Dynamic Response of Subgrade

in a Bridge Transition Along the Qinshen

High-Speed Rail

Tengfei Wang , Qiang Luo, Liang Zhang, and Jun Yao

Abstract Transition zones spanning between the bridge and open track require
special attention for the safe operation of high-speed trains. To evaluate the service-
ability of transportation substructure, an extensive dynamic monitoring program was
undertaken on railway bridge transition of the Qinhuangdao–Shenyang Passenger-
dedicated Line (Qinshen PDL) to assess the dynamic properties of subgrade under
train moving loads. Accelerations, displacements, and dynamic stresses of the
subgrade in response to trains’ passage were measured through geotechnical instru-
mentation. Following this, the field measurements were statistically analyzed and
interpreted. The attenuation of dynamic stress along the depth below the ballasted
track was presented and fitted by an empirical formula. The dynamic amplification
coefficient of soil stress was obtained using the induced soil stress at train speed of
5 km/h as a reference value. Dynamic stress, displacement, and acceleration were
examined with respect to their spatial distributions. The measurements of track levels
were also adopted for revealing the mechanism. Given that design codes of rail
track substructures gradually evolve from empirical design to mechanical–empirical
design, an in-depth and comprehensive understanding of the dynamic response of
subgrade soil under moving train loads can provide a reference for infrastructure
serviceability assessment.

Keywords Transition zone · Field monitoring · Dynamic response · Subgrade

T. Wang · Q. Luo (B) · L. Zhang

MOE Key Laboratory of High-Speed Railway Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong University,
Chengdu 610031, P.R. China
e-mail: lqrock@swjtu.edu.cn
School of Civil Engineering, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu 610031, P.R. China
J. Yao
DMY Engineering Consultants, Inc., 217 Perry Pkwy, Suite 12, Gaithersburg, MD 20877, USA

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 87

E. Tutumluer et al. (eds.), Advances in Transportation Geotechnics IV,
Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering 165,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77234-5_8
88 T. Wang et al.

1 Introduction

Transition zones are generally used for reducing the abrupt changes in substructure
stiffness that frequently occurs between a railway track underlain by earth structure
and the track over support having a high stiffness, such as tunnel, bridge, and culvert.
A significant difference in support stiffness results in increased dynamic wheel loads
and accelerated rate of track geometry degradation. The dynamic issues associated
with transition zones are generally recognized and have received detailed investiga-
tions. An extensive monitoring program was undertaken to reveal the fundamental
causes of poor performance of a railway transition zone [1]. For the design of a
transition zone, it is necessary to investigate the local geotechnical conditions, iden-
tify where movements are likely to arise, and understand the conceptual basis on
which substructure in transition zone will operate. A comprehensive field test [2]
has been conducted on a heavy-haul railway line to explore the dynamic response of
subgrade in a transition zone. The findings indicate that two bogies from adjacent
wagons should be treated as one loading unit for design. Palese et al. [3] tried to
interpret the variation of dynamic stress collected from pressure transducers placed
in transition subgrade based on track geometry measurements, which improves our
understanding regarding the role of substructure quality on track geometry degrada-
tion. Bian et al. [4] reviewed the recent research advances in geodynamics of high-
speed rail subgrade, including dynamic stress distribution within soil and dynamic
amplification with increasing train speed. Field observations were carried out by Li
et al. [5] to collect the embankment vibrations under passages of heavy-haul train,
suggesting that different suspension modes would contribute to a higher vibration
level for locomotive than a wagon.
More attention has recently been paid to the slab track dynamic in transition zones
through field testing or numerical modeling, e.g., [6–11]. In contrast, in-depth insights
into the behavior of transition subgrade under passage of trains are minimal. Been
added to the China railway network in 2003, the Qinhuangdao–Shenyang Passenger-
dedicated Line (i.e., Qinshen PDL) is the first newly built high-speed rail (top speed
of 250 km/h) in China. Given the insufficient investigations on subgrade dynamics
at bridge approach, field monitoring was conducted at a bridge transition of Shahe
Grand Bridge (Fig. 1) within a trial section (specially designed for localized higher
speed, 350 km/h), in order to assess the dynamic response of subgrade under trial
train operation.

2 Monitoring Program

The instrumentation site for monitoring program was chosen on a bridge-subgrade

transition, and a detailed description is provided in Fig. 2. The inverted trapezoid tran-
sition (slope gradient = 1:2) comprises geogrid-reinforced soil (0.3 m in thickness for
Dynamic Response of Subgrade in a Bridge Transition Along … 89

Fig. 1 Overview of the bridge-subgrade transition zone (DK 43+578)

Fig. 2 Schematic of the studied railway earthworks at bridge approach of Shahe Grand Bridge

each layer, 25 kN/m for geosynthetics) of 16 m in length and 5.5 m in height, consis-
tent with Chinese design code for high-speed railway (TB 10001-2016). The open
track, away from the bridge approach, is on a 5.5 m high earth structure (subgrade
and embankment) underlain by inclined rock foundation. The subgrade surface was
constructed using well-graded gravels, while the subgrade bottom primarily consists
of Class-A fill. The granular layer thickness in ballasted track was 35 cm.
As specified in Fig. 3, measurements of dynamic stress, acceleration, and vertical
displacement were made during trial train operations, using earth pressure cells
(range: 100 kPa; accuracy: ±0.1% F.S.; vibrating wire), accelerometers (range: 2 g;
accuracy: 0.02 g), and displacement transducers (range: ±2 mm; linearity: ±0.2%
F.S.). Earth pressure cells were mounted beneath both the left and right rails; all
the displacement transducers and accelerometers were located beneath the left rail.
Please also note that earth pressure cells have been placed at three depths during
earth structure construction, while all the accelerometers and displacement trans-
ducers were mounted on the surface of subgrade. The subgrade dynamic responses
90 T. Wang et al.

Fig. 3 Instrument configuration for field monitoring. Displacement transducer and accelerometer
were all mounted beneath the left rail; all the pressure cells were mounted beneath left and right
rails, except for four marked “R” that were only below right rail

to train operation were collected over one week, incorporating 29 passages. Table 1
summarizes the train’s geometric and mass specifications, revealing that 12 bogies
and 24 axles were considered. The total combined wagon length is 158.4 m.
Before field testing commenced, a geotechnical site investigation was performed
to evaluate the quality of field compaction within the transition zone. The filed unit
weight for the soil after compaction was determined by the sand cone method.
Porosity and K 30 value (i.e., modulus of subgrade reaction = reaction pressure
sustained by the soil sample under a rigid plate of 300 mm in diameter per unit
settlement measured at 1.25 mm settlement) have been used for the site assessment.
Statistical results in Table 2 demonstrate that the upper 95% confidence interval
for porosity is 17.37% (<20%) and the lower 95% confidence interval for K 30 is
168.2 MPa/m, satisfying the standard requirements (150 MPa/m).

Table 1 Geometric and mass characteristics of the high-speed train

No. of No. of axles Inter-bogie Inter-axle Total axle Average
wagons spacing (m) spacing (m) spacing weight per
(m)* axle (kg)
Locomotive 4 4 18 2.5 152 13,090
Wagon 2 4 18 2.5
Note It denotes the spacing between the foremost and end axles
Dynamic Response of Subgrade in a Bridge Transition Along … 91

Table 2 Summary statistics for field compaction evaluation

Sample size Max Min Mean Std. Dev C.V
γ (kN/m3 ) 62 22.89 21.10 22.25 0.402 0.018
M.C. (%) 62 9.40 3.60 6.48 1.535 0.237
γd (kN/m3 ) 62 21.23 20.48 20.91 0.133 0.006
n (%) 62 18.80 16.00 17.26 0.496 0.029
K 30 (MPa/m) 14 210.0 148.8 174.9 14.26 0.081
Note Std. Dev. = standard deviation, C.V. = coefficient of variation, γ = unit weight, M.C. =
moisture content, γd = dry unit weight, n = porosity, K 30 = modulus of subgrade reaction

3 Data Processing and Analysis

Track geometry data was collected and evaluated at eleven fixed points, with a longi-
tudinal distance of −9.6, −4.8, 0.0, 4.8, 9.6, 14.4, 19.2, 24.0, 28.8, 33.6, and 38.4 m
from the bridge abutment (negative value denotes a position on the bridge). Figure 4
reports the effect of length interval on the assessment of track geometry, and its
determination, where track level difference serves as an indirect assessment of the
differential settlement of substructure experienced in transition zones. It appears that
maximum difference occurs for a point at 19.2 m of longitudinal direction, for both
predefined lengths. The overall track level difference first increases then decreases
with the distance from the abutment.
The raw data was processed to extract the peak dynamic stresses, peak vertical
displacements, and peak accelerations to provide desired values for correlation and

Length interval
A
Track level

3 length interval = 9.6 m

C
2 B deviaon
Track level difference (mm)

1 Longitudinal direcon
0

-1

-2
3 transition
bridge Left Track
2 Right Track
1

-1 length interval = 19.2 m

-2
-10 0 10 20 30 40
Distance (m)

Fig. 4 Plots of track geometry versus longitudinal distance during level surveys using two lengths.
Track levels are identified for points A, B, and C, from which the difference is calculated
92 T. Wang et al.

Fig. 5 Measured dynamic 0.0

soil stress attenuation along
with the depth

Depth below subgrade surface (m)

0.5

1.0

1.5

Depth (m) 0 0.6 2.5

2.0 No. of sensors 8 8 2

Mean
95% confidence interval
2.5
Max.
Min.
3.0
0 10 20 30 40
Dynamic stress (kPa)

further analyses. As shown in Fig. 5, the dynamic soil stress dissipates rapidly with
the depth, e.g., 50% off as depth increases to 0.6 m from surface, which can be
normalized by an attenuation coefficient to explore the general attenuation law. The
train-induced dynamic stress of subgrade is not intense due to the axle loads applied.
The train-induced dynamic stress at the top of subgrade is used as a reference
value. Then, the attenuation coefficient (η) is defined as a ratio of dynamic stress at a
certain depth to the reference value. Figure 6 demonstrates the variation of attenuation
coefficient with depth for the measured ballasted track. At a depth of 2.5 m below
subgrade surface, corresponding to the bottom of subgrade, the dynamic stress is
observed to dissipate 80% off, compared with the reference value. Based on dynamic
soil stress profile, an empirical formula is proposed to characterize the attenuation
law of dynamic stress with depth as follows:
z
η =1− (1)
a+b·z

where η denotes the normalized attenuation coefficient; z refers to the depth beneath
the top of subgrade; a and b represent fit coefficients. In this case, the envelope can
be fitted by Eq. (1) with a = 0.64 and b = 1.01.
Besides the dynamic stress attenuation law with depth, the dynamic stress intensity
on the top of subgrade is also a major factor for the design of railway subgrade. For
most scenarios, the dynamic stress distribution on ballasted track is less uniform than
that in slab track [4]. The field monitoring and model tests suggest that the dynamic
surface stress ranges 50–100 kPa for the ballasted track, while just 13–20 kPa for
Dynamic Response of Subgrade in a Bridge Transition Along … 93

Fig. 6 Attenuation 0.0

coefficient of dynamic stress

Depth below subgrade surface, z (m)

(η) in soil
0.5

1.0
η=1-z/(0.64+1.01·z)
1.5

2.0

2.5
Mean value
3.0
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0
Attenuation coefficient of dynamic stress,

ballastless track. An empirical formula is proposed to identify the maximum dynamic

stress at the top of subgrade with granular layer thickness of 35 cm,σdl , as follows
[4]:

σdl = 0.26 × P × (1 + αv) (2)

where P denotes the static axle load of vehicle (kN); (1 + αv) represents an impact
coefficient associated with train speed, and α = 0.003 (km/h)−1 for target speed of
300 ~ 350 km/h, and (1 + αv) ≤ 1.9 when the speed is larger than 300 km/h.
In this study, we primarily investigated the mean values of induced soil stress,
displacement, and acceleration. Figure 7 reveals the changes in average dynamic soil
stress with different train speeds. An average of the dynamic stress is 24.74, 16.77,
and 5.87 kPa for the depth of 0, 0.6, and 2.5 m. By introducing the reference value at
train speed of 5 km/h to Eq. (2), the calculation produces that α = −0.00011 at the top
of subgrade, α = 0.00067 at 0.6 m in depth, and α = 0.00057 at 2.5 m in depth. What
interests us most is that the dynamic soil stress at the surface even decreases under
high-speed conditions, indicating that there was no statistically clear link between
the mean values and the train speeds. Also, the stress fluctuation is predictably less
significant as the depth increases.
The dynamic soil stress is plotted against longitudinal distance in Fig. 8 for a
train traveling at a velocity of 250 km/h. It suggests that the dynamic stress is the
lowest adjacent to the bridge abutment and gradually rises with an increase in the
longitudinal direction. Unlike other common trends reported in the literature, the
relatively low structure stiffness is deemed responsible for such a dynamic stress
response under train operation in this study.
94 T. Wang et al.

Mean dynamic stress (kPa)

30

20 0m

0.6 m
10

2.5 m
0
180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250
Train speed (km/h)

Fig. 7 Variation of dynamic soil stress with train speed at different depths. Right track, 8 m away
from the bridge abutment; each filled area represents corresponding error bar

Fig. 8 Plots of measured

dynamic stress versus
Dynamic stress (kPa)

30
distance from the bridge 0m
abutment at a train speed of
250 km/h. Colored area
20
marks error bar

0.6 m
10

Velocity: 250 km/h

0
0 10 20
Distance from the abutment (m)

The average vertical displacements (both upward and downward displacements

were considered) were obtained and plotted against various train speeds for three
locations, as shown in Fig. 9. From the data for the displacement transducers at
different depths, two major observations can be made. First, the effect of train speed
on the mean vertical displacement is not significant for soil located at the abutment.
In contrast, displacement amplitudes at 9.4 and 14.8 m in the longitudinal direction
fluctuate considerably with velocities. Second, the surface soil near the abutment
produces the smallest vertical displacement. In general, the train speed has a great
influence on the maximum values as reported by other researchers, while this effect
is statistically minimal for mean values.
As illustrated in Fig. 10, soil at the top of subgrade varied in a similar manner with
distance from abutment under two velocities, including three distinct segments (0 ~
9.4 m; 9.4 ~ 12.4 m; 12.4 ~ 17.8 m). In general, the average vertical displacement
yields approximately 0.35 mm (peak) at 9.4 m longitudinally and reaches 0.1 mm
(minimum) at the abutment. It is likely that the data collected at 9.4 m is abnormal
Dynamic Response of Subgrade in a Bridge Transition Along … 95

0.5

Mean dynamic disp. (mm)

0m
0.4 9.4 m
14.8 m
0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
160 180 200 220 240
Train speed (km/h)

Fig. 9 Mean vertical displacement at subgrade surface varying with train speed. 0, 9.4, and 14.8 m
refer to the distance from bridge abutment; colored area marks error bar

Fig. 10 Mean vertical 0.5

Mean dynamic disp. (mm)

displacement at subgrade B
surface varying with distance 0.4 D
from abutment under two
train speeds. Colored area 0.3
marks error bar
Likely abnormal
0.2

0.1

0.0
0 5 10 15
Distance from abutment (m)

due to sensor issues. The rest data points showed a general increasing trend with
distance.
High variability can be observed in the measured mean acceleration on the top
of subgrade as shown in Fig. 11. Similar to the results of vertical displacement,
acceleration at 9.4 m longitudinally yields the largest value, while the least at the
abutment. A positive correlation between the mean acceleration and train speed can be
obtained for different locations along the railway lines. Under a high traveling speed
(e.g., > 230 km/h), accelerations collected from different locations trend toward a
constant, approximately 5 m/s2 .
The variation of acceleration of subgrade surface with longitudinal distance was
demonstrated in Fig. 12. Most locations produced similar values at a certain speed,
except for the surface acceleration at 12.4 m longitudinally. It can be inferred from
Fig. 2 that an abrupt change occurs because of the discontinuous transition struc-
ture, which should be carefully dealt with during routine maintenance. Nevertheless,
the dynamic stress (<100 kPa), vertical displacement (<1 mm), and acceleration
96 T. Wang et al.

Acceleration (m/s2) 4

2 0m
9.4 m
1
14.8 m
0
160 180 200 220 240
Train speed (km/h)

Fig. 11 Plots of train-induced acceleration at subgrade surface against train speed for different
distances away from the abutment. Colored area marks error bar

5
Acceleration (m/s2)

2
160 km/h
210 km/h 12.4 m
1
250 km/h
0
0 5 10 15
Distance from abutment (m)

Fig. 12 Train-induced acceleration at subgrade surface varying with distance from abutment under
train speeds of 160, 210, and 250 km/h. Colored area marks error bar

(<10 m/s2 ) yield satisfactory values, indicating that the standard design for earth
structure at bridge approach is reasonable.
The implication of statistical analyses on the train-induced dynamic stress, vertical
displacement, and acceleration for simulating dynamic behavior of subgrade in a
transition zone is summarized as follows. In numerical modeling, probability-based
random events (e.g., dynamic stress) are applied to subgrade to assess its dynamic
response. The performance of constructed transition zones should be assessed against
the specification requirements, providing reference for other scenarios involving
transition zone design. Nevertheless, it requires extensive investigations to achieve
this goal in future.
Dynamic Response of Subgrade in a Bridge Transition Along … 97

4 Conclusions

Field monitoring was carried out at a bridge transition of high-speed rail to explore
the dynamic response of track substructure. Analysis and interpretation of the
instrumentation data reveal the following:
1. The collected data from measurements suggests the dynamic response of
subgrade did not exceed expectations, with upper 99% confidence intervals of
40.54 kPa, 0.13 mm, 13.55 m/s2 for dynamic soil stress, peak vertical displace-
ment, acceleration at the top of subgrade, respectively. In general, the current
design of transition zone proves to be rational.
2. The dynamic soil stress dissipates rapidly in depth, and the dynamic attenuation
coefficient (η) has a value of approximately 0.2 at a depth of 2.5 m (i.e., the
bottom of subgrade).
3. In this case, the profound effect of train speed on accelerations was evidenced,
while train speed has limited influence on the mean values of dynamics stress
and displacement.
4. The variation patterns of dynamic stress, displacement, and acceleration in the
longitudinal direction are similar under different train speeds.

Acknowledgements This work was supported by the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation
[grant number 2019M663556] and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [grant
number 2682020CX66].

References

1. Coelho B, Hölscher P, Priest J et al (2011) An assessment of transition zone performance. Proc

Inst Mech Eng Part F J Rail Rapid Transit 225:129–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/09544097J
RRT389
2. Mei H, Leng W, Nie R et al (2019) Experimental research on the dynamic response character-
istics of the transition subgrade induced by heavy-haul train passage. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part
F J Rail Rapid Transit 233:974–987. https://doi.org/10.1177/0954409718822924
3. Palese JW, Zarembski AM, Hartsough CM et al (2017) A study on subgrade pressure differential
over regions of known substructure transition as it relates to track geometry. In: Joint rail
conference. ASME, pp 1–10
4. Bian X, Li W, Hu J et al (2018) Geodynamics of high-speed railway. Transp Geotech 17:69–76.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.2018.09.007
5. Li P, Ling X, Zhang F et al (2017) Field testing and analysis of embankment vibrations induced
by heavy haul trains. Shock Vib 2017. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/7410836
6. Li D, Davis D (2005) Transition of railroad bridge approaches. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng
131:1392–1398. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2005)131:11(1392)
7. Shan Y, Albers B, Savidis SA (2013) Influence of different transition zones on the dynamic
response of track-subgrade systems. Comput Geotech 48:21–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.com
pgeo.2012.09.006
98 T. Wang et al.

8. Shan Y, Shu Y, Zhou S (2017) Finite-infinite element coupled analysis on the influence of
material parameters on the dynamic properties of transition zones. Constr Build Mater 148:548–
558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.05.071
9. Hu P, Zhang C, Wen S, Wang Y (2019) Dynamic responses of high-speed railway transition
zone with various subgrade fillings. Comput Geotech 108:17–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.com
pgeo.2018.12.011
10. Stark TD, Wilk ST, Rose JG (2016) Design and performance of well-performing railway
transitions. Transp Res Rec 2545:20–26. https://doi.org/10.3141/2545-03
11. Mishra D, Qian Y, Huang H, Tutumluer E (2014) An integrated approach to dynamic analysis of
railroad track transitions behavior. Transp Geotech 1:188–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trgeo.
2014.07.001