CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY Embankment Railways

-1-
6_Construction methodology - Design data for the railway embankment (Relevant

paragraph of the paper: CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY OF THE RAILWAY
EMBANKMENT)
Based on the results of the geotechnical calculations of the embankment it is concluded
that at certain areas, where the embankment is founded on alluvial deposits (AL), the
installation of prefabricated vertical drains is required in order to increase the rate of
consolidation settlements. Through the presented case study the students have the
opportunity to get familiar with the complex construction methodology and the construction
materials of railway embankments with vertical wick drains. Moreover, the students have the
opportunity to become acquainted with fundamental data regarding the individual parts of a
railway embankment.
The construction sequence of the examined embankment includes the following stages,
whereas the construction materials are described in the following sections (Figure 6-1):
 Excavation
Excavation to the required level in order to remove the surface unsuitable material or
plant remains (loose soil and organic materials).
 Stabilization-Improvement of Embankment Excavation Base
Placement of crushed material (rock-fill) from rock excavation products for the
stabilization of the excavation base in order to facilitate the passing of the machinery
during compaction of the improvement layer.
The stabilization layer is suggested to consist of crushed material of 10-30cm grain
size in combination with separating geotextile.
 Separating Geotextile
Placement of non-woven separating geotextile, which is also extended to the
longitudinal side drains.
 First drainage layer of 0.25m thickness consisting of crushed materials (from rock
excavations). The drainage layer is required in order to drain out the ground water
collected through the installed vertical drains and lead it to the longitudinal side
drains.
 Installation of prefabricated vertical drains at triangular grid with length determined
based on the results of the performed geotechnical analyses.
 Second drainage layer of 0.25m thickness consisting of crushed materials.
 Construction of longitudinal side drains along the embankment with vertical drains, in
order to lead the ground water, which is collected from vertical drains, to adjacent
hydraulic systems. The side drains consist of coarse grained materials inside which a
perforated plastic drain pipe having diameter 200mm is installed.
 Spreading of non-woven separating geotextile, which is also extended to the
longitudinal side drains.
 Foundation of the Embankment
Improvement layer overlying the drainage layer. In this case the thickness of the layer
required for the replacement of the unsuitable materials results by taking also the
thickness of the drainage layer (0.50m) into consideration.
Geotechnical Design of Embankment: Slope Stability Analyses and Settlement Calculations (Xenaki,
Doulis and Athanasopoulos)
-2-
The improvement layer consists of crushed material or rockfill free-draining material

having maximum particle size equal to 10-15cm. The improvement layer should be
compacted at 90% of the maximum density of the Modified Proctor Test.
 Drainage Layer
The “foundation” of the embankment is completed by constructing the drainage layer
up to 50cm above the original ground surface, in order to achieve dissipation of any
excess pore water pressure inside the core of the embankment. The drainage layer
consists of crushed material with maximum particle size equal to 3" (7.62cm), fines
content (passing sieve Νο 200) less than 10% and plasticity index (ΙΡ)4%. The
drainage layer should be compacted at 90% of the maximum dry density of the
Standard Proctor test.
 Core of Embankment
Construction of embankment’s core with suitable materials. For the construction of
the main part of the embankment materials classified at categories 1.3 to 1.5 or 2.1 to
2.3 or 3.1 and 3.2 (Figure 6-1) are used. These materials should be compacted at
least at 95% of the maximum dry density of the Standard Proctor Test.
 Prepared Sub-grade Layer
The prepared sub-grade layer consists from crushed materials of QS2 or QS3
categories (see Table 6-1). The thickness of this layer is determined according to
UIC719 R Standard. These materials should be compacted at least at 100% of the
maximum dry density of Standard Proctor Test.
 Blanket layer and Ballast
The blanket layer is constructed using well-graded coarse-grained (sand and gravels)
materials (materials of QS2 or QS3 categories). These materials should be
compacted at least at 103% of the maximum dry density of Standard Proctor Test.
The thickness of the blanket layer varies from 37cm to 42cm, depending on the type
of soil material used for the core of the embankment and the required transversal
inclination of this layer.
The ballast has minimum thickness of 0.30 – 0.50m and consists of crushed material
with maximum particle diameter equal to 2.0-6.0cm.
 Soil covering with humus soil on the slopes of the embankment.
The construction methodology and the construction materials of the embankment are
presented in the typical cross section of Figure 6-1.
The classification of soil material according to UIC Code 719R is included in Table 6-1.
-3-
Table 6-1: Classification of soil materials according to UIC Code 719 R

SOIL TYPE (GEOTECHNICAL CLASSIFICATION) SOIL QUALITY CLASS
0.1. Organic soils
0.2. Soft soils containing more than 15% fines (1) with high moisture content:
therefore unsuitable for compaction
0.3. Thixotropic soils (2) (e.g. quick clay) QS0
0.4. Soils containing soluble material (e.g. rock salt or gypsum)
0.5. Contaminated ground (e.g. industrial waste)
0.6. Collapsible soils or Expansive soils
(1)
1.1. Soft soils containing more than 40% of fines (except for soils classified
under 0.2)
Rocks which are very susceptible to weathering, e.g.: QS1
- Chalk with ρd<1.7t/m3 and high friability
1.2.
- Marl
- Weathering shale
(1)
1.3. Soils containing 15% to 40% of fines (except for soils classified under
0.2)
Rocks which are moderately susceptible to weathering, e.g.:
QS1 (3)
1.4. - Chalk with ρd <1.7t/m3 and low friability
- Un-weathered shale
1.5. Soft rock e.g. Micro-deval wet (MDE)>40 and Los Angeles (LA) > 40
2.1. Soils containing from 5 to 15% of fines (1)
2.2. Uniform soil containing less than 5% of fines (1) (Cu ≤ 6) QS2 (2)
2.3. Moderate hard rock, e.g.: If 25<MDE≤40 and 30<LA≤40
3.1. Well graded soils containing less than 5% of fines (1)
QS3
3.2. Hard rock, e.g.: If MDE ≤25 and LA ≤ 30
(1) These percentages are calculated from particle size distribution analysis undertaken on material passing
a 60 micron sieve. The percentages indicated have been rounded down (particles vary slightly from one
Railway to another); they may be increased by up to 5% if sufficiently representative number of samples
are taken.
(2) Certain Railways sometimes include these soils in quality class QS1.
(3) These soils can come under quality class QS2 if the hydro-geological and hydrological conditions are
good.
(4) These soils can come under quality class QS3 if the hydro-geological and hydrological conditions are
good.
-4-
Figure 6-1. Typical cross section of the railway embankment with vertical drains
Geotechnical Design of Embankment: Slope Stability Analyses and Settlement Calculations (Xenaki, Doulis and Athanasopoulos)
-5-
The proposed monitoring of the examined embankment is presented in a separate study,

referring to the monitoring program of the whole project (cuts embankments and tunnels).
The monitoring program for the case of the presented embankment includes the installation
of settlement platforms every 200m along the embankment. These platforms consist of a
square concrete plate having dimensions equal to 0.50x0.50x0.50m in which a steel pipe
with threaded couplings (surrounded by a sleeve plastic pipe) is embedded. The concrete
plate is placed on the natural ground, whereas the steel pipe protrudes from the upper
surface of the embankment, so that the settlement of the platform can be determined by
measuring the elevation of the top of the steel pipe using surveying methods (Dunnicliff,
1993). Due to the fact that the embankment has not been constructed yet and thus
settlement measurements are not available, no reference to monitoring instrumentation was
made in the paper.
Relevant Reference
Dunnicliff, J. (1993). “Geotechnical Instrumentation for Monitoring Field Performance”, John
Wiley & Sons Inc.
UIC Code 719R, 2nd Edition 1.1.94, Earthworks and Track-Bed Layers for Railway Lines,
International Union of Railways, Paris, France, 1994

CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY Embankment Railways

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY Embankment Railways

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY Embankment Railways

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

-1-

6_Construction methodology - Design data for the railway embankment (Relevant

The improvement layer consists of crushed material or rockfill free-draining material

Table 6-1: Classification of soil materials according to UIC Code 719 R

The proposed monitoring of the examined embankment is presented in a separate study,

You might also like