United States Department of Transportation
i
Performance of Rail Fastening Systems on an Open-Deck Bridge
-
2018-02-01
[PDF-551.85 KB]
Details:
-
Creators:
-
Corporate Creators:
-
Contributors:
-
Corporate Contributors:
-
Subject/TRT Terms:
-
Publication/ Report Number:
-
Resource Type:
-
Geographical Coverage:
-
Corporate Publisher:
-
NTL Classification:NTL-RAIL TRANSPORTATION-Rail Planning and Policy;NTL-RAIL TRANSPORTATION-Rail Safety;
-
Abstract:Transportation Technology Center, Inc. (TTCI) monitored the performance of rail fasteners on an open-deck bridge and its approaches, located at Norfolk Southern Corporation’s (NS's) eastern mega site. The project was co-sponsored by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Association of American Railroads (AAR). The three rail fastening test systems were (1) Pandrol 16-inch cast plate with screw spikes, cut spikes and e-clips; (2) Vossloh 16-inch rolled plate with screw spikes and rail clips; and (3) Pandrol 18-inch Victor rolled plate with cut spikes and e-clips. A modified version of the lateral track loading fixture (LTLF) was used to measure the gage widening strength of the tie and fastener system. System 3 widened 2.4 times more at the railhead and three times more at the rail base than System 1 under the 6-kip LTLF gage spreading load in test zones on the bridge. System 3 on the bridge also had the highest loaded gage widening as measured by FRA’s DOTX-218 test vehicle. Maximum gage widening was still 0.2 inch after 230 million gross tons (MGT) of traffic. Due to a rail change, one test zone became a hybrid, which allowed the team to evaluate the performance of System 2 (on low rail) and System 3 (on high rail). The railhead displacement measured on the high rail (System 3) was 4.6 times higher than on the low rail (System 2), where the rail lateral stiffness (∆force/∆displacement) was 3.5 times higher for System 2. The 2014 results also indicated almost twice higher rail lateral stiffness in System 1 than in System 3 on the bridge for both the high and low rails. Bridge zones have under-plate rubber pads, whereas approach zones do not. Gage spreading performance between bridge zones and approach zones showed: (a) Comparable performance on the bridge and at the approach for System 1; and (b) better performance at the approach than on the bridge for System 3. Though rail clip bolts fractured in System 2, no rail clip bolt fractures were reported at FRA’s Facility for Accelerated Service Testing (FAST). A System 1 tie plate experienced a structural crack similar to the failure mode seen at FAST.
-
Format:
-
Alternate URL:
-
Collection(s):
-
Main Document Checksum:
-
Download URL:
-
File Type:
