Scholarlink

<p>A series of ballast box tests were conducted on unreinforced and geogrid-reinforced conventional ballast (CB), as well as ballast with inclusion of under sleeper pads (USP), under ballast mats (UBM), tire chips, and rubber-coated ballast (RCB). The test results indicated that the vertical (<i>ε</i><sub><i>1</i></sub>) and lateral strain (<i>ε</i><sub><i>3</i></sub>) of unreinforced RCB were highest, while resilience modulus (<i>M</i><sub><i>r</i></sub>) and track stiffness (<i>k</i>) were lowest among all the tested samples. On the other hand, with the inclusion of USP and UBM, the values of <i>ε</i><sub><i>1</i></sub>, <i>ε</i><sub><i>3</i></sub>, <i>M</i><sub><i>r</i></sub> and <i>k</i> were considerably lower than that of CB (taken as reference ballast for comparison). It was evident that the inclusion of UBM exhibited higher values of damping ratio (<i>D</i><sub><i>r</i></sub>) and energy dissipation (<i>E</i><sub><i>d</i></sub>) compared to USP. It was found that in case of geogrid-reinforced RCB, the values of <i>D</i><sub><i>r</i></sub>, <i>E</i><sub><i>d</i></sub>, breakage reduction index, and vibration attenuation were highest among all the tested samples. The comparative assessment revealed that individual inclusions enhance only specific aspects of ballast behavior; therefore, a composite stabilization approach is recommended, involving mixing RCB with geogrid-reinforced CB, and placement of USP to achieve an overall improvement in ballasted track performance.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparative Performance Evaluation of Geogrid-Reinforced Ballast with Various Elastic Inclusions

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月13日

查看全文
  • Md Naquib Alam,
  • Syed Khaja Karimullah Hussaini

摘要

A series of ballast box tests were conducted on unreinforced and geogrid-reinforced conventional ballast (CB), as well as ballast with inclusion of under sleeper pads (USP), under ballast mats (UBM), tire chips, and rubber-coated ballast (RCB). The test results indicated that the vertical (ε1) and lateral strain (ε3) of unreinforced RCB were highest, while resilience modulus (Mr) and track stiffness (k) were lowest among all the tested samples. On the other hand, with the inclusion of USP and UBM, the values of ε1, ε3, Mr and k were considerably lower than that of CB (taken as reference ballast for comparison). It was evident that the inclusion of UBM exhibited higher values of damping ratio (Dr) and energy dissipation (Ed) compared to USP. It was found that in case of geogrid-reinforced RCB, the values of Dr, Ed, breakage reduction index, and vibration attenuation were highest among all the tested samples. The comparative assessment revealed that individual inclusions enhance only specific aspects of ballast behavior; therefore, a composite stabilization approach is recommended, involving mixing RCB with geogrid-reinforced CB, and placement of USP to achieve an overall improvement in ballasted track performance.