Investigation of the reversible response of track ballast considering complementary approaches

Simulation of the dynamic response of high-speed line structures composed of granular or bituminous sub-ballast layers and comparison with in situ measurements from embedded instrumentation

“…The high modulus value of 860 MPa of the UGM can therefore be explained by the presence of the treated capping layer.  According to Chupin et al (2021), the modulus of the ballast layer depends on the layer on which it is laid on. The value of 250 MPa obtained here is consistent with the range of values between 120 and 630 MPa considered by Fortunato (2005).…”

“…The assumption made in this model of considering the track ballast as a homogeneous elastic layer was deemed relevant as long as the reversible behaviour of the structure (i.e. under one load cycle) is addressed (Chupin et al, 2021).…”

“…The article mentioned above (Chupin et al 2021) only shows an example of validation of the ViscoRail tool. The structure under consideration in this previous paper includes only elastic layers and the comparison between the simulations and measurements is carried out for the vertical accelerations only.…”

“…The structure under consideration in this previous paper includes only elastic layers and the comparison between the simulations and measurements is carried out for the vertical accelerations only. It is stated in (Chupin et al 2021) that the ViscoRail tool has been broadly and successfully compared to in situ measurements but without showing the results (apart from the few ones mentioned right above). In the present paper, the comparison between the simulations and measurements is presented into details and addressed for several types of structure whose one incorporates a viscoelastic bituminous layer.…”