AREMA COMMITTEE 30 MEETING
June 5-6, 2014
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Meeting is called to order at 11am Thursday June 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:
Currently we 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
http://www.arema.org/donate.aspx 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 Tripple Pandrol
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
Chair Jose 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 wrapup 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 jhbosshart@gmail.com
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
a. 1.4.1 Lateral Load Environment
b. 1.4.2 Lateral load Distribution
c. Under section 4.1 General Considerations
i. 4.1.3 Lateral Loads
d. Under section Lateral Rail Restraint
i. 4.7.1 Rail Fastening Requirements
e. C- Lateral Force Distribution
5. 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.
a. Rusty Crowly suggested a correction to the chapter re 39 tons are actually 41
tons. Henry will incorporate this edit .
6. 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
a. 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
a. 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.
i. It was agreed that the purpose of the test needs to revised and a ballot
should be drafted.
ii. It was agreed that the subcommittee should improve the description of
the test, so that all tests are run equivalently.
b. .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”.
i. 1st option: Delete the requirement – Supplier is already
ii. 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
iii. Sub-committee will select a course and propose a ballot for this year.
4) 2.6.1 TEST 5A: FASTENER UPLIFT
a. 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.
b. 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.
c. 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
a. 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.
b. 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.
c. 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.
d. 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.
e. 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
a. 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)
a. 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.
b. 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.