CE 410 CIVIL ENGINEERING DESIGNRAIROAD STATION BRIDGE REPORT

REFORM CONSTRUCTIONBurak Can GLENoruh DURMUHalil DEMRCmer Ege ADALIERSafiye Bircan IIK

INSTRUCTOR:Alp CANER Table of Contents1.INTRODUCTION5a.Introduction to Railway Structures:6b.Major bridge components:72.DESIGN CRITERIA9a.General View of the project:9b.Live Load9c.Dead Loads:10d.Determining the ideal section123.PIER DESIGN14a.General14b.Live Load Arrangement14c.Design Stage174.FOUNDATION DESIGN211.General212.Soil Investigation and Soil Properties213.Determination of Dimension of Pile Cap224.Punching Shear Check235.Determination of Vertical Load Capacity of Single Pile245.COST ESTIMATION276.FUTURE PROGRESS PLAN317.CONCLUSION318.REFERENCES32

List of Figures

Figure 1 Model of Rail Road Station4Figure 2 Model of Rail Road Station5Figure 3 Model of Rail Road5Figure 4 Cooper E80 Load Distribution9Figure 5 Cooper E80 Live Load Arrangement9Figure 6 I-Section12Figure 7 A-A and B-B Section14Figure 8 Live Load Alternative 114Figure 9 Live Load Alternative 214Figure 10 Live Load Alternative 315Figure 11 Live Load Alternative 415Figure 12 Live Load Alternative 516Figure 13 B-B Section Live Load Arrangement17Figure 14 Column Head Dimensions18Figure 15 Column Dimensions20Figure 16 Plan View of Foundation24Figure 17 Side View of Foundation24

List Of TablesTable 1 Excell Sheet for Beam Section Trials12Table 2 Excell Sheet for Beam Section Trials12Table 3 Excell Sheet for Beam Section Trials13Table 4 Calculations to Find Moment17Table 5 Finding Moment at A-A Section18Table 6 Determination of Column Head Cross Section19Table 7 Determination of Column Dimensions20Table 8 Determination of Column Dimensions20Table 9 Soil Characteristic for Sand22Table 10 Soil Characteristic for Clay22Table 11 Soil Characteristic for Clay22Table 12 SPT N-Average23Table 13 Determination of Footing Dimensions23Table 14 Punching Shear Calculations24Table 15 Pile Capacity Calculations24Table 16 Consolidation Settlement Calculations25

1. INTRODUCTION

Objective of this project is designing an elevated railroad station bridge. The project is originally located in Astana, KAZAKHSTAN. The following figures are taken from the original project.

Figure 1 Model of Rail Road Station

Figure 2 Model of Rail Road Station

Figure 3 Model of Rail Road

This report consists of; The identification of the project Loads and load combinations (for preliminary design stage) Specifications used Structural and geotechnical analysis and results Structural and foundation design calculations Cost estimations and future works

a. Introduction to Railway Structures:

Railway structures involve wide array of construction intended to support the track itself or house railway operations. Common examples of track carrying structures are : bridges, trestles, viaducts, culverts, scales, inspection pits, unloading pits and similar construction. Common examples of helper structures are : drainage structures, retaining walls, tunnels, snow sheds, repair shops, loading docks, passenger stations and platforms, fueling facilities, towers, catenary frames etc.

When designing railway structures, the various sources of their loads must be considered, as they would be with any other similar, non-railway structure.

Considered loads are : the dead load of the structure itself live loads from the carried traffic dynamic components of the traffics (impact, centrifugal, lateral and longitudinal forces environmental considerations (wind, snow and ice, thermal, seismic and stream flow loads)

In this very project, dead load consists of footings, columns, deck, ballast, ballast protection wall, traverse and rails. Seismic load and impact factor are also to be considered. In preliminary stage, seismic load is not taken into account.Railway structures must perform under heavier loads. They have longer service lives. They have different maintenance constraints compered to their highway counterparts. (Because of these properties, railway structure design is influenced by maintenance issues more than roadway structures.)The high deflections in railway structures are not acceptable (in order to prevent derailment). Hence, stability matters. That is why, maintenance concerns and fatigue considerations need more attention and must be done in detail compared to the highway industry. Different standards and specifications must be used. Welded connections and continuous spans are good options for railway structures.b. Major bridge components:

In general terms, the major components of track carrying structure are very similar to their non-railway counterparts. Determination of the type of construction and type of material is important. Generally, these are limited to timber, concrete and steel, or a combination of the three. Each material has its specific advantages. Timber is economical, but has strength and life limitations. Using structural timber is getting harder to accomplish for railway structures in terms of its size and grade. Concrete is also economical, but its has a poor strength to weight ratio. Steel has a good strength to weight ratio, but is expensive. The material chosen for the spans will generally determine the designation of the bridge.

i. Bridge deck :The bridge deck is a major portion of a bridge which can be considered as-sort of- the surface of the bridge, that carries track rails. In such case, the engineer may not think of the typical railroad bridge as having a deck, while designing. Railroad bridges are designed as either open deck or ballast deck structures. Some bridges use direct fixation of the rails to the supporting structure. Open deck bridges have ties supported directly on load-carrying elements of the structure (such as girders) The dead loads for open deck structures are significantly less than for ballast deck structures. However, open decks transfer more of the dynamic effects of live load into the bridge than ballast decks, as they can transfer the dynamic effecs of impact coming from the bridge to the railway, which is not desired for this kind of an elevated railway bridge project. Ballast deck bridges have the track rails supported on ballast, which is carried by the structural elements of the bridge. Ballast deck structures offer advantages in ride and maintenance requirements. Unlike open decks, the track alignment on ballast deck spans can be handled using standard track maintenance equipment. Most railroads currently prefer ballast decks for new structures.

ii. Ballast : Ballast is the component of the structure composed of broken, sharp, strong, angular stones-such as basalt or granite- which spreads the effects transferred from traverse (such as vibration) without being exposed to permenant settlement and deflection. In brief, ballast provides an elastic bed for the railway, thanks to its ability to distribute the incoming load homogenously by the friction between stones. Ballast also serves as drainage and protects the deck from mud, freeze, and decay by intercepting rail tracks from soil. The depth of ballast must be between 30-60 cm. Ballast must be homogenous in terms of particle size, with particles capable of passing through 6 cm sieve and not pass through 3 cm sieve.

iii. Traverse: Traverse is the type of structure that transfers the load from specified load model and transfer it through wider surface (ballast) and provides stability to track rails. It is essential for eccentricity of the railway. The distance between the centroids of two traverse can be taken as 62-63 cm. For the Ankara-Eskiehir high-speed train railway, this distance is taken as 60 cm. Traverse has to be made with a concrete stronger than Portland. Traverse also has an advantage of minimizing noise and impact. Traverse can be preferred as timber, steel, plastic, concrete monoblocks, or pre-stressed blocks. Timber is preferred due to its elasticity and the fact that it does not damage ballast. Its maintenance is easy and cheap, however, timber traverse is effected by moisture easily and is weak against drainage and fire, not to mention its short life-time. Steel traverse is easier to produce, compared to timber. However, the possibility of abrasion is significant which may reduce strength, and cause cracking where the traverse are settled. To prevent this, connections must be done properly. Also, due to the light-weight property of steel traverse, stability can not be maintained as much as it is by timber or concrete. All types of traverse have advantages and disadvantages due to the type of the project, however, it must be considered that for the high-speed train railways, concrete monoblock types are mostly preferred around the world, which is also suitable for this project. This is because concrete monoblock traverse provides extreme stability due to its heavy weight, and protection for gauge. For an elevated high-speed railway bridge, stability is the most important case.

2. DESIGN CRITERIAIn design stage, as code, The American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association AREMA is chosen. AREMA is a simple and valid code for this type of design. While designing an appropriate girder to be used, sections are chosen based on limitations of AREMA. For the preliminary design stage, dead loads and live loads, and impact effects are considered. Although seismic actions are to be taken into account, they have not been touched upon during preliminary stage. a. General View of the project:The elevated bridge designed to have a total length of 500m, composed of identical spans having 25m length, 9m width. Below the station, free space is to be evaluated for parking lot. Hence, in this report, all of the calculations done and information given are based on a single 25m span. (KOLON BOYUTLARI, NE KADARI TOPRAK NDE, FOOTING/PIER NE BOKSA ONLARIN BOYUTLARI). The structure is carried by five identical I-beam girders between each column, made by A588 weathering steel. All of the loads above are carried by these girders. Ballast type deck is preferred, having a thickness of 0.3m. Deck is made of C55 concrete. Ballast is composed of broken basalt stones, having a thickness of 0.5 m. Traverse is preferred as monoblock concrete. In preliminary stage, rail tracks have not been identified properly.b. Live LoadFor live load, two types of train models are considered; that are LM-71 and Cooper E-80 Models. Firstly, LM-71 is taken. However, since Cooper E-80 Model gives a heavier live load and is appropriate for all AREMA limitations, Cooper E-80 is decided to use, to be on the safe side.

Figure 4 Cooper E80 Load DistributionIn the figure below, the portion that creates the maximum moment on mid-span is shown. According to this loading, for 25 m span, 4210 kN/lane is obtained. Two lanes are to be designed; total live load is 8420 kN.Mmax(Mid-span)=11520 kNm (One lane)Mmax(Mid-span)=23040 kNm (Two lanes)Mmax(Mid-span)=23040/5=4608 kNm per girderWe multiply live load by 1.33 to take into account impact effect

Figure 5 Cooper E80 Live Load Arrangement

c. Dead Loads:Ballast: It must be noted that since the designed bridge is straight for 500m, no anti-drainage plates are needed. For ballast, basalt is taken as stone type, having basalt(broken)=1.954 t/m3. Dimensions of volume of ballast is 25m*9m*0.5m, thus, the ballast volume is;25*9*0.5=112.5 m3The void ratio of basalt is 0.37, which indicates that 112.5*(1-0.37)=71 m3 of crushed basalt stone is needed.Total ballast weight (One span): 1.954*71=139 t*9.96=1385 kNLoad per girder: 1385/5=277 kN per girderMmax(Ballast)=11*252/8=860 kNm per girderMmax(Ballast)=860*5=4300kNm

Traverse: As it is stated above, C55 concrete monoblocks are to be used. Not only monoblocks are preferred universally for high-speed railways, but also suitable for this kind of project due to its extreme stability. For this case, derailment is more critical than any other railway project. Traverse are to be settled as there are going to be 60cm between centroids of two traverse, and buried 10 cm to the ballast. The space between two traverse is taken as 30 cm. In such case, 42 traverse are to be settled for one lane, making 84 traverse for a 25 m span.

The sections of traverse are;Top width: 150 mmBottom width: 320 mmHeight: 20 cmMid-height: 17.5 cmLength: 240 cmWeight: 242 kgLife-time: 20-30 yearsTotal weight (84 traverse): 20.33 tons (202.57 kN)Mmax(Traverse)= (202.57/25)*252/8=632.8 kNmMmax(Traverse)=632.8/5=126.6 kNm per girder

Ballast protection wall: There is to be two platforms between railways, hence, designing barriers is not necessary but using ballast protection wall. There are to be two walls near two lanes, each having 30 cmx50 cm dimensions. (2 kN/m)Mmax(walls)=(2*252/8)*2=312.5 kNmMmax(walls)=312.5/5=62.5 kNm per girder

Tracks: Two lanes are to be designed. For preliminary, the distributed load for rails is taken as 0.65*4 rails=2.6 kN/m

Mrail=0.52*252/8=203.1 kNmMrail=203.1/5=40.63 kNm per girder

Deck: Dimensions of the deck are to be 25m*9m*0.3m= 67.5 m3 (conc=25 kN/m3)Total dead load by deck: 67.5*25=1687.5 kNDead load per girder: 1687.5/5=337.5 kNMmax(Deck)= (1687.5/25)*252/8=5273.4 kNmMmax(Deck)= 5273.4/5=1055.7 kNm per girder

Total Loads for a single spanLL: 8420 kNBallast: 1385 kNTraverse: 202.57 kNBallast Protection Wall: 50 kNRail: 65 kNDeck: 1687.5 kNGirder: 761.2 kNTOTAL LOAD: 12571.3 kN d. Determining the ideal section

In order to determine the ideal section first we calculate the loads that are superimposed dead load (including ballast, deck, rail and tie), live load and impact. We tried to satisfy the requirement 0.55 Fy.. We formed an excel sheet, then, grouped the loads. We tried several sections. First we try sections whose flange thicknesses are 12.14 cm and web thickness is 8 cm. These sections were capable of carrying the stress applied but due to welding problems we could not choose these ones. Plates having thicknesses more than 5 cm are not suggested. Top and bottom stresses of girder are calculated as fresh concrete on girder, and as stiff composite structure. Due to this, neutral axis of the structure, hence, stress values at top and bottom do change. Instead of calculating the capacity for every section picked, neutral axis of every section, moment of inertia, and top and bottom stresses for each section is formulated via Excel. Table 1 Excell Sheet for Beam Section Trials

Table 2 Excell Sheet for Beam Section Trials

Table 3 Excell Sheet for Beam Section TrialsMoreover, as we proportioning our section we took into account some limits which are:* 3.3cm)Moreover we roughly checked buckling according to AREMA

3. PIER DESIGN

a. GeneralDesigning the pier is one of the most important subject for the rail road. In preliminary design stage, exact calculations were not done, however cross-sections are estimated with enough accuracy. To design the cross-section several types of loads are needed. First of all we decided to use Cooper E80 Train whose loads are determined by the AREMA. After that, ballast, deck, rail and girder loads are determined. We make 2 analyses with 2 different girder loads. On the other hand, deck, rail and ballast loads are fixed to a value. b. Live Load ArrangementCooper E80 train is the live load of the system. Therefore, we tried to find the appropriate live load for the system. While designing the girders and the piers, different live load arrangements have been used. Pier system expressed with two 12,5m girders standing on the pier. Also these girders are supported by pins in order not to have moment at the supports which is also the actual case. We analyze 5 different live load arrangements for B-B section as it shown down:Figure 7 A-A and B-B Section

Figure 8 Live Load Alternative 1

Figure 9 Live Load Alternative 2

Figure 10 Live Load Alternative 3

Figure 11 Live Load Alternative 4

Figure 12 Live Load Alternative 5As it can be seen from the figures, to compute easily we do not divide the load according to their affect but we divide it from the mid-point of the span to ease the preliminary calculations. Moreover combining these load combinations with each other we tried to find the most appropriate live load arrangement for A-A section.

Table 4 Calculations to Find Moment

c. Design StageColumn HeadAfter determining the live load and dead load; concrete column and the head of the column was designed. To design the column head which is behave like beam we used the formulas given in TS500. Kl value for materials that have been used (C50 and S420) is 150 mm2/kN and Km is equal to 119 mm2/kN. (Uur Ersoy, 1984) We compare the calculated K which is equal to:

Figure 13 B-B Section Live Load ArrangementP1-2-3-4-5 values are calculated under the light of dead and live load and maximum moment has been calculating according to these values.

Table 5 Finding Moment at A-A SectionAfter calculating the maximum moment we tried to find the best fitting cross-section. As it seems from the table below, the best section is 2000mmx1300mm. So the column head will be 2000mmx1300mmx9000mm.

Figure 14 Column Head Dimensions

Table 6 Determination of Column Head Cross Section

ColumnAfter preliminary design of the column head finished, column has been designed according to the loads coming from the column head. Also to determine the column cross-sections we used 0,1*fcd*Ac=P (Karayollar Genel Mdrl, 2015) in order not to add moment interaction.Moreover, at column section we roughly calculated reinforcing steel in order to estimate the cost of the structure.

Table 7 Determination of Column Dimensions

Table 8 Determination of Column DimensionsAt the end of the calculations it has seemed that we need cross-sections with dimensions 1600mmx3600mm. And steel area estimated by assuming all moment carried by the steel reinforcement and as it seen from the table above 32x32 steel needed. In calculations second order moment has not calculated. They will be calculated in advanced design.

Figure 15 Column Dimensions

4. FOUNDATION DESIGN

1. GeneralAccording to calculation, 6 piles which is 12 m length 0.8 m diameter concrete piles were designed for carrying nearly 12000 kN load which comes from structure. 2 piles were designed in longitudinal direction of bridge whereas 3 piles were used in lateral direction of bridge. Dimension of footing is 6m*6m. Necessary check was done according to TS500 code for reinforcement calculation. Necessary explanations and soil constants can be found from Soil Investigation and Soil Properties section. 2. Soil Investigation and Soil PropertiesSite WorksDetailed subsoil observations and investigations were executed in order to determine subsoil conditions. Geological units at the site are determined by using surface geology, boreholes and geophysical measurements.Within the scope of subsoil investigations, 19 boreholes having 451.1 m total length were completed. Within boreholes systematically at every 1.5m SPT tests were performed.Soil ProfileThe site is mainly covered with a 0.5m thick top soil which is ballast material or vegetable soil. Below top soil, light brown-brown-dark brown, medium dense, dense, very dense gravelly clayey sand, sandy clayey gravel, silty gravel composite backfill material is encountered down to 1,7 m to 3.4 m depth from the ground surface. Under this layer, quaternary aged alluvial material greyish brown-brown-dark brown, medium stiff, stiff very stiff gravelly clayey sand, clayey sand, sandy silty gravel, silt and clay encountered down to 3.1 m to 6.6 m depth from the ground surface. The grain size of gravel is observed medium fine and partially coarse. At the bottom layer pinky, yellowish brown, very stiff partially limestone creation clay and silty clay and at some level sandy gravel which belongs to Glba Formation is encountered. Laboratory Tests ResultsAccording the tests results, soils compromising the upper clayey layer are classified mostly as GC, SC with some GM. The underlying clay layer are mostly classified as CH and some CL and. The characteristics of the soil are shown below.

Subsoil UnitsParametersSymbolProposed Value

GravellyClayey SandInternal Friction Angle35.0

Cohesionc0 kPa

Unit Weight19 kN/m3

Elastic ModulusEs30000 KPa

Table 9 Soil Characteristic for SandSubsoil UnitsParametersSymbolProposed Value

Clay 1Internal Friction Angle0

Cohesionc15 kPa

Unit Weight19 kN/m3

Undrained shear strengthCu150 KPa

Elastic ModulusEs35000 KPa

Table 10 Soil Characteristic for ClaySubsoil UnitsParametersSymbolProposed Value

Clay 2Internal Friction Angle0

Cohesionc25 kPa

Unit Weight19,5 kN/m3

Undrained shear strengthCu225 KPa

Elastic ModulusEs60000 KPa

Table 11 Soil Characteristic for Clay

3. Determination of Dimension of Pile Cap

Calculations are based on location SK106 which is middle of the construction area. The SPT values, N30 and N60 values which are calculated according to N30 values are below. Peck and Hanson and Thornburn charts are used by determining of square footing dimension.no(SK106)depth(m)N30(field)o'CNN1 N60Nave(B=7m)Nave(B=6m)

11,52028,51,83196236273838

2334571,2953934433

34,52885,51,0576842921

46251090,9367542317

57,512122,50,883631107

69,323138,70,8304251914

710,530149,50,7998682317

812,434166,60,7577072518

913,525176,50,736151813

1015,429193,60,7028882015

1116,537203,50,6855782518

1218,527221,50,6571311712

1319,532230,50,6441742015

1421,523248,50,6204061410

1522,526257,50,6094671511

1624,334273,70,5911552015

1725,531284,50,5798261712

1827,150298,90,5656872821

1928,550311,50,5541282720

2030453250,5424972418

Table 12 SPT N-Average

Total Load(KN)Gw(m)H(m)B(m)depth(m)Cw(qn)all(KN/m2)qnet(KN/m2)

156835,5173,50,7812326,5416320,0612245

qall>qnetOK

Table 13 Determination of Footing Dimensions4. Punching Shear CheckThe check was done according to TS500 prevision.Vpc > VpdVpc = * fctd * Up * d Up = 2*((3,1+1)+(1,6+1)) , d = 1 m = 1.0Vpd = N1-FaFa= qsp (b+d)(h+d)

PUNCHINGFa(KN)fcd(Mpa)fctd(Mpa)Vpc(KN)Vpd(KN)N(KN)

3411,852653402,21359429662,1611046,1514458

Vpc>VpdOK

Table 14 Punching Shear Calculations5. Determination of Vertical Load Capacity of Single Pile

Accordingly the requirement calculation is carried out below for vertical load capacity of a single pile.

Qult = Qs + QpQult = Ultimate Bearing CapacityQs = Bearing due to frictionQp = Bearing due to tipQs = fs * As (for sand)fs = v * K * tan ()Qs = *cu* As (for clay)Qp = Nc* cu* Ap

Pile Capacity

Qult(KN)Qp(KN)Qs(KN)Qs2(KN)Qs1(KN)6 PilesQtotal(KN)

2795,55997824,66807161970,8921722,378248,513716773,3598

CuKs

1500,5Qtotal>Total Load

Ncv0'OK

792,25

tan()

0,430,49

D(m)Depth(m)

112

Table 15 Pile Capacity Calculations

Consolidation settlement due to piles were calculated below by using 2:1(V:H) pressure distribution. (Soed=H*mv*)consolidation settlement

mv(clay1)mv(clay2)

8,00E-055,50E-05

1(Kpa)2(Kpa)3(Kpa)

169,288581570,8786141,24392

Soed (cm)

1,10E-01

Table 16 Consolidation Settlement Calculations

Consolidation settlement is 0,1 cm, therefore structure is safe. The drawings of the structure are showed on the next page.

Figure 16 Plan View of Foundation Figure 17 Side View of Foundation

5. COST ESTIMATION

In this step of the project, only the material costs are calculated. At the final design, the quantity take off calculations will be performed and total cost estimation will be submitted.Beam SectionDimensions of the beam:*tf = 5 cm*tw= 3 cm*bf = 0.4 m*D = 1.4 m*Hi = 1.3 mCross Sectional Area = (0.05*0.4)*2+(1.3*0.03) = 0.079 m2Length of span = 25 mNumber of sections in span = 5 Volume of steel = 25*5*0.079 = 9.875 m3Number of span = 20Total volume of steel = 20*9.875 = 197.5 m3Weight of steel = 197.5*7850/1000 = 1550.4 tonsUnit price of weathering steel is 2300 TL/ton Steel price = 2300*1550.4 = 3 565 920 TL

Column SectionDimensions of the rectangular column:*a = 3.1 m*b= 1.6 m*h= 10.5 mCross Sectional Area = 3.1*1.6 = 4.96 m2Volume of column = 4.96* 10.5 = 52.08 m3Number of columns = 20Dimensions of the column head:*a = 9 m*b= 2 m*h= 1.3 mCross Sectional Area = 2*9 = 18 m2Volume of column = 18* 1.3 = 23.4 m3Total volume of concrete for column = 20*(52.08+23.4) = 1509,6 m3Unit price of concrete is 120 TL /m3Concrete price for column = 1509.6 * 120 = 181 152 TLSteel ReinforcementFor column we used 3230 steelFor column head we used 4530 steelUnit mass per meter for 30 steel =3.30 kg/mLength of reinforcement used for column = 11 * 32 =352 mLength of reinforcement used for column head = 1.5 * 45 = 67.5 mTotal reinforcement used for one pier = 352+67.5 = 419.5 mFor 20 pier = 20* 419.5 = 8390 mReinforcement weight = 8390*3.3 = 27 687 kgUnit price of reinforcement is 1700 TL/ton Reinforcement price = 27687 /1000*1700 = 47 068 TLExcavationVolume of excavation = 3.5*8*8 = 224 m3Unit Price of excavation = 2,6 TL /m3Number of footing = 20Excavation Price = 20*224*2,6 = 11 648 TL

DeckCross Sectional Area = 0.3*9 = 2.7 m2Span length = 25 Volume of concrete = 25* 2.7 = 67.5 m3Number of span = 20Total volume of concrete for deck = 20*67.5 = 1350 m3Unit price of concrete is 120 TL /m3Concrete price for column = 1350 * 120 = 162 000 TLBallastCross Sectional Area = 0.5*9 = 4.5 m2Span length = 25 Volume of ballast to be filled = 25* 4.5 = 112.5 m3ebasalt(rockfill) = 0.37Volume of basalt to be used = 112.5*(1-0.37) = 71 m3Number of span = 20Total volume of basalt = 20*71 = 1420 m3Weight of basalt = 1420*1954/1000 = 2774.7 tonsUnit price of basalt is 26 TL/ton Basalt price = 26*2774.7= 72 142.2 TLTraverseWeight of one traverse = 0.242 tonsNumber of traverse in one span (Two lanes) = 84Weight of traverse in one span = 84*0.242 = 20.33 tonsNumber of span = 20Total weight of traverse = 20*20.33 = 406.6 tonsUnit weight of traverse (C55) is 2.51 tons/m3Volume of traverse = 406.6 / 2.51 = 162 m3Unit price of concrete is 120 TL /m3Concrete price for traverse = 162 * 120 = 19 440 TLBallast Protection WallCross Sectional Area = 0.3*0.5 = 0.15 m2Number of wall in one span = 2Span length = 25 Volume of two walls = 2*25* 0.15 = 7.5 m3Number of span = 20Total volume of concrete for deck = 20*7.5 = 150 m3Unit price of concrete is 120 TL /m3Concrete price for column = 150 * 120 = 18 000 TLRailEstimated rail weight = 20 * 6.53= 130.6 tons ( two lanes- four rail)Unit price of rail is 1638 TL/ton Steel price = 1638 * 130.6 = 213 923 TLTotal Cost =3 565 920+181 152+47 068+11 648+162 000+72 142+19 440+18 000+213 923=4 291 293 TLConsidering malfunction Total Cost will be about 5 500 000 TL

6. FUTURE PROGRESS PLAN

Bumper design. ( bumper is a device to prevent railway vehicles from going past the end of a physical section of track. )Bracing for girders ( in order to prevent buckling)Detailed buckling checksSecondary moments effects for columnsDetailed reinforcement calculations for columnsEarthquake effectsPrecautions must be taken considering columns being damaged in case of a car accidentSecondary settlement calculation for foundationCalculation of moment capacity of pile groups.

7. CONCLUSION

AREMA is chosen in design stage Span length is 25 m. Cooper E80 is used for live load calculations. For ballast, basalt is taken as stone type C55 concrete monoblocks are to be used as traverse. The space between two traverse is taken as 30 cm. Tracks: Two lanes are to be designed. For preliminary, the distributed load for rails is taken as0.65*4 rails=2.6 kN/m Deck: Dimensions of the deck are to be 25m*9m*0.3m= 67.5 m3 (conc=25 kN/m3) Total Loads for a single span 12571.3 kN Determined section dimensions of girder are tf = 5 cm, tw= 3 cm, bf = 0.4 m, D = 1.4 m Determined section dimensions of column head are H= 1.3m B=2m , L=9m. Determined section dimensions of column are H=10.5m, B=1.6m, L=3.1m. Dimensions of pile cap are H=1m, B=7m. Dimensions of pile are H=12m, D=1m

8. REFERENCES Karayollar Genel Mdrl. (2015). Trkiye Kpr Mhendisliinde Tasarm ve Yapma likin Teknolojilerin Gelitirilmesi Teknik Klavuzu. Ankara. Uur Ersoy, G. . (1984). Reinforced Concrete. Ankara: METU Press. AREMA ( The American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association) TS500, Betonarme YaplarnTasarm ve Yapm Kurallar, 2000 Birand, A., Ergun, U., Erol, O., CE366 Foundation Engineering 1 Lecture Notes, 2011 Balast ve Traverse. (tarih yok). 03 29, 2015 tarihinde Megep: http://megep.meb.gov.tr/mte_program_modul/moduller_pdf/Balast%20Ve%20Travers.pdf adresinden alnd Karayollar Genel Mdrl. (2015). Trkiye Kpr Mhendisliinde Tasarm ve Yapma likin Teknolojilerin Gelitirilmesi Teknik Klavuzu. Ankara. Practical Guide. (tarih yok). 03 15, 2015 tarihinde Arema: https://www.arema.org/publications/pgre/Practical_Guide/PGChapter8.pdf adresinden alnd Wai-Fah Chen, L. D. (1999). Brigde Engineering Handbook. Florida: CRC Press LLC.

2