Proceedings of the Joint Rail Conference

JRC2013
April 15-18, 2013, Knoxville, Tennessee, USA

JRC2013-2498

UTILIZATION OF GROUND IMPROVEMENT FOR A VARIETY OF COST EFFECTIVE

REMEDIATION AND NEW CONSTRUCTION TOPICS FOR THE RAIL INDUSTRY
Jeffrey R. Hill, PE
Hayward Baker Inc., Rail Services Division
St. Louis, MO, United States

Michael L. Kerr
AMEC Environment &
Infrastructure, Inc.
Nashville, Tennessee, United
States

Bernard Voor, PE
AMEC Earth and Environmental
Nashville, Tennessee, United States

Arthur D. Pengelly
Hayward Baker Inc. Rail
Services Division
Little Elm, Texas, United States

ABSTRACT
The authors of the paper represent two firms that have
completed hundreds of challenging subgrade and foundation
projects for the rail industry. The intent of this paper is to
educate the railroad business in general about alternative
approaches to common geotechnical problems facing the
railroad industry.
Projects have been completed across the country in nearly
all geological conditions, on all of the Class I carriers,
Shortlines and Mass Transit systems. Successful remediation
projects associated with challenging subsurface conditions
across the United States, Canada and Mexico are covered. Case
histories include jet grouting for low headroom earth retention
and tunnel support, stone columns for embankment support,
micropiles for low headroom bridge replacement, micropiles
and soil nails for earth retention, compaction, and urethane
grouting for settlement of existing structures. Projects discussed
include background information such as project layout,
drawings and test results. Each project is completed and has a
positive track record, indicating success. Projects have been
specially selected to demonstrate the ability of specialty
foundation solutions applicable throughout North America.
Each topic provides technically sound approaches to age-old
Rail road subsurface challenges. Many of these topics are not
addressed in the AREMA manual; however, one of the authors,
is currently addressing these topics through a proposed section
of AREMA chapter 8.

are common across geographical and geological borders. Such

subsurface problems are generally not issues faced by a single
rail operator; instead they are faced by the industry in general.
As geotechnical construction techniques have become more
advanced and more widely accepted across North America a
variety of solutions for the geotechnical problems have been
utilized on North Americas railways. It is important to use the
most cost effective and technically correct solution for each
problem rather than force fitting historic fixes across a variety
of problems.
Specialty foundation techniques have been used in general
civil engineering and construction as early as the 1930s. Early
installation of stone columns dates to the 1930s in Europe.
Wick drain installation also began in the first half of the 1900s.
Many people believe that the use of specialty techniques on rail
systems in the United States has been limited to the last 15 20
years. This however is not the case. Subgrade injection
stabilization using asphalt dates back to the early 1900s as well.
General ground modification techniques such as stone columns
were utilized for Class One railroads as early as the mid-1980s.
The first known micropile installation also dates back to the
1980s. Jet grouting and soil mixing were first utilized in the
late 1980s.
A general summary of a few of the problems addressed by
specialty geotechnical construction techniques is presented in
Table 1. This summary contrasts conventional repair methods
with specialty repair methods, and presents the advantages of
the specialty techniques and limitations of the conventional
techniques. The paper will further address a sampling of
specialty techniques addressed in the table and provide case

INTRODUCTION
Class One and Shortline RailRoads face a variety of
subsurface problems on a routine basis. Many of these issues

Copyright 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/14/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

histories to further illustrate the successful application of each

technique.
Table 1. Summary of conventional vs. specialty methods.

TILFORD YARD, ATLANTA, GEORGIA

Tilford Yard is a train classification yard accessible from
the south via two horseshoe-shaped tunnels (Tunnel A 486
feet long and Tunnel B 84 feet long, Figures 1 and 2). These
tunnels were likely constructed in the early 1900s to
accommodate much smaller, lighter traffic, and incapable of
passing double-stack traffic into the yard. Therefore, doublestack trains had to enter and leave the yard via the north end.
Low clearance issues caused a bottleneck. The Railroad wanted
to improve clearance though the tunnel. Because the tunnels
pass under a four lane street (Tunnel B) and another yard
(Tunnel A), the Railroad could not just open-cut the tunnels to
fix the clearance issues. The tunnel floor had to be lowered to
gain the required clearance.

Figure 1. View of the north portal of Tunnel A.

Copyright 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/14/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

contractor drilled through the walls and into the underling

bedrock, and installed 150 kip design load rock anchors.
Jet grout columns were constructed to create the
underpinning support for the portion of the tunnel underlain by
the slab. Jet grouting is a method of ground improvement that
employs high velocity fluid injection to erode and mix soil with
a cementitious grout producing soilcrete (Burke, Cacoilo and
Chadwick, 2000). This grout-soil mixture normally achieves an
unconfined compressive strength greater than 100 psi within 24
hours. Ultimate strengths range from a few hundred psi to over
1500 psi depending on soil conditions. Rotary drilling
techniques are combined with grout at high velocities to erode
the soil, and mix the soil in place with the grout being
introduced. During this process a mixture of injected fluids and
soil is continuously expelled from the borehole annulus,
limiting heave potential of the surrounding ground.
For this project the very short schedule required that the
largest diameter jet grout elements achievable be constructed.
Consequently, the contractor chose to apply an enhanced
double fluid system of jet grouting, labeled SuperJet.
SuperJet grouting employs high velocity injection of grout
slurry sheathed in a cone of compressed air to erode and mix
the soil. With SuperJet, a highly focused jetting stream to create
10 to 15-foot-diameter soilcrete columns in lieu of the typical 5
to 7-foot-diameter usually achieved with the conventional
double fluid system (Burke, Peterson and Smith, 2000). Figure
3 is a typical repair cross-section for the tunnels.
The project was completed with crews working around the
clock during a planned 17-day shut-down. The target clearance
was achieved and a double-stack train can now enter the yard
from the south, relieving the bottleneck at the north end of the
yard.

Figure 2. View of the open cut between the tunnels.

Both tunnels have reinforced concrete liners with thickness
varying from 1.5 feet in the crown to over 4 feet near the base
of the walls. The tunnels are about 14 feet wide and 20 feet tall.
In general, no major distress is evident along the liner surface
in either tunnel, although scrape marks are present along the
haunches throughout both tunnels due to over-sized cars.
In order to achieve the required clearance through the
tunnels, the tunnel floor had to be lowered by as much as 4.37
feet. Challenges included poor drainage conditions, very
shallow bedrock underlying the southern portions of the track, a
concrete slab foundation atop soft soil in the northern half of
the largest tunnel, and heavy train volume.
From a
geotechnical standpoint, the greatest challenge was to provide
adequate support to that portion of the tunnel bearing atop soft
soil in order to lower the tunnel invert without liner
convergence or settlement.
The geotechnical program indicated bedrock at 1.5 to 2.0
feet below track level from about the middle of Tunnel A
southward. This suggests the tunnels were originally driven
through bedrock over this reach and the liner walls bear upon
competent material. From the middle of Tunnel A northward
toward the yard for a distance of 260 feet, a concrete slab was
present along the tunnel invert. The slab thickness varied from
about 1.5 to 2.9 feet. Neither the file drawings or the
exploration program were clear as to whether the slab was
intended as an invert strut or for distribution of wall loads.
Below the slab, the borings indicated soft, sandy, clayey silt
was present atop the bedrock surface. The bedrock surface
sloped downward toward the yard such that at the North Portal
the bedrock surface was about 10 feet below the tunnel invert.
In general, the design of the remedial program included
anchoring the northern tunnel walls to prevent convergence,
underpinning the northern tunnel walls to prevent tunnel
settlement, track removal, excavation/removal of sub-grade
material (including concrete slab and bedrock), and
replacement of approximately 2,250-ft. of track (Figure 3).
In order to maintain the integrity of the tunnel walls as the
floors were lowered, the walls were anchored into rock. The

Figure 3. Typical repair cross section, Tilford Yard tunnels.

SLOPE FAILURE REPAIRS

Slope failure repairs on the railroad have typically
consisted of driven pile (rail-pile, H-pile, or sheet pile). This
method of constructing retaining walls usually requires large

Copyright 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/14/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

cranes to handle and drive the pile. This method works well if
there are no overhead restrictions such as electrical
transmission lines. Other restrictions such as property
limitations or uncooperative adjacent property owners can
restrict the use of heavy equipment as well. Using micropile
techniques, the railroad and its contractors are able to construct
retaining walls in low head room locations and areas with
little right-of-way.

Figure 4. Bulging slope and drainage swale, Atlanta

Terminal.

ATLANTA TERMINAL, ATLANTA, GEORGIA

SG-574.5 on the Atlanta Terminal is a site where low
overhead power lines are present, the right-of-way does not
extend beyond the toe of the fill, and a sewer manhole is
located at the toe where the sewer line passes under the fill. The
adjacent property owner permitted the Railroad and Contractor
to work along a narrow area of their backyard.
The site consists of a 155-foot-long reach of curved
mainline and siding track positioned atop a 20 to 25-foot-high
cross-valley fill. The track is oriented east to west. The
problem area is located along the north side of the fill and north
of the siding track. The area north of the railroad embankment
includes private residences and commercial properties.
The north fill slope was steeply inclined and covered with
riprap side-dumped by the Railroad and estimated to be about
24 to 36 inches thick. The toe of the slope bulged outward and
a drainage swale ran along the toe (Figure 4). The siding track
was experiencing slight profile and cross-level problems near
the center of the problem area. There was very little shoulder
present along the siding track.
Using the information gathered during the geotechnical
exploration a slope stability analysis was performed (Figure 5).
A back analysis modeled the existing conditions assuming the
factor of safety against slope failure was unity. After modeling
the existing conditions, a forward analysis modeled different
repair schemes. Generally, the slope analysis provides the shear
stress applied to the pile. In this case, the final design was for a
cantilever micropile retaining wall consisting of 9-5/8-inch
diameter by 0.500-inch-thick N80 casing on six-foot centers.

Figure 5. Slope analysis, Atlanta Terminal.

Wall construction consisted of: a) Creating a work bench
for the wall which included installing drainage pipes to
maintain water flow through the site, b) Drilling the piles in
place and filling them with grout (Figure 6), c) Installing the
lagging and placing fill behind the wall, d) Removing the work
bench and drainage pipe, e) Re-grading the swale/ditch and
lining ditch it with riprap, and f) re-grading the fill slope.
The micropile retaining wall was about 155 feet long and
consisted of 32 grouted piles. The wall height above the ground
was about four feet. The overall length of the piles was about
30 feet. Wall lagging consisted of four-inch-thick hardwood
timbers. To-date the railroad reports that the wall is performing
well.

Figure 6. Micropile installation, Atlanta Terminal.

Copyright 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/14/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

TEMPORARY SOIL NAILING, KCS, LAREDO, TEXAS

In order to install an Integrated Railcar Inspection system
at the U.S. border crossing at Laredo, Texas it was necessary to
perform an excavation directly adjacent to the track. Originally
a soldier pile wall system was designed to provide excavation
support. Due to the presence of overhead power lines which
serviced the railroad and could not be relocated, it was not
possible to access the area with driven piling or conventional
drilling equipment. The alternative proposed method was the
use of a soil nail system to provide temporary excavation
support. The soil nail system was installed to a depth of 16 feet
below top of rail and approximately 48-inches off the end of the
ties (Figure 8). No ballast was lost in the process and the
excavation support allowed construction to be completed
without the removal of overhead power.
Figure 7. Completed retaining wall, Atlanta Terminal, note
power lines.

SOIL NAILING
Soil nailing is an earth retention technique that is
performed using grouted tension-resisting steel elements (nails)
that can be designed for either permanent or temporary support.
The walls are generally constructed from the top down using
the following method. Typically, 4 to 6 feet of soil is excavated
from the top of the planned excavation. The holes for the nails
are then drilled on a 10 to 20 degree batter from horizontal into
the face of the excavation. After drilling, the steel bars are
inserted into the holes and grouted into place. After the nails
have been installed on 3 to 6 foot centers, a drainage system is
installed which usually consists of 24 to 36-inch-wide drainage
mats. Following this, reinforcing steel and/or wire mesh is
placed on the wall face and shotcrete is then applied to connect
the nails to the face of the wall. After the shotcrete is complete,
plates and nuts are placed on the bars. At this point the lift is
complete and the next lift can be excavated. The process is
repeated until the design excavation depth is reached. Soil nail
and shotcrete construction is limited to soils that can stand up
long enough so that drilling and shooting operations can take
place without sloughing of the soils. In stiff clays this systems
can provide an economical earth retention system.(FHWA
Manual for Design and construction of Soil Nails). Soil nail
systems, as with any earth retention design require geotechnical
data to be completed safely and efficiently.
Railroads often discount the use of soil nailing in favor of
more traditional soldier piles or sheet piles when soil nailing is
often less expensive and can be installed in the same or less
time and without headroom constraints. When used as a
permanent wall, soil nailing can also be finished out to appear
as a cast-in-place wall or textured to resemble natural rock
which is advantageous when aesthetics are important.

Figure 8. Soil nail installation, KCS, Laredo Texas.

PERMANENT SOIL NAILED WALL, UPRR DAVIDSON

YARD, FORT WORTH, TEXAS
As part of an overall upgrade and relocation of the UPRR
tracks in Fort Worth, Texas it was necessary to construct a wall
in the center of the Davidson Yard. The original wall called for
an precast concrete wall. This type of wall would have required
an excavation and fill operation in the middle of the yard which
was not possible due to existing tracks, signals, etc. which
could not be taken out of service and relocated. The alternative
proposed method was to utilized top down construction,
eliminating excess excavation and back fill. This construction
of the wall was completed as a permanent soil nail wall. The
wall was finished with a permanent shotcrete finish. The soil
nail wall was constructed to a height of 12 feet without
disruption to ongoing yard traffic. The face of the shotcrete wall
was textured to create the look of a cast in place wall.

Copyright 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/14/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

VIBRO REPLACEMENT STONE COLUMN GROUND

IMPROVEMENT FOR GRADE SEPARATION, UPRR,
COLTON, CALIFORNIA
UPRR planned a 7,200-foot-long, wall-supported grade
separation for its new track that would cross above an existing
BNSF track alignment at an existing UPRR, BNSF, and
Caltrans Right of Way connector in Colton, CA. The

VRSC were installed to a depth of 15 feet (Figure 8). The

spacing of the VRSC was designed to meet area replacement
and densification requirements of the design of the system, and
was tailored to meet the requirements in the performance-based
specification. The collapsible nature of the soils posed
challenges during predrilling boreholes for the VRSC locations.
However, the use of bottom feed equipment resulted in the

25

Varies,
min.

Varies

15

12

1
5
Vibro Stone Column, Typ. 30
Diameter

Figure 8 Typical cross section showing stone columns supporting T Wall, near
existing tracks.
geotechnical investigation indicated that subsurface soils along
the planned T wall-supported grade separation consisted of
collapsible soils which would result in excessive settlement of
the retaining wall if not densified prior to construction.
The geotechnical engineer recommended a ground
improvement program consisting of Vibro Replacement Stone
Columns (VRSC) to achieve the specified densification of the
collapsible soils (Figure 8). The specifications provided a
minimum post ground improvement blow count to be achieved.
VRSC utilized an electric vibrator to densify aggregate placed
below grade into a predrilled hole. The down hole vibrator was
equipped with a bottom feed system that ensures that each
stone columns is constructed to the design diameter. The
amperage on the vibrator is monitored to provide additional
quality control on the results of the ground improvement
program. The electric vibrator can also improve the
surrounding soils, if those soils consist of clean non-cohesive
material, as was the case on this project. Improvement of the
surrounding soils can result in a reduction of liquefaction
potential. VRSC have been utilized on thousands of projects
across the United States to reduce settlement and provide
additional factor of safety again global instability (Elias, et al,
2006).

stone columns being constructed as designed. Post-construction

quality control testing of the VRSC included Standard
Penetration Tests (SPT).
The project requirements were met by use of VRSC while
minimizing disruption to rail traffic.

Figure 9. VRSC installation adjacent to track, UPRR.

Copyright 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/14/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

MICROPILES INSTALLED IN LOW HEADROOM FOR

REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE, BNSF, KENOMA,
MISSOURI

LOW MOBILITY GROUTING AND HB POLYLIFT FOR

SLAB RE-LEVELING, MARTA, ATLANTA, GEORGIA
The Metropolitan Atlanta Transit Authority (MARTA)
required slab re-leveling on at-grade track slabs that were
affecting the commuter rail line that carries pedestrians through
the city of Atlanta. The project required work to be performed
at three separate locations along the rail line; Doraville Station,
Oakland City Station, and North of Redding Road.
A two-phased approach was used to complete the lifting
and re-leveling of the slabs. First, compaction grout, also
known as low mobility grout (LMG) was injected under
pressure to perform the initial lift. During phase 2 the
contractor utilized the HB PolyLift system to fill the voids
beneath the slab and fine tune any required elevation
adjustments (Figure 11).
The LMG program consisted of 3-inch-diameter holes
placed on 5-foot intervals down the center of the slab. The
LMG holes were drilled to a maximum depth of 5 feet below
grade. The LMG is a low-slump, cement-based grout mix that
when mixed in appropriate portions forms a stable, viscous,
cementitious grout. LMGs properties allow the grout to only
move under pressure, fill voids, and densify the in-situ soil.
Phase 2 required the use of expanding polyurethane foam
to fill any remaining voids underneath the slabs. HB PolyLift
involves the injection of lightweight foam (five pounds per
cubic foot) through a small-diameter packer. The polyurethane
foams are expansive in nature which makes them ideal for void
filling beneath the slabs. To accomplish the work at MARTA
efficiently and effectively, the contractor high-railed the truck
typically used for this technique (Figure 12).
The contractor successfully lifted slabs that have settled
greater than 3 inches utilizing the combination of techniques
discussed in this section.

As railroad infrastructure across the United States ages the

ability to replace bridges with minimal to no track down time is
crucial to the reliability of the rail system.
Micropiles have been utilized on various railroad bridge
projects for this reason (Berry Et al 2007 and Hill & Kober,
2008). Micropiles can be designed to accommodate the
vertical, longitudinal, and lateral loads of the bridge structures.
Micropiles offer a distinct advantage to the railroads in
the fact that the permanent drill casing can be purchased in any
length, from 3-foot-long sections to over 30-foot-long sections.
The short 3-foot sections can be utilized to install micropiles in
very low head room conditions; as little as 6-feet as was
observed on the Kenoma, Missouri project (Figure 10).
Installation of the pile from below the bridge deck allows for
continuous uninterrupted train traffic above the bridge.
Micropile design loads on typical railroad applications vary
from 100 kips to well over 400 kips, easily exceeding the
design loads of driven piles.
Micropiles generally support the bridge with a cast-inplace concrete pile cap and stem wall. However, adaptations
can be made to the micropile system that would allow for the
use of the standard precast concrete pile cap welded to the top
of the micropile system.
Micropiles on the railway are typically designed in
accordance with FHWA NHI -05-039, dated December 2005.
Micropiles have also been selected and designed to support
railroad bridges when difficult subsurface conditions or
vibration concerns to existing structures limit the effectiveness
of pile driving.

Figure 11. LMG and HB PolyLift section view, MARTA.

Figure 10. Low headroom micropile installation, BNSF.

Copyright 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/14/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

Figure 12. High-railed HB PolyLift truck, MARTA.

JET GROUT AND SOIL NAILS UTILIZED TO ADD A

RAIL SIDING, CSX INTERMODAL, BEDFORD PARK,
ILLINOIS

Figure 13. Jet grout column installation, CSX.

Existing infrastructure is often constructed without the

thought of future expansion. In many cases the need for an
additional rail siding arises after a bridge is in service. On this
particular project a rail siding needed to be added beneath an
existing bridge. However, the only way the siding could be
added was by removal of the slope wall near the abutment of a
bridge.
In cohesive soils this work can be completed effectively
using soil nails and shotcrete. In the case of granular soils, or
mixed fills that are often prevalent in historic embankments soil
nailing cannot be completed safely. An alternative approach is
to utilize jet grouting in combination with soil nails (Figure 13).
In this arrangement the jet grout columns are created along the
alignment of the proposed vertical wall the jet grout columns
can be completed in headroom as limited as 6 feet. Using top
down construction techniques the soil in front of the jet grout
columns (the existing slope wall), is removed from in front of
the jet grout wall. Soil nails are installed through the jet grout
material (soilcrete) to provide lateral support to the jet grout
wall and to resist the surcharge loads imposed on the wall
(Figure 14).
Soil nails are typically installed at intervals that range from
25-30 square feet of the face of the wall per nail. The
excavation proceeds in lifts, allowing for installation of the soil
nails. Once the excavation reaches target depth a cast-in-place
crash wall can be constructed as the permanent face for the
system. This permanent concrete face provides frost protection
and impact resistance (Figure 15).
This construction technique can be completed without
disruption to either train line, or in this case, the roadway above
the slopewall.

Figure 14. Soil nail wall, CSX.

Figure 15. Complete wall with crash protection, CSX.

Copyright 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/14/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
MARTA, Union Pacific RR, BNSF RR, CSX RR

Burke, G.K., J.H. Peterson and M.L. Smith. 2000. SuperJet

Grouting And The Quality Of Its Product. Proceedings of
GeoDenver 2000. ASCE. Denver, CO, August, 2000.

REFERENCES

Elias, V., Welsh, J., Warren, J., Lukas, R., Collin, J.G., and
Berg, R.R. (2006a). Ground Improvement Methods Reference
Manual, Federal Highway Administration FHWA NHI-06-019,
August 2006.

Berry, R., Boonstra, G., Hill, J.R., Szynakiewicz, T. (2008)

Design and Construction of Micropiles for Various Difficult
Access Railway Foundation Applications. AREMA
Proceedings 2008.

Hill, J.R., Kober, A.C. (2008) Micropiles Reduce Costs and

Schedule for Merchant RR Bridge Rehabilitation. AREMA
Proceedings, Salt Lake City, September, 2008.

Bruce, D.A., G.S. Littlejohn, and A. Naudts. (1997b).

"Grouting Materials for Ground Treatment: A Practitioners
Guide," Grouting Compaction, Remediation, and Testing,
Proc. of Sessions Sponsored by the Grouting Manual for
Design & Construction of Soil Nail Walls 1999 FHWA-SA-96069R PB99-146862.

Voor, B.H., Burke, G.K, and Triplett, R.E. (2001). Tunnel

Protection by Ground Improvement Prior to Track Lowering.
Presentation and Proceedings, 2001 Rapid Excavation and
Tunneling Conference (RETC), San Diego, CA.

Burke, G.K., D.M. Cacoilo and K. R. Chadwick. 2000.

SuperJet Grouting: A New Technology for In Situ Soil
Improvement. Proceedings of TRB 2000. Washington, D.C.
January, 2000.

Manual for Design and Construction of Soil Nails, FHWASA-96-069R, Published 1999, PB99-146862

Copyright 2013 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 05/14/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use