KENTRACK: A RAILWAY TRACKBED STRUCTURAL DESIGN AND

ANALYSIS PROGRAM

Jerry G. Rose, Ph.D., PE

Professor of Civil Engineering
261 OH Raymond Building
University of Kentucky
Lexington, Kentucky 40506-0281 USA
jrose@engr.uky.edu

Bei Su, MSCE William B. Long, EIT

Graduate Research Asst. in Civil Engineering Geotechnical Engineer
University of Kentucky US Army Corps of Engineers
S016 OH Raymond Building 801 Broadway
Lexington, Kentucky 40506-0281 USA Nashville, Tennessee 37202-1070 USA
beisu625@yahoo.com william.b.long@lrn02.usace.army.mil

KEYWORDS: hot mix asphalt underlayment, railroad trackbed support, trackbed structural design,
layer thickness, asphalt tensile strain, subgrade bearing capacity

ABSTRACT:
The development and application of a layer elastic finite element computer program,
KENTRACK, is described. The program is particularly applicable for the structural design of heavy axle
load and high-speed trackbeds. The railroad trackbed is considered as a three-layer elastic system
composed of ballast, sublayer, and subgrade. The sublayer can be composed of all-granular material or
Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA). The wheel loads are transmitted to the layered system through rails, tie plates,
and ties. The thickness design is governed by limiting the vertical compressive stress on the top of the
subgrade to reduce permanent deformation. For designs incorporating HMA underlayment as a sublayer
an additional limiting criteria can be determined; that being the horizontal tensile strain at the bottom of
the HMA layer to prevent fatigue cracking. Excessive deformation of the subgrade is not desirable
because it results in distortion of the track and requires frequent maintenance. Fatigue cracking of the
HMA layer also is not desirable because it can result in infiltration of water and subsequent weakening
of the subgrade. The effects of varying materials properties and layer thickness on the calculated stress
and strain levels and the predicted life of the trackbed are presented in detail. Subgrade modulus,
ballast/HMA thickness and axle load represent three variables that have significant effects on the
predicted railroad trackbed service life. The method for measuring vertical pressures at various locations
in the trackbed using earth pressure cells is described and typical values and presented for heavy axle
loadings. The predicted values from the KENTRACK program and the measured trackbed values for
similar conditions compare very favorably. The KENTRACK program provides the designer a rational
method for designing trackbeds for various combinations of loadings and trackbed materials and layer
thickness. The relative effects of varying loadings and trackbed materials and thickness also can be
ascertained. A sample design sequence is presented.
INTRODUCTION
Railroads have been in existence for over 170 years and during the period, train speeds, annual
gross ton-miles, and axle loads have increased significantly. On United States railroads, peak axle loads
in common revenue service have increased to 36 tons. The 39-ton axle load is undergoing extensive
research. To accommodate these changes, larger rails have been developed such as RE136 and RE140.
Several types of premium ties are also used including the predominate wood tie, concrete tie and steel
tie. Different types of fasteners are available to match the different types of ties. However, the other
important track component, the traditional all-granular support layer, has changed very little except for
ballast quality and thickness. Normally a subballast is included for new construction. During the past
twenty years, several new trackbed designs and structures have been developed in different countries
according to their transportation needs. In the United States, Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) trackbeds have
been developed mainly for freight lines to provide the heavy axle loads with strong support and reduced
trackbed maintenance.
Inadequate trackbed support adversely affects track quality. Components of the railroad track
structure are damaged resulting in deterioration of the track geometry. Currently, due to the complexity
of the problem, it is still not clear the exact effect to track damage that different factors such as train
speed, axle load and traffic volume impart to the structure. Most analyses in this field are based on
existing experience. In fact, based on the experience achieved by United States railroads in the past
twenty years, it is found that frequent track maintenance is necessary for heavy axle load rail lines
(Lopresti, Davis and Kalay, 2002). Though frequently maintained, rapid deterioration of track geometry
is still unavoidable especially when the track structure transverses weak soil areas.
To address this problem, HMA trackbeds have been developed and tested during the past twenty
years. During this period, numerous test and revenue trackbeds using HMA have been built over many
types of subgrades. Thickness of the HMA was purposefully varied. It has been shown that HMA
trackbeds impart the following benefits to the track structure according to performance measurements
acquired from test installations (Asphalt Institute, 1998):
♦ A strengthened track support layer below the ballast to uniformly distribute reduced loading
stresses to the roadbed (subgrade);
♦ A waterproofing layer and confinement to the underlying roadbed that provides consistent
load-carrying capability for track structures-even on roadbeds of marginal quality;
♦ An impermeable layer to divert water to side ditches, essentially eliminating subgrade
moisture fluctuations;
♦ A consistently high level of confinement for the ballast so it can develop high shear strength
and provide uniform pressure distribution;
♦ A resilient layer between the ballast and roadbed to reduce the likelihood of subgrade pumping
without substantially increasing track stiffness; and,
♦ An all-weather, uniformly stable surface for placing the ballast and track superstructure.
Based on above advantages, HMA trackbeds are not only ideal for freight railroad lines, but also
are equally applicable for light rail, commuter and high-speed passenger rail. These lines require tight
adherence to track geometric standards. Currently, two types of HMA trackbed designs have been used.
One is called “underlayment” because the asphalt is used as a mat or a sublayer between ballast and
subgrade instead of all-granular subballast. The other one is called “overlayment” or “full depth”
because the asphalt mat is placed directly on the subgrade and ties are placed directly on the top of
asphalt. There is no ballast layer. Figure 1 depicts the traditional all-granular ballast trackbed and the
two types of HMA trackbeds.
In practice, the underlayment design is preferred by engineers. This is because the underlayment
design maintains the ballast within the structure so the track geometry can be easily adjusted. Besides,
asphalt underlayment is maintained in a protected environment because it is buried under the ballast
which provides protection to asphalt such as avoiding sunlight and keeping temperature variance in a
low level. Due to the these reasons, only underlayment is documented in this paper. Figures 2a and 2b
contain typical views of HMA underlayment trackbeds.

wood tie

ballast

subballast

subgrade

All-Granular Ballast Trackbed

wood tie

HMA

subgrade

Overlayment HMA Trackbed

wood tie

HMA

subgrade

Underlayment HMA Trackbed

Figure 1 Sections of Three Types of Trackbed Designs

Figure 2a Placing an HMA Underlayment on Subgrade during the Construction of a Second Track next
to an Existing Ballast Track

Figure 2b Exposed HMA Underlayment in Trackbed with Ballast and Wood Tie Track

BACKGROUND
There are two methods for analyzing the relationships between railroad trackbed thickness and
stress distribution. One of the methods is based on a simplified theoretical method such as Boussinesq
elastic theory. It assumes the foundation is composed of an ideal material that is elastic and isotropic and
is semi-infinite in thickness. It is also called single layered theory. The other method involves using
empirical equations which are based on experience. Presently, two equations are widely used and
accepted for railroad trackbed structural analysis and design (Selig and Waters, 1994). They are the
Japanese National Railways (JNR) equation and the Talbot equation.
The reasons for developing a new design method for HMA and ballast trackbeds are summarized
as follows:
(1) The Boussinesq method only considers one layer under the tie; whereas the HMA trackbed
and all-granular (containing ballast and subballast) trackbed are typical multi-layered systems. The
properties of materials used in different layers vary greatly, which does not meet the assumption of
Boussinesq theory. Even using highly simplified consideration, in which the ballast, HMA, and
subgrade are combined as one layer and assigned a proper parameter, it is still not feasible, because
HMA is a typical visco-elastic, temperature dependent material whose properties are significantly
affected by the environment.
(2) The existing design equations were developed based on the all-granular all-ballast trackbed.
Due to the different properties of ballast and HMA trackbeds, the application to current design is not
appropriate.
(3) The JNR equation was developed based on tests performed on narrow gage railroad lines.
There is some question as to whether it is applicable for standard gage railroad lines.
(4) The Talbot equation was derived from laboratory tests (Talbot, 1919). The test trackbed was
built by putting the ballast on the sand cushion over the laboratory floor and setting the pressure cells in
the ballast at different levels. A universal machine added load on the rail, and the pressures distributed in
the ballast were recorded by cells. An equation relating the pressure to the thickness of the ballast was
obtained from the test data. Since the test data was developed for ballast trackbeds, the application of
this equation for HMA trackbeds is not valid. This method even has limitations when used for ballast
trackbed design. The test was performed on the laboratory floor, which was composed of concrete, so
the support for the test trackbed was very stiff. The subgrade modulus factor is not considered in the
equation. However, the typical track subgrade (support) is resilient in practice, which has a significant
effect on the stress distribution in the trackbed. This implies that the pressures calculated by this
equation will lead to under-design in soft subgrade conditions and will be too conservative in strong
subgrade conditions.
To address the deficiencies in the existing design methods, two computer programs intended for
railroad track structure analysis were developed in the United States. These are ILLITRACK (Robnett,
1975) and GEOTRACK (Chang, 1980).
ILLITRACK is a computer program developed by the University of Illinois by using finite
element method. It was developed for all-granular ballast trackbed and only contains longitudinal and
transverse two-dimensional models. However, the actual trackbed is three-dimensional. This program
can be considered as using a two-dimensional model to simulate a three dimensional situation.
GEOTRACK is a computer program developed at the University of Massachusetts. It uses multi-
layered theory and a three-dimensional model for the trackbed. This model divides the trackbed as five
layers and cannot be modified by the user. They are ballast, subballast, subgrade 1, subgrade 2 and
bedrock. It can be used only for the analysis of all-granular ballast trackbeds and is not applicable to
HMA trackbeds and slab trackbeds.
Therefore, it is necessary to develop a scientific rational analysis procedure to determine the
stress distribution for both HMA and ballast trackbeds. The KENTRACK computer program was
developed for this purpose.

COMPUTER PROGRAM THEORY

A structural design computer program, KENTRACK, was developed for analyzing railroad
trackbeds by the Department of Civil Engineering, University of Kentucky in early 1980s (Huang, Lin,
Deng and Rose, 1984). Recently, this program has been modified from a previous version that utilized a
Disk Operating System (DOS). The modification permits the user to change various properties of the
track structure much easier than previously when values were entered by DOS. A user-friendly
Window’s based interface, Graphical User’s Interface, containing four descriptive forms (or screens),
allows the user the option to enter varying values for the track structure components.

Finite Element Method

Typically, the railroad track structure consists of rail, fastener, tie and a multi-layered support
system from top to bottom, as shown in Figure 3. Among them, the multi-layered support system
consists of trackbed, subgrade and bedrock. The trackbed is normally composed of two layers ---- the
top one is ballast or slab, and the bottom one is granular material such as subballast or bound material
such as asphalt mix. When several loads are applied to the rail, the stress, strain and deflection of rail
and tie can be obtained by superimposing the effect of each load.

Symmetry Rail
Line

Spring
Tie

Beam Element

layer 1 ballast
layer 2 sublayer
layer 3 subgrade
layer 4 bedrock

Figure 3 Sketch of Railroad Track Model

When calculating the stress and strain of rails and ties, the finite element method is employed.
Rail and tie can be classified as beam elements and the spring element is used to simulate the tie plate
and fastener between rails and ties. The finite element equation and stiffness matrix of the beam element
can be written as following:
 12 EI 6 EI − 12 EI 6 EI 
 l 3
l 2
l 3
l 2  w   P 
 4 EI − 6 EI 2 EI   i   i 
 
 l l2 l  θ yi  =  M yi 
 12 EI − 6 EI   w j   Pj 
   
 l3 l 2  θ yj  M yj 
 4 EI     
 Symmetry 
 l 
where, E is Young’s modulus, I is moment of inertia of beam, l is the distance of beam between nodes
i and j, wi is vertical deflection at node i, θyi is rotation about y axis at node i, Pi is the vertical force
applied at node i, and Myi is moment about y axis at node i.
For one dimensional spring element, the stiffness matrix can be written as following:
 k s − k s   wi   Pi 
− k   =  
 s k s  w j   Pj 
where, ks is spring constant.
After calculation, the stress beneath ties can be determined. However, due to the necessity of the
multi-layered theory, the stresses are simplified as intent circular loads. The radius of this circle is
obtained by using the contact area of one tie, A, divided by the total numbers of elements, m. This
process was shown in Figure 3.

Multi-layered System
For KENTRACK, only four layers are used ---- ballast, subballast or HMA, subgrade soil and
bedrock ---- from top to bottom. Following is a brief introduction to this system. The details of multi-
layered system solution method can be found in a related reference (Y. H. Huang, 1993).
The general equation for multi-layered system is as follows:
∂ 2σ 1 ∂σ ∂ 2σ ∂ 2σ 1 ∂σ ∂ 2σ
∇ σ =( 2 +
4
+ )( + + )
∂r r ∂r ∂r 2 ∂r 2 r ∂r ∂z 2
By using this general equation, the stresses in vertical, tangential and radial directions, the shear
stresses, and the strains (displacements) in radial and vertical directions can be expressed and calculated.
However, these values are not the actual stresses and displacements due to a uniform load q distributed
over a circular area. To find the actual stresses and displacements under a uniform load distributed over
a circular area, Hankel transform method should be used. Then the results obtained from the above
equations can be converted to actual stresses and displacements by using the following equation:
qa ∞ R * ma
R=
H ∫0 m
J 1 ( )dm
H
where, R* is the stress or displacement due to the loading which can be expressed as –mJ0(mα); R is the
stress or displacement due to load q; J is Bessel function and m is a parameter.

Material Properties
An HMA railroad trackbed is composed of three different materials. They are ballast, HMA and
subgrade soil. Although all of them are considered as elastic materials, different kinds of numerical
equations are used to describe them due to their different inherent properties.
Ballast can be considered as either a non-linear or linear material. When a railroad trackbed is
recently constructed and has not been compacted, ballast always behaves non-linearly. In this case, the
constitutive equation for calculating the resilient modulus of granular material is governed by the
following two equations:
E = K 1θ K 2
θ = σ 1 + σ 2 + σ 3 + γz (1 + 2 K 0 )
where, E is the resilient modulus; K1 and K2 are the coefficients; σ1, σ2 and σ3 are the three principle
stresses; γ is the unit weight of material and K0 is lateral stress ratio.
If the trackbed has been used for a period and the ballast has become compacted, it is more
reasonable to use the linear model rather than the nonlinear model for calculating the resilient modulus.
In this case, the above equations are still applicable by setting K2 equal to 0.
 HMA is a temperature dependent material. Its dynamic modulus can be calculated by using the
method developed by the Asphalt Institute (Hwang and Witczak, 1979). Note that different temperatures
should be used for different months or seasons.
Subgrade soils are always considered as linear elastic materials regardless of the type. However,
the program permits using different kinds of soil to composite the total subgrade with different Poisson’s
ratios and elastic modulus values. In the bottom layer, the program will consider it as an ideal material --
- bedrock --- which has an infinite elastic modulus (incompressible) and 0.5 for Poisson’s ratio.

Damage Analysis
To predict the service life of the railroad trackbed, a prediction function has been integrated into
the program based on the Minor linear damage analysis criteria. The design life can be determined by
the following equation:
1
L= n
Np
∑N
i =1 orN d
a
where L is design life in years, Np is predicted number of repetitions during each period, Na and Nd are
allowable number of repetitions during each period, and n is the time period (1 = year, 2 = half year, 4 =
season, and 12 = month).
Note that in the above equation, two failure criteria are employed due to the different properties
of materials. For HMA, it is the tensile strain on the bottom of asphalt that controls asphalt life to
prevent excessive cracking. For subgrade soil, it is the vertical deformation that controls subgrade life to
prevent excessive deformation which is determined to maintain adequate track geometry. The service
life of track structure is governed by the lesser one, either tensile failure of the HMA layer or vertical
permanent deformation of the subgrade.
To determine the number of repetitions of HMA to failure (Na), the following equation is used
from Asphalt Institute (Asphalt Institute, 1982):
N a = 0.0795ε t−3.291 E a−0.853
where εt is horizontal tensile strain at the bottom of the asphalt, and Ea is elastic modulus of asphalt in
psi. The relationship was developed for asphalt layers in highway pavement environments and loading
conditions, which is much more stringent than in railroad trackbed.
To determine the number of repetitons of subgrade to failure (Nd), following equation is used
(Huang, Lin, Deng and Rose, 1984):
N d = 4.837 × 10 −5 σ c−3.734 E s−3.583
where σc is vertical compressive stress on the top of subgrade in psi, and Es is subgrade modulus in psi.

METHODOLOGY
In order to develop a rational structural design method for railroad trackbeds, it is necessary to
understand the effects of the various track components to trackbed performance. A typical HMA rail
track section shown in Figure 4a is used. Also, a traditional all-granular railroad trackbed, shown in
Figure 4b, is also evaluated for performance comparison with the HMA trackbed. Note that the
components and factors used in both of the models are the values for a typical trackbed. When the
analysis is performed for determining different values, these values may be changed.
Tables 1a and 1b record all the constant and variable trackbed components and factors used in
this evaluation. The inputting parameters are also recorded in this table. Damage analysis is performed
by season. Note that the temperatures used here for each season are the average temperatures for a
moderate climate. When designing railroad trackbeds in frigid or tropical zones, lower or higher
temperature value should be used.
 axle load = 36 ton
rail = RE132

wood tie

ballast layer
8 in. thick

HMA layer
6 in. thick
subgrade
subgrade modulus = 12,000 psi
200 in. thick
Figure 4a Section of HMA Trackbed

axle load = 36 ton

rail = RE132

wood tie

ballast layer
10 in. thick

subballast layer
4 in. thick
subgrade
subgrade modulus = 12,000 psi
200 in. thick
Figure 4b Section of All-granular Ballast Trackbed

Table 2 contains the standard design parameters for typical HMA and all-granular ballast
railroad track structures used in United States. These standard values were used in the KENTRACK
program. Note that provisions are included for replacing standard wood ties with concrete ties. Also, the
combined thickness of ballast plus HMA (for HMA trackbed) and ballast plus subballast (for ballast
trackbed) are maintained at 14 inches.
The critical outputs for examples 1 and 2 are listed in Table 3. They are subgrade vertical
compressive stress, HMA horizontal tensile strain (valid only for HMA trackbed), predicted service life
of subgrade and predicted service life of HMA (valid only for HMA trackbed). The advantage of the
HMA trackbed can be noted. It induces lower vertical compressive stress (11.8 psi) on the top of the
subgrade compared with all-granular trackbed (13.6 psi). This results in a predicted 133% increase in
subgrade service life for the HMA trackbed.
 Table 1a Details of Components and Factors that Remain Constant
Parameter Name Parameter Values
Wheel Load (pound force) Two@36000
Distance between Loads (inch) 70
Tie Spacing (inch) 20
102×7×9
Tie Dimension (inch)
(length×thickness×width)
Ballast Modulus (psi) 47000
Subballast Thickness (inch) 4
Subballast Modulus (psi) 20000
Poisson’s Ratio for Subballast 0.35
Poisson’s Ratio for HMA 0.45
Volume of Voids for HMA(%) 5.7
50 (spring)
63 (summer)
Temperature for HMA (°F)
37 (autumn)
20 (winter)
698000 (spring)
372000 (summer)
HMA Modulus (psi)
1250000 (autumn)
2260000 (winter)
Volume of Bitumen for HMA (%) 13.5
HMA Viscosity at 70 °F (poise) 2500000
Subgrade Thickness (inch) 200
Poisson’s Ratio for Subgrade 0.4
Poisson’s Ratio for Bedrock 0.5
Traffic Volume (MGT) 32

Table 1b Details of Components and Factors that Vary

Parameter Name Parameter Values
Rail Size RE100, RE115, RE132, RE140
Fastener Type Spike
0.35 (after compact)
Poisson’s Ratio for Ballast
0.25 (before compact)
Ballast Thickness (inch) 6, 8, 10, 12
HMA Thickness (inch) 4, 6, 8
Subgrade Modulus (psi) 3000, 12000, 21000, 30000
 Table 2 Standard Design Parameters for HMA and Ballast Trackbeds
Parameter Name HMA Trackbed Ballast Trackbed
Rail Size RE132
Tie Type (Fastener Type) Wood Tie (Spike)
Tie Spacing (inch) 20
102×7×9
Tie Dimension (inch)
(length×thickness×width)
Ballast Modulus (psi) 47000
Poisson’s Ratio for Ballast 0.35 (after compact)
Ballast Thickness (inch) 8 10
Subballast Thickness (inch) N/A 4
Poisson’s Ratio for Subballast N/A 0.35
HMA Thickness (inch) 6 N/A
Poisson’s Ratio for HMA 0.45 N/A
50 (spring),
63 (summer),
Temperature for HMA (°F) N/A
37 (autumn),
20 (winter)
698000 (spring)
372000 (summer)
HMA Modulus (psi) N/A
1250000 (autumn)
2260000 (winter)
Volume of Voids for HMA (%) 5.7 N/A
Volume of Bitumen for HMA
13.5 N/A
(%)
HMA Viscosity at 70 °F (poise) 2500000 N/A
Subgrade Modulus (psi) 12000
Subgrade Thickness (inch) 200

Poisson’s Ratio for Subgrade 0.4

Poisson’s Ratio for Bedrock 0.5

Traffic Volume (MGT) 32

 Table 3 Critical Outputs for Wood Tie Track
(Standard HMA and Ballast Trackbeds)
Standard HMA Standard Ballast
Item Trackbed Trackbed
(Figure 4.1) (Figure 4.2)
Subgrade Vertical Compressive
11.8 13.6
Stress (psi)
HMA Tensile Strain (in./in.) 1.58×10-4 N/A
Predicted Service Life of Subgrade
14 6
(year)
Predicted Service Life of HMA
29 N/A
(year)

It should be noted that subgrade failure of a trackbed, due to overstressing of the subgrade
normally results in settlement of the subgrade and a depression in the track surface profile. This
depression can be easily corrected by adding additional ballast and raising (pulling) the track to its
original and desired elevation.
Failure of a highway pavement subgrade, however, is a more severe situation. It normally results
in settlement of the pavement structure and fatigue cracking of the HMA. These conditions are not
easily corrected and either one is considered as a definite failure of the pavement. The failure criteria
utilized in the KENTRACK program was developed based on highway loading conditions and
environments.
The actual subgrade service life for an HMA trackbed is likely to be much greater than the
predicted service life indicated in Table 3 for two reasons. The first reason is due to the inherently lower
subgrade stress level in the HMA trackbed. This fact is partially reflected in the Table 3 predicted
service lives for HMA and all-granular ballast trackbeds. The KENTRACK failure mechanism for
subgrade is due to repeated loading and fatigue of the subgrade. Therefore, the lower subgrade stress
level on the HMA trackbed accounts for a predicted increase in service life for the HMA trackbed.
However, since a failure (settlement) of a railroad trackbed subgrade is not as significant relative
to a highway subgrade, the actual service life of a railroad subgrade is likely to be much longer even
before it needs significant maintenance or rehabilitation. Therefore, the predicted service lives in Table 3
can be considered conservative for railroad applications.
The second reason is that normally the settlement of a trackbed is due to weakening or softening
of the subgrade due to water infiltrating the structure. This is very common for the all-granular (open)
ballast trackbed.
However, the HMA trackbed provides an impermeable layer to shield the subgrade from water
infiltration from the top. This type of trackbed is less likely to be adversely affected by weak or soft
subgrades.
Previous studies (Rose, Brown & Osborne, 2000) have revealed that moisture contents of
subgrades in HMA trackbeds remain very close to optimum. This provides for maximum strength and
load carrying capacity throughout the life of the trackbed. Therefore, it is likely that an HMA trackbed
will have a significantly longer actual service life than an all-granular trackbed that is subjected to
varying moisture contents of the subgrade. The source of the varying moisture could be rainfall
percolating through the granular material or fluctuations in ground water table.

EFFECT OF AXLE LOAD AND SUBGRADE MODULUS

In the design and analysis of a railroad trackbed structure, the imposed axle loads cannot be
neglected. It is considered as the very significant external factor. In this paper, the 36-ton axle load has
been considered as the standard design value. However, in the United States, 33-ton axle loads are
also very common on many freight railroad lines and 39-ton axle loads are undergoing research and
testing.
It is desirable to evaluate the performance of trackbeds under these varying axle loads. Two
types of track structures were evaluated; the HMA trackbed shown in Figure 4a and ballast trackbed
shown in Figure 4b. However, the axle load was varied from 33 to 39 tons. However, since subgrade
modulus is believed to have a major influence on the predicted performances of both HMA and all-
granular ballast trackbeds, the effects of four different subgrade moduli were evaluated. The moduli
were 3000 psi for weak subgrade, 12000 psi for normal subgrade, 21000 psi for good subgrade and
30000 psi for excellent subgrade. Analytical results are shown in Figures 5a and 5b for subgrade vertical
compressive stress, Figure 6 for HMA tensile strain, Figures 7a to 7c and Table 4 for predicted service
lives of HMA and subgrades in HMA and all-granular ballast trackbed.
Figures 5a and 5b show the effects of different axle loads and subgrade moduli on the subgrade
vertical compressive stress for HMA and All-granular ballast trackbed. It is obvious that the heavier axle
load results in larger subgrade vertical compressive stress for both the HMA trackbed and all-granular
ballast trackbeds. The stress increases by about 19% as the axle load increases from 33 to 39 tons for a
given subgrade modulus.
According to Figures 5a and 5b, it can be noted that subgrade modulus has a major effect on the
subgrade vertical compressive stress for both HMA and all-granular ballast trackbeds. Higher subgrade
moduli, which represents strong subgrade, results in higher subgrade vertical compressive stress. For
example, in HMA trackbed, when axle load are 33 ton and 39 ton respectively, the subgrade vertical
compressive stresses increase 92% and 96% as the subgrade modulus increases from 3000 psi to 30000
psi.
Also from these two figures, for the same axle load and subgrade modulus, the subgrade vertical
compressive stress in HMA trackbed is lower than that in all-granular ballast trackbed. For example,
when axle load is 33 ton and the subgrade modulus is 3000 psi, the subgrade vertical compressive stress
in all-granular ballast trackbed is 13% higher than that in HMA trackbed. For 39 ton axle load and
30000 psi subgrade modulus, it is 12% higher. This also illustrates that HMA trackbed can decrease the
subgrade vertical compressive stress thus increase the service life of subgrade.
Figure 6 shows the effects of different axle loads and subgrade moduli on the HMA tensile stain.
The heavier axle loads produce larger deformations of the HMA layer. Thus the HMA tensile strain
increases slightly as the load increases.
Figures 7a to 7c and Table 4 show the effects of different axle loads and subgrade moduli on the
predicted service lives of HMA and subgrade in HMA trackbed and all-granular ballast trackbed.
Since both of the subgrade vertical compressive stresses and the HMA tensile strain increase as
the axle load increases, the predicted life of HMA and subgrade decreases. The decreases are significant.
For example, as the axle load increases from 33 to 39 ton, the subgrade life in the HMA trackbed and in
the ballast trackbed are both reduced by about 50%.
Another interesting finding in Figure 7 is that, in HMA trackbed and for the same subgrade
modulus, even under 39 ton axle load, the predicted HMA subgrade service life is longer (0.3, 10, 43,
103 years for subgrade modulus equals 3000, 12000, 21000, 30000 psi respectively) than it would be in
an all-granular ballast trackbed (0.3, 8, 35, 93 years for subgrade modulus equals 3000, 12000, 21000,
30000 psi respectively) under 33 ton axle load. This is another indication that the HMA trackbed is
superior to the all-granular ballast trackbed, assuming the subgrade modulus values are equal. In
addition, based on findings discussed previously, the subgrades in HMA trackbeds remain at optimum
moisture and strength (modulus). This implies that HMA trackbeds will provide even longer service
lives than those predicted by the KENTRACK program.
Table 4 contains the predicted service lives for HMA and ballast trackbeds having various
subgrade moduli. The effect of increasing axle load is obvious. The predicted service lives are reduced
by about 50% as the axle load is increased from 33 to 39 tons.
 24
subgrade modulus = 3000 psi
subgrade modulus = 12000 psi
Subgrade Vertical Compressive subgrade modulus = 21000 psi
subgrade modulus= 30000 psi
18 16.66
15.32
14.78
13.98
Stress (psi)

13.61
12.43 12.85
11.85
12 10.86

8.49
7.88
7.26

0
33 36 39
Axle Load (ton)

Figure 5a Effects of Axle Load and Subgrade Modulus on the Subgrade Vertical Compressive Stress in
HMA Trackbed

30
subgrade modulus = 3000 psi
Subgrade Vertical Compressive

subgrade modulus = 12000 psi

24 subgrade modulus = 21000 psi
subgrade modulus = 30000 psi
18.63
Stress (psi)

18 17.12 17.09
15.61 15.73 15.16
14.37
13.64
12.49
12
9.68
8.94
8.21

0
33 36 39
Axle Load (ton)

Figure 5b Effects of Axle Load and Subgrade Modulus on the Subgrade Vertical Compressive Stress in
All-granular Ballast Trackbed
 5
subgrade modulus = 3000 psi
HMA Tensile Strain x10-4 (in./in.) subgrade modulus = 12000 psi
4 subgrade modulus = 21000 psi
subgrade modulus = 30000 psi
3.18
2.93
3 2.67

2 1.72
1.58
1.43
1.30
1.19 1.10
1.08 1.00
0.91
1

0
33 36 39
Axle Load (ton)

Figure 6 Effects of Axle Load and Subgrade Modulus on HMA Tensile Strain

200

subgrade modulus = 3000 psi

Predicted Service Life (years)

subgrade modulus = 12000 psi

150 subgrade modulus = 21000 psi
subgrade modulus = 30000 psi

100

50

0
33 36 39
Axle Load (ton)

Figure 7a Effects of Axle Load and Subgrade Modulus on the Predicted Service Life of HMA in HMA
Trackbed

Predicted Service Life (years)
250
subgrade modulus = 3000 psi
subgrade modulus = 12000 psi
200 subgrade modulus = 21000 psi
subgrade modulus = 30000 psi

150

100

50

0
33 36 39
Axle Load (ton)

Figure 7b Effects of Axle Load and Subgrade Modulus on the Predicted Service Life of Subgrade in
HMA Trackbed

100
subgrade modulus = 3000 psi
subgrade modulus = 12000 psi
Predicted Service Life (years)

subgrade modulus = 21000 psi

75 subgrade modulus = 30000 psi

50

25

0
33 36 39
Axle Load (ton)

Figure 7c Effects of Axle Load and Subgrade Modulus on the Predicted Service Life of Subgrade in All-
granular Ballast Trackbed
 Table 4 Effects of Axle Load on Predicted Service Life of HMA and Subgrade for HMA and All-
granular Ballast Trackbed
Ballast Trackbed
HMA Trackbed
Subgrade Axle (10 in. ballast,
(8 in. ballast, 6 in. HMA)
Modulus Load 4 in. subballast)
(psi) (ton) HMA Life Subgrade Life Subgrade Life
(year) (year) (year)
33 5 0.5 0.3
3000 36 4 0.4 0.2
39 3 0.3 0.15
33 39 19 8
12000 36 29 14 6
39 22 10 4
33 93 82 35
21000 36 67 59 25
39 50 43 18
33 163 199 93
30000 36 118 141 66
39 88 103 48

EFFECTS OF HOT MIX ASPHALT THICKNESS

Hot mix asphalt is a common civil engineering material that has been used as a highway paving
material since the early 1900s. During the past twenty years it has been introduced to the railroad
industry as underlayment material for use instead of an all-granular subballast layer. For a normal ballast
trackbed, the subballast often is embedded into or mixed with the subgrade soil due to the compaction
acting of loads. When water infiltrates the trackbed, ballast pockets develop. This speeds up the attrition
of subgrade soils and reduces subgrade bearing capability. Railroad engineers have been perplexed by
this problem for a long time. However, using HMA as the sublayer can solve this problem due to the
inherent properties of the asphalt layer.
To evaluate the effects of different HMA thicknesses on the track performance, a typical HMA
trackbed model shown in Figure 4a is used. The total trackbed thickness (ballast thickness plus HMA
thickness) is 16 inches and the HMA thickness varies from 4 inches to 6 inches to 8 inches. To simulate
the different types of roadbeds, subgrade modulus is set as 3000 psi for poor support, 9000 psi for
normal support, 15000 psi for good support, 21000 psi for strong support and 27000 psi for excellent
support. Test results can be found in Figures 8 and 9 and service life predictions can be found in Table 5.
From Figure 8, it can be found that for thicker HMA trackbed, the pressure on the top of
subgrade is less than that for thinner HMA trackbed. Increasing HMA layer thickness lowers the
pressure transmitted to the subgrade, thus the subgrade service life will increase. Although using thicker
HMA can increase track modulus, therefore protecting subgrade (very important for weak subgrade
soils), it also increases the tensile strain on the bottom of HMA as noted in Figure 9. Note that generally,
for weak subgrades, the subgrade fails earlier than the HMA layer. So in this case, it is desirable to use
thicker HMA layer to reduce the pressure on the top of the subgrade. But for stronger subgrades, since
subgrade soil has a higher bearing capability, it will last longer than HMA layer. So the thickness of
asphalt should be reduced to increase the service life of HMA.
 16

Subgrade Vertical Compressive Stress (psi) Ballast thickness = 16 in. - HMA thickness

14

12

10
0 in. HMA
4 in. HMA
8 6 in. HMA
8 in. HMA

6
3000 9000 15000 21000 27000

Subgrade Modulus (psi)

Figure 8 Effects of HMA Thickness on Subgrade Vertical Compressive Stress

3.2

Ballast thickness = 16 in. - HMA thickness

2.8
HMA Tensile Strain x10 (in./in.)

1 in. HMA
2.4
4 in. HMA
-4

6 in. HMA
2 8 in. HMA

1.6

1.2

0.8
3000 9000 15000 21000 27000
Subgrade Modulus (psi)

Figure 9 Effects of HMA Thickness on HMA Tensile Strain

 Table 5 Effects of HMA Thickness on Predicted Service Life of
HMA and Subgrade
Subgrade HMA Thickness Predicted Service Predicted Service Life of
Modulus (psi) (inches) Life of HMA (year) Subgrade (year)
0 N/A 0.2
4 7 0.4
3000
6 6 0.5
8 5 0.6
0 N/A 4
4 34 7
9000
6 28 9
8 26 10
0 N/A 15
4 71 24
15000
6 59 32
8 56 43
0 N/A 36
4 121 58
21000
6 106 81
8 96 103
0 N/A 75
4 178 107
27000
6 148 147
8 140 198
Note: Total thickness of ballast and HMA is 16 inches and traffic volume is 32 MGT.

TRACKBED STRESS MEASUREMENTS

TTCI Subgrade Stress Measurements

The Transportation Technology Center (TTCI) in Pueblo, Colorado has measured the vertical
compressive stress on top of subgrade underneath asphalt underlayment systems (D. Li, J. G. Rose, and
J. Lopresti, 2001). Geokon model 3500 hydraulic type earth pressure cells (Figure 10) were utilized for
the in-track measurements. Figure 11 depicts the configuration of the components in the measurement
system. Data taken from the TTCI Heavy Tonnage test site indicates a vertical compressive stress of
approximately 7 psi directly beneath an 8-in. thick asphalt underlayment system. The tests involved 33
ton axle-loading and wood ties. The depth of ballast between tie and asphalt is approximately 8 inches.
The test section at Pueblo is placed on top of a very weak subgrade possessing a modulus of elasticity of
approximately 2,000 psi in the saturated condition. Figure 12 shows a longitudinal view of the test
section. Test results are shown in Figure 13. It is interesting to note that KENTRACK calculates a
vertical compressive stress of approximately 6 psi for a subgrade modulus of 2,000 psi. These results
compare closely, as minimal differences are noted between the vertical compressive stress as
measured in the trackbed and those predicted by KENTRACK.

Figure 10 Pressure Cell

Junction Box

Pressure Cell

Battery

Figure 11 Data Acquisition System

 350 ft 350 ft 10 ft

8 in.
12 in. ballast

8 in.
4 in. HMA
4 in. subballast 4 in.

clay subgrade

Figure 12 Longitudinal Section of Test HMA Trackbed at TTCI

15

12
Subgrade Stress (psi)

0
18 in. granular track 4 in. HMA track 8 in. HMA track

Figure 13 Test Result of HMA Trackbed in TTCI

UK and TTCI HMA Stress Measurements

Peak dynamic stresses also have been measured on top of HMA underlayments (below the
ballast) on a CSX Transportation heavy tonnage revenue line by University of Kentucky (UK)
researchers and at the Fast Track test installations by TTCI researchers (Rose J., Li D., and Walker, L.
2002). The revenue and test track measurements compare favorably with TTCI under the 33 ton axle
loads, ranging from 13 to 17 psi. Actually the stresses on the HMA layer in the trackbed are only two to
three times greater in magnitude than the pressure existed by an average size person standing on an
asphalt pavement. The dynamic pressure test results from TTCI are shown in Figure 14. Those from
CSX Transportation are shown in Figure 15.

20 subgrade surface
HMA surface

15
Compressive Stress (psi)

10

0
2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5
Time (s)

Figure 14 Dynamic Compressive Pressures Measured on TTCI Test Track

Other field studies indicate that the in-situ moisture contents of the subgrade type materials
directly under the asphalt underlayments remain very close to optimum values for the respective
materials even after many years of service (J. G. Rose, E. R. Brown and M. L. Osborne, 2000). This
attests to the waterproofing attributes provided by the asphalt layer. For design purposes, it is reasonable
to base subgrade strength and bearing capacity values at optimum conditions (moisture content and
density) for the material under the asphalt. The unsoaked (optimum) moisture content condition is
consistent with in-service trackbed conditions.

SUMMARY
The KENTRACK computer program, utilizing finite element method and multi-layered theory,
has been described and utilized throughout this paper. The recently developed user-friendly windows
based Graphical User’s Interface version has been specifically evaluated. The program is determined to
be applicable for the structural design of all-granular ballast and layered (containing a cemented asphalt-
bound or HMA granular layer) trackbeds.
The effects of numerous variables on trackbed design and evaluations, as determined and
predicted by the computer program, are presented in particular detail. The incorporation of an asphalt-
bound layer (HMA underlayment) in the track structure, in place of a granular layer, has a particularly
significant effect of reducing trackbed stresses and strains. This increases the service life of the track
structure, thus reducing maintenance and rehabilitation costs and improving operating efficiencies.
The variable that has the most significant effect on the predicted railroad trackbed service life is
the subgrade modulus. The importance of initially designing for and maintaining high subgrade moduli
within the track structure cannot be over emphasized. A primary benefit of an HMA trackbed is the
waterproofing effect it provides to the underlying subgrade, thus assuring high subgrade modulus.
Stress measurements obtained from instrumented test and revenue traffic trackbeds compare
favorably with the computer program predictions. This provides a measure of credibility to the
applicability and adaptability of the KENTRACK computer program.

25
Four 6-Axle Locos 8 in. ballast
HMA Compressive Stress (psi) 5 in. HMA
20

Initial 5 Cars
15

10

0
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Time (s)

20

Four 6-Axle Locos 8 in. ballast

8 in. HMA
HMA Compressive Stress (psi)

15

Initial 5 Cars
10

0
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Time (s)

Figure 15 Representative Dynamic Compressive Stress on HMA Layer Measured for Empty Coal Train
on CSX Transportation Mainline at Conway, KY

All damage analyses for the subgrade and HMA within the track structure are based on damage
equations developed for highway pavements. The critical outputs are vertical compressive stress on the
subgrade and horizontal tensile strain on the bottom of the HMA layer.
 The actual service lives for the HMA and subgrade in railroad trackbed environments are
likely to be several orders of magnitude greater due to the less severe trackbed loadings and
environmental conditions. The predicted lives for railroad applications would thus be very conservative.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The findings and conclusions emanating from the computer generated stresses and strains in the
track structure, due to the effects of varying numerous variables, and the predicted track structure
service lines, are contained in the following discussions.

Varying Axle Load

As axle loads increase, the imposed subgrade vertical compressive stress increases. For example,
increasing the axle load from 33 to 39 tons increases the stress by about 15%. In addition, stresses are
about 15% greater on ballast trackbeds. HMA tensile strains are increased as the axle load is increased.
Increasing axle loads reduces the predicted service lives for both HMA and all-granular ballast
trackbeds.

Varying Subgrade Modulus

Increasing the subgrade modulus leads to a marginal incremental increases in subgrade vertical
compressive stress. The range is 9 to 17 psi from a very weak to a very strong subgrade. Stresses are
typically 15% higher in the all-granular ballast trackbed for a given subgrade modulus.
However, the increases in stress levels with increasing subgrade modulus are insignificant and
possibly misleading. This is due to the fact that the higher modulus (stronger) subgrades are capable of
withstanding higher stresses to a greater degree. Therefore, the predicted service lives for both HMA
and all-granular ballast trackbeds are increased very significantly. The increase ranges from 1 to 53
years from a weak to a strong subgrade, respectively. Furthermore, the life of the HMA trackbed is
typically twice that of a ballast trackbed for a given subgrade modulus.
HMA tensile strain is reduced as the subgrade modulus is increased. This is expected as the
asphalt layer deflects less on the stronger subgrades and the tensile strains are less. Except for the very
strong subgrades, the initial failure of an HMA trackbed will be due to subgrade failure rather the HMA
cracking.
Obviously, one of the major objectives to consider in the design and selection of materials for
railroad trackbeds, is to assume the maintenance of a high modulus subgrade. It must adequately support
the overlying track and granular materials to minimize trackbed induced maintenance, increase service
life and improve operating efficiency.

Varying HMA Thickness

For a given total thickness of ballast plus HMA, increasing HMA thickness from 4 in. to 8 in.
only reduces subgrade vertical compressive stress by about 10%. Increasing HMA thickness from 4 in.
to 8 in., slightly increases the HMA tensile strain.
Increasing HMA thickness increases the predicted service life of the subgrade substantially, but
does reduce the service life of the HMA only marginally.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research reported herein was supported financially by CSX Transportation. A portion of the
data was obtained from the Association of American Railroads test facility at Pueblo, Colorado. This
paper is a condensed version of a THESIS submitted by Bei Su in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of master of science in Civil Engineering at the University of Kentucky, February 2003,
directed by Dr. Jerry G. Rose.
REFERENCES
Asphalt Institute, (1998), HMA Trackbeds – Hot Mix Asphalt for Quality Railroad and Transit
Trackbeds. Information Series 137, 10 pages.

Asphalt Institute, (1982), Research and Development of The Asphalt Institute’s Thickness Design
Manual (MS-1) Ninth Edition, Research Report 82-2, 150 pages.

Chang, C. S., Adegoke, C. W. and Selig, E. T. (1980) The GEOTRACK model for railroad track
performance. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 106, No. GT11, November,
pp. 1201-1218.

Huang, Y. H., (1993) Pavement Analysis and Design, 1st Edition, Prentice Hall, pp 735-738.

Huang, Y. H., Lin, C., Deng, X., and Rose, J., (1984) KENTRACK, A Computer Program for Hot-Mix
Asphalt and Conventional Ballast Railway Trackbeds. Asphalt Institute (Publication RR-84-1) and
National Asphalt Pavement Association (Publication QIP-105), 164 pages.

Hwang, D., Witczak, M.W., (1979) Program DAMA (Chevron), User’s Manual, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Maryland.

Li, D., Rose, J., and Lopresti, J., (2001) Test of Hot-mix Asphalt Over Soft Subgrade Under Heavy Axle
Loads, Technology Digest 01-009, Transportation Technology Center, April, 4 pages.

Lopresti, J., Davis, D., Kalay, S. (2002) Strengthening the Track Structure for Heavy Axle Loads,
Railway Track & Structures, September, pp. 21-26.

Robnett, Q. L., Thompson, M. R., Knutson, R. M., and Tayabji, S. D. (1975) Development of a
structural model and materials valuation procedures. Ballast and Foundation Materials Research
Program, University of Illinois, report to FRA of US/DOT, Report No. DOT-FR-30038, May.

Rose, J., Brown, E. and Osborne, M., (2000) Asphalt Trackbed Technology Development; The First 20
years. Transportation Research Record 1713, Transportation Research Board, pp 1-9.

Rose, J., Li, D., and Walker, L., (2002) Tests and Evaluations of In-Service Asphalt Trackbeds.
Proceedings of the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association, 2002 Annual
Conference & Exposition, September, 30 pages.

Selig, E. T. and Waters, J. M., (1994) Track Geotechnology and Substructure Management, Thomas
Telford, pp 10.31-10.32.

Talbot, A. N., (1919) Stresses in Railroad Track, Reports of the Special Committee to Report on
Stresses in Railroad Track, Second Progress Report, AREA, Vol 21, pp 297-453.