See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/224112675

Fail Safe Operation of Audio Frequency Track Circuits for Railway Signalling

Conference Paper · January 2010

DOI: 10.1109/INDCON.2009.5409373 · Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS READS
2 2,362

4 authors, including:

Gautham Ram Chandra Mouli

Delft University of Technology
32 PUBLICATIONS   613 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) - Electric Cars: Technology, Business and Policy View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gautham Ram Chandra Mouli on 26 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Fail Safe Operation of Audio Frequency Track
Circuits for Railway Signalling
C. Gautham Ram#1, A. Nithya#2, V. Jayashankar*3, P. R. Goundan**4
#
Summer Intern, IIT Madras, Chennai, India
1
[email protected]
2
[email protected]
*
Electrical Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai-600036, India
3
[email protected]
**
Centre of Excellence in Wireless Technology, Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai-600036, India
4
[email protected]

Abstract— An Audio Frequency Track Circuit (AFTC), a recent For instance, along the track, masts are connected to one of
addition to railway signalling, confirms the absence of a train in the rails at finite locations, for grounding purposes. Also,
a section of track. While the basic concept is established, several when multiple tracks occur in a yard, track-track connections
issues relating to proper operation of the AFTC need theoretical
exist across them. Both the mast connections and track-track
study. Installation practices like structure bonds and cross
bonds, could lead to failure of AFTC operation, especially in the connections function as traction power distribution
presence of breaks. An analysis is carried out, to study these requirements, and are referred to as structure bonds and cross
influences on AFTC performance. Conjectured fault scenarios bonds respectively. The influence of such bonds on AFTC
are identified which could lead to failure of the system, on the performance has not yet been addressed and their influence
side of safety or otherwise. A three-wire model of the track with needs to be evaluated. Finally, breaks can occur anywhere on
PSpice as a simulation tool is used for analysis and the reduction the track and tend to impede regular flow of signal along the
in margin due to structure and cross bonds is also established. rail. This is bound to affect AFTC operation, and hence its
effects are analysed to check for failure on the side of safety.
Keywords— Audio Frequency Track Circuit, S-bond, Mast,
Structure Bond, Cross Bond, Fail-safe Operation. II. IMPLEMENTATION OF AFTC
I. INTRODUCTION Consider the railway track to be divided into sections of
fixed lengths. An AFTC consists of suitable transmitter-
A track circuit detects the absence of a train within a receiver systems [1], on either side of each section, tuned to a
section of railway track. Its objective is to achieve fail-safe particular frequency in the audio-frequency range. Consider
operation with regard to variable track conditions and three such sections of 750 m each, of a track spanning a length
parameters. One of the methods of detection of train in a of around 10 km. The adjacent track circuit sections are
section of track is a DC track circuit. Here a DC voltage is separated from one another with the help of S-bonds. The
sent from a transmitter across the two rails and received at a transmitter consisting of a sinusoidal voltage source Tx and
fixed location relative to the transmitter. In the absence of a the sending end capacitor Ct, and the receiver consisting of
train, a substantial voltage exists across the receiver. The capacitor Rx, are connected between the S-bond and the track
presence of the train in the section is equivalent to a shunt [5]. S-bonds play a crucial role in the functioning of AFTC.
across the rails and is sensed by a reduction in the receiver The S-bond together with its tuning capacitors helps provide
voltage. One of the obvious limitations of the DC track circuit directionality. Here it is configured such that a voltage from
is the need to isolate sections of tracks, thus leading to tracks Tx3 preferentially travels to the left, as shown in Fig. 1. Little
with joints. Passenger comfort needs dictate joint-less tracks or no voltage is transmitted to the right. The S-bonds thus
and this eventually leads to the concept of audio frequency ensure that each transmitter-receiver unit is unique to one
track circuits. Conceptually, the difference between a DC particular section, and is unaffected by the presence or
track circuit and an AFTC is the use of AC excitation at a absence of trains in adjacent sections.
given frequency in a section, thereby making joint-less track Each transmitter Tx has a corresponding capacitor Ct and
operation feasible. The adjacent sections can operate at Rx in that section, which are tuned to the frequency of
slightly different frequencies. Thus a small set of frequencies transmission F. The adjoining sections are operated at
can be used to energise very large track lengths. different frequencies, to prevent interference at the receiving
The principle of AFTC operation and preliminary studies end. In the analysis, these transmission frequencies are
indicating its performance have been described in several designed to be:
works [1-4]. However some issues that need study with • F1 = 3855 Hz Ct1 = Rx1= 59.1 uF
respect to fail-safe operation of the principle still exist, and
• F3 = 4853 Hz Ct3 = Rx3 = 37.4 uF
need to be theoretically addressed.
• F5 = 5847 Hz Ct5 = Rx5 = 25.7 uF

978-1-4244-4859-3/09/$25.00 ©2009
 Fig. 1 Ten km track model with track section operating at F3 (not to scale)

A typical AFTC comprising of 2 S-bonds, 750 m section of Each 750 m section of track is treated as a pi-network of 10
track in between, with the transmitter on the right, and the elements. Fig. 2 shows the relevant model of an element. Here
receiver on the left is shown in Fig. 1. In the absence of a rxy represents the rail self-resistance, Lxy represents the rail
train, a finite voltage is obtained at the receiver Rx3. self-inductance, Cx represents the rail-ground capacitance and
However, when a train enters the section, the axle shunts the Rbx represents the ballast resistance.
rails, causing a fall in voltage at Rx3. It can be appreciated The train shunt resistance ‘TSR’ has a nominal value of 0.5
that, greater the no-train receiver voltage and lesser the with- ohms. The structure bond connected in each 75 m section is
train receiver voltage, easier is the distinction between the modelled as a series R-L circuit. The cross bond is employed
presence and absence of a train. The smallest difference in the between rails containing the structure bonds, of adjacent
receiver voltage defines the margin available. This margin is tracks, and is also modelled as a series R-L circuit. It again,
calibrated in decibels and is an important value as the track occurs every 75 m. All rail parameters obtained from
circuit is generally implemented with passive elements alone experimental studies [1,2] and the S-bond parameters, are
and hence very fine tuning would not be possible. given in the Appendix.
It is necessary that even if the system fails, it should do so
on the side of safety only. This implies that in the absence of a III. SIMULATION PROCEDURE
train, the system can indicate otherwise. However, if in the The AFTC is modelled with reference to Fig. 1. An
presence of the train axle shunt, the system indicates its excitation voltage of 10 V with a frequency F3 is applied at
absence, the consequences can be disastrous, and the system is Tx3. The receiver Rx3 picks up all 3 working frequencies of
said to fail on the side of risk. the AFTC. The receiver voltages corresponding to each
frequency were observed as maxima using Fourier analysis
II. MODELLING [7], but only the frequency F3, corresponding to the section
As excitation frequencies are low, a lumped parameter under study, is analysed. The voltages are reported in decibels.
network of the track should be sufficient for analysis. Here we The voltage at Rx3 is initially measured with no train in the
adopt a three-wire model as opposed to a simpler two-wire section. The TSR is now placed at a distance of 75 m from
model [1], as the influence of structure bonds cannot be Tx3 and the voltage at Rx3 is again noted. This exercise is
treated correctly in the two-wire model. repeated by changing TSR position at distances ranging from
225 m - 675 m at intervals of 150 m from Tx3. The resultant
voltage profile is shown in Fig. 3. In order to study the
influence of the structure bond, the R-L model representing
the same is connected at every 75 m to the track, with the
other end grounded. The simulation is repeated as described
earlier. It is observed that there is a change in the voltage at
the receiver as compared to the case without structure bonds
(See Fig. 3). In the final stage, a similar track is placed parallel
to the first at a distance of 3.5 m and R-L models of cross
bonds are added between the tracks, every 75 m. The
simulation is again run and the behaviour with and without
train is noted. Fig. 3 shows this profile too.

IV. STUDY OF AFTC OPERATION

A. Effect of Structure Bond
The AFTC operational curve for a single track with no
Fig. 2 Lumped parameter model of 75m of track
structure bonds is shown in Fig. 3. A plot of receiver voltage
versus train position is obtained as a U-shaped curve [1]. The The no-train value was 401.28 mV, while the maximum
no-train value at Rx3 was found to be 392.5 mV and the with-train value was 121.05 mV. The result can be attributed
highest with-train value was 61.13 mV giving a margin of to the fact that the structure bonds provide additional paths for
16.14 dB, as recorded in Table I. With masts connected to current flow, thereby decreasing track impedance and
return rails, the receiver profile shows a significant increase, increasing the current flow through the train shunt. The
and the graph changes to a decreasing curve, above the resultant increase in voltage across the train shunt appears at
previous curve [9]. the receiver terminal. The difference between no-train and
with-train circumstances goes down to 10.41 dB, form 16.14
dB thereby showing a reduction in AFTC performance.
B. Multiple Tracks with Cross Bonds
When multiple tracks are taken into account, the track
return rails of different tracks are connected to one another,
with strips of mild steel. Fig. 3 shows the corresponding
AFTC performance. The no-train value rose to 468.73 mV
from 401.28 mV. The with-train values, however opposed the
trend, and fell from 121.05 mV to 119.18 mV. Decibel
performance improved from 10.41 dB in the previous case, to
11.89 dB. The cross bonds function as additional diversions
for signal flow, besides the structure bond. The receiver
voltage magnitudes are lowered and a U-shaped curve is
obtained. The performance is thus found to improve
marginally. In effect the structural bonds reduce the available
margin as ween in Table I.

V. EFFECT OF BREAKS
A. Single Track with No Structure Bonds
The presence of track breakage could adversely influence
AFTC performance. In order to study their behaviour in a
step-by-step manner we initially consider the situation of a
single track with structure bonds removed. In the presence of
breakage, the with-train values remain nearly the same. But
the no-train figure decreases from -28.13 dB to -35.19 dB.
This result is shown in Table II, and we find that the margin
has come down from 16.14 dB to 12.57 dB, lowering AFTC
performance. This 7.06 dB fall in the no-train receiver voltage
Fig. 3 Performance analysis of AFTC can also be used to detect the occurrence of breakage, in such
a situation.

TABLE I TABLE II
INFLUENCE OF STRUCTURE BONDS AND CROSS BONDS ON AFTC INFLUENCE OF TRACK BREAKAGE ON AFTC
PERFORMANCE
Receiver Receiver Voltage in
Receiver Analysis Condition Voltage in dB dB (Highest value
Receiver Voltage in dB (No train) with train)
Analysis Margin in
Voltage in dB (Highest Single track without
Condition dB -35.19 -47.76
(No train) value with structure bonds
train) Single track with
structure bonds - cases -28.03
Single track -35.59
1, 3, 5, 7.
without -28.13 -44.27 16.14
structure bonds Single track with
structure bonds - cases -55.4
-50.01
Single track 2, 4, 6, 8.
with structure -27.93 -38.34 10.41 Multiple tracks with
bonds structure bonds and
-26.5 -39.1
cross bonds - cases 1,
Multiple tracks 3, 5, 7.
with structure Multiple tracks with
-26.59 -38.48 11.89
bonds and structure and cross -51.7 -46.9
cross bonds bonds - cases 2, 4, 6, 8
B. Single Track with Structure Bonds C. Multiple Tracks with Structure and Cross Bonds
Eight different positions of breaks with respect to TSR are The above 8 cases are discussed again, in the presence of a
considered, in the top and bottom rails, as shown in Fig. 4. parallel track, with cross bonds. AFTC was assumed for one
Table II summarises the results. With the TSR in the section, track alone, and analysis results are recorded in Table II. The
with no breakage, a value of 97 mV was registered at the results are same as from the preceding analysis. Cases 1, 3, 5
receiver. In cases 1, 3, 5 and 7, the occurrence of breaks on the and 7 gave substantially large values of receiver voltage in the
rail containing the structure bonds, gave substantially large presence of train, as compared to the with-train value without
values of receiver voltage, with the maximum being that of breaks. On the other hand, cases 2, 4, 6 and 8 failed on the
case 7, equal to 166.5 mV. However, they were not as large as side of safety i.e. the receiver voltage values were highly
the corresponding no-train value of 397.5 mV. The increase in diminished irrespective of the absence of train. Furthermore
receiver voltage with train is because the structure bonds fall in the no-train voltage from -26.59 dB to –51.7 dB aids in
provide alternate low impedance paths through the ground, in breakage detection.
the presence of breaks [8]. Due to the structure bonds there is Reviewing cases 1, 3, 5 and 7 it is seen that besides the
a distinct closed path from transmitter to receiver, and back. structure bonds, additional routes through the parallel track are
This enables a finite with-train voltage to be recorded in the provided with the help of cross bonds. The presence of
receiver, even in the presence of breakage. So the increase in additional paths in parallel, lowers the impedance to signal
the with-train voltage from -38.34 dB to –35.59 dB is justified flow, hence with-train receiver potential is increased on
and AFTC performance goes down. addition of breaks.
In cases 2, 4, 6, and 8, the receiver voltages with and Having done analysis on normally conceivable faults, a
without train are diminished and become comparable. For situation is conjectured, which could drive AFTC operation
instance when the receiver voltage in case 2 is 31.59 mV, the towards failure on the side of risk. The corresponding analysis
corresponding without train value is surprisingly 16.98 mV is as follows. Firstly, for a single track, retaining structure
only. bonds only in the first and last stretch of 75m, and removing
Hence the receiver gets a very small voltage, irrespective of the rest, a break is introduced conforming to case 7. We find
the presence of train. Thus the system fails on the side of that the with-train receiver voltage rises from -40.26 dB to
safety. Moreover fall in the no-train voltage from -27.93 dB to -34.02 dB while the no-train value decreases from -27.93 dB
-55.4 dB also aids in breakage detection for these 4 cases. to -28.56 dB on addition of breaks. A similar study is done for
multiple tracks wherein just two structure and cross bonds at
the extremities of the 750 m section are retained. Results were
obtained likewise viz. a with train value of -40.75 dB rose to -
30.93 dB when the no train value decreased from -26.58 dB to
-26.9 dB.
Thresholds are set with respect to no breakage situation in
the track. If the track breakage results in such a high value of
voltage in the presence of a train that it exceeds the no-train
value (with no breakage), the security will be compromised
and the system would fail in the side of risk. The conjectured
situation leads to a margin of only 4 dB.
Both these cases are however dangerous for AFTC
operation. This is because further increase in the with-train
value due to variations in ballast, electrification etc. may bring
this value closer to the no-train value causing the AFTC to
indicate absence of train in its actual presence.

VI. CONCLUSIONS
The performance of an AFTC was analyzed with a three-
wire track model. It was shown that a small set of frequencies
could indicate the presence of a train in any section of track.
Masts connected to traction return rails and connections across
multiple tracks cause the AFTC performance margin to be
reduced. This effect becomes more profound in the presence
of breaks. Different conditions corresponding to track
breakage were evaluated - some cases were shown to behave
in the conventional mode while others resulted in fail-safe
operation. A worst-case scenario was also conjectured which
Fig. 4. Eight cases of break position with respect to TSR, with masts assumed could lead to failure of the AFTC on the side of risk.
to be connected to the top rail.
 VII. APPENDIX REFERENCES
This section provides the S-bond and track parameter [1] R. J. Hill and P. C. Coles, “A user-friendly simulator for modelling
audio frequency track circuit operation,” in Proc. of the 1993
values used for the simulations. Table III covers the series IEEE/ASME Joint Railroad Conference, April 6-8, 1993, pp. 77-86.
impedance parameters of rails, cross bonds and structure [2] R. J. Hill, D. C. Carpenter, B. Mellitt, J. Allan and J. C. Brown,
bonds. The admittance parameter values are expressed in “Calculation and measurement of rail impedances applicable to remote
terms of their rail-rail equivalents. short-circuit fault currents,” in IEE Proceedings-B Electric Power
Applications, November 1993, vol. 140, no. 6, pp. 417 - 420.
TABLE III [3] R. J. Hill, S. Brillante and P. J. Leonard, “Railway track transmission
SERIES MODELLING PARAMETERS line parameters from finite element field modelling: series impedance,”
in IEE Proceedings - Electric Power Applications, Nov. 1999, vol.
Structure 146, no. 6, pp. 647 – 660.
Parameter Rail Cross Bonds
Bonds [4] A. Mariscotti and P. Pozzobon, “Determination of the electrical
Resistance 9.5 ȍ/km 50 mȍ 5ȍ parameters of railway traction lines: calculation, measurement, and
Inductance 1.25 mH/km 6.222 uH 4.8 uH reference data,” in IEEE Transactions on Power Delivery, Oct. 2004,
vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 1538 - 1546.
Length 75 m 3.5 m 2.7 m [5] G. D'Addio, P. Ferrari, A. Marisconi, P. Pozzobon, “Integrated
modelling of audio frequency track circuits,” in International
Admittance parameters: Conference and Exhibition on Electromagnetic Compatibility, Dec. 12-
13, 1999, pp. 101-106.
• Rail-Rail Capacitance = 0.5 uF/km [1,4]. [6] R. J. Hill, S. L. Yu, N. J. Dunn, “Rail transit chopper traction
• Ballast/ Rail-Rail Conductance = 62.5 uS/km [4]. interference modeling using the SPICE circuit simulation package,” in
S-bond parameters: IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, Nov. 1989, vol. 38, no.
4, pp. 237-246.
• Sinusoidal Excitation = 10 V [7] M. C. Falvo, E. Fedeli and R. Lamedica, “A measurement campaign on
• Rail-bond coupling coefficient k = 0.5 audio frequency track circuits of Italian high speed railway systems,”
• Total Inductance of S-bond = 34.2 uH in International Symposium on Power Electronics, Electrical Drives,
Automation and Motion, SPEEDAM, May 23-26, 2006, pp. 1115 –
• Total Resistance of S-bond = 60 mȍ 1120.
[8] N. Nedelchev, “Influence of earth connection on the operation of
ACKNOWLEDGMENT railway track circuits,” in IEE Proceedings - Electric Power
Applications, May 1997, vol. 144, no. 3, pp. 215 – 219.
The authors wish to acknowledge M/S HBL Power Systems [9] R. J. Hill, D. C. Carpenter, T. Tasar, “Railway track admittance, earth-
for making available experimental track parameters and leakage effects and track circuit operation,” in Proc. Of Railroad
models for simulation study. Conference, April 25-27, 1989, pp. 55 – 62.

View publication stats