AREMA COMMITTEE 30 MEETING

June5-6, 2014

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Meeting is called to order at11amThursdayJune 5, 2014 by Chairman Greg Grissom.

The committee expresses its thanks to University of Illinois for hosting the committee meeting, and congratulates UIUC on a successful tie symposium.

The safety briefing was given by Riley Edwards UIUC.

Attendee Introductions were held.

Joe Smak, AREMA president, provided information related to AREMA business and initiated a discussion about AREMA leadership and the benefits of being a Committee officer.

Sub – Committee chairs were introduced and each discussed their agenda for the meeting:

Subcommittee 2 (Stan Thomas) wood preservation

Subcommittee 4 (John Bosshart, concrete tie sub)

Subcommittee 5 (Scott Tripple, fasteners)

Subcommittee 6 (Rich Lampo, engineered composite ties)

Other AREMA business items were discussed:

Currentlywe have 108 members on the committee.

Dr. W. W. Hay Award deadline extended to Fri June 6th.

New 2014 Manual is available – your 2014 Chapter 30 is in online Community under Document Archives.

Reminder to all to register for the Annual Conference, Sept 28-Oct 1, Chicago, IL. Chicago Hilton is almost sold out….rooms are also available at Palmer House Hilton. Exhibits are sold out but sponsorships are still available.

Several seminars planned in conjunction with Annual Conference.

A new 2014 Portfolio of Trackwork Plans will be released in June/July

2014 Membership Directories will be mailed to all members June/July.

Committee 30 awarded a scholarship in the amount of $1500 to Alexander Ricci, sophomore undergraduate student at Penn State University-Altoona. Major” Rail Transportation Engineering, and he is researching how to improve ballast performance – AREMA student chapter president 3.35 GPA

For Scholarship contributions, members can donate directly online at and select Committee 30 from the drop-down menu for the 2014 scholarship.

Ballot Items were then discussed:

C30 passed 26 Ballots and 1 editorial change that made it into 2014 manual including

30-13-26 Accepted the material transfer from Chapter 5 Part 9, Design Qualification Specifications for Elastic Fasteners on Timber Cross Ties (1994) and locate it as an appendix 30-A-2

The following ballots are now posted and have not met the participation threshold for the June board meeting.

Ballot No: 30-14-1 This proposal would correct a shortcoming by adding the following subsections to Section 3.9, Specifications for Timber Industrial Grade Crossties.
Ballot No: 30-14-2
Proposal to amend and update Chapter 30 guidance covering Section 3.2.1.4.5 which covers the allowable size of knots in switch ties.
Ballot No: 30-14-3 Proposal to amend and update Chapter 30 guidance covering Section 3.2.1.2.2 which covers the manner in which switch ties must be presented for inspection.
Ballot No: 30-14-4 Proposal to amend and update Chapter 30 guidance covering Section 3.2.1.4.11 subparagraph “c” which covers how the top and bottom of switch ties are determined to be parallel.
Ballot No: 30-14-5 Proposal to amend and update Chapter 30 guidance covering Section 3.2.1.2.2 with the heading “Resistance to Wear”
Ballot No: 30-14-06 Proposal to amend and update Chapter 30 guidance covering Section 3.2.1.4.5.6 which covers the amount of shake allowed in switch ties.

AREMA committee chairs and BOD meeting is June 11, 2014 and the ballots must pass before the end of today to make it on the agenda for Board approval.

Chairman Grissom informed the committee that the officers will rotate out at the fall conference, and that Vice Chairman Eric Gehringer has resigned from service. This requires the committee to vote in a new Vice Chairman and Secretary.

Nominations were held resulting in the following Nominees:

Chase Nielsen Amsted RPS

Scott TripplePandrol

Marcus Dersch UIUC

The Committee voted in Scott Tripple as the incoming Vice Chair, and Marcus Dersch as the incoming Secretary. The committee congratulated the new officers.

The committee adjourned for lunch and organized for subcommittee work starting at 1:30pm.

Wrap-up Session

Meeting is reconvened for the wrap-up session at 11am Friday June 6, 2014 by former ChairJose Mediavilla, sitting in for current Chair Greg Grissom

Attendee Introductions were held again for the wrap up session.

Sub-Committee chairs were introduced and reported on progress of each sub-committee work session:

Subcommittee 2 (Stan Thomas) wood preservation

Subcommittee 4 (John Bosshart, concrete tie sub)

Subcommittee 5 (Scott Tripple, fasteners)

The upcoming Fall 2014 meeting was discussed. The Rail Tie Association has once again graciously invited the committee to meet during its annual conference.

The RTA 2014 conference will take place at the Hyatt Regency Grand Cypress hotel in Orlando, Florida, on October 16-17 (Thursday and Friday)

The annual golf tournament will be held on October 15.

Committee 30 will meet on Tuesday October 14 at 8 AM. There will be a wrap- up session on October 15 at 11 AM. Meeting room information will be made available before the meeting. (Tuesday and Wednesday)

A discussion was held about having an informal meeting at the 2014 AREMA annual conference in Chicago, Sept. 28 - Oct. 1. It was pointed out that several members of Committee 30 had other committee meetings during the Chicago conference. No formal plans were adopted, due to time conflicts.

The location for the Spring 2015 was discussed:

The annual AAR research review at TTCI was suggested. The review is set for March 31 and April 1, 2015.

A field trip to visit a railroad facility or track was suggested as s possible meeting location.

It was agreed that sub-committee chairs would field input from their respective sub-committees. The committee will vote on the location during the Fall 2014 meeting.

No other new business was brought forth.

The meeting was adjourned.

AREMA COMMITTEE 30

SUBCOMMITTEE 2 – WOOD TIES & PRESERVATION

MINUTES FOR SPRING 2014 MEETING

Subcommittee 2 met during the afternoon of June 5, 2014 following the general meeting of the entire Committee 30 group at the University of Illinois in Urbana, IL. There were 5 members and 2 guests present for meeting. The following items of business were discussed.

  1. The species of wood listed as allowable in the Manual for crossties and switch ties were reviewed. We had earlier noted that some species allowed for crossties were not listed for switch ties. After discussing the issue we determined that the species not included for switch ties were omitted for valid reasons, and we decided that no changes were needed for the species lists.
  2. We continued work on developing standards for wood ties removed from track which could be suitable for reuse in less demanding track such as side tracks, yard track, spurs and industrial track. We agreed that used ties that were at least equal in quality to the standards for new industrial grade ties should be allowed for use wherever industrial grade ties would be permitted. Spike holes and plate cutting, conditions that would appear in used ties but not in industrial grade ties, would have to be addressed regarding limitations. We are working to develop language covering those issues and hope to have a new section covering used ties ready for ballot by the time of the fall meeting in Orlando.
  3. Due to an oversight the Manual currently shows 2 tables each with the title Table 30-3-2. The second table was supposed to replace the first table which erroneously lists American Wood Protection Association Commodity Standards that no longer exist. We will recommend that the first table be deleted, and we hope that this can be handled as an editorial change rather than as a ballot item.
  4. The specification covering splits allowed for crossties and switch ties are not in agreement, and they should be the same. We will have a ballot item prepared by the time of the fall meeting recommending an appropriate change to align these 2 standards.

The above actions were reported to the full Committee 30 during the meeting which reconvened on June 6, 2014.

AREMA COMMITTEE 30

SUBCOMMITTEE 4 – CONCRETE TIES

MINUTES FOR SPRING 2014 MEETING

June 5, 2014

From:John Bosshart

Location:University of Illinois Urbana- Champagne

Subject:AREMA Com. 30, Sub 4- Concrete tie subcommittee notes

Thirty members attended the meeting.

Meeting outline:

  1. Vince Peterson led discussion regarding manufactured tie surface finished acceptability. This is primarily aimed at the transit and industry tie manufacturing.
  2. Andrew Scheppe led discussion and presented a table to quantify nominal wheel to rail loads and impact loads based on documented WILD sites. Data was based on 2010 results.
  3. Matthew Greve presented section 4.1.5 Rail Seat Load Distribution paragraph that is new addition.
  4. Brent Williams presented updates to sections
  5. 1.4.1 Lateral Load Environment
  6. 1.4.2 Lateral load Distribution
  7. Under section 4.1 General Considerations
  8. 4.1.3 Lateral Loads
  9. Under section Lateral Rail Restraint
  10. 4.7.1 Rail Fastening Requirements
  11. C- Lateral Force Distribution
  12. Henry Wolf reviewed the basis for the graphs that are currently utilized to calculate the moment calculations. He is determining a recommended method to use calculations. These will be checked against Euro norm, Australian, and other methods.
  13. Rusty Crowly suggested a correction to the chapter re 39 tons are actually 41 tons. Henry will incorporate this edit .
  14. University of Illinois Rail Tech students did a great job not only as hosts and presenters, but as chapter 30 committee contributors. Great job! Thank You!

AREMA COMMITTEE 30

SUBCOMMITTEE 5 – FASTENERS

MINUTES FOR SPRING 2014 MEETING

Subcommittee 5 met during the afternoon of June 5, 2014 following the general meeting of the entire Committee 30 group at the University of Illinois in Urbana, IL. There were 13 people present for meeting. The following items of business were discussed.

1)General discussion on evolution of Chapter 30 (10) testing of fasteners

  1. 1983 Version vs. 2014 - The evaluative performance tests for fasteners remains largely unchanged. There are a number of known testing definitions issues, which are known to cause failures on proven fastening systems. These issues have generally been known about and accepted by track engineers of the past. New track engineers are not aware of these testing issues and must be educated, which can be a time consuming process for all parties.

2)Lack of fastening system categories.

a.CEN has 5 fastening categories listed in CEN 13481-1:2012. This allows for performance requirements based on track loading requirements.

b. AREMA currently has no track categories, which can lead to Transit railroads specifying requirements out of AREMA, which is generally aimed at the heavy haul railroads.

c. It was agreed that the committee should research into defining types of track in North America based on axle loads, curvature, speed and annual tonnage.

3)2.5.1 TEST 4A: TIE PAD TEST

  1. General questions about the test were brought up. Why warm the pad up to 30 kips, why not 50 kips? Is this a tie pad stiffness test or is this a tie pad integrity test? Why is no stiffness required between the clamping load and 24 kips.
  2. It was agreed that the purpose of the test needs to revised and a ballot should be drafted.
  3. It was agreed that the subcommittee should improve the description of the test, so that all tests are run equivalently.
  4. .002” Spring return requirement 2.5.1.c.4 : Consensus was that spring return portion of the test provides very little value to the end user. Very few pads will pass this requirement consistently. It is believed that the variability of the measurement is typically larger than 0.002”.
  5. 1st option: Delete the requirement – Supplier is already
  6. 2nd option: Adopt a 98.5% spring return requirement, which has been used by some in the industry. Generally believed to be an acceptable number, but must be confirmed by manufacturers
  7. Sub-committee will select a course and propose a ballot for this year.

4)2.6.1 TEST 5A: FASTENER UPLIFT

  1. General consensus was that the test method is not descriptive enough to ensure equal testing. There is confusion on what rail separation means as well. The diagram also needs updating.
  2. 1.5P uplift requirement (Part B): General consensus showed confusion on the point of this test. This test seems to be more severe on fasteners with a higher clamping force. It was agreed that tolerances of concrete tie manufacture will affect the outcome as well. The test is also very difficult to run with wood ties, as separation can occur under the tie plate.
  3. A group of volunteers agreed to champion a ballot for 2014 which would clarify testing methods and a potential additional ballot to address the 1.5P concerns.

5)2.8 Test 7: Fastener Electrical Impedance Test

  1. There are two requirements in the Chapter. 10,000 ohms in Section 2 and 20,000 ohms in Section 4. Nobody could reason why. It was suggested that consulting the various signaling departments about what resistance is required per panel of ties is the best way forward. i.e. UP has a minimum impedance of 20 Ohms/1000 ft.
  2. Test method: There is no language about what to do with the tie after removing it from the water. Is it acceptable to shake the water off? If there is standing water on the tie, then the likelihood of passing the test is very low. The current description becomes really a water conductivity test and /or a test of the ability of the tie to shed water.
  3. Steve Mattson suggested that a spray test would be more accurate as it simulates the ability of the system to resist shunting during a rainstorm. Generally the group felt that we should move to a spray test with a recorded value per track feet.
  4. It was noted that the resistance value should be ohms-cm or ohms-m, not ohms. Generally it was believed that the intention should be ohms-cm, but that this should be agreed upon with a signaling department.
  5. It was agreed that and Ad hoc group should address rewriting the test with moving toward a spray type test. The group is to be headed up by Pedro Lemertz. Volunteers included James Lane, Steve Mattson, Brandon Van Dyk, and Scott Tripple

6)Shoulder Pull Out Test

  1. James Lane asked for clarification on what “mortar cracking” entailed. Generally, the group felt that spalling was acceptable. James asked that we further define the definition of “mortar cracking”, to limit interpretation.

7)Future of Chapter 30, Appendix A-2: Design Qualification Specifications for Elastic Fasteners on Timber Cross Ties (previously Chapter 5, sec. 9)

  1. The group reviewed Appendix A.2. We came to the realization that the testing called out in Appendix A.2 contradicts the testing called out in Section 2.
  2. The group agreed to come up with a comparison of each test in Appendix A.2 to the tests described in Section 2. This will be presented at the Fall meeting.

Subcommittee 6, Engineered Composite Ties

Spring/Summer Meeting Minutes, 5-6 June 2014

University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL

After a brief meeting of the main Committee 30, the various Subcommittees broke-out for their respective meetings. Richard Lampo, Chair of Subcommittee 6 on Engineered Composite Ties, called the meeting to order with ten participants. After self introductions, the group proceeded to address the agenda list of business items.

Based on current state of the technology for polymer composite ties, a ballot to increase the MOE and MOR values in Table 30-5-1 was discussed and unanimously approved for ballot action. The ballot will propose changing MOE from a minimum 170,000 psi to a minimum 200,000 psi and MOR from a minimum 2,000 psi to a minimum 2,700 psi.

As raised by the tie manufacturers present at the meeting, the group discussed apparent conflicting information regarding lateral tie push-out values as presented in Chapter 30, Part 5, Table 30-5-1 and the Appendix Table 30-A-1. Mr. Lampo asked the tie manufacturer representatives to provide suggested changes to help alleviate any potential misunderstanding of the information represented in the Tables. This will be discussed at the next meeting with a potential resulting ballot action.

As in the past several meetings, fire testing requirements were again discussed at length. While there is consensus that a test method or methods is/are required, especially relative to the use of polymer composite ties in tunnels and open-deck bridges, it is not obvious what test or types of tests are required. These are no fire experts on the Subcommittee. Mr. Mike McHenry from TTCI volunteered to assess the possibility that these fire testing issues and requirements might be addressed by future TTCI/AAR activities – TTCI does have fire experts on its staff. Mr. McHenry will report back on these issues at the Fall meeting.

Before adjourning the meeting, Mr. Lampo asked the participants to review in its entirety the latest Part 5 in Chapter 30 to identify any other items that may need upgrading or clarification.