Proceedings of India International Science Festival Young Scientists Meet

Department of Science and Technology Government of India Dec 4-8, 2015

Paper Code: Design51

STATIC ANALYSIS OF RAILWAY TRACK

Madhusmita Mohantaa,*, Gyan Setub, J P Srivastavac, P K Sarkard, V Ranjane
a
ISM, Dhanbad, India, madhusmitamohanta134@gmail.com
b
ISM, Dhanbad, India, gyansetu.setu@gmail.com
c
ISM, Dhanbad, India, jaysrvstv@gmail.com
*
Corresponding author

ABSTRACT - In this paper a static analysis of Indian Railway track is presented. The track is considered to be a
beam on elastic foundation of Winkler type. The Winkler type foundation is presented here in two ways: Continuous
and discrete support form. Indian Rail profile R60 data are applied to obtain analytical and numerical results. The
governing differential equation and finite element formulation of the beam is taken into the account. Two loading
pattern is considered: single point load of 98 KN corresponding to a single wheel and two pairs of wheel loads of
same magnitude at each of the contact point. The results obtained from the two formulation provide track
displacement, bending moment and shear force variation in an around the contact region. These results for track
displacement are simultaneously compared with those obtained from Euler-Bernoulli beam theory and Timoshenko
beam theory. The analysis indicate discrete elastic support assumption offer closer matching with experimental
results available in literature than those from continuous elastic support condition. This study can be viewed as a
foundation for future dynamic and vibration analysis of the track.

Keyword: R-60 Rail Track, Beam on Elastic Foundation, Continuous Support, Discrete Support, Dirac Delta
Function.

1. Introduction

With the increase in train speed the vibration, noise and risk of derailment increases, so the complete
study of track dynamics become very important to understand the basic cause of the problem. In this
context, static analysis becomes the first step to reach the dynamic and vibration response analysis. Beam
on continuous elastic foundation is often used in various engineering problems and has applications in rail
track engineering for foundation design and analysis. It is generally modeled as beam on Winkler or
Pasternak type foundations but the effect of difference in modeling is insignificant (Mallick et al., 2006).
On the other hand, a complex foundation model may lead to unmanageable equations, which are difficult
to solve analytically. The ratio of the vehicle weight and the support beam weight is large, so the system
can be simplified as single degree of freedom system having weights on a mass less beam (Lin and
Trethewey, 1990). In most cases, elastic foundation is replaced by spring element and analysis of beam on
spring element is assumed as simplified model (Biot, 1937). The railway track can also be assumed as an
infinite beam on equally spaced spring element which represents the model as beam on discrete elastic
support.

Hetenyi (Hetenyi, 1961) presented a closed form solution for an infinitely long beam on an elastic
foundation under static loads and series solutions for the cases of finite beam. Li and Berggren (Li and
Berggren, 2010) used the static approach to calculate the global track stiffness and showed that rail
displacement should be in the range of 0.5-1 mm for a wheel load of 100 kN. Kerr (Kerr, 2000) using
Kerr method determined the rail support modulus for static load condition and opined that static test gives
better result than dynamic test for determining track modulus. Numerical methods and experimental
measurements are used to determine static behavior of railway track. Experimental measurements are

Design51- 1
Proceedings of India International Science Festival Young Scientists Meet
Department of Science and Technology Government of India Dec 4-8, 2015
Paper Code: Design51

very time consuming and they cannot be used at all stages of design. Hence, numerical methods are
important tools in static analysis of railway track (Baykasoglu et al., 2012).

In this paper, governing differential equation and finite element formulation of the beam on elastic
foundation of Winkler type is taken into the account. The results from two loading pattern: single point
load of 98 kN (Srivastava et al., 2014) corresponding to a single wheel and two pair of wheel of same
magnitude at each of the contact point is provided for track displacement, bending moment and shear
force variation in an around the contact region by considering different boundary conditions. The results
for track displacement are simultaneously compared with those obtainable from Euler-Bernoulli beam
theory and Timoshenko beam theory. The difference in track displacement for both the foundation model
is compared using finite element analysis software (ANSYS 15). The solution of governing differential
equation become complex to solve for multiple loading, so the complexity is reduced by transforming
into Dirac-delta function.

2. Mathematical Formulation

The mathematical formulation is done by considering railway track as an Euler Bernoulli beam on
elastic foundation of Winkler type. The governing differential equation for beam on continuous elastic
support is solved by Newtonian method and for discrete elastic support energy method is used.

2.1 Beam On Continuous Elastic Support

Fig. 1. Beam on continuous elastic support

ASSUMPTIONS
A. The foundation has sufficient strength to prevent its own failure.
B. The foundation resists the load transmitted by the beam in a linearly elastic manner. This
assumption is fairly accurate for small deflections.

Design51- 2
Proceedings of India International Science Festival Young Scientists Meet
Department of Science and Technology Government of India Dec 4-8, 2015
Paper Code: Design51

Fig. 2. Beam element

For the linearly elastic foundation, the distributed load q is linearly proportional to the deflection y of the
beam,

q = ky (1)

where, the spring coefficient k,

k = bk (2)

In above b is the beam width and k is the elastic spring constant for the foundation. The governing
equation for beam on elastic foundation is given by (Boresi et al., 1993),

(3)

The general solution of eq. (3) is,

( ) ( ) (4)

With the notation,

(5)

where, is the foundation parameter. C1, C2, C3 and C4 are determined by the boundary conditions. For
large positive values of x, the deflection of the beam goes to zero. Consequently,

C1, C2 0

( ), x0 (6)

BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
1. The slope of the beam remains zero under the load because of symmetry, i.e.
for x=0 (7)
2. Half of the load P must be supported by the elastic foundation under the half of the beam
specified by positive values of x. The other half of P is supported by the elastic foundation
where x < 0, i.e.
(8)

Design51- 3
Proceedings of India International Science Festival Young Scientists Meet
Department of Science and Technology Government of India Dec 4-8, 2015
Paper Code: Design51

By applying boundary equations in eq. (6) at x = 0,

C3= C4= C

( ) (9)

Substituting eq. (9) into eq. (8),

(10)

Now, the equation of the deflected axis of the beam becomes,

( ), x0 (11)

The values of the slope, moment and shear are obtained from eq (11) as,

, z0 (12)

, z0 (13)

, z0 (14)

, z0 (15)

where, ( ), (16a)

( ), (16b)

2.2 Beam On Discrete Elastic Support

ASSUMPTIONS
A. Castigliones theorem is restricted to small displacement.
B. Every plane cross-section of each member of a structure before deformation remains plane
after deformation.

Design51- 4
Proceedings of India International Science Festival Young Scientists Meet
Department of Science and Technology Government of India Dec 4-8, 2015
Paper Code: Design51

Fig. 3. Beam on discrete elastic support

Let each spring in the figure have the same spring constant k1. The reaction force R that each spring
exerts on the beam is directly proportional to the deflection y of the beam at the section where the spring
is attached. Thus, we write
R = k1y (17)
It is assumed that the load R is distributed uniformly over a spacing L, a distance L/2 to the right
and to the left of each spring. An equivalent spring constant k exists, such that
k=k1/ L (18)
For this case, it is assumed that seven springs are attached to the beam so that the springs can develop
tensile as well as compressive forces. Because of symmetry, there are only four unknown spring forces A,
B, C and D. Let the loads B, C and D carried by the springs be redundant reactions. The magnitude of
these redundant are obtained using the equation,

(19)

(20)

The strain energy for the beam and the springs is given by the relation (Boresi et al., 1993)

( ) (21)

The moments in the three integrals are functions of the reaction A which can be eliminated from the
above equation by the equilibrium force equation for the y direction,

Fy = 0; (22)

The moments for the three segments of the beam are:

M = Ax for 0 x L

M = Ax+ B(x-l) for L x 2L

M = Ax+ B(x-l) + C(x-2l) for 2L x 3L (23)

Design51- 5
Proceedings of India International Science Festival Young Scientists Meet
Department of Science and Technology Government of India Dec 4-8, 2015
Paper Code: Design51

Substitution of equations (21-23) into equation (20) gives the values of A, B, C and D.

3. Finite Element Formulation

The governing equation for the beam resting on an elastic foundation is:

( ) ( ) (24)

ASSUMPTION
The assumptions and restrictions (Hutton, 2004) for FEM formulation is same as those of elementary
beam theory with the addition of-

A. The element is of length l and has two nodes, one at each end.
B. The element is connected to other elements only at the nodes.
C. Element loading occurs only at the nodes.

To each one dimensional beam element, two degrees of freedom are allowed at extremities,
deflection y1, slope 1 and y2, 2 respectively, positives in the system of local axes.

Now,

* + * + * + * +

( )
where, is the usual shear contribution from elementary beam theory (25)

is the nodal displacement vector

Considering the four boundary conditions and one dimensional nature of the problem in terms of the
independent variable, we assume the function in the form of cubic displacement.

( ) (26)

For the foundation parameter, a linear variation is considered, i.e.

( ) (27)

Applying the boundary conditions,

( ) ( ) (28a)

( ) ( ) (28b)

In succession yields,

( ) , ( ) (29a)

Design51- 6
Proceedings of India International Science Festival Young Scientists Meet
Department of Science and Technology Government of India Dec 4-8, 2015
Paper Code: Design51

( ) , ( ) (29b)

Substituting the values of eq. (29) into eq. (26), we obtain the expression of the deflection as,

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) (30)

Where, Ni(x) (i=1,., 4) are the interpolation functions of Hermite type that describe the
distribution of displacement in terms of nodal values in the nodal displacement vector { +.

( ) , ( ) (31a)

( ) , ( ) (31b)

The terms of [ Ke ] matrix are calculated using:

( ) ( )
Ke, ij = (32)

[Ke] = [ ] (33)

It is assumed that the beam is clamped at one end and free at other end. So, the applied boundary
conditions are: y1 = 1 = 0

On applying the boundary conditions we get the elemental matrix as:

[ ]{ } { } (34)

The terms of [Kf] matrix are calculated using the generic relation (Teodoru and Musat., 2010)

Kf, ij = ( ) ( ) ( )

= ( ) ( ) ( ) , (i, j =1,,4) (35)

[Kf] = [ ] (36)

The matrix notation,

([Ke] + [Kf]) {} = {Se}

Design51- 7
Proceedings of India International Science Festival Young Scientists Meet
Department of Science and Technology Government of India Dec 4-8, 2015
Paper Code: Design51

This represents the elemental physical relation of the one dimensional finite element beam on the
elastic foundation. Where, [Ke] is the stiffness matrix of the flexure beam element and [Kf] is the stiffness
matrix of spring layer.

4. Boundary Conditions

A significant decrease of the mathematical work can be achieved by a presentation of the loading as a
sum of Dirac-delta functions. The idea of this method is made popular by (Macaulay,1919). This method
leads to the need to solve a large system of equations in the presence of multiple loads.

The multiple loads in Dirac delta function is:

= F (x-a) + F (x-b) + F (x-c) + F (x-d)

where, a, b, c, d are the distance for the force F from the left end of the beam.

The boundary conditions used for the calculation of the constants of integration are:

Table. 1. Boundary conditions

Free-free end Simply supported Clamped at one Fixed end
beam end
( ) ( ) ( )
( )

( ) ( ) ( )
( )

() y( )
() ()

() ()
() ()

5. Rail data

Analysis is carried out for Indian railway data obtained from different literatures (Elizabeth., 2009)
and (Vyas and Gupta 2006). The passengers car has eight wheels, four on either side. Due to symmetry,
analysis is carried out for only one side of the railway track. The Indian rail cross-section R-60 (Web-1)
resting on rail pad, sleeper and ballast is shown in fig 3. The total support stiffness in series of rail pad
and ballast can determined as

= +

Design51- 8
Proceedings of India International Science Festival Young Scientists Meet
Department of Science and Technology Government of India Dec 4-8, 2015
Paper Code: Design51

(All dimensions are in mm)

Fig. 3. Rail resting on Rail pad, sleeper and ballast

Data given in Table 2 is used for current analysis.

Table. 2. Input parameters for analysis

Youngs modulus of rail 2.0678 X 1011 N/m2

Moment of inertia 30.31 X 10-4 m4
Density of rail 7600 kg/m3
Poison ratio 0.3
Sleeper spacing 0.6 m
Stiffness of rail pad 2.5 X 108 N/m
Ballast stiffness 150 X 106 N/m
Load on each wheel 98 kN
Length of rail 40 m

5. Results and Discussion

Static analysis of the railway track with two pair of point loads are done for deflection, bending
moment and shear force using MATLAB 14.Results is shown in Figures. 4-6. The track deflection graph
represents that the foundation experiences both the tension and compression. The maximum deflection,
bending moment and shear force is found at the point load. It is clear from the above graphs that effects
can only be seen at applied load region. The effect after 3m from point load can be ignored. The
maximum deflection is 0.7 mm which shows that foundation is stiff. It has become clear that deflection of
track depends upon the stiffness of foundation (Li and Berggren 2010).

Design51- 9
Proceedings of India International Science Festival Young Scientists Meet
Department of Science and Technology Government of India Dec 4-8, 2015
Paper Code: Design51

Fig. 4. Deflection of beam in m

Fig. 5. Bending moment in kN-m Fig. 6. Shear force in kN

Deflection due to one point load is calculated and found that maximum deflection is 0.73 mm. The
difference of 0.03 mm is due to the fact that foundation experiences both compression and tension and
distance between two wheels is 1.83 m which is enough to influence the maximum deflection of two pair
point load. The bending moment and shear force results for single wheel load is same as for two pair of
wheels load so for computational simplification single wheel load can be used for further analysis. The
deflection of track in different boundary condition as given in Table 1 is calculated. The results are shown
in Figures. 7-10.

Design51- 10
Proceedings of India International Science Festival Young Scientists Meet
Department of Science and Technology Government of India Dec 4-8, 2015
Paper Code: Design51

Fig. 8. Simply supported

Fig. 7. Free- Free end

Fig. 9. Clamped at one end Fig. 10. Fixed-Fixed end

As the maximum deflection is same for all the boundary condition it has become clear from the above
graphs that static analysis of infinitely long railway track doesnt depend upon the boundary condition.

The ratio of track deflection by considering beam as a Timoshenko beam and Euler-Bernoulli beam
on continuous elastic support is shown in Figure 11 and obtained ratio showed that for railway track the
assumption of track based on different beam theories give approximately same results.

The difference of maximum deflection in both the model is also compared using ANSYS 15 and it is
found that maximum deflection in discrete support is 0.9 mm less that continuous support. The deflection
of discrete support is closer to the experimental values (Li and Berggren., 2010). Figure 12 shows the
difference in maximum deflection of both models.

Design51- 11
Proceedings of India International Science Festival Young Scientists Meet
Department of Science and Technology Government of India Dec 4-8, 2015
Paper Code: Design51

Fig. 11. Track deflection of Timoshenko & Euler- Fig. 12. Track deflection on continuous and discrete
Bernoulli beam support

6. Conclusions

From the above study on static analysis of railway track it can be concluded that the effect of
boundary condition is insignificant and for computational simplification one wheel can be taken for
further analysis. On assuming track based on different beam theory the track deflection obtained is
approximately same. The track on discrete elastic support is better assumption than track on continuous
elastic support as the former is closer to the experimental results. This can be viewed as a foundation for
further dynamic and vibration analysis of track.

References

Baykasoglu C, Sunbuloglu E, Bozdag S. E, Aruk F, Toprak T and Mugan A. (2012). Numerical static
and dynamic stress analysis on railway passenger and freight car models. International Iron &
Steel Symposium, 02-04 April, Karabuk, Turkiye.

Biot M.A. (1937). Bending of an Infinite Beam on an Elastic Foundation. Journal of Applied
Mechanics.

Boresi Arthur P., Schmidt Richard J., Sidebottom Omar M. (1993). Advanced Mechanics of
Materials. 5th Edition.

Elizabeth C. B. (2009). The Development of Rail-Head Acoustic Roughness. Institute of Sound and
Vibration Research.

Hetenyi M. (1961). Beam on Elastic Foundation. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Hutton David V. (2004). Fundamentals of Finite Element Analysis.

Design51- 12
Proceedings of India International Science Festival Young Scientists Meet
Department of Science and Technology Government of India Dec 4-8, 2015
Paper Code: Design51

Kerr Arnold D. (2000). On the determination of the rail support modulus k. International Journal of
Solids and Structures 37, 4335-4351.

Li M.X.D. and Berggren E. G. (2010). A study of the effect of global track stiffness and its variations
on track performance: simulation and measurement. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, Part F: Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit, 224, 375-382.

Lin Y.H. and Trethewey M.W. (1990). Finite Element Analysis of Elastic beams subjected to moving
dynamic loads. Journal of Sound and Vibration 136(2), 323-342.

Macaulay W.H. (1919). A note on the deflection of beams. Messenger Math., Vol. XLVIII.

Mallik A.K., Chandra S. and Singh A. B. (2006). Steady-state response of an elastically supported
infinite beam to a moving load. Journal of Sound and Vibration 291, 1148-1169.

Srivastava J.P., Sarkar P.K. and Ranjan V. (2014). Contact Stress Analysis in Wheel-Rail by Hertzian
Method and Finite Element Method. Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series C,
95(4), 319-325.

Teodoru Iancu-Bogdan and Musat Vasile (2010). The Modified Vlasov Foundation Model: An
attractive approach for beams resting on elastic supports. EJGE, Volume 15, Bund. C.

Vyas N.S. and Gupta A.K. (2006). Modeling rail wheel-flat dynamics. WCEAM Paper 233.

Web sites:

Web-1: http://sail.co.in/sites/default/files/sailproductpdf/Railway%20Products.pdf consulted on 8

Aug. 2015.

Design51- 13