English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Dynamic factor evaluation method calculation methods outlined by Eisenmann (DAFEisenmann) and the American Railway Engineering Association (DAFArea) are used to calculate the dynamic factor during design and for trackside measurement, respectively, in nations where the construction of concrete track structures is relatively new. In this situation, dynamic factor calculation methods may be incorrect, and this is demonstrated by comparison of the respective track types’ total spring constant. A finite element analysis of a standard design railway track is conducted, and the design total spring constant (TSC, or K) obtained from the time history function analysis is compared to the TSC of existing tracks through trackside measurement results. The comparison result shows that TSC obtained by finite element analysis result is 22% higher than that of the trackside measurement value, indicating that the TSC is conservative in the current track design. Considering the proportional relationship between TSC and dynamic factor, it is estimated that the dynamic factor currently being applied in track design is also conservative. Based on these findings, an assessment of the applicability of different dynamic factors (DAFEisenmann and DAFArea), theoretical calculation and field measurement (DAFField) using the probabilistic analysis of wheel loads from the field measurement data is conducted. A correlative analysis between DAFEisenmann and DAFArea shows that DAFEisenmann and DAFArea were estimated to be higher by 33% and 27% in ballasted track and by 39% and 30% in concrete track than the dynamic factor derived from field measurement, respectively, which indicates that the dynamic factor currently in use can potentially lead to over-estimation in track design and maintenance.

applied sciences

Study on the Applicability of Dynamic Factor Standards by Comparison of Spring Constant Based Dynamic Factor of Ballasted and Concrete Track Structures