurements from June 1999 gularities occur where the loaded trains are travelling
to February 2016, the standard deviation and the max- from a section with higher support stiffness to a section
imum depth (peak-to-mean value) of the longitudinal with lower stiffness. According to data on infrastruc-
level are presented in Figure 8(a) and (b). Severe ture objects along the line, it is possible that the two
growth of vertical track geometry irregularity and local irregularities at km 1308.50 are due to a culvert
annual variations due to frost-heave problems in and a rail joint. The irregularity at km 1308.95
Nielsen et al. 117

(a) (b)

(c) 15
(d)80
October 2016 (lowpass filter 5 m)

70
10

60
Winkler bed stiffness [(kN/mm)/m]
5
Longitudinal level [mm]

50

0 40

30
-5

20

-10
10
October 2016
July 2015

-15 0
1308 1308.1 1308.2 1308.3 1308.4 1308.5 1308.6 1308.7 1308.8 1308.9 1309 1308 1308.1 1308.2 1308.3 1308.4 1308.5 1308.6 1308.7 1308.8 1308.9 1309
Position [km] Position [km]

(e) 10
October 2016 (lowpass filter 5 m)
8

6
Stiffness gradient [(kN/mm)/m ]
2

-2

-4

-6

-8

-10
1308 1308.1 1308.2 1308.3 1308.4 1308.5 1308.6 1308.7 1308.8 1308.9 1309
Position [km]

Figure 8. (a) Standard deviation of longitudinal level (loaded conditions) measured at irregular time intervals from June 1999
to February 2016. Wavelength interval 1–25 m (25 m segments). (b) Maximum depth (peak-to-mean value) of longitudinal level
(25 m segments). (c) Longitudinal level measured before maintenance in August 2015 and at the same time as the track stiffness
measurement in October 2016. (d) Evaluated Winkler bed stiffness per rail side and (e) Winkler bed stiffness gradient. Track position
km 1308–1309.

coincides with a position along the line where there is a most of this section is on silt moraine and the short
local increase in depth to the moraine layer. local sections with low track stiffness around km
Finally, the measured longitudinal level, Winkler 1306.2–1306.4 cannot be explained by peat layers.
bed stiffness and gradient of Winkler bed stiffness According to data on infrastructure objects along
for track section km 1306–1307 are shown in the line, it is possible that the local irregularity in
Figure 9. According to the geotechnical survey, track geometry at km 1306.50 is due to a culvert.
118 Proc IMechE Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 234(1)

(a) (b)
15 80
October 2016 October 2016 (lowpass filter 5 m)
July 2015
70
10

60

Winkler bed stiffness [(kN/mm)/m]

5
Longitudinal level [mm]

50

0 40

30
-5

20

-10
10

-15 0
1306 1306.1 1306.2 1306.3 1306.4 1306.5 1306.6 1306.7 1306.8 1306.9 1307 1306 1306.1 1306.2 1306.3 1306.4 1306.5 1306.6 1306.7 1306.8 1306.9 1307
Position [km] Position [km]

(c) 20
October 2016 (lowpass filter 5 m)

15
Stiffness gradient [(kN/mm)/m ]
2

10

-5

-10
1306 1306.1 1306.2 1306.3 1306.4 1306.5 1306.6 1306.7 1306.8 1306.9 1307
Position [km]

Figure 9. (a) Longitudinal level measured before maintenance in August 2015 and at the same time as the track stiffness
measurement in October 2016. (b) Evaluated Winkler bed stiffness per rail side and (c) Winkler bed stiffness gradient. Track position
km 1306–1307.

Conclusions
support properties, and how these link to track geom-
Based on multiple measurements of rail deflection at etry degradation rates, is important input when making
different distances from the wheels of the track geom- the decision whether tamping or upgrading the ballast
etry recording car, a method for short-distance sam- and subgrade is the most cost-efficient and long-term
pling and evaluation of track stiffness has been solution to a track geometry problem. This informa-
demonstrated. A procedure for the assessment of tion can be used as a basis for the design and mainten-
long-term data of track geometry degradation and ance planning of a more robust railway track to
the times and intervals of performed maintenance minimise life cycle cost and environmental footprint.
measures, and using synchronised measurements of
longitudinal level and rail support stiffness, has been Acknowledgements
described. It is concluded that there seems to be a This work has been performed within the Centre of
strong correlation between a high substructure stiffness Excellence CHARMEC (www.charmec.chalmers.se).
gradient (and low magnitude of the substructure stiff-
ness) and a high growth rate of local irregularities in Declaration of Conflicting Interests
vertical track geometry. The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
It is argued that application of the described proced- respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of
ure for an overview illustration of the long-term history this article.
of track geometry degradation, in parallel with a syn-
chronised track stiffness measurement, is an efficient Funding
approach for condition monitoring of a railway line. The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial
The extensive information on the distribution of track support for the research, authorship, and/or publication
Nielsen et al.
of this article: Financial support was provided by
VINNOVA (Sweden’s innovation agency), contract no
2013-03012. Part of the work was performed in the three-
year project IN2RAIL, which started in 2015 and has
received funding from the European Union’s Horizon
2020 research and innovation programme under grant
agreement no 635900.
ORCID iD
Jens CO Nielsen http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7271-4913
References
1. Nielsen JCO, Berggren EG, Bolmsvik R, et al. Railway track
superstructure: holistic optimization of design and mainten-
ance for improved performance – guidelines and concluding
technical report. Research report 2017:05. Gothenburg:
Department of Mechanics and Maritime Sciences,
Chalmers University of Technology, 2017, pp. 65.
2. Nielsen JCO, Berggren EG, Hammar A, et al. Track
geometry degradation on the Swedish heavy haul line –
correlation between measured support stiffness gradients
and differential settlement. In: Proceedings 11th inter-
national heavy haul conference, Cape Town, RSA,
September 2017, pp.542–549. Virginia Beach, VA:
International Heavy Haul Association (IHHA).
3. Selig ET and Waters JM. Track geotechnology and sub-
structure management. New York: Thomas Telford
Services Ltd, 1994.
4. Trafikverket. Banöverbyggnad – Spårläge – krav vid
byggande och underhåll (Track superstructure – track geom-
etry – requirements after renewal and maintenance, in
Swedish). TDOK 2013:0347 v3.0, 2014-06-01, 2014, pp. 44.
5. CEN. European standard EN 13848-5: 2008þA1, railway
applications – track – track geometry quality – part 5:
geometric quality levels – Plain line, 2010, pp. 22.
6. UIC. Best practice guide for optimum track geometry
durability. Paris, France: UIC Infrastructure
Department Track Experts Group, 2008, pp. 113.
7. Fröhling RD. Prediction of spatially varying track
settlement. In Conference on railway engineering
119
proceedings: engineering innovation for a competitive
edge (ed. O Wardina), Rockhampton, Australia, 1998,
pp.103–109.
8. Guler H, Jovanovic S and Evren G. Modelling railway
track geometry degradation. Proc ICivE, Transport
2011; 164: 65–75.
9. Audley M and Andrews JD. The effects of tamping on
railway track degradation. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail
and Rapid Transit 2013; 227: 376–391.
10. Dahlberg T. Some railroad settlement models – a crit-
ical review. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid
Transit 2001; 215: 289–300.
11. Abadi T, Le Pen L, Zervos A, et al. A review and evalu-
ation of ballast settlement models using results from the
Southampton Railway Testing Facility (SRTF).
Procedia Eng 2016; 143: 999–1006.
12. Sussmann TR and Thompson HB II. Track structural
design for maintenance and rehabilitation with auto-
mated track inspection data. In: Proceedings 11th inter-
national heavy haul conference, Cape Town, RSA,
September 2017, pp.521–527. Virginia Beach, VA:
International Heavy Haul Association (IHHA).
13. Nielsen JCO and Stensson A. Enhancing freight rail-
ways for 30 tonne axle loads. Proc IMechE, Part F: J
Rail and Rapid Transit 1999; 213: 255–263.
14. Arasteh Khouy I. Cost-effective maintenance of railway
track geometry – a shift from safety limits to mainten-
ance limits. PhD Thesis, Operation and Maintenance
Engineering, Luleå University of Technology,
Sweden, 2013.
15. Berggren EG. Railway track stiffness – dynamic meas-
urements and evaluation for efficient maintenance. PhD
Thesis, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden, 2009.
16. Berggren EG, Nissen A and Paulsson BS. Track deflec-
tion and stiffness measurements from a track recording
car. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit
2014; 228: 570–580.
17. Berggren EG. Method and apparatus to determine
structural parameters of a railway track. PCT applica-
tion WO2015160300 A1 2015-04-07, 2015.