Next Article in Journal
Development of a Building Evaluation Framework for Biophilic Design in Architecture
Next Article in Special Issue
Computer-Vision-Aided Deflection Influences Line Identification of Concrete Bridge Enhanced by Edge Detection and Time-Domain Forward Inference
Previous Article in Journal
Professional Sports Event Attendance and Construction Workers’ Job Burnout: The Mediating Role of Leisure Spillover
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Comparison Analysis of Buildings as per Norwegian and Ethiopia ES-EN1998-1 Seismic Code
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Buildings
Volume 14
Issue 10
10.3390/buildings14103252
buildings-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Experimental Study on the Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Derailment Containment Provisions under Quasi-Static Loads

by
Huy Q. Nguyen
1,2,
Hoi Jin Kim
3,
Nam-Hyoung Lim
4,
Yun-Suk Kang
5 and
Jung J. Kim
1,*
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Kyungnam University, Changwon 51767, Republic of Korea
2
Faculty of Infrastructure Engineering–Technology, Mientrung University of Civil Engineering, Tuy Hoa 620000, Vietnam
3
UB E&C Co., Ltd., 42 Beolmal-ro 50 beon-gil, Bundang-gu, Seongnam 13503, Republic of Korea
4
Department of Civil Engineering, Chungnam National University, Daejeon 34134, Republic of Korea
5
Advanced Railroad Civil Engineering Division, Korea Railroad Research Institute, 176 Cheoldobangmulgwan-ro, Uiwang 16105, Republic of Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Buildings 2024, 14(10), 3252; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14103252
Submission received: 14 September 2024 / Revised: 2 October 2024 / Accepted: 4 October 2024 / Published: 14 October 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Study on Concrete Structures)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Derailments pose a significant threat to high-speed rail safety. The development of effective derailment containment provisions (DCPs) that can be installed within a track gauge and withstand impact loads of derailed wheels while controlling the lateral movement of derailed trains is essential. This paper presents an experimental study on the behavior of reinforced concrete (RC) DCP systems under quasi-static loading. Three steel anchors were assessed for their performance and load-bearing capacity in a single-anchor test. Four full-scale DCP system tests were carried out to examine the effects of scenarios of impact load positions at the anchor and mid-span of the DCPs. The crack pattern, failure mechanism, load–displacement relationship, initial stiffness, and absorber energy capacity of the DCP specimens were acquired. The findings reveal that the failure mode of the DCP specimens was predominantly affected by the tension failure of the steel anchors. The load-carrying capacity and performance equivalent of the DCP system under the applied load scenarios significantly exceeded the design load, ranging from 125% to 168%. Also, the initial stiffness of the DCP system remains largely unaffected by the applied load positions, whereas the absorption energy capacity exhibits a contrasting trend.

1. Introduction

Train derailments are a serious safety hazard that can cause catastrophic losses of human life and economic damage. It is impossible to completely prevent derailments due to unexpected factors, including human error, weather conditions, and natural disasters [1,2,3,4,5]. In addition, the rapid development of high-speed rail (HSR) in the 21st century has made safety even more critical, as the risks and consequences of derailments are higher [6,7]. The demand for a new structure to prevent trains from deviating too far from the track during derailments to save lives and minimize damage is essential. Nonetheless, developing a protection facility around rails that can seamlessly combine with existing rail infrastructure is even more urgent [8], given the extensive and long-standing nature of the railway network [9,10,11].
Several researchers have investigated the behavior of trains post-derailment in efforts to prevent derailments. Barbie et al. developed a 3D post-derailment dynamic model and a simplified wheel–sleeper contact model [12,13,14]. Wu et al. introduced a model to simulate the post-derailment dynamic behavior of high-speed trains on a railway bridge during an earthquake [15]. Guo et al. analyzed the effect of the track to propose post-derailment safety measures by conducting low-speed derailment experiments [16]. Furthermore, other researchers have concentrated on controlling derailed trains and redirecting them to return to their intended paths. Kajitani et al. designed an L-shaped guide intended for connection to a bearing box with the goal of inhibiting the lateral movement of a derailed train [17]. Sunami et al. created a post-derailment stopper for bogie frames and a vehicle dynamics model to analyze its behavior [18]. Wu et al. designed devices to limit the lateral displacement of derailed vehicles and validated it by experiments [19]. Previous research has provided valuable insights into the feasibility of derailment prevention. Nonetheless, the research objects have been mainly focused on post-derailment vehicle behavior and controlling derailed trains, with devices installed on each bogie of individual trains to maximize safety. Accordingly, ensuring safety enhancements throughout the high-speed rail system demands considerable investment in research and installation. Cost optimization is overlooked, given that derailments primarily occur in high-risk areas prone to adverse weather conditions.
In contrast, implementing a rerouting auxiliary system along the track presents a promising solution for large-scale railway infrastructure upgrades, yet it has garnered relatively limited attention from researchers. Developing a new preventive system for train safety in certain countries could be both costly and impractical in the short term, especially given the extensive reach of rail networks, including a significant portion being HSRs [9,20]. Hence, the demand for an auxiliary system tailored for areas prone to derailments, seamlessly integrating with existing railway networks, becomes imperative and highly viable. In recent years, DCPs are becoming a probable solution for high-speed rail transportation to mitigate derailment damage by preventing trains from colliding with surrounding structures or falling off bridges. There are three main types of DCPs used worldwide, as shown in Figure 1 [21,22]. DCP Type I has a similar function to guard rails [23,24,25], installed inside the track gauge to prevent trains from going off the tracks. In derailment, the wheels come into direct contact with the installation. DCP Type II is similar but installed outside the track gauge, while DCP Type III is also outside the tracks but is designed to absorb the impact from axles or bogies instead of the wheels. On the other hand, RC structures are widely acknowledged for their inherent characteristics, including their robust load-bearing capacity, energy absorption, controlled deformation, and ability to withstand harsh environmental conditions [26,27,28,29]. RC structures also provide fire resistance and ductility to withstand high temperatures and warning signs of potential failure while being cost-effective due to widely available materials and low production costs. These attributes are pivotal in preventing catastrophic incidents and safeguarding lives and critical infrastructure from impact collisions during derailment events. As a result, DCP Type III, constructed from RC, is utilized on railway bridges to guide the wheels of derailed trains in South Korea, where trains operate at speeds of 200–300 km/h [30]. Nevertheless, there is a lack of clarity in the design specifications for DCPs, and their performance in actual railway settings has not undergone adequate verification. Bae et al. performed a comprehensive experimental program to assess the performance of RC DCPs at low speeds [31]. Song et al. developed a theoretical method for predicting the impact load on RC DCP Type I for high-speed trains in Korea using the Olson model and dynamic simulations. A simplified finite element (FE) model was also presented to assess dynamic post-derailment behavior [32]. The developed DCP should also function as a railway protection system that enables rapid construction and derailment recovery within the limited track-blocking time (3 h at night), ensuring minimal disruption to operating lines [33]. Hence, DCP Type I emerges as a more advantageous choice over DCP Types II and III regarding economics, durability, and effectiveness in reducing the lateral collision load for large-scale upgrades of existing railway systems [34].
While the available literature on DCPs is somewhat restricted, there is evidence that RC DCP Type I would be a feasible solution for improving derailment prevention within the railway infrastructure. In developing the design specification of DCPs, researchers, however, have not yet focused on studies concerning the capacity of the RC DCP system. Consequently, further research is recommended to optimize the design of the RC DCP system and develop comprehensive design guidelines that align with the operational requirements of high-speed railway systems in Korea and other regions with similar infrastructure needs.

Research Significance

In general, impact tests tend to induce both global and local responses within a structure, whereas static tests usually give rise to only global responses [35]. To thoroughly assess the structural safety of RC elements subjected to impact forces, it is essential to predict their capacity to withstand applied loads and maximum displacement response [36]. These assessments should also contain a series of functional investigations to explore failure mechanisms and global structural characteristics of an RC DCP system under varying conditions. Unfortunately, carrying out full-scale experimental evaluations for DCP collisions at high speeds is both cost-prohibitive and impractical to validate for each case of impact loads. Thus, it is necessary to combine numerical and experimental analyses to establish preliminary design specifications for a DCP.
Previous studies have analyzed the impact forces on DCPs during high-speed train derailment simulations, with DCP Type I experiencing a maximum impact load of 165.6 kN at 300 km/h on a 3500 m radius curve [33,37]. Accordingly, quasi-static testing aimed at withstanding the design load derived from these simulations was conducted in this study to investigate the failure mechanisms and global response of RC DCP Type I. The findings enable the customization of DCP member designs involving size, anchor methods and quantity, and material strength to withstand energy collisions with displacement within allowable limits. As a result, the optimal DCP design will be validated and proposed through experimental impact tests in the next stage of the research project. Ultimately, a viable post-derailment safety measure for Korean high-speed trains utilizing DCP Type I will be suggested, as depicted in Figure 2.
This study investigates the behavior of the RC DCP Type I system under different scenarios of applied loads, with a primary focus on exploring the global response of the RC DCP system to evaluate structural integrity in the event of a train derailment. The sequence of crack formation and the observed failure mechanism during the experiment are presented. The study also determines parameters such as ultimate load, maximum displacement, initial stiffness, and energy absorption capacity of the RC DCP Type I system.

2. Experimental Program

2.1. RC DCP System

The RC DCP was engineered to withstand derailment impacts according to the parameters set forth by Korean researchers, as proposed in the report on the facility development for rail vehicle deviation protection, which received approval from the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport of the Korean government [22,37]. The specimens were utilized in experimental tests to explore their behavior under quasi-static loads. The DCP system, proposed following a preliminary analysis for high-speed train vehicles in Korea, consists of a 125 mm high RC DCP, 3 mm thick fixed-base plates, and 5 mm thick rubber pads. In Figure 3a, RC DCPs with a length of 3020 mm and a cross-section of 125 × 500 mm used in the experimental work are shown. The reinforcement in each RC DCP included eight symmetrical steel bars of No. 16 (ϕ15.9 mm), arranged with four bars on each side, along with transverse steel bars of No. 13 (ϕ12.7 mm) spaced at 150 mm. The compressive strength of the DCPs and sleepers at 28 days was 35 MPa and 50 MPa, respectively. The reinforcement employed SD400 steel, characterized by a yield stress of 400 MPa, an ultimate strength of 560 MPa, and an elastic modulus of 210 GPa. Similarly, the fixed-base plate exhibited a yield stress of 355 MPa and an elastic modulus of 210 GPa, with detailed dimensions provided in Figure 3b.
Each RC DCP was designed with a length sufficient to span a cluster of 5 sleepers. The DCP was securely attached to the sleepers at three positions—the middle and both ends—using three anchors made of SD400 steel bars No. 25 (ϕ25.4 mm) and epoxy resin. Initially, epoxy resin was utilized to fix anchors, with the length of each anchor within a sleeper of 130 mm. Subsequently, fixed-base plates and rubber pads were installed on sleepers using fixing nuts. Finally, the RC DCP was secured to the sleepers through the anchors, employing epoxy resin, with anchor lengths in each DCP of 90 mm, as shown in Figure 4.

2.2. Single-Anchor Test

The influence of load on the displacement of single steel anchors was investigated. Figure 5 shows the load applied to a steel bar anchored to the sleeper through a steel frame serving as the RC DCP. The horizontal displacement was measured using the average values obtained from two linear differential transducers (LVDTs), designated as H1 and H2. This setup was used to evaluate the relationship between load-carrying capacity and displacement of individual anchors. The test was replicated three times and labeled with the suffixes “-1”, “-2”, and “-3”. The LVDTs with a 0.001 mm accuracy measured deformations within the 100 mm gauge length, while load data were recorded using the universal testing machine (UTM) load cell during anchor tests. The experiments were carried out at a consistent loading speed of 2 mm/min, using a UTM with a maximum capacity of 500 kN. Figure 6 illustrates the relationship between load and displacement. The experimental data for all tested specimens are listed in Table 1.

2.3. RC DCP System Test

The four DCPs were separated into two groups, each consisting of two specimens prepared for static load testing at the anchor (referred to as Case 1) and mid-span (Case 2). LVDTs L1 and L2 for each case of load locations were set up as shown in Figure 7a,b. The sleeper was securely affixed to the rigid plate and assumed to undergo negligible deformation when subjected to the applied load. The testing method and equipment specifications for LVDTs and UTM resemble those operated in the single-anchor test. Tests were carried out until the specimens experienced failure, with data on the applied load and corresponding displacement also recorded.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Failure Mode

Figure 8 presents the failure mode observed in the tested DCP systems at the end of the experimental process with the applied load at anchor No. 2 (Case 1) and mid-span (Case 2). The specimens revealed a flexural tension failure mode concerning the steel anchors for all tested cases. In Case 1, anchor No. 2 initially took the majority of the loading, which was then redistributed to neighboring anchor points through the RC DCP system. The test concluded due to the failure of all three anchors, indicating the mobilization of additional resistance from anchors No. 1 and 3. The outcome was also characterized by concrete crushing and the shear cracks at the anchor positions, accompanied by flexural cracks along the RC DCP, as illustrated in Figure 8a. In Case 2, the tested DCP systems experienced failures in anchors No. 2 and No. 3, along with diagonal flexural and shear cracks between the vicinity of the applied load position and anchor No. 2. Conversely, such failures were barely observed in the area of anchor No. 1. As a result, localized concrete crushing, cracks, and anchor failures were recognized, as depicted in Figure 8b. Interestingly, there is negligible damage observed in the RC sleepers.

3.2. Load–Displacement Relationship

Figure 9a,b illustrate the load–displacement curves of the DCPs with the applied load at anchor No. 2 and mid-span, respectively. The full-scale tests were successfully performed, with the recorded average data and their standard deviations summarized in Table 2. Each load case was repeated twice to achieve accuracy, with the first and second tests denoted by the suffixes “-1” and “-2”, respectively. The experiment revealed that the primary factors impacting DCP displacement under load is the deformation of the rubber pad and epoxy resin and localized damage to the concrete around the anchor holes of the DCP. In Case 1, the behavior of the DCP system remained linearly elastic until the development of microcracks at a load exceeding 65 kN, where the initial slope changes, as shown by point “A” in Figure 9a. Furthermore, the DCP system maintained a linear response up to an applied load of 167.1 kN, resulting in a relatively small displacement of 4.77 mm. As a result, an average load-carrying capacity of 278.4 kN was achieved, with a corresponding average displacement of 13.49 mm, as summarized in Table 2. This capacity exceeds the design load of 165.6 kN by up to 168%.
In Case 2, microcracks emerged in the specimens as the load approached approximately 40 kN, marked by a slight change in the initial slope at point “B” in Figure 9b. The DCP system exhibited a linear behavior up to an applied load of 123.9 kN, accompanied by a displacement of 3.7 mm. The yield response of the structure under the designed load of 165.6 kN could be observed. Nevertheless, the results also revealed an ultimate load of 206.5 kN, 125% of the designed load, accompanied by an average displacement of 13.18 mm for this case. Notably, the load-carrying capacity was 1.35 times smaller than that at the anchor, as depicted in Figure 9b. The experimental results of all tested specimens are listed in Table 2.
In summary, the test data indicated that the load capacity of the DCP system is 132% to 178% greater than that of the single anchor (156.4 kN). It demonstrates significant variation in the collaborative forces among the anchors and the redistribution of internal forces within the DCP systems, depending on the applied load positions. The DCP system exhibits significant promise for integration into the Korean railway system, with a design impact load capacity of 165.6 kN. The steel anchors exhibited a yielding response under the design load in Case 2, underscoring the careful consideration of the researchers given to optimizing the bearing capacity of the RC DCP system. Additionally, it displays flexibility, particularly in scenarios requiring an upgrade of the load-carrying capacity of the DCP system through enhancements to the load-carrying capacity of the steel anchors. It is also worth noting that the current analysis solely focuses on the most challenging load scenario, overlooking the safety-biased group effects among DCPs.

3.3. Initial Stiffness Analysis

The yielding loads are proposed of 0.6 ultimate loads of the test specimens following an analysis of the experimental data, as indicated in Figure 8a,b. The slope of the P−Δ curve in the linear elastic stage can be used to analyze their initial stiffness, calculated by dividing the applied load by the displacement at the load application point. Figure 10 describes the schematic diagram for determining the initial stiffness. The initial stiffness of the DCP system is computed using the following equation [38]:
K i = P y Δ y
The initial stiffness of structures could influence the estimation of displacement and displacement ductility, which are essential for displacement-based design [39,40]. Generally, the initial stiffness of structures primarily relies on factors such as their geometric shape, length, support conditions, and mechanical properties [41]. In this study, the initial stiffness of the DCP system with an applied load at the anchor and mid-span was found to be approximately the same, measuring 35.03 kN/mm and 33.62 kN/mm, respectively. The analyzed results of the initial stiffness of the tested specimens are described in Table 2. It indicates that the applied load positions have minimal impact on the initial stiffness of the proposed structure. This analysis offers a comprehensive understanding of structural responses, establishing a foundation for advancing simulation research and addressing the complex challenges of mitigating damage caused by train derailments.

3.4. Energy Absorption Capacity

Evaluating the energy absorption capacity of structures subjected to impact collisions like DCPs is crucial. However, conducting full-scale impact tests with a designed velocity of 200 km/h or higher, as required for high-speed railways in Korea, is nearly impossible. Hence, determining the structure’s maximum energy absorption capacity through static experiments becomes essential. The area under the P−Δ curve expresses the total energy consumed by members during the applied load up to failure, as shown in Figure 10 [42]. Figure 9 represents the P−Δ curves of the tested specimens. The energy absorption capacity in the case of an applied load at an anchor is 2525.9 kNmm, 1.28 times greater than that achieved at mid-span. Table 2 displays the analyzed results of the energy absorption capacity for the tested specimens. It can be found that most of the absorbed energy by the DCP system is transferred to the steel anchors. In both cases, the different degree of damage to the steel anchors highlights the difference in energy absorption among them. This occurrence confirms the previously mentioned argument that there is a variation in the mobilization of load resistance among anchors depending on the position of the load. The experiment also provides a basis for conducting simulation studies and planning for impact tests based on the absorbed energy capacity of the RC DCP structure.

4. Conclusions

This paper presents an investigation into the behavior of RC DCP systems under various static load conditions, with a primary focus on analyzing the global response to evaluate structural integrity and feasibility in preventing train derailment. Additionally, the study discusses the failure mechanism, load-carrying capacity, initial stiffness, and absorbed energy of the DCP systems. The conclusions of this study could be drawn as follows.
The failure mode in the tested specimens was primarily governed by the tension failure of the steel anchors rather than the RC DCP. While shear/flexural cracks and concrete crushing of the RC components were also observed, these factors were not the primary causes of the DCP system failure.
The developed RC DCP for the railway exhibited a significant margin of safety, with load-carrying capacity at the anchor and mid-span exceeding the design loads by 168% and 125%, respectively.
The results demonstrate that effective coordination among the anchors leads to internal force redistribution within the DCP system, significantly enhancing its performance. The system exhibited a load-carrying capacity 132% to 178% higher than that achieved in single-anchor tests.
The initial stiffness of the DCP system is not significantly affected by the applied load position. In contrast, the energy absorption capacity with the applied load at the anchor position is 1.28 times higher than that at mid-span. Varying damage levels in the steel anchors emphasize differences in absorbed energy depending on their locations.
The proposed structure would be feasible in preventing train derailment. Nonetheless, it is essential to investigate the response of DCP systems under impact loads in further research. Attempts should be made to thoroughly evaluate the local bearing capacity, group effects, and structural reliability as required standards in Korean and equivalent railway systems.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.J.K.; methodology, H.J.K., N.-H.L. and J.J.K.; software, H.Q.N. and Y.-S.K.; validation, H.J.K., N.-H.L. and Y.-S.K.; formal analysis, H.Q.N. and Y.-S.K.; investigation, H.J.K., N.-H.L. and J.J.K.; data curation, J.J.K. and H.Q.N.; writing—original draft preparation, H.Q.N. and J.J.K.; writing—review and editing, H.Q.N., Y.-S.K., H.J.K., N.-H.L. and J.J.K.; visualization, H.J.K. and N.-H.L.; supervision, J.J.K.; project administration, N.-H.L.; funding acquisition, N.-H.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by a Korea Agency for Infrastructure Technology Advancement (KAIA) grant funded by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, and Transport (Grant RS-2021-KA163289).

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

Author Hoi Jin Kim was employed by the company UB E&C Co., Ltd. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Esmaeeli, N.; Sattari, F.; Lefsrud, L.; Macciotta, R. Critical Analysis of Train Derailments in Canada through Process Safety Techniques and Insights into Enhanced Safety Management Systems. Transp. Res. Rec. 2022, 2676, 603–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Zhang, Z.; Turla, T.; Liu, X. Analysis of human-factor-caused freight train accidents in the United States. J. Transp. Saf. Secur. 2021, 13, 1157–1186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Dindar, S.; Kaewunruen, S.; An, M. A hierarchical Bayesian-based model for hazard analysis of climate effect on failures of railway turnout components. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2022, 218, 108130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Wu, X.; Chi, M.; Gao, H.; Ke, X.; Zeng, J.; Wu, P.; Zhu, M. Post-derailment dynamic behavior of railway vehicles travelling on a railway bridge during an earthquake. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part F J. Rail Rapid Transit. 2014, 230, 418–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Heleno, R.; Montenegro, P.A.; Carvalho, H.; Ribeiro, D.; Calcada, R.; Baker, C.J. Influence of the railway vehicle properties in the running safety against crosswinds. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 2021, 217, 104732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Yanhui, L.; Al-Bukhaiti, K.; Shichun, Z.; Abas, H.; Nan, X.; Lang, Y.; Yu, Y.X.; Daguang, H. Numerical study on existing RC circular section members under unequal impact collision. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 14793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Montenegro, P.A.; Carvalho, H.; Ribeiro, D.; Calçada, R.; Tokunaga, M.; Tanabe, M.; Zhai, W.M. Assessment of train running safety on bridges: A literature review. Eng. Struct. 2021, 241, 112425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Tang, Z.; Hu, Y.; Wang, S.; Ling, L.; Zhang, J.; Wang, K. Train post-derailment behaviours and containment methods: A review. Railw. Eng. Sci. 2024, 32, 59–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Zhang, D.; Peng, Y.; Xu, Y.; Du, C.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, N.; Chong, Y.; Wang, H.; Wu, D.; Liu, J.; et al. A high-speed railway network dataset from train operation records and weather data. Sci. Data 2022, 9, 244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Büchel, B.; Spanninger, T.; Corman, F. Empirical dynamics of railway delay propagation identified during the large-scale Rastatt disruption. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 18584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Cheng, Y.-S.; Loo, B.P.Y.; Vickerman, R. High-speed rail networks, economic integration and regional specialisation in China and Europe. Travel Behav. Soc. 2015, 2, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Brabie, D.; Andersson, E. Dynamic simulation of derailments and its consequences. Veh. Syst. Dyn. 2006, 44 (Suppl. S1), 652–662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Brabie, D. Wheel-Sleeper Impact Model in Rail Vehicles Analysis. J. Syst. Des. Dyn. 2007, 1, 468–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Brabie, D.; Andersson, E. Post-derailment dynamic simulation of rail vehicles—Methodology and applications. Veh. Syst. Dyn. 2008, 46 (Suppl. S1), 289–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wu, X.; Chi, M.; Gao, H. Post-derailment dynamic behaviour of a high-speed train under earthquake excitations. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2016, 64, 97–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Guo, L.; Wang, K.; Lin, J.; Zhang, B.; Chen, Z.; Song, X.; Du, G. Study of the post-derailment safety measures on low-speed derailment tests. Veh. Syst. Dyn. 2016, 54, 943–962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kajitani, Y.; Kato, H.; Asano, K. Development of an L-shaped guide to prevent deviation from rails. JR-EAST Tech. Rev. 2010, 15, 53–56. [Google Scholar]
  18. Sunami, H.; Morimura, T.; Terumichi, Y.; Adachi, M. Model for analysis of bogie frame motion under derailment conditions based on full-scale running tests. Multibody Syst. Dyn. 2012, 27, 321–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wu, X.; Chi, M.; Gao, H.; Zhang, D.; Zeng, J.; Wu, P.; Zhu, M. The study of post-derailment measures to limit the extent of a derailment. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part F J. Rail Rapid Transit. 2014, 230, 64–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Guo, B.; Ke, J. The Impacts of High-speed Rail on Sustainable Economic Development: Evidence from the Central Part of China. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hamilton, B.A. Report on the Findings of: Current Practice and Effectiveness of Derailment Containment Provisions on High Speed Lines; HSL-Zuid Organisation: Zoetermeer, The Netherlands, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  22. Nguyen, H.Q.; Kim, H.-J.; Lim, N.-H.; Kang, Y.-S.; Kim, J.J. Feasibility Study of Steel Derailment Containment Provisions through Quasi-Static Experiments. Buildings 2024, 14, 171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Lai, J.; Xu, J.; Wang, P.; Chen, J.; Fang, J.; Ma, D.; Chen, R. Numerical investigation on the dynamic behaviour of derailed railway vehicles protected by guard rail. Veh. Syst. Dyn. 2021, 59, 1803–1824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mao, J.H.; Xiang, J.; Gong, K. Mechanism and Application of a New Guard Rail for Improving the Stability of Small Radius Curve Tracks with Continuous Welded Rails. In Proceedings of the 2013 Fourth International Conference on Digital Manufacturing & Automation, Qindao, China, 29–30 June 2013; pp. 773–779. [Google Scholar]
  25. Nishimura, K.; Terumichi, Y.; Morimura, T.; Adachi, M.; Morishita, Y.; Miwa, M. Using Full Scale Experiments to Verify a Simulation Used to Analyze the Safety of Rail Vehicles During Large Earthquakes. J. Comput. Nonlinear Dyn. 2015, 10, 31013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zhan, T.; Wang, Z.; Ning, J. Failure behaviors of reinforced concrete beams subjected to high impact loading. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2015, 56, 233–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Li, J.; Zhang, R.; Jin, L.; Lan, D.; Du, X. A unified impact displacement prediction model for geometrically similar RC beams: From test specimen to prototype component. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2023, 181, 104731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Liao, W.; Liu, K.; Ma, C.; Liang, J. Experimental study on consistency of the impact performance between composite beams and reinforced concrete beams. Compos. Struct. 2023, 308, 116677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Husem, M.; Yilmaz, M.; Cosgun, S.I. Experimental and numerical investigations on reinforcement arrangements in RC deep beams. Adv. Concr. Constr. 2022, 13, 243–254. [Google Scholar]
  30. Authority, K.R.N. Railway Design Guideline and Handbook—Subsidiary and Safety Facilities for Main Lined; KR C-02060; Korea Rail Network Authority: Daejeon, Republic of Korea, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  31. Bae, H.-U.; Moon, J.; Lim, S.-J.; Park, J.-C.; Lim, N.-H. Full-Scale Train Derailment Testing and Analysis of Post-Derailment Behavior of Casting Bogie. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Song, I.-H.; Kim, J.-W.; Koo, J.-S.; Lim, N.-H. Modeling and Simulation of Collision-Causing Derailment to Design the Derailment Containment Provision Using a Simplified Vehicle Model. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kim, T.-H.; Kang, Y.-S.; Bang, C.-S. Structural Performance Assessment of Derailment Containment Provision for Railway using a Grid Steel Frame. Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater. 2024, 18, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Bae, H.-U.; Kim, K.-J.; Park, S.-Y.; Han, J.-J.; Park, J.-C.; Lim, N.-H. Functionality Analysis of Derailment Containment Provisions through Full-Scale Testing-I: Collision Load and Change in the Center of Gravity. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 11297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Pham, T.M.; Hao, H. Influence of global stiffness and equivalent model on prediction of impact response of RC beams. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2018, 113, 88–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Fujikake, K.; Li, B.; Soeun, S. Impact Response of Reinforced Concrete Beam and Its Analytical Evaluation. J. Struct. Eng. 2009, 135, 938–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Chungnam-National-University; Korea-Railroad-Research-Institute; CS-Global; UBI-E&C; Korea-Railroad-Authority-&-Road-Kinematics. Facility development and Performance Standard Research for Rail Vehicle Deviation Protection; Chungnam National University: Daejeon, Republic of Korea, 2020. (In Korean) [Google Scholar]
  38. Duy, N.P.; Hiep, D.V.; Anh, V.N. Performance of concrete beams reinforced with various ratios of hybrid GFRP/steel bars. Civ. Eng. J. 2020, 6, 1652–1669. [Google Scholar]
  39. Tran, C.T.N.; Li, B. Initial Stiffness of Reinforced Concrete Columns with Moderate Aspect Ratios. Sage J. 2012, 15, 265–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ding, F.; Ding, H.; He, C.; Wang, L.; Lyu, F. Method for flexural stiffness of steel-concrete composite beams based on stiffness combination coefficients. Comput. Concr. 2022, 29, 127–144. [Google Scholar]
  41. Tena-Colunga, A. Aspects to Consider in the Assessment of Effective Stiffness for Reinforced Concrete Beams. J. Archit. Eng. 2021, 27, 04020048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Al-Bukhaiti, K.; Yanhui, L.; Shichun, Z.; Abas, H.; Nan, X.; Lang, Y.; Yu, Y.X.; Daguang, H. Experimental Study on Existing RC Circular Members Under Unequal Lateral Impact Train Collision. Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater. 2022, 16, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Buildings 14 03252 g001
Figure 1. Concepts of DCP in railways [22]: (a) DCP Type I (collision at wheel); (b) DCP Type II (collision at wheel); (c) DCP Type III (collision at bogie).
Figure 1. Concepts of DCP in railways [22]: (a) DCP Type I (collision at wheel); (b) DCP Type II (collision at wheel); (c) DCP Type III (collision at bogie).
Buildings 14 03252 g001
Buildings 14 03252 g002
Figure 2. Structure of RC DCP system Type I.
Figure 2. Structure of RC DCP system Type I.
Buildings 14 03252 g002
Buildings 14 03252 g003
Figure 3. Detail of RC DCP system (unit: mm): (a) DCP reinforcement details; (b) DCP section; (c) fixed-base plate.
Figure 3. Detail of RC DCP system (unit: mm): (a) DCP reinforcement details; (b) DCP section; (c) fixed-base plate.
Buildings 14 03252 g003
Buildings 14 03252 g004
Figure 4. Diagram illustrating the installation procedure of an RC DCP system: (a) fixing anchor; (b) installing fixed-base plate; (c) fixing RC DCP.
Figure 4. Diagram illustrating the installation procedure of an RC DCP system: (a) fixing anchor; (b) installing fixed-base plate; (c) fixing RC DCP.
Buildings 14 03252 g004
Buildings 14 03252 g005
Figure 5. Single-anchor test setup: (a) front view; (b) top view.
Figure 5. Single-anchor test setup: (a) front view; (b) top view.
Buildings 14 03252 g005
Buildings 14 03252 g006
Figure 6. Load–displacement relationship of steel anchors.
Figure 6. Load–displacement relationship of steel anchors.
Buildings 14 03252 g006
Buildings 14 03252 g007
Figure 7. Test setup with different load locations: (a) Case 1—load at anchor No. 2; (b) Case 2—load at mid-span.
Figure 7. Test setup with different load locations: (a) Case 1—load at anchor No. 2; (b) Case 2—load at mid-span.
Buildings 14 03252 g007
Buildings 14 03252 g008
Figure 8. Visual of the RC DCP system damage upon completion of testing: (a) Case 1—load at anchor No.2; (b) Case 2—load at mid-span.
Figure 8. Visual of the RC DCP system damage upon completion of testing: (a) Case 1—load at anchor No.2; (b) Case 2—load at mid-span.
Buildings 14 03252 g008
Buildings 14 03252 g009
Figure 9. Load–displacement relationship of DCP with different load locations: (a) Case 1—load at anchor No. 2; (b) Case 2—load at mid-span.
Figure 9. Load–displacement relationship of DCP with different load locations: (a) Case 1—load at anchor No. 2; (b) Case 2—load at mid-span.
Buildings 14 03252 g009
Buildings 14 03252 g010
Figure 10. Definition of initial stiffness and absorption energy capacity.
Figure 10. Definition of initial stiffness and absorption energy capacity.
Buildings 14 03252 g010
Table 1. Experimental data for the tested steel anchors.
Table 1. Experimental data for the tested steel anchors.
SpecimenPu (kN)Py (kN)Δu (mm)Δy (mm)Ki (kN/mm)
S-1155.897.916.752.0547.65
S-2153.0101.415.381.8255.74
S-3160.5118.113.911.9959.50
Average156.4105.815.351.9554.30
(3.07)(8.81)(1.16)(0.1)(4.94)
Py and Δy denote the yielding load and the corresponding displacement; Pu and Δu refer to the load-carrying capacity and maximum displacement; Ki represents the initial stiffness; and the values in parentheses denote the standard deviations.
Table 2. Experimental data of the RC DCP system.
Table 2. Experimental data of the RC DCP system.
NotationPu (kN)Py (kN)Δu (mm)Δy (mm)Initial Stiffness (kN/mm)Energy Absorption (kNmm)
Case 1—load at anchor No. 2278.4167.113.494.7735.032525.9
(19.3)(11.6)(1.33)(0.35)(0.17)(450)
Case 2—load at mid-span206.5123.913.183.7033.621978.2
(1.2)(0.7)(0.15)(0.21)(1.68)(8)
Notes: the values in parentheses are standard deviations.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Nguyen, H.Q.; Kim, H.J.; Lim, N.-H.; Kang, Y.-S.; Kim, J.J. Experimental Study on the Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Derailment Containment Provisions under Quasi-Static Loads. Buildings 2024, 14, 3252. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14103252

AMA Style

Nguyen HQ, Kim HJ, Lim N-H, Kang Y-S, Kim JJ. Experimental Study on the Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Derailment Containment Provisions under Quasi-Static Loads. Buildings. 2024; 14(10):3252. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14103252

Chicago/Turabian Style

Nguyen, Huy Q., Hoi Jin Kim, Nam-Hyoung Lim, Yun-Suk Kang, and Jung J. Kim. 2024. "Experimental Study on the Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Derailment Containment Provisions under Quasi-Static Loads" Buildings 14, no. 10: 3252. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14103252

APA Style

Nguyen, H. Q., Kim, H. J., Lim, N.-H., Kang, Y.-S., & Kim, J. J. (2024). Experimental Study on the Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Derailment Containment Provisions under Quasi-Static Loads. Buildings, 14(10), 3252. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14103252

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop