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

net/publication/319630086

Track structural design for maintenance and rehabilitation with automated

track inspection data

Conference Paper · September 2017

CITATIONS READS

4 949

2 authors:

Ted Sussmann Hugh B Thompson

U.S. Department of Transportation U.S. Department of Transportation
82 PUBLICATIONS   614 CITATIONS    39 PUBLICATIONS   130 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Track Structure Transitions View project

Track Support Inspection View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ted Sussmann on 11 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Track structural design for maintenance and rehabilitation with
automated track inspection data
T.R. Sussmann
Volpe Center, Cambridge, MA and University of Hartford, West Hartford, CT United States
H. B. Thompson II
Federal Railroad Administration, Washington D.C., United States

ABSTRACT: Track support is a critical necessity for reliable railroad track infrastructure. Poor track sup-
port conditions can accelerate track condition deterioration. Specific examples include rail and ties that expe-
rience increased loading in these zones. These components often shed load in poorly supported zones as
components fail or material properties degrade. Since the load must be reacted somewhere, the load shed
from poorly supported ties tends to concentrate on the adjacent, well supported tie(s). A variety of problems
develop in this failure zone including increased tie load, rail stress, and vibration. These problems can be
avoided if proper track support is provided. Several measurement techniques are being adapted for continu-
ous assessment of track condition including deflection measurements and ground penetrating radar. In addi-
tion to detecting the conditions and failures for which these measurements were intended, these techniques
may provide track parameters useful in track design and analysis. Examples of information needed for design
include layer thickness from Ground Penetrating Radar and mechanical properties like modulus of elasticity
developed from deflection data. In this paper the capabilities of each technology to identify track failure risks
will be linked with the ability of the same technology to provide input on parameters needed for track design
and analysis.

1 INTRODUCTION
Reliable rail track infrastructure is the goal of track
design, inspection, and maintenance. Each decision
made during each of these phases of the life of track
contributes to the reliability of the infrastructure.
During track design, the trade-offs between a more
robust design and initial cost are weighed. Once
constructed, the inspection phase is intended to iden-
tify safety defects and locations of early track sup-
port failure for correction. As the condition of the
track degrades, maintenance changes from an ab-
normal operation to correct a construction error or
location that varied from design parameters to a rou-
tine occurrence to eliminate potential track support
failure risks while returning track to operational sta-
tus as quickly as possible. This paper will focus on
the application of emerging automated track inspec-
tion data that can be used to assess the structural
condition of the track and provide the needed data to
design repairs that address the root-cause of the fail-
ure with the goal of reliably returning track to ser-
vice for a predictable period of time. The risks de-
signed to be detected by both ground penetrating
radar and vertical track deflection will be described
along with the data these systems provide that might
provide improved reliability to the maintenance and
rehabilitation process.
2 GROUND PENETRATING RADAR
Ground penetrating radar emerged in the 1990s with
capability to discriminate locations of trapped water
in track and locations of fouled ballast. These loca-
tions presented challenges to the railroads since
trapped water can weaken track support (NTSB
1999) and lead to deterioration of superstructure
components (Li et al 2015).
GPR has been used to delineate track perfor-
mance problem sites and has been shown to identify
layer thickness when the ballast condition is ade-
quately clean and dry. During rehabilitation, GPR
data can be used to 1) delineate boundaries of poorly
performing sites and 2) to characterize the layer
thickness and condition. In locations with poor bal-
last, GPR provides a means to relatively quantify
sections in terms of ballast fouling/moisture condi-
tion, which is extremely useful to document the re-
quired extents of maintenance or to specify locations
for additional sampling and testing required to plan
maintenance including predicting new ballast re-
quirements. In locations with good ballast, GPR can
provide layer thickness and condition information
that can be used during design to possibly limit the
amount of new ballast necessary or the amount of
ballast reclaimed from undercutting/cleaning. GPR
may provide a continuous record of layer thickness,
since each layer below the tie must be considered to
the subgrade.
Old track often has multiple layers including the
new ballast, old ballast, subballast, and subgrade in
addition to old cinders or slag layers. Since many
design methods only consider 1 or 2 layers, GPR can
aid with grouping zones with similar properties
(Sussmann and Hyslip, 2010).
er. Figure 1 shows a series of cracked concrete ties
in a zone with measured maximum vertical deflec-
tion of approximately 0.6 in. on the right rail and
0.35 on the left. On wood tie track, spike pull, plate
cut ties, and wood tie bottom abrasion are examples
of deterioration and failure modes that may occur
under high loads, especially with the vibration that
may develop when a gap or slack in track support is
present.

3 VERTICAL TRACK DEFLECTION

Vertical track deflection has been pursued by a vari-

ety of researchers with various goals that range from
defining the dynamic response of the track to evalu-
ating the track structural performance. Hunt (1999)
went one step farther and presented a method to op-
timize track design based on track stiffness, which is
the applied load divided by the observed deflection.
Berggren et al. (1999) describe a moving profilome-
ter system that monitors the deflection response of
the track to the oscillating applied load, which can
provide the full load-deflection data trend for each
load cycle. Farritor and Fateh (2013) describe a
continuous, moving vertical track deflection system Figure 1. Crack ties associated with large track deflection.
that is currently installed on a Federal Railroad Ad-
ministration inspection vehicle. An identical system
was evaluated on a different car operating at a dif- Unrestrained track or rail is the result of large
ferent weight in Canada for soft subgrade assess- track deflection associated with gaps in the support
ment (Hendry et al. 2016 and Rhogani and Hendry structure. Figure 2 shows the gap that can form
2016), which was shown to correlate well with track around the tie in fouled ballast. In locations of track
geometry defects. It is anticipated that this type of settlement, the rail can hold the tie up to form a tie-
system will be used in addition to track geometry ballast gap or the rail can lift from the tie creating a
and other inspection systems to better quantify the rail-tie gap. This failure mode includes the risk of
structural condition of the track. the rail not seating as designed and/or allowing for-
eign objects such as ballast or other track material to
3.1 Risks move between the tie and rail. For instance, track
Vertical track deflection results from the combined ballast could move between the rail and tie interfer-
effects of the resistance to load provided by the sub- ing with the rail seating in the preferred position and
grade and each track component above: subballast, creating potentially large concentrated loads.
subgrade, and the track structure. A failure in any of
these components has implications for track support
provided to resist applied loads. Since many of the
sources of large track deflection are hidden below
the track surface, inspection for track support is
nearly impossible except for the detection of the tell-
tale surficial signs. Vertical track deflection has
been associated with four specific track degradation
or failure risks: failure or degradation of superstruc-
ture components, unrestrained track or rail, inade-
quate ballast strength, and foundation failure.
Failure or degradation of superstructure compo-
nents is the result of excessive loads and or exces-
sive track movement including concerns for rail in-
tegrity, rail joints, welds, ties and fastener systems Figure 2. Gap formed around tie.
including tie plates, pads, insulators and clips, and
ballast. For concrete ties, the risks include tie bottom
abrasion, rail seat abrasion, cracking and structural Inadequate ballast strength may be associated
failure, as well as deterioration of the elastic fasten- with locations of large vertical track deflection with
the added risk that locations of reduced ballast
strength have reduced capacity to laterally and longi-
tudinally restrain track. Inadequate ballast strength
associated with poor ballast consolidation is charac-
terized by reduced stiffness, resulting in increased
VTD which might be captured using a VTD meas-
urement technique. Ballast with inadequate strength
can lead to two important degradations of perfor-
mance: depressed neutral temperature and reduced
lateral resistance. Depressed neutral temperature
(the temperature where the longitudinal force in ze-
ro) can develop if the track can move longitudinally
under thermally induced longitudinal loads. After
this degradation in neutral temperature the track is at
risk of lateral buckling, because depressed neutral
temperature indicates increased rail force. The sec-
ond risk is that the inadequate ballast strength will
be associated with a reduction in the lateral re-
sistance, or the capacity of the track structure to re-
strain the applied buckling load. Figure 3 shows the
ballast condition at a derailment site where routine
maintenance activities indicated that the ballast did
not compact and therefore had reduced capacity to
retain the track in the design position. In addition,
the loose ballast allowed for track movement that
may have contributed to the forces in the track.
Figure 3. Ballast conditions at a derailment site (NTSB, 1999).
The risk of foundation failure associated with
large vertical track deflection may result from an in-
crease in the pressure transmitted to the subgrade.
In cases where applied stress exceeds subgrade
strength, the subgrade generally deforms in one of
three modes: 1) massive shear, 2) progressive shear,
and 3) plastic deformation (Selig and Waters, 1994).
Massive shear failure is a shear type failure below
the track similar to that associated with slope insta-
bility, and is the least common but most catastrophic
failure mode and potentially the most challenging to
detect through vertical track deflection. Progressive
shear failure, generally termed subgrade squeeze is
characterized by remolding of the soil at the sub-
grade surface, squeezing of the remolded soil into
the track shoulder, and surface manifestation as a
track shoulder heave. The result can be unloaded
track geometry that can exhibit a cross level, align-
ment and profile variations or track load-deflection
differences for each rail on a single tie. Plastic de-
formation, generally termed ballast pockets, is
caused by settlement of the subgrade soil with little
or no lateral deformation. The surface manifestation
is initially profile variations with variable track sup-
port from tie to tie and in advanced stages may be
indicated by track slack or gaps between compo-
nents.
3.2 Terminology
Terminology has been introduced to help interpret
results from vertical track deflection testing (Suss-
mann et al. 2001). Shown schematically in Figure 4,
the main elements provide distinction from linear to
non-linear load-deflection trends where the curved
shape has been broken into two distinct linear por-
tions for discussion. The track stiffness magnitude
is taken as the slope of the load-deflection curve at
the applied wheel load. The seating deflection is the
track deflection that occurs under a light load and is
often associated with the void, which is often de-
scribed as a gap between the tie and rail or tie and
ballast. The void can develop for a variety of rea-
sons including inadequately fastened rail and ballast
settlement that results in hanging ties.
Load
Full Load
Linear k Non-Linear k
1 1
Seating Load
0 Void
Contact
Seating
Total
Deflection
Figure 4. Vertical Deflection Terminology (Sussmann et al.
2001).
A similar analysis was conducted by Wilk (2015)
that developed a similar terminology to describe the
support provided to the tie. The tie support is criti-
cal to track support, but because of the practical
challenge of separating the rail and tie behaviour in
most automated inspection systems, the rail based
definitions are used in this paper.
Vertical track deflection data can be used to diag-
nose zones with low track modulus indicating poor
subgrade, large tie movement indicating a void or
gap, different deflection rail to rail or for short dis-
tances along the track indicating ballast problems or
subgrade support problems. Sussmann et al, 2001
reviews track conditions that could be diagnosed us-
ing vertical track deflection and discusses the
maintenance options.
3.3 Design Parameters
Ballast, subballast, and subgrade layer stiffness or
Young’s Modulus is the critical parameter for all
structurally based substructure design methods. In
these design methods that involve repeated loads,
the Resilient Modulus is the preferred terminology
reflecting the stiffness or modulus that develops af-
ter many load cycles. From the first load cycle, set-
tlement occurs as the layer is compacted and stiffens
leading to an increase in Resilient Modulus. Suss-
mann and Selig (2000) is one of many papers that
present techniques for using vertical track deflection
data to estimate Resilient Modulus of support layers.
Single point vertical track deflection data would
need to be coupled with layer depth data to back cal-
culate the modulus for the substructure layers as
shown in Sussmann and Selig (2000). Layer depth
data could be available from independent boreholes
or ground penetrating radar. Knowing the layer
depths, the moduli of each of the layers can then be
varied to match the surface deflection. The solution
to this Backcalculation is often non-unique so other
indications of stiff and soft layers may need to be
developed from dynamic cone penetration testing or
other similar types of tests.
The shape of the surface deflection basin is used
in falling weight deflectometer (FWD) testing to
back calculate layer moduli according to Witzak
(1992). While the FWD is a stationary device that
would not be part of an automated inspection, simi-
lar data could be developed using the more deploya-
ble light weight deflectometer. The lighter weight
may limit the applicability of the technique in deep
roadbeds. But for the shallower layers that are often
targeted by maintenance and have a large variability
over the life of the track, this new technology may
prove very useful.
Spectral analysis of surface waves (SASW)
(Azari et al., 2014) is a method for surface Rayleigh
wave analysis that can be used to evaluate layer Re-
silient Modulus. Other seismic shear wave methods
can also be used to compute small strain modulus
from shear wave velocity. The main benefit of
SASW is the stiffness profiling aspect of the data
that can allow for both layer depth and moduli varia-
tions to be developed in one test.
4 APPLICATION TO DESIGN METHODS
The use of track design tools and other mechanistic
relationships between the number of applied load
cycles and track settlement to analytically model
track deterioration can require a significant amount
of data. Zhang et al. (1998) review a variety of sim-
plified track degradation models and concluded that
reasonable results require basic acknowledgement of
the significant role and wide range of values for
track substructure parameters.
In this section, two examples will be used to illus-
trate the application of the inspection data to develop
more detailed indication of track condition and track
life. The first will highlight the use of ballast set-
tlement and the nature of the models. It will be
shown that ballast models exist, but linkage to me-
chanics of the settlement are still being developed
such that mechanistic properties such as modulus
will likely be utilized only as data becomes availa-
ble. For subgrade settlement, models for design
have advanced to a fairly high level utilizing signifi-
cance engineering data and mechanics. Now with
more widely available data on track structural condi-
tion, these models could be utilized to help analyze
track inspection results in terms of track condition
and remaining life.
A full assessment of track degradation would re-
quire both ballast and subgrade models in order to
develop a comprehensive assessment of total track
settlement trends.
4.1 Ballast Settlement
Ballast settlement depends on many factors, but is
based on a relatively simple power law:
ε N = ε1N b (1)
where εN is the plastic strain after N load cycles, ε1 is
the plastic strain from the first load cycle (often
0.22%), and b is a constant exponent related to the
soil type by Li et al. (2015). Chrismer has defined
many of the factors affecting ballast settlement (such
as fouling) and included those as modifiers to this
relationship (Chrismer, 1991).
The challenge in applying this model is identify-
ing the starting point on the curve. If 15 MGT of
traffic had accumulated, the number of load cycles,
N, could be calculated as the starting point for esti-
mating future settlement. But without knowledge of
traffic, other relationships will be needed to identify
the settlement accumulated from a starting point
other than prior to the first load cycle. Resilient
modulus will vary with traffic first increasing as the
ballast consolidates, reaching a peak at the point
where the fouling material has fully reinforced the
ballast structure prior to separating particles, and de-
creasing thereafter (Sussmann et al. 2012). While
environmental conditions will affect the ballast, the
use of resilient modulus data will help to identify an
estimate of the ballast condition that can be linked to
traffic for application of the model. Furthermore,
most settlement models for foundations on granular
soils are dependent on modulus (Lutenegger and
DeGroot, 1995)
While research is needed to refine the settlement
relationships for ballast, application of the resilient
modulus data appears readily applicable to quality
control for constructed layers during construction or
after maintenance. In addition, using modulus as a
quality control parameter might be suitable for
monitoring locations and identifying those locations
more susceptible to rapid, or abrupt changes in set-
tlement rate that might indicate one of the risks de-
scribed in section 3.1.
By monitoring the moduli or stiffness of the track
support layers, zones where the modulus does not
meet the specification can be highlighted and fixed
before they contribute to further deformation of that
zone. Rather than control deflection solely based on
modulus, the resulting deflection can be expected to
increase with a lower, or inadequate modulus.
Means to control track construction using deflection
measurement as an indicator of inadequate modulus
have been applied on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link
for quality control (O’Riordan and Phear, 2001).
The required modulus (or track deflection) needed to
ensure the track does not settle (or track geometry
anomalies do not grow) more than a predetermined
amount might be developed taking into considera-
tion the factors described by Chrismer (1991). Han
and Selig (1997) have developed a model and
framework for considering the many variables af-
fecting ballast settlement that can be used as the ba-
sis for further developing this concept.
4.2 Subgrade Plastic Deformation (Ballast
Pockets)
The basic concept that track deflection can be relat-
ed to subgrade stiffness and the formation of track
geometry deviations has been shown by Rhogani
and Hendry (2016). In this analysis, a technique was
developed to quantify the subgrade stiffness and
then correlate the subgrade stiffness with track ge-
ometry defect data.
A variety of track design methods and philoso-
phies are available and several are described in Li et
al. (2015). Li and Selig (1998a, 1998b) presented a
method that provides for design based on either the
allowable stress at the subgrade surface or allowable
subgrade deformation. Since ballast pockets are rela-
tively common, the technique for application of this
design method to the design of the required ballast
layer thickness to prevent excessive subgrade de-
formation will be described.
The design equation for excessive subgrade de-
formation associated with ballast pockets is given by
Li and Selig (1998a) and Li et al. (1996 and 2015)
and is based on the deformation influence factor, Iρ:
ρa
L
Iρ = m
x100 (2)
 P 
a d  N b
σ s A
where ρa is the allowable plastic subgrade defor-
mation, Pd is the design dynamic wheel load, N is
the number of applied wheel loads for the life of the
track, and σs is the soil unconfined compressive
strength, a, b, and m are parameters based on soil
type (Li et al 2015, Lane et al., 2015), L is a length
factor taken as 0.152 m (6 in.), and A is an area fac-
tor taken as 0.645 m2 (1000 in.2). This equation
links the basic analysis of the stress distribution in
the track to the required ballast thickness required to
protect the subgrade from the stress induced by the
applied loads. A basic traffic analysis is required to
estimate Pd and N, and the soil type and strength
would need to be estimated perhaps using Natural
Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) Soil Sur-
vey data (NRCS, 2017). Then, an allowable amount
of settlement would need to be selected (ρa).
The required granular layer thickness, H, includ-
ing both ballast and subballast is found by using a
design chart that accounts for the load distribution
effects of the the moduli of each of the layers. An
example of a design chart is shown in Figure 5. This
particular chart is for a ballast resilient modulus of
550 MPa (80,000 psi) and a subgrade resilient
modulus of 14 MPa (2.000 psi). The various curves
are for the range of T/L given in the figure legend,
representing the unitless subgrade thickness in 6 in.
increments (L = 6 in.). Subgrade thickness varia-
tions do not represent large variations in required
granular layer thickness (H), except at very small
subgrade thickness. The horizontal axis is the de-
formation influence factor (Iρ) calculated using
equation 2.
Design using the chart (Figure 5) begins by enter-
ing the chart with the computed Iρ on the top, hori-
zontal axis. From that point down, the appropriate
subgrade thickness curve will be intercepted. From
that intersection point, the ballast thickness is read
horizontally on the vertical axis.

Figure 5. Track design chart example from Li et al., 2015.
Rearranging the design equation (2), the design
method can be applied as an analysis tool to evaluate
track remaining life. In this case, the same design
information would need to be known or estimated.
For evaluation of an old track, the ballast and sub-
grade resilient moduli along with the ballast depth
and subgrade thickness, presumably from the com-
bined application of GPR and track deflection or us-
ing spectral analysis of surface waves, the defor-
mation influence factor can be read from the design
chart (Figure 5). Rearranging equation (2), the
number of load cycles remaining in the design life
can be computed:
ρa
L anism for track geometry degradation, this procedure
N= m
x100
b
 P 
a d  I ρ
σ s A
using the deformation influence factor along with
the soil parameters (a, b, m, ρa, σs) and dynamic
wheel load (Pd). Upon completion of design, this
equation can be used to develop the design life of
the track and evaluate any variations from the pre-
dicted life.
Another rearrangement of Equation 2 allows for
the prediction of the subgrade settlement with traffic
as a prediction of the expected deterioration trend:
m
 P  L ing radar provide great insight to field conditions in-
ρ = N ⋅ a d  I ρ ⋅
b
σ s A 100 (4)
In this form, the deformation of the subgrade at any
time in the life of the track is represented by ρ. This
form allows the deformation to be computed as a
function of load cycles, N, given the other parame-
ters remain constant at the site. This provides an ini-
tial estimate of subgrade settlement that can be com-
bined with the ballast settlement from equation (1)
to provide a combined assessment of the defor-
mation trends over the life of the track. Large varia-
tions from these deformation trends indicate that pa-
rameters likely changed during the track life, which
could be assessed using GPR and deflection data to
refine the prediction and update track maintenance
plans.
5 CONCLUSIONS
As automated inspection technology advances, the
opportunities to apply the data to monitor perfor-
mance through the life of the track can provide in-
sight to factors affecting track performance and track
life. Changes in deformation trends highlighted in
track geometry data could be attributed to changes in
conditions at the site. Application of ground pene-
trating radar and vertical track deflection technology
can provide insight to the field conditions and a bet-
ter understanding of the overall condition of the bal-
last and its effect on the structural response of the
track. These technologies provide the industry with
engineering data on track support that includes the
effects of stiffness and layer variations that has been
challenging to obtain until recently.
Ground penetrating radar and track deflection data
can be used to provide the necessary data for models
that relate track support conditions to track settle-
ment rate. Since track settlement is the main mech-
(3) can be used to develop a more predictable track deg-
radation forecast to help make maintenance program
plans more accurate and make the track and, by ex-
tension, the railway system more reliable. In this
scenario, locations where the track performs worse
than expected reflect locations where design as-
sumptions do not match field conditions and should
be highlighted as locations of potential risk of ad-
vanced track deterioration that might require exces-
sive track maintenance.
Where this methodology is applied, the reliability
of the track could improve because the inspection
data can be applied during repair or maintenance to
identify any substandard locations. As a quality con-
trol parameter, track deflection and ground penetrat-
dicative of future track performance. Setting
maintenance specifications based on this type of data
will help to avoid ineffective or poor quality mainte-
nance. In addition, by developing the data after
maintenance, a baseline estimate of the expected life
of the repair and the deformation trends for that lo-
cation can be developed. Based on this information,
future maintenance plans can be developed for a
more robust maintenance forecast. This will provide
a strong basis for the development of long-range re-
source planning that has been a goal for the industry.
6 REFERENCES
Azari, H., Yuan, D., Nazarian, S., Stark, T.D., Ho, C.L., and
Dehlin, T.J. 2014. Surface wave testing for characterization
of ballast and foundation layers. Proceedings of 2014 Joint
Rail Conference (JRC 2014). April 2 – 4, 2014, Colorado
Springs, CO, USA.
Berggren, E., Jahlenius, A., and Bengtsson, B. 2002. Continu-
ous Track Stiffness Measurement: An Effective Method to
Investigate the Structural Conditions of the Track, Railway
Engineering, London, July.
Chrismer, S. M. 1994."Mechanics-based model to predict bal-
last-related maintenance timing and costs.” Doctoral Dis-
sertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Farritor, S. and Fateh, M. 2013. Measurement of Vertical
Track Deflection from a Moving Railcar, U.S. DOT, Fed-
eral Railroad Administration Report No. DOT/FRA/ORD-
13/08.
Han, X. and Selig, E.T. 1997. Effects of Fouling on Ballast
Settlement. In Proceedings of 6th International Heavy Haul
Railway Conference. Cape Town, South Africa.
Hendry, M., Roghani, A., and Zhang, M. 2016. Assessment of
a Technology for the Measurement for Rail Track Deflec-
tion. Draft report for Transport Canada, RDIMS 9113219.
Hunt, G. A. 1999. Track Damage Models as Tools for Track
Design Optimization. In the Proceedings of the Conference
on Innovations in the Design and Assessment of Railway
Track, Technical University of Delft, Holland, December.
Lane, J., Taylor, G., Evans, E., O’Brien, A., and Ringo, T.
2016. The Contribution of Earthworks to Track Damage,
World Congress on Railway Research, Milan, Italy, 2016.
Li, D. and Selig, E. T. 1998a. Method for Railroad Track
Foundation Design I: Development, Journal of Geotech-
nical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 124, No. 4, pp. 316-322.
Li, D. and Selig, E. T. 1998b. Method for Railroad Track
Foundation Design II: Applications, Journal of Geotech-
nical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 124, No. 4.
Li, D., Sussmann, T.R., and Selig, E. T. 1996. “Procedure for
Railway Track Granular Layer Thickness Determination,”
Association of American Railroads, Washington, D.C., Re-
port Number R-898.
Li, D., Hyslip J.P., Sussmann T.R., Chrismer, S.M. 2015.
Railway Geotechnics. CRC Press/Taylor & Francis Group,
Boca Raton, FL, USA.
Lutenegger, A., and DeGroot, D. 1995. Settlement of Shallow
Foundations on Granular Soils, Final Report for Massachu-
setts Highway Department, UMass Transportation Center,
Amherst, MA.
Nazarian, S. 2012. Shear Wave Velocity Profiling with Surface
Wave Methods. In Proceedings of GeoCongress 2012,
State-of-the-Art Lecture Volume, pp. 221-240
NRCS 2017. United States, Department of Agriculture, Natu-
ral Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey Website:
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/site/national/ho
me/ accessed March 21, 2017.
View publication stats
NTSB 1999. Railroad Accident Report 99-01. Derailment of
CSX Freight Train Q316 and Subsequent Hazardous Mate-
rial Release at Cox Landing, West Virginia, June 20, 1998.
O'Riordan, N., and Phear, A. 2001. Design and Construction
Control of Ballasted Track Formation and Subgrade for
High Speed Lines. Proceedings of Railway Engineering
2001, London, UK.
Rhogani, A. and M. Hendry 2016. Quantifying the Impact of
Subgrade Stiffness on Track Quality and the Development
of Track Geometry Defects, ASCE Journal of Transpiration
Engineering, DOI: 10.1061/JTEPBS.0000043.
Sussmann, T. R., Ebersohn, W. E, and Selig, E. T. 2001. Fun-
damental Non-Linear Track Load-Deflection Behavior for
Condition Evaluation, Journal of the Transportation Re-
search Board, Transportation Research Record 1742, In-
tercity Passenger Rail; Freight Rail; and Track Design and
Maintenance, Washington, DC, pp. 61-67.
Sussmann T., and Hyslip, J. 2010. Track Substructure Design
Methodology and Data. In the Proceedings of the 2010
Joint Rail Conference, Urbana, Illinois, April 27-29.
Sussmann, T. R. and Selig, E. T. 2000, Resilient Modulus
Backcalculation Techniques for Track, Performance Con-
firmation of Constructed Geotechnical Facilities, Geotech-
nical Special Publication No. 94, ASCE, pp. 401-410.
Sussmann, T. R., Ruel, M., and Chrismer, S. 2012. Sources of
Ballast Fouling and Influence Considerations for Condition
Assessment Criteria, Journal of the Transportation Re-
search Board, Transportation Research Record 2289, Rail-
ways, Washington, D.C., pp. 87-94.
Wilk, S., Stark, T., and Sussmann, T. 2015. Tie-Ballast Inter-
action at Railroad Transitions, In the Proceedings of the
Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D.C., January.
Witczak, M. W. 1992. Assessing the Nonlinear Behavior of
Subgrades and Granular Bases from Surface Deflection Ba-
sins, Seventh International Conference on Asphalt Pave-
ments, Nottingham, UK.
Zhang, Y.J., Murray M., and Ferreira L. 1998. Effects of sub-
structure on track performance. Proceedings of Conference
on Traffic and Transport Studies, ICTTS, July 27-29, 1998,
pp. 850-859.