My concern is the eventual breakdown of the tire. As mentioned this may be OK for temporary industrial roads, but maybe not for permanent ROW. Also environmental rules might require removal of the tires after abandonment.
Erik_Mag
I believe you are correct about the weight considerations as well as seismic stability. Looks like the correct term is celluar concrete. It also looks like all of KP's photos in the Sunset thread have died with photobucket.
https://www.cell-crete.com/portfolio/colton-crossing/
rdamon I was impressed at the use of large foam blocks when making the fill for the Colton Flyover
I was impressed at the use of large foam blocks when making the fill for the Colton Flyover
"Large foam blocks" were also used in the Salt Lake City area for fills for the Light Rail lines. Reason for use is that the western parts of SLC are on top of a deep layer of mud and the weight of a normal fill would lead to the base of the fill to sink. The flyovers in the Colton area may have similar problems.
As for comments made by others on pillows, my wife has found the "my pillow" to be one of the few pillows that actually works for her, YMMV.
This strikes me as a niche product - specific uses under specific circumstances, as in the aforementioned industrial roads.
It does appear to have use in areas where the subgrade tends to "walk," particularly if the cylinders (no matter what the material) are secured together.
Railroads tend to use ballast that binds itself together (there is a grading system). That's why you see some pretty steep shoulders on ROWs.
To me, the most obvious drawback is the issue with being able to undercut the track so as to clean the ballast so it will work as intended. This is not a problem with vehicle roadways.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
EuclidGenerally, this is a good idea
I don't see how you can say that, not knowing who Sam Bonasso supported for president?
Actually, just kidding. I believe that you have made the best point specific reply thus far. As I was watching the video my exact thoughts were "boy, if I had a large tract of land and needed to build extensive private roads for access, that would be the perfect solution."
But, out under a paved public road? I'm not sure any benefit (beyond the recycling aspect) would outweigh potential drawbacks.
Generally, this is a good idea, but not for all types and uses of roadbed. Notice they use the term “industrial roadways” and much of the video features such roads.
These would be relatively low speed, heavy haul roads built to inexpensive standards for private use in plants such as mining, quarries, heavy materials processing, etc. Those roads are not hard topped (paved) with asphalt of concrete such as public roads and freeways. Pavement sheds water off the surface, so it is prevented from saturating the underlying aggregate base material, and even deeper into the subgrade soil. Paved roads also have a base aggregate that is self-draining and compacted to consolidate and interlock its particles.
Industrial roads often compromise the base aggregate and compaction in addition to omitting the water sheading pavement. So as the video says, the base gets saturated and loses its support function. So it flows under loading. The tires would definitely bind the base together and make it resistant to flowing under load. The tires would bind the base together like a thick mat having tensile strength despite being water saturated. The mat would tend to float the loading on the subgrade.
So the primary benefit of the tires would be for road base stabilization of low quality base materials such as natural soils containing clay, which are hard to compact properly in the first place, absorb and hold water, and lose their load bearing ability. The tires would act as cells to prevent compromised base material from flowing and thus spreading out under load.
The second benefit would be to use a waste product that otherwise has to be processed to dispose of. This is always a benefit, and often is more of a benefit than the actual function application such as this application of binding subgrade.
So I don’t see this as having widespread use on public roads, and the use it does receive will be driven mostly by the recycling application benefit alone.
I don’t see it at all applicable to railroads. Basically the product is a band-aid to compensate for poor materials and workmanship. Some railroad subgrade has those defects, and they would benefit by this product. But that would require the cost of removing the track, cutting the subgrade, installing the tires, re-filling with the original subgrade material, and rebuilding the track. With all of that cost, it may be more cost effective to just use better subgrade material in the rebuild rather than gamble with the new approach using tires as binder for the poor subgrade material.
Overmod There's no need for sarcasm here, far less for injection of politics into what I read as a very objective criticism of a particular product -- overhyped or not. Lindell's politics have no more to do with his pillows than Dan Cathy's have to do with his chicken sandwiches. And the politics have no place being discussed here. In my opinion, there is little association between the use of recycled TDCs in this application and 're-used foam' (which last I looked was explicitly forbidden by tag requirements!) in consumer bedding. I see very little about the former that compromises either its 'adaptive reuse' or its fitness to purpose in trackwork subgrade -- the issues would be common to any new geo-cylinder construction, whether or not using recycled materials. As Prof. Milenkovic is likely one of the best qualified to discuss the actual benefits or drawbacks of an engineered system, I find it particularly regrettable that he's taken a different approach in his initial reaction to the discussion. (In the interests of fair disclosure: I also consider the "My Pillows" to be overpriced hunks of garbage, and I wouldn't own one to be used as an actual nighttime pillow even if it were given to me. That didn't stop me from advocating some time ago that the 'My Pillow' brand might enhance some people's perspective of riding Amtrak as a quality, national-brand-worthy experience ... even though I wouldn't wish a night's missleep from one on a dog.
There's no need for sarcasm here, far less for injection of politics into what I read as a very objective criticism of a particular product -- overhyped or not.
Lindell's politics have no more to do with his pillows than Dan Cathy's have to do with his chicken sandwiches. And the politics have no place being discussed here.
In my opinion, there is little association between the use of recycled TDCs in this application and 're-used foam' (which last I looked was explicitly forbidden by tag requirements!) in consumer bedding. I see very little about the former that compromises either its 'adaptive reuse' or its fitness to purpose in trackwork subgrade -- the issues would be common to any new geo-cylinder construction, whether or not using recycled materials.
As Prof. Milenkovic is likely one of the best qualified to discuss the actual benefits or drawbacks of an engineered system, I find it particularly regrettable that he's taken a different approach in his initial reaction to the discussion.
(In the interests of fair disclosure: I also consider the "My Pillows" to be overpriced hunks of garbage, and I wouldn't own one to be used as an actual nighttime pillow even if it were given to me. That didn't stop me from advocating some time ago that the 'My Pillow' brand might enhance some people's perspective of riding Amtrak as a quality, national-brand-worthy experience ... even though I wouldn't wish a night's missleep from one on a dog.
My engineering-informed non-political reaction was one of rolling my eyes "Slab track? Again!" I usually don't dismiss new concepts out of hand, and maybe I should examine the proposals more closely, but I am in the skeptics camp that track is different enough from a road surface and that the system of a carefully prepared subgrade, deep and well groomed ballast, and yes, wood crossties are hard to beat. OK, maybe Pandrol clips for high-speed usage, but even concrete crossties with elastomeric pads, popularized by the New Tokaido line, are a subsitute in timber-deficient parts of the world.
That and the 3 things for stable track: drainage, drainage and drainage.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
I also respect Prof. M's expert opinions, as I strongly believe those of trained specualists in their field are far more valuable than those of a layman, no matter how well read.
I did not introduce the political element, except by inference.
Paul MilenkovicBut I am sure, no live bacteria!
"Probiotics" now, please! (I'd have said 'it's a feature, not a bug' but people would start throwing things at me...)
Point of correction:
When I Googled his product several years ago, long before his political association and his recommendations of health products based on zero medical knowledge, his pillows had mixed reviews beyond being overpriced. A few said they were satisfactory, but many said it was like sleeping on a lumpy bag. While visiting a friend, I had the privilege of trying one. Piece of garbage.
charlie hebdo Maybe they got the idea from the My Pillow crank? His "pillows" used chunks of (recycled?) foam rubber. Absolute garbage!
Maybe they got the idea from the My Pillow crank? His "pillows" used chunks of (recycled?) foam rubber. Absolute garbage!
Recycled foam rubber? But I am sure, no live bacteria!
Watch Saturday Night Live Highlight: Mostly Used Mattresses - NBC.com
Yes, excellent chain of inference.
The method of stabilizing a secondary road, that could possibly, potentially be used for a track subgrade, is discredited because because it is analogous to a product marketed by Mike Lindell, who in turn is well known by anyone who hasn't stuck their head under a stack of pillows, is discredited for endorsing a crank political theory?
I did a quick Web search about Mr. Lindell's product, and it appears that disinterested reviewers regard them to be "OK but kind of expensive", which is about what a person could expect of a product promoted through direct TV advertising?
So I guess Mr. Lindell's weighing in with a discredited political theory makes not only his pillows, in retrospect, to be absolute garbage but in turn the suggesting of something remotely similar for a track underlayment?
That or the use bluestreak mentioned:
"Here are links to a method of using old tires to stablize the aggreate under any type of roadway."
charlie hebdoMaybe they got the idea from the My Pillow crank?
This is something I'm unfamiliar with, but I suspect that MC and perhaps diningcar and others will understand more firsthand, both in terms of what's claimed and how the stuff holds up in service (or not!)
Wouldn't be the first time something touted as providing a pillow-like ride in railroading turned out to be a scam of some kind!
An interesting consideration to ponder is the extent to which this TDC underlayment could be advance-fabricated in 'riveting' and then carried and dispensed as a strip. It does not seem difficult to provide enough temporary support to allow such strips to be handled as track panels are, for example made to be run out via R-crane or as a step in TLM operation, but the potential for shear or tearout of the rivets might be significant if the panels are mishandled. In my opinion this would largely take the 'riveting' step off the critical path for tracklaying, both in time and in field cost. You'd still need to join panels carefully, and this would probably involve hydraulic clamping as well as drilling and fixation in practice, but that is comparatively small in scope and at least in theory addressable with automated machinery or 'backpack' portable equipment.
SD60MAC9500Comparison to conventional ballast.
It does add something new, the use of a technical term for the de-sidewalled tire treads. In keeping with the 'geo-cylinder' idea, they are to be called 'Tire-Derived Cylinders' (or TDCs), and considering the work to produce them I think this is a perfectly good term and not just a euphemism of convenience.
Note the additional riveting step, not mentioned in the earlier references. This actually complicates the issues of track maintenance in some respects.
Some of the potential drainage concerns might be handled by plug-drilling the TDCs near the top and bottom of the shoulder of the 'tires' as an additional step in manufacture; given the much more radical operation of removing (and disposing of) the sidewalls and bead material, this seems a relatively minor thing for significant practical returns.
It is possible, I think, to calculate the necessary height above drainage for a ballast prism made this way. It is possible that less, rather than more, "ballast" has to be applied over the top edge of the TDCs for a proper crosstie-based track to get appropriate long-term load bearing, the ties likely being able to bridge any 'rubber' area where the tires are riveted (the most extreme case) without necessary increase in their dimensions or changes to structure. With proper elastic (e.g. Pandrol) fixation, any additional vertical rebound in the track would be accommodated without progressive loosening as in the case of spikes or screw fixation. Where I see some concern is if the ballast shoulder is carried up to some proportion of tie height for lateral stability, with the entire track on sufficient gravel to permit typical maintenance equipment (e.g. lateral tie extractors) to work without deranging the underlying cellular TDC construction -- that means much more material in the 'sides' of the subgrade to maintain the correct outer angle of repose, compared to (say) a RCC subgrade with geotextile tensile cells.
Comparison to conventional ballast.
RCC was a listed method for improving railroad subgrade when I first started looking at track structure 'informedly' in the mid-'70s in college. It was extensively discussed in the 1995 edition of the ACI's handbooks. While I have not followed the technology carefully in recent years, I doubt if anything has 'gone backward' (in the sense, for example, that asphalt as an impervious self-sealing layer in subgrade has). I'm pretty sure that similar technology will be much preferable to gravel in consolidating this sort of construction in practice.
The use of the "geo-cylinders" for horizontal retention is interesting -- as is the idea that old tires can be effective in comparable lateral location to steel ones low in subgrade. I see a few potential practical difficulties with this in practice for railroad applications that might not apply to roads, drainage being one, and elasticity in the rubber another. I get a little nervous looking at the picture at the head of the second reference, which does not seem to show appreciable ballasting over the individual tire 'cells' or the method used to remove water from the subgrade. This is much less a concern if the structure is topped with a relatively impervious membrane, but very few railroad track systems that are cost-effective can actually do that.
I would have to defer to MC or others with recent field experience concerning the practical uses of various kinds of geotextile for similar purposes, which I thought was a very promising technology if implemented in the right way for the right purposes.
I'd concur that tires in the subgrade anywhere there is going to be undercutting as part of automated track maintenance will be a serious problem -- a severe one if no self-healing in the aggregate is provided and only gravel is used. The tire carcasses likely have enough strength to generate significant voids in the subgrade if forced laterally by hydraulic equipment, and these would be invisible to those performing the operations.
'd be interested to see how this is viewed by the EPA, particularly as any remaining material sprayed into the inside of these tires leaches out of the subgrade into groundwater. Note that the sidewalls are mechanically removed to produce the 'geo-cylinder' shape for the infill. Presumably this is followed by a full wash (and hazardous-material disposal resulting therefrom) before the geo-cylinders are brought to the site and laid down.
Do not be fooled by the name. Using actual concrete is not part of this procedure. Here are links to a method of using old tires to stablize the aggreate under any type of roadway. A problem for RRs might be whenever undercuttig is necessary the old tire parts might cause major problems ?
Do any of our experts have any feedback as to the use of this method on RR ballast uses. Has this method been tested at the TTC ? #57 stone is mentioned in the video being used in the construction.
This method might be expensive for short lines for the amount of stone used ?
Reinforced Aggregates Company | Mechanical Concrete | Geocell
EnviroRail looks to use mechanical concrete to change future of railroad maintenance - Railway Track and Structures (rtands.com)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.