RESEARCH POSTER PRESENTATION DESIGN © 2011

www.PosterPresentations.com

LUAS Embedded Track Shoulder Redevelopment

My thesis is focused on investigating the possible reasons that caused embedded track concrete shoulder deterioration on LUAS tram network. And hence proposing alternative solution to troublesome shoulder design.

The aim of the design is to take account of all the aspects that may have caused the shoulder breakage. At the same time, develop simple and viable solution to the problem, that can be implemented on the streets of Dublin.

Introduction & Aims

Case StudyFor my thesis I have chosen embedded track section at St. James’s Hospital.

Why is this section of particular interest ? It is one of the most effected concrete shoulder type sections around

Dublin area. I had been personally involved in repair works on the section. Repair works had been undertaken in the past, but these have been

extremely time consuming and challenging without providing satisfactory results.

Shoulder breakup on this section is likely to become an increasing maintenance problem in future years.

Conclusion

To provide a stable surface, less prone to wear and therefore resurfacing. To keep the rail in place with more stability, given no gauge bars or

embedded sleepers were provided. To protect ALH/Phoenix encapsulation. To eliminate differential settlements between the rail and surrounding

surfaces. To avoid cracks that could occur in critical transition area.

At the end of my design I came to a conclusion that it is difficult to predict the effect on adjacent pavement either it’s concrete or asphalt without providing adequate restraint to the outer rail. Nevertheless, by providing lateral support it can be seen that the forces generated by the LRV are highly unlikely to have an affect on adjacent road surface.

The design is focused on replacing the concrete shoulder with asphalt. The aim is to demonstrate that the removal of the concrete shoulder will not affect the rail in terms of gauge and rail stability.

Wheel Load qk = 60 kNCurve Radius R =25 mSpeed V =10 km/h =2.78 m/sDynamic Factor α = 1.5Fcentrifugal = mV2/RFcentrifugal = 19 kN

Design A

Outer Rail Loading Parameters

NegativesWhy has it failed ?

Reinforced Concrete Slab (RCS) Design

Paul Trofimov DT004/3S Tutor: Joseph Kindregan

No gauge bars/sleepers installed. Shoulder is made separately from RCS. Failure to maintain adequate bond between

RCS and shoulder. Concrete level is not accurate (Wheel-

pavement contact). Shoulder is not able to follow the rate of ware

of the top of the rail.

Stray current issue. Noise and vibration. Concrete breaks and becomes loose. Time consuming construction. Difficult repair works. Aesthetic appearance of repaired

section.

RCS Plan View Stress Distribution

Inverted Flat Slab Design Reinforcement Detail

Why was The Shoulder Used ?

Embedded Track Type 1 Lines A-B-C

Distribution Steel: As.min.=364mm2

As.prov.=449mm2

H10@175mm c/c

Tension Reinforcement:As.req.=268mm2

As.prov.=646mm2 H12@175mm c/c

Distribution Steel: As.min.=364mm2

As.prov.=449mm2

H10@175mm c/c

Vrd.c. > Ved. No shear reinforcement required

Design B

Axial Load kN =Curve Radius

(m) Velocity (m/s) Velocity (km/h) Fcentr. (kN)Overturning

FOSoSliding

FOSsOverturning

Mo (kNm)Resisting Mr (kNm)

60.00 25.5 2.78 10 18.16 ✓ 1.65 ✗ 1.06 3.27 5.460.00 25.5 2.92 10.5 20.02 ✓ 1.50 ✗ 0.96 3.60 5.460.00 25.5 3.06 11 21.97 ✗ 1.37 ✗ 0.87 3.95 5.4

The aim of the following design is to replace concrete shoulder with asphalt infill.

It also involves installation of angle bracket against the outer rail, to enhance rail stability.

Liebig Expansion Anchor is used to make RCS-bracket connection (M20 Grade 8.8).

Fcentr. (kN)Shear Capacity

Fv.rd. (kN) Fe (kNm)Fmax. Group

(kN) Fmax. (kN)

Tension Capacity Ft.rd. (kN)

Liebig Anchor φsNtf (kN)

Bearing Capacity

Fb.rd. (kN)

Liebig Anchor Cocrete cone failure capacity

ѯcφcNtc (kN)

Liebig Anchor Clamping

Force/Slip/ Fatigue φ...Nti

(kN)18.16 ✓ 188.60 0.91 30.78 15.39 ✓ 176.00 ✓ 156.80 ✓ 217.00 ✓ 62.37 ✓ 67.9220.02 ✓ 188.60 1.00 33.93 16.97 ✓ 176.00 ✓ 156.80 ✓ 217.00 ✓ 62.37 ✓ 67.9221.97 ✓ 188.60 1.10 37.24 18.62 ✓ 176.00 ✓ 156.80 ✓ 217.00 ✓ 62.37 ✓ 67.9224.01 ✓ 188.60 1.20 40.69 20.35 ✓ 176.00 ✓ 156.80 ✓ 217.00 ✓ 62.37 ✓ 67.9226.14 ✓ 188.60 1.31 44.31 22.15 ✓ 176.00 ✓ 156.80 ✓ 217.00 ✓ 62.37 ✓ 67.9228.37 ✓ 188.60 1.42 48.08 24.04 ✓ 176.00 ✓ 156.80 ✓ 217.00 ✓ 62.37 ✓ 67.9230.68 ✓ 188.60 1.53 52.00 26.00 ✓ 176.00 ✓ 156.80 ✓ 217.00 ✓ 62.37 ✓ 67.9233.09 ✓ 188.60 1.65 56.08 28.04 ✓ 176.00 ✓ 156.80 ✓ 217.00 ✓ 62.37 ✓ 67.9235.58 ✓ 188.60 1.78 60.31 30.15 ✓ 176.00 ✓ 156.80 ✓ 217.00 ✓ 62.37 ✓ 67.9238.17 ✓ 188.60 1.91 64.69 32.35 ✓ 176.00 ✓ 156.80 ✓ 217.00 ✗ 62.37 ✓ 67.92

Theory of Limit State Design: Design Action Effect ≤ Nominal Capacity

Tension Reinforcement over supports (Rail):As.req.=86mm2

As.prov.=646mm2 H12@175mm c/c