Advances and Trends in Structural Engineering, Mechanics and Computation Zingoni (Ed.

)
2010 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-415-58472-2

Durability and long-term performance of concrete railway sleepers:

Structural analysis and practice
K. Giannakos
University of Thessaly, Department of Civil Engineering, Volos, Thessaly, Greece

ABSTRACT: Twin-block concrete sleepers laid on railway tracks in operation in Greece presented extended
cracking. The same type of sleepers were used in the French railway network with no problems. The extensive
cracking led to a shortening of their durability and reduced their long-term performance, increasing the costs
of maintenance. Experiments that were performed in the French railway network labs confirmed that these
sleepers could safely carry the service and design load for which they were designed, in accordance with the
specifications and regulations of the era. An innovative formula that was finally proposed, gives results that
interpret the phenomenon of systematic appearance of cracks observed in a high percentage of sleepers. It is
shown that if fastenings with very soft pads were used the appearance of cracks on the ties would have been
avoided. The application of the above findings in the structural analysis and design leads to much better durability
and long-term performance of the concrete sleepers in practice.

INTRODUCTION

The multilayered structure railway track undertakes

the forces that develop during train movement and
distributes them towards its seating. The concrete
sleepers (ties), both mono-block and twin-block, with
their fastenings constitute a substantial element of the
superstructure of the track (permanent way), especially
as far as load distribution is concerned, while at the
same time they ensure the stability of the geometrical
distance between the rails.
The two types of reinforced concrete twin-block
sleepers in Greece, during the period of 1972 until
2000, Vagneux U2, U3 with RN fastenings (of French
technology), used in the Greek network (Fig. 1), are
similar to those used in the same period by the French
Railways (SNCF). Laboratory tests confirmed that the
sleepers were produced according to the specifications (OSE/SNCF, 1989, 1990, Tassios et al., 1989).
Of the above types U2/U3, 60% (and more) exhibited
cracks in the Greek network, even though they were
presenting good behavior in the French railway network (Giannakos et al., 2009). The existing, at that
era, international bibliography (FIP 1987, FRA 1983,
Harisson et al.) cited many cases of appearance of
cracks in monoblock sleepers of prestressed concrete
as well. This fact led to a shortening of their durability
and reduced their long-term performance, increasing
the costs of maintenance. Experimental tests that were
performed confirmed that these sleepers, could safely
carry the service and design load for which they were
designed, in accordance with the specifications and
regulations.

Figure 1. Twin-block concrete sleeper Vagneux type U2/U3

laid in the Greek Railway network, (upper illustration) side
view depicting also the cracks that appeared in a percentage
of 60% of the laid sleepers and (lower illustration) ground
plan (Giannakos et al. 1990).

2 ACTIONS ON THE SLEEPERS

2.1 Background
For the U2/U3 concrete twin-block sleepers, there
are three regions of strength: R1 region begins
at 125 130 kN, R2 region (cracking threshold) at
140 kN and the R3 region (failure threshold) between
140 and 175 kN. The existing (at the era) methods for
the calculation of the actions on a railway track-cited in
German and French bibliography- failed in predicting
the systematic appearance of cracks in a large percentage of sleepers. This led to the development of a new
method (Giannakos 2004) that successfully predicted
the observed conditions.

899

2.2 Actions on the track panel according to the

german bibliography
In the German bibliography, the total load Qtotal (static
and dynamic) acting on the track, is equal to the static
wheel load multiplied by a factor.The reaction R acting
on a sleeper, which is a percentage of the total load
Qtotal (Fastenrath 1981):

where: Qwh is the static load of the wheel, s = 0.1

to 0.3 dependent on the condition of the track,
from s = 0.1 for excellent track condition to s = 0.3
for poor track condition and is determined by the
following formulas as a function of the speed:
For V < 60 km/h then = 1.
For 60 < V < 200 km/h then:

where V the maximum speed on a section of track

and t coefficient dependent on the probabilistic certainty P (t = 1 for P = 68.3%, t = 2 for P = 95.5% and
t = 3 for P = 99.7%). The reaction R of each sleeper is
calculated according to J. Eisenmann (2004):

Q = semi-static load due to the cant (superelevation) deficiency

(QNSM ) is the standard deviation of the dynamic
component of the total load due to Non Suspended
Masses (NSM) that participates in the increase of the
static load. For the theoretical analysis that leads to the
calculation of the standard deviation of the load that
is caused by the NSM see Alias 1984, Prudhomme
1976.
(QSM ) is the standard deviation of the dynamic
component of the total load due to the Suspended
Masses (SM) that participates in the increase of the
static load. For the theoretical analysis that leads to
the calculation of the standard deviation of the load
see Prudhomme 1976.

= the total static stiffness (elasticity) of the track (as

in Eqn 3).
E, J = the modulus of elasticity and the moment of
inertia of the rail
The masses of a railway vehicle are divided in the
Non Suspended Masses (the wheels, the axles and a
portion of track mass also) that are situated under the
primary suspension and the Suspended Masses (e.g.
car-body) that are located over the primary suspension
of the vehicle.
2.4 Proposed method for actions on the track
panel (giannakos 2004)

where  = distance among the sleepers, coefficient

of quasi-elasticity (stiffness) of track

C = ballast modulus [N/mm3]

b = a width of conceptualized longitudinal support according to Zimmermann that multiplied by 
equals to the loaded surface F of the seating surface of
the sleeper
2.3 Actions on the track panel according to the
french bibliography
According to the French bibliography, for the estimation of the reaction/action per sleeper on track the
standard deviation of the dynamic component must
be calculated (Alias 1984, p. 205-206, Prudhomme
et al., 1976, Prudhomme, 1969):

where: Qwh = the static load of the wheel

Both of the aforementioned methods yield results for

either no cracking at all or sporadic cracks in sleepers laid on track, and they do not justify an extensive
cracking as it was observed in a percentage of 60 %
(and over). This led to a more exhaustive investigation to simulate the real conditions that have been
observed in the Greek network. These conditions are
heavy non-suspended masses, limestone ballast very
often below the minimum standards of European networks with advanced technology non-application of
the grinding method of the rail running surface, the
maintenance method, great wheel flats, etc. An innovative formula that was finally proposed, gives results
that interpret the phenomenon of systematic appearance of cracks that was observed in a high percentage
of sleepers. The author presented a method verifying these results derived from the experience on track
(Giannakos, 2004, et al., 2009). The reactions/actions
on track panel, per sleeper, are calculated with the
following equation:

where Qwh = the static wheel load, Q = the load due

to cant deficiency, A = dyn = dynamic coefficient of
sleepers reaction, = coefficient of dynamic load (3
for a probability of appearence 99.7 %), (RNSM ) =|

900

the standard deviation of the dynamic load due to non

suspended masses, (RSM ) = the standard deviation
of the dynamic load due to suspended masses and :

where hTR the total dynamic stiffness of the track

given by:

The results from this method predict an extended

appearance of cracks in twin-block sleepers that was
observed on the Greek permanent way. In fib (2006)
this method is taken into account for precast concrete railway track systems. Figure 2 depicts the results
derived from the three afore-mentioned methods.
3

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF SLEEPERS

AND PRACTICE

3.1 Comparison of the theoretic results of the three

methods for the U2/U3 sleepers with the
practice
The main difference between U2 and U3 is the rail
type used: UIC50 (kg/m) for U2 and UIC54 (kg/m) for
U3. The U2/U3 sleepers were reinforced with smooth
steel bars in the lower and the upper surface in a
distance of approximately 8 mm from the outer surfaces. The bars do not have hooks at the ends and the
anchorage was achieved through bond only. The cracks
appeared in the seating surface of the sleeper on the
ballast in position just under the rail with an upwards
direction as presented in Figure 1. The calculations
according to the three aforementioned methods were
programmed in a computer code and parametric investigations were performed varying the stiffness of the
substructure as described in Giannakos (2004, et al.,
2009). The results are depicted in Figure 2. It is clearly
shown that Giannakos (2004) method describes accurately the behaviour of the concrete sleepers observed
in practice.
3.2 Twin-block sleepers strength and dimensioning
The distribution which results in a moment that coincides with the maximum values of moments actually
measured on the track, in the position just under the
rail, is the parabolic distribution under each semisleeper with zero pressure in the middle area of the
sleeper (ORE, D71), independently of the sleeper type:
monoblock or twin-block. Twin block concrete sleeper
U2/U3 (SNCF, VRE 2321 80 06 (B)) are reinforced
with 6 8 S220 (MPa), at the bottom and 4 8 S220
(MPa), at the top. Applying the French Regulations
(Regles, 1980, NF F 51-101), it is found that the crosssection of the semi-sleeper (block) of type U2/U3

Figure 2. Actions on sleepers according to the French, the

German, the Giannakos (2004) method, for concrete sleepers
with fastening (a) W14, (b) RN and k = 9 and (c) RN and
k = 12.

is weakly reinforced, since balance is achieved for

b = 0.85, z = 5, approximately. This implies an
ultimate moment Mu = 11.805 kNm. Subtracting the
moments due to: (i) the dead load of concrete block,
(ii) the horizontal force, and (iii) the force due to
connecting bar, the remaining moment (for the vertical load) is Mu= 7.765 kNm. The corresponding
moment arm is 0.0616 m (for parabolic distribution of
stresses) and consequently the ultimate vertical load
Ru = 126.05 kN << 140175 kN (R3 Region). The
above results assume orthogonal + parabolic distribution of compression stresses in concrete (Regles,
1980).
3.3 Monoblock sleepers strength derived and
dimensioning
Research around the world has led to the production of a new generation of very resilient fastenings
(e.g. German W14), reducing the load on sleepers. In
Greece the 2.60 m long German type B70 monoblock
sleepers of prestressed concrete are used combined
with the highly resilient fastening W14. The B70
monoblock sleepers, according to its design, have as
service load 150 kN. According to the data of the
sleeper producers the calculated ultimuate moment
fluctuates between 32.6642.23 kNm (Tsoukantas,
2002). Taking into account the parabolic distribution
(moment-arm = 0.1418 m), ultimate load fluctuates
between 230.31297.81 kN.

901

3.4

REFERENCES

Reducing the acting loads in practice

In Figure 2 the values of the service load are presented for twin-block concrete sleepers combined with
W14 fastening, for the same conditions as the RN fastenings. The comparison of the service load between
the more resilient fastenings W14 and the stiffer ones
shows that the acting load on the sleepers is significantly reduced in the case of W14. Since the stiffness
coefficient of the concrete sleepers is the same both
for twin block and monoblock sleepers, the reaction/action on the sleeper in practice- is the same
for both cases if the rest parameters of track structure
remains unchanged. The results of the calculations are
compared with the real situation of the track in the
Greek network, where the B70 sleepers with W14 fastening have not presented any cracking at all up to now
(10 years in service). This comparison is done under
the assumption that the W14-Fastening would be combined with the U2/U3 sleeper, (relevantly adapted to
the existing sleepers). Figure 2 depicts these results.
These conclusions are verified by the fact that there is
no appearance of cracks in the Greek railway network
and their excellent behavior in the track.
4

CONCLUSIONS

In this paper an investigation has been presented for the

causes that led to the appearance of extended cracking,
exceeding the failure threshold, in concrete twin-block
sleepers laid in the Greek railway network. Moreover
a methodology has been proposed for the calculation
of the loads and moments acting on concrete sleepers.
The results of the proposed method are verified in practice. The method is also applied to monoblock sleepers
of prestressed concrete. The strength of the concrete
sleepers derived from their dimensioning in practiceis calculated and compared to the actions estimated by
the theoretical methods.
It is verified that the extended cracking was due to
the design of the concrete sleepers (low design actions,
use of smooth steel bars in cyclic loading with insufficient anchorage etc.). The adoption of more modern,
highly resilient fastenings significantly reduce the
actions on the concrete sleepers, both twin-block and
monoblock. Therefore their adoption could minimize
the stresses in levels under the cracking threshold.
These measures lead to a much better durability and an
extension of the long-term performance of the sleepers
on track under circulation.

Alias J., 1984, La voie ferree, IIeme edition, Eyrolles,

Paris Eisenmann J., 5/2004, Die Schiene als Tragbalken,
Eisenbahningenieur (55), pp 2225
F.I.P. (Federation Internationale de la Precontrainte), 1987,
Concrete railway sleepers, London.
f.i.b. (Federation Internationale du beton), 2006, Precast
concrete railway track systems
Fastenrath Fritz, 1981, Railroad Track Theory and Practice, Frederic Ungar Pub.Co., New York, part 2, The
Rail as support and Roadway, theoretical principles and
practical examples, by J. Eisenmann
FRA (Federal Railroad Administration), April 1983, Investigation of the Effects of Tie Pad Stiffness on the Impact
Loading of Concrete ties in the Northeast Corridor,
U.S.A., Department of Transportation.
Giannakos K., Loizos A., Evaluation of actions on concrete
sleepers as design loadsInfluence of fastenings, International Journal of Pavement Engineering (IJPE), 2009a,
DOI: 10.1080/10298430903402161.
Giannakos K., 2004, Actions on Railway Track, Papazissis
publications, Athens
Harisson H. D., Ahlbeck D. R., Railroad Track Structure
Performance Under Wheel Impact Loading, TRR 1131
Norme Francaise NF F 51-101/Decembre 1989, Installations Fixes Ferroviaires Traverses et supports pour
appareils de voie, en beton
ORE, Question D71, RP9, f.97.
OSE/SNCF Cooperation: 3/1989, Programme d essays
realise au centre dessais de la Direction de lEquipement
OSE/SNCF Cooperation: 6/1988, Comportment des traverses en relation avecles charges dynamiques
Prud homme A., Erieau, J., 1976, Les nouvelles traverses
en beton de la SNCF, RGCF-2.
Prud Homme A., Juin 1969, Sollicitation Statiques et
Dynamiques de la Voie, SNCF/Direction des InstallationsFixes, R 080-66-03.
Regles Techniques de Conception de Calcul des Ouvrages
et Constructions en Beton Arme suivant la methode des
Etats Limites, 1980, Eyrolles, Paris
SNCF Direction de l Equipement, Juin 1980, Specification Technique VRE 2321 80 06 (B), pour la fourniture
de traverses mixtes en beton arme
Tasios Th. P., Trezos K. 1989, Laboratory tests and measurements on OSE sleepers National Technical University of
Athens (NTUA)/Reinforced Concrete Laboratory /Athens
Tsoukantas S., Study for the strength of monoblock sleepers of pre-stressed concrete, for Greek Railways (OSE),
Athens, 2002.

902