FIELD TESTS FOR THE FAILURE EVALUATION OF 
 PANDROL RAIL FASTENERS 
 
 «<&JBflta 
 
 S UTli, O* 
 
 AUGUST 1979 
 FINAL REPORT 
 
 Document is available to the public through the 
 National Technical Information Service 
 Springfield, Virginia 22161 
 
 Prepared for 
 U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 
 FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION 
 Office of Research and Development 
 Washington, D. C. 20590 
 
NOTICE 
 
 This document is disseminated under the sponsorship 
 of the Department of Transportation in the interest 
 of information exchange. The United States Govern- 
 ment assumes no liability for its contents or use 
 thereof. 
 
 NOTICE 
 
 The United States Government does not endorse products 
 or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear 
 herein solely because they are considered essential 
 to the object of this report. 
 
Approved before final typing by RH Prause 
 
 G-6632-1201(624) 
 
 xc: RH Prause/ADA Files 
 J Hadden 
 H Harrison ^^ 
 D Snediker/F Dean 
 H Meacham 
 Contracts/Gen Files 
 
 August 2, 1979 
 
 Dr. Andrew Kish, DTS-744 
 Department of Transportation 
 Transportation Systems Center 
 Kendall Square 
 Cambridge, MA 02142 
 
 Dear Dr. Kish: 
 
 Contract No. DOT-TSC-1595 
 Technical Support Services for Track 
 Structure Failure Studies 
 
 Technical Task Directive No. 12 
 
 Evaluation of Toe Load Data for 
 
 Pandrol Fastener Failure Study 
 
 Enclosed are twelve (12) copies of our report on the evaluation of Pandrol 
 rail fasteners. This report includes the toe load data from TTC and a 
 summary of the fastener failure history per your recent request. 
 
 If you have any questions about this report, please call me or Jeff 
 Hadden at your convenience. 
 
 Sincerely, 
 
 Robert H. Prause 
 Manager 
 
 Applied Dynamics and 
 Acoustics Section 
 
 RHP/tt 
 
 Enclosures (12) 
 
 cc: A. Tauro, DTS-852, letter only 
 
 D. McConnell, DTS-731, letter only 
 
 50 Years Of Service 
 1929-1979 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2012 with funding from 
 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign 
 
 http://archive.org/details/fieldtestsforfaiOOhadd 
 
Technical K'eport Documentation Page 
 
 1 . R e p o i . iS o . 
 
 2. Government Accession No. 
 
 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 
 
 Title ond Subtitle 
 
 Field Tests for the Failure Evaluation of 
 PANDROL Rail Fasteners 
 
 5. Report Dote 
 
 August, 1979 
 
 6. Performing Organization Code 
 
 TSC-744 
 
 Performing Organization Report No. 
 
 7. Author's) 
 
 J. A. Hadden, R. H. Prause, H. D. Harrison 
 
 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 
 
 * Battelle Columbus Laboratories 
 505 King Avenue 
 Columbus, Ohio 43201 
 
 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 
 
 11. Contract or Grant Nc 
 
 D0T-TSC-1595 
 
 12. Sponsoring Agency Nome ond Address 
 
 U. S. Department of Transportation 
 Federal Railroad Administration 
 Office of Research and Development 
 Washington, D. C. 20590 
 
 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 
 
 Task Report 
 January- July , 1979 
 
 14. Sponsoring Agency Cod 
 
 RRD-32 
 
 15. Supplementary Notes 
 
 Under contract to: 
 
 U. S. Department of Transportation 
 Transportation Systems Center 
 Kendall Square, Cambridge, MA. 
 
 16. Abstroct 
 
 This report presents an evaluation of the performance of PANDROL rail fasteners 
 based on laboratory tests and field tests in Section 17 of the Facility for 
 Accelerated Service Testing (FAST) at the Transportation Test Center (TTC) in 
 Pueblo, Colorado. The test program examined the effects of track curvature 
 and grade, tie pad composition and train direction on static and dynamic 
 fasterner loads. The purpose of the test program was to obtain information' 
 on PANDROL rail fastener behavior in an effort to determine the factors 
 contributing to fasterner failures. 
 
 17. Key Words 
 
 Rail fasteners, track performance, 
 track components, track testing, 
 track loading. 
 
 18. Distribution Stotement 
 
 Document is available through the 
 National Technical Information Service, 
 Springfield, Virginia 22161 
 
 19. Security Classif. (of this report) 
 
 Unclassified 
 
 20. Security Classif. (of this poge) 
 
 Unclassified 
 
 H. No. of Poges 
 
 22. Pr 
 
 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) 
 
 Reproduction of completed poge outhorized 
 
PREFACE 
 
 This report was prepared by Battelle's Columbus Laboratories (BCL) 
 under Contract No c . DOT-TSC-1595 as part of the Improved Track Structures 
 Research Program (ITSRP) managed by the Department of Transportation, 
 Transportation Systems Center (TSC) c This program is sponsored by the 
 Office of Rail Safety Research, Improved Track Structures Research Division 
 of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) , Washington, Do C. 
 
 This report summarizes the results of an experimental program 
 performed to evaluate the performance of the Pandrol rail fastener. This 
 work was performed under Technical Task Directive Number 4 of the contract. 
 
 Mr. Donald McConnell of TSC was the technical monitor for this 
 contract. Dr. Andrew Kish of TSC was the technical contact for the task c 
 Their cooperation and assistance are gratefully acknowledgedc The assistance 
 of the staff at the Transportation Test Center (TTC) in Pueblo, Colorado, 
 in providing the static toe load measuring device and in performing many of 
 the toe load measurements is acknowledged and greatly appreciated „ 
 
 in 
 
« « «r T I 
 
 I 1 
 
 w t 
 
 • : 
 
 < 8 
 
 2 « »•. —_ • 
 
 b o *** ^ d 
 
 1 1 ss I 
 
 1 1 1 
 
 i 
 
 s * 
 
 iV\ 
 
 II 
 
 Hiti Hi! Ill ntlil 
 
 ill! 
 
 I-,- 
 
 iii Hi 
 
 i 6 t f J "Wl 3 
 
 S - 8 R « 
 
 o **■ — o * — 
 
 i ! 
 
 illill 
 
 f E E 
 
 SI 
 
 8 
 
 < 
 
 z 
 o 
 t/1 
 
 K 
 
 CI 
 
 11 
 
 It 
 
 01 
 
 CI 
 
 tl 
 
 L\ 
 
 tl 
 
 tl 
 
 ♦ I 
 
 tt 
 
 tl 
 
 II 
 
 01 It 
 
 I 
 
 
 t 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 * 
 
 1 l x 
 
 
 i 
 
 lllllllll 
 
 lllllllll 
 
 lllllllll 
 
 lllllllll 
 
 lllllllll 
 
 lllllllll 
 
 lllllllll 
 
 lllllllll 
 
 llllllll 
 
 lllllllll 
 
 lllllllll 
 
 lllllllll 
 
 lllllllll 
 
 lllllllllllllllllll 
 
 III 
 
 ::ii lllllllll 
 
 1 
 lllllllll 
 
 lllllllll 
 
 lllllllll 
 
 liiiliiiiL 
 
 mi 
 
 lllllllll 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 
 Tfi: 
 
 T|T 
 
 ,. p .,, |T 
 
 T|T 
 
 TIT 
 
 T|T 
 
 ....... 
 
 ....... 
 
 T|T 
 
 TIT 
 
 T|T 
 
 T|T 
 
 T|T 
 
 T|T 
 
 T|T 
 
 Tfr 
 
 T|T 
 
 » 
 
 
 • 
 
 1 
 
 
 t 
 
 
 t 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 j 
 
 >***» 
 
 l I e I VfVi 3 
 
 Mil 
 
 s i s ; i 
 
 IliljE 
 
 » i s 
 
 . r . » * 
 
 III M 
 
 iiiiiiSli 
 
 EEl^zz^uC 
 
 " a 
 
 8. - • • 
 
 I 
 
 i i I i 
 
 8 j 
 
 * . s r 
 
 •SR 
 
 J [ . j ? 
 
 lit iitii iir miimi 
 
 I 
 
 i*U 
 
 •vV 
 
 1 1 
 
 tll.islW 
 
 IV 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 Page 
 
 I. INTRODUCTION 1 
 
 II. • BACKGROUND 2 
 
 III. SUMMARY AND RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS 10 
 
 IV. TEST PROCEDURE 14 
 
 Laboratory Tests 14 
 
 Field Tests 17 
 
 Static Toe Load Tests 21 
 
 V. TEST RESULTS 25 
 
 Static Toe Load Measurements and Correlation With Other Field 
 
 Test Data 25 
 
 Laboratory Tests 28 
 
 General Comments 28 
 
 Load-Strain-Deflection Characteristics 28 
 
 Effect of Multiple-Installation 33 
 
 Field Tests 36 
 
 Track Loading Environment 36 
 
 Installation Strain Characteristics 39 
 
 Dynamic Strain Characteristics 42 
 
 Approach to Data Analysis 42 
 
 APPENDIX REPORT OF INVENTIONS 56 
 
 ILLUSTRATIONS 
 Figure 
 
 1 Example of Pandrol Fastener Fraction (of Position, 5° 
 
 Curve) 3 
 
 2 Example of Tie Pad, Shoulder and Rail Base Wear in 
 
 Section 17 4 
 
 3 Cumulative Fastener Clip Fractures Vs. MGT, for Period 
 
 98 - 350 MGT 5 
 
 4 Cumulative Fastener Clip Fall-Outs for Period - 350 MGT . 7 
 
 5 Photograph of Set-Up for Load-Strain-Deflection 
 
 Laboratory Tests 15 
 
 v 
 
ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued) 
 Figure Page 
 
 6 Photograph of Instrumented Fastener Installed in 
 
 Laboratory Test Fixture for Lateral Load-Strain Tests ... 16 
 
 7 Photograph of Instrumented Pandrol Fastener (Gages on 
 Fasteners Used in Field Tests had Protective Coatings) ... 18 
 
 8 Photograph of Instrumentation Set-Up for Toe Load 
 Measurements 23 
 
 9 Fastener Force-Deflection Characteristics 29 
 
 10 Typical Force-Strain Characteristics of Instrumented 
 
 Fastener 31 
 
 11 Typical Force-Strain Characteristics for Instrumented 
 Fastener Installed to Simulate Actual Track Conditions ... 32 
 
 12 Photograph of Instrumented Fastener Used in Laboratory 
 
 Tests 34 
 
 13 Effect of Multiple Installations on Fastener Distortion . . 37 
 
 14 Typical Time-History of Fastener Dynamic Strains in 
 
 Tangent Track Subsection G 45 
 
 15 Typical Time-History of Fastener Strains in 3°-Curve 
 Subsection K2 46 
 
 16 Typical Time-Histories of Fastener Strains in 5°-Curve 
 Subsection Dlb 47 
 
 Table 
 
 TABLES 
 
 1 Summary of Fastener Clip Fall-Outs and Fractures, 
 
 141 - 350 MGT 8 
 
 2 Summary of Pandrol Fastener Evaluation Tests 11 
 
 3 Field Test Matrix Summary 20 
 
 4 Summary of Static Toe Load Measurements in Fast Section 17 . 22 
 
 5 Summary of Static Toe Load Data 26 
 
 6 Summary of Dynamic Strains and Fatigue Index 49 
 
 vi 
 
I. INTRODUCTION 
 
 Over the past several months, numerous failures of the Pandrol 
 rail fasteners installed on concrete ties in Section 17 of the FAST track at 
 the Transportation Test Center (TTC) have been observed „ The failures con- 
 sisted of fasterner fracture and "fallout"; particularly, but not exclusive- 
 ly, at the inner-rail, gage-side (IG) positions in the 5-degree curve « An 
 investigation consisting of laboratory and field tests was conducted in an 
 effort to determine the factors that contribute to the failures of these 
 fasteners o This test program was conducted by Battelle-Columbus Laboratories 
 (BCL) over the period of March to May, 1979 = 
 
 Tests were conducted at Battelle's laboratories and at TTC. In the 
 laboratory, exploratory tests were performed to examine the force-strain- 
 deflection characteristics of the fasteners, as well as to examine the effects 
 of repeated installation on fastener preload and geometric distortion,, For 
 the field tests, fasteners were instrumented with strain gages and installed 
 at several locations in FAST Section 17. Static and dynamic strains were 
 recorded for train passes in both directions « Wheel/rail load measurements 
 were made at one location in Section 17 c Static toe load measurements were 
 made at several locations in Section 17. 
 
 For the field tests, the influence on fastener failures was evaluated 
 for the following parameters : 
 
 o mean (installed) strain and toe loads 
 
 o track "geometry" (e g., tangent, curve, grade, etc.) 
 
 o tie pad stiffness 
 
 o use of insulators 
 
 o direction of train travel 
 
 o location of fastener on tie (e g o , inner or outer rail, field 
 or gage side) . 
 
 Subsequent sections in this report address these effects in light 
 of influences and offer conclusions and recommendations for further study e 
 
II. BACKGROUND 
 
 The following events summarize the performance history of the 
 Pandrol fastener in FAST section 17. 
 
 (1) to 61 MGT - No major clip failure problems. 
 
 (2) 61 MGT - Rail replaced in 5-degree curve due to 
 
 sunlink; original English-made clips were 
 replaced with a new batch of Pandrol 
 clips from England throughout the 5-degree 
 curve. 
 
 (3) 83 MGT - Rails transposed 
 
 (4) 100 MGT - Significant number of fatigue failures began 
 
 occurring in subsections C to D2, on Konvex 
 pads, mostly at IG location. 
 
 (5) 234 MGT - Section 17 rebuilt - Konvex pads replaced 
 
 with Portec pads in subsections Dla and D2; 
 English fasteners replaced with new batch 
 manufactured in Canada,, 
 
 (6) 234 + MGT - Unusual number of fastener fallouts, almost 
 
 exclusively at IG position (mostly in 5 degree 
 curve) during the first few days after 
 installation. All new fasteners were over- 
 driven. Subsequent high number of fractures 
 at IG Position in 5-degree curve. 
 Problems associated with these failures included substantial wear of 
 the tie shoulder, insulators and Konvex pads. Examples of these problems are 
 shown in Figures 1 and 2. 
 
 Figure 3 shows a summary of the clip fracture history. These data 
 confirm that fracture failures began occurring first at about 100 MGT, which 
 was 39 MGT after the new batch of English-made clips was installed following 
 the sunkink in the 5-degree curve. Replacement of these clips at 234 MGT 
 with a batch made in Canada reduced the fracture failure rate substantially 
 until about 260 MGT. However, after this short interval of 26 MGT, the 
 failures continued at about the previous rate, except that an even greater 
 percentage of the failures occurred at the IG (inner-rail gage) position. 
 
 2 
 
Fracture Location 
 
 FIGURE 1. EXAMPLE OF PANDROL FASTENER FRACTURE (OF POSITION, 5° CURVE) 
 
Rail Base Wear 
 
 Tie Pad Wear 
 
 Shoulder Wear 
 
 FIGURE 2. EXAMPLE OF TIE PAD, SHOULDER AND RAIL BASE 
 WEAR IN SECTION 17 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 " V 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 > \. 
 
 
 
 ri J 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 r 
 
 — — ^^^ 
 
 
 
 H I 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 T 
 
 > 
 
 . Pi S3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \\ 
 
 
 Pi H 
 - W 
 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 o w 
 w 
 
 Ci3 CO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 \ 
 
 
 ^S CO 
 
 H 
 
 W S3 
 pei H 
 
 
 
 
 < O 
 ^ 1 
 p.* m 
 W 
 
 
 
 > 
 
 pi Pi 
 
 > u 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 H Pi 
 O 
 
 • w 
 - o 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 Ph h 
 H CO 
 i-3 O 
 
 
 
 w Pi 
 u o 
 < w 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S 00 
 
 w 
 
 00 K 
 H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 W LO 
 
 Pi 
 
 w 
 
 CO Pi 
 P-i H 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 < < 
 
 Pi 
 
 < 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 hJ Z 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 CO Ph 
 
 < >- 
 
 H Pi 
 
 < W 
 - c > 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 o 
 
 - z 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 © 
 
 o 
 
 c 
 
 IT) 
 
 m 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 
 CNI 
 
 O 
 O 
 
 CNl 
 
 o 
 
 en 
 
 
 w 
 
 < 
 
 z 
 z 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 o 
 w 
 
 < 
 
 < 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 oc 
 
 o 
 
 c 
 
 C 
 
 C 
 
 c 
 
 vO 
 
 CN 
 
 CO 
 
 <r 
 
 ro 
 
 r-> 
 
 CN 
 
 c 
 c 
 
 CM 
 
 O 
 CM 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 c 
 
 SHttMDV&i dllD aAiivini^no 
 
The reduction in the failure rate at the IF and OF positions may be a result 
 of replacing Konvex pads with Portec pads in several sections of the 5-degree 
 curve. 
 
 Figure 4 shows the clip fall-out history for total service of 0-350 
 MGT, with a detailed breakdown for the period of 141-350 MGT. These data show 
 that the fall-out problem occurs almost totally at the IG position. Also, the 
 fall-out rate has essentially doubled since 234 MGT when most of the clips were 
 replaced in the 5-degree curve with the new batch made in Canada. These clips 
 had a very high fall-out rate immediately after installation and this was 
 arrested for a period of about 10 MGT by "overdriving" all of the clips. 
 However, the high fall-out rate for this Canadian batch has resumed and 
 indicates some variation in clip geometry from either the original clips or 
 the English-made replacements installed at 61 MGT. 
 
 Table 1 shows a listing of fastener failures according to position 
 on the tie and subsection for the interval of 141 to 350 MGT. Unfortunately, 
 data needed to separate the performance of clips installed at 61 MGT from 
 those installed at 234 MGT according to subsection was not available. However, 
 a number of observations can be made: 
 
 a. About 75% of the clip fractures and almost all of the clip 
 fallouts occur at the IG position. 
 
 b. Most failures have occurred in the 5-degree curve (Sections 
 A through Dl) but there have been sufficient failures in the 
 3 degree curve (Sections H£ through L) to indicate a problem. 
 Failures in tangent track have been relatively minor. 
 
 c. Replacing the clips in Sections C and Dl(2) at 234 MGT did 
 not substantially reduce the fracture rate compared to 
 Section Dl(l) , where the clips installed at 61 MGT were 
 retained for comparison purposes If the clips installed 
 at 61 MGT had been from a uniquely "bad" batch, the 
 substitution of "good" clips for over half of the record 
 period might be expected to reduce the failures by more 
 than the 20% reduction that was measured. 
 
 d. Section D2, which was the only section where Pandrol 
 fasteners were used without insulators between the clip 
 and the rail base, had by far the greatest occurrence of 
 fastener fallouts, with a fall-out rate of over 500% 
 
 6 
 
H 
 O 
 
 < 
 
 z 
 z; 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 Q 
 
 E-i 
 < 
 
 g 
 
 5 
 < 
 
 c 
 c 
 
 c 
 
 CM 
 
 c 
 c 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 c 
 
 00 
 
 c 
 c 
 
 C 
 
 c 
 
 o 
 c 
 
 IT] 
 
 c 
 
 o 
 
 c 
 c 
 m 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 CNJ 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 smo-TiYi diio aAiivirMiD 
 
c 
 
 in 
 ft 
 
 I 
 
 fcj f-l 
 
 H 
 U 
 
 < 
 
 U. HH 
 
 O 
 
 fcJ 
 
 o 
 
 < 
 
 H 
 
 z 
 
 o 
 c: 
 u: 
 
 O r-» \C> 
 
 ft Mr CO 
 
 MS O CO 
 
 ri ^h <r 
 
 f*» co c 
 
 o o o 
 
 (SI cm 
 
 o o o 
 
 o o 
 
 o o o 
 
 COCrHtHCOO 
 
 t-4 O •» •» 
 
 i— I CN O 
 
 u~l CSJ M3 i— I O O O 
 
 cooooooo 
 
 oooo coo© 
 
 V. 
 
 u 
 u 
 
 g 
 
 c 
 z 
 
 < 
 
 © 
 c 
 I 
 
 ■J 
 
 < 
 
 C£ 
 H 
 
 < 
 
 C£ 
 
 < 
 
 tO u- 
 
 H M 
 
 © 
 o 
 I 
 
 ►J 
 
 < 
 
 O 
 
 < 
 
 z 
 w 
 u 
 
 CM ^- CS 
 
 o o o 
 
 O iH CM 
 
 O © O r-l 
 
 U ft 
 
 t-i ft 
 
 LTl 
 
 OS 
 
 cm 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 CN 
 
 en 
 
 «tf 
 
 CN] 
 
 o 
 
 ■H 
 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 t— i ft ci m sr ft os 
 cm cm cm m ft 
 
 PC 
 
 < 
 
 cc 
 
 c_ 
 
 o 
 1- 
 
 c 
 
 CC 
 
 - 
 
 o 
 z 
 
 m o 
 
 o o o 
 
 H O cm 
 
 o o o 
 
 H O 
 
 o o 
 
 O O O H O 
 
 OOOi-tOOOO 
 
 < 
 
 o 
 w 
 
 ►j 
 
 < 
 
 H H 
 to rj 
 Z X 
 
 to ft 
 
 P. CM 
 
 t— I 
 
 ►J a 
 
 u z 
 
 < 
 
 td iH 
 
 Z MO 
 
 < 
 
 Q 
 [d 
 
 < 
 
 tO 
 
 z 
 
 -J 
 
 trt Z 
 
 c- o 
 
 ►J H 
 U rj 
 
 z 
 z mo 
 
 to 
 
 Pi 
 
 o 
 
 < .J 
 • ^) 
 
 s £ 
 
 < o 
 
 H H z 
 co O w 
 
 z s: 
 
 to fl «» 
 e« cm 
 
 u c 
 
 CO 
 
 Z sD 
 
 to 
 
 ^ u > 
 
 pj 
 < 
 z 
 1-1 
 
 o 
 
 M 
 
 Pi 
 O 
 
 i-H 
 
 o 
 
 c 
 cc 
 
 «r 
 
 1-1 
 
 © 
 
 CO 
 
 "a 
 
 co 
 
 co 
 
 o 
 
 c 
 c 
 
 o 
 
 I 
 
 CO 
 
 o 
 cc 
 © 
 
 OS i— I 
 
 oo m 
 
 -r mo 
 
 o o 
 
 c 
 
 CC 
 MO 
 O 
 
 ON 
 
 o 
 os 
 
 o 
 
 OS 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 m 
 
 OS 
 
 o 
 
 <-> lTi 
 
 os 
 
 o 
 
 OS 
 
 o 
 
 MO 
 
 c 
 
 CO 
 
 c 
 
 CO 
 m 
 
 -3- 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 in .- -; 
 
 I 
 OS 
 
 O 
 cc 
 
 in 
 
 o 
 
 m 
 
 CM 
 
 in 
 cs 
 
 MO 
 
 m 
 
 u 
 o 
 oc 
 
 XI 
 3 
 05 
 
 
 z 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 i—i 
 
 1 
 
 H 
 
 a 
 
 O 
 
 — 
 
 U 
 
 w 
 
 to 
 
 o 
 c 
 
 w 
 
 * 
 
 ti- 
 
 
 cs. 
 
over the interval of 209 MGT. There also were 
 substantial fallout rates at other sections of the 
 5-degree curve and in the 3-degree curve. Fastener 
 fallouts occurred predominantly at the IG position 
 in all sections. 
 A metallurgy study was conducted by Battelle to identify the failure 
 mechanism for the fasteners. The study identified the failure mechanism as a 
 high-cycle fatigue. Further, excessive decarburization was identified as a 
 probable contributor to the short life. The original batch of clips appeared 
 to have less surface decarburization than either the English-made clips 
 installed at 61 MGT or the Canadian-made clips installed at 234 MGT; however, 
 a much more extensive investigation would be needed to confirm a "batch" problem 
 on a purely metallurgical basis. 
 
 In addition to Battelle's metallurgy study, Mr. T.P. Brown of Pandrol , Ltd. 
 suggested v-^ that the following factors probably contributed to the failures at 
 FAST: 
 
 a. Variations in ballast depth across ties in the 5 degree 
 curve 
 
 b. Ballast compaction problems 
 
 c. High dynamic loading in the 5-degree curve on the low 
 rail due to uphill train travel at underbalance speed 
 
 d. Use of relatively soft tie pads, resulting in excessive 
 rail movement and high dynamic loads . 
 
 (1) 
 
 Letter from J. P. Brown of Pandrol to S. Guins, AAR dated July 13, 1978 
 
III. SUMMARY AND RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS 
 
 Laboratory and field tests were performed with the overall objec- 
 tive of determining and evaluating the factors that contribute to fastener 
 failure. Exploratory laboratory tests were performed to establish the 
 effects of multiple installations on fastener distortion, and to charac- 
 terize the fastener force-strain-deflection characteristics. For the 
 field tests, instrumented fasteners were installed at several locations in 
 Section 17. Wheel/rail loads were monitored, and installation strains and 
 dynamic strains in response to loading from the train were obtained in an 
 effort to determine the influence of tie pad stiffness, track curvature, 
 the use of insulators, and train direction on the strain levels. Dynamic 
 data were analyzed with respect to fatigue failure and fallout. Static toe 
 loads were obtained with TTC ' s toe-load measuring device. 
 
 The results of these tests are summarized in Table 2 and the con- 
 clusions are discussed in the following paragraphs. 
 
 a. Fastener Toe Load - Measurements of Pandrol fastener toe 
 
 loads in several different subsections of Section 17 show that the variations li^ 
 mean toe load averaged across the tie varies from 1280 to 1760 pounds compared to 
 Pandrol design goal of 1800 to 2200 pounds. Laboratory and field tests 
 with strain-gaged clips show that the fasteners do yield substantially and 
 show some permanent deformation during the first installation. Progressively 
 less yielding and deformation takes place with subsequent reinstallations. 
 These results suggest that the fastener toe load is relaxing after installa- 
 tion in track as a result of the combination of low-amplitude dynamic 
 strain cycles from train traffic superimp|s\o,ed on the high initial static 
 strain. It is conjectured that the relaxation of toe load will occur most 
 rapidly immediately after clip installation. 
 
 b. Fastener Fracture - Previous metallurgical studies confirm 
 that the fracture failures of Pandrol fasteners result from cumulative 
 damage from high-cycle fatigue. Measurements of dynamic strains show that 
 the loading environment for fatigue increases as a function of track curva- 
 ture, and this agrees with the failure statistics. However, the failure 
 statistics also indicate that both of the batches of replacement clips 
 
 10 
 
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF PAKDROL FASTENER EVALUATION TESTS 
 
 Objective 
 
 Results 
 
 1. Fastener Loading Environment 
 
 Effects of "Overdriving" 
 
 3. Effects of Multiple 
 installations 
 
 4. Relationship Between Static & 
 Dynamic Strains 
 
 • Up to 10,000 ue installation 
 strain measured in laboratory 
 
 « Up to 20% dvnamic strain mea- 
 sured in field tests (average = 
 10%) . 
 
 © Noticeable fastener distortion. 
 © Up to ^10% permanent strain. 
 
 • Largest yielding on first install- 
 ation; progressively less yielding 
 on subsequent installations. 
 
 e Force-strain-deflection charac- 
 teristics "settle-out" after 
 3-4 installations. 
 
 » No identifiable influence of 
 static on dynamic strains. 
 
 5. Train Length & Direction Effects © Analysis indicates longer (80 
 
 car) train-higher inner rail 
 loading uphill than downhill. 
 
 • Field tests indicate no apparent 
 direction trend with shorter 
 
 (40 car) train. 
 
 © Highest fatigue loading at IG 
 
 and OF position in 5-degree curve. 
 
 © Highest "fallout" tendency at 
 IG position in 5-degree curve. 
 
 • No effect identified on static 
 (installation) strain levels. 
 
 © Fatigue loading decreases with 
 increasing stiffness 
 
 • "Fallout" tendency increases 
 with increasing stiffness, as well 
 as with no insulators. 
 
 Track Curvature/Fastener 
 Location Effects 
 
 7. Tie Pad Stiffness Effects 
 
 11 
 
had a much higher failure rate. The metallurgical analyses showed that 
 the replacement clips appeared to have greater surface decarburization 
 than the original clips. This would lower the fatigue strength and indicate 
 a possible difference in the heat treatment. The failure statistics and 
 measurements of dynamic strains on the tangent and curved track sections 
 suggest that the loading environment is quite close to the infinite-life 
 endurance limit so that relatively small changes in dynamic strain as a 
 result of track curvature and/or small changes in endurance strength as a 
 result of heat treatment or surface conditions will make a large change in 
 clip life. 
 
 c. Fastener Fall-Out - Fastener fall-outs have occurred since the 
 beginning of FAST operation, but the fall-out rate has approximately doubled 
 since the Canadian-made fasteners were installed at 234 MGT . Fall-outs 
 occur most frequently on the ties which do not have a separate insulator 
 between the clip and the rail base. Measurements of toe load and fastener 
 strain show no substantial differences between the fasteners with and without 
 insulators. Therefore, it is conjectured that the presence of the insulator 
 increases the coefficient of friction between the clip and rail, or in 
 
 some other way increases the longitudinal restraint obtained with the same 
 toe load. Overdriving the fasteners to prevent fallout produces a minimal 
 increase in toe load, but there was measurable distortion (spreading) of 
 the fastener and undoubtedly an increase in the local interference between 
 the clip and shoulder. While this may reduce the fall-out rate, it also 
 produces a local stress concentration at the shoulder/clip interface, 
 which will increase fatigue failure, and ma)' cause excessive loads in the 
 shoulder. Figure 1 shows an example of a failure at the clip/shoulder 
 interface . 
 
 d. Effect of Tie Pad Stiffness on Fastener Performance - Measure- 
 ments of installation strain and dynamic strain cycles during train passage 
 show that the propensity for fatigue failures should be highest with soft 
 pads, but the difference between soft and hard pads is quite small. The 
 failure data show that more failures occur with soft pads in the 5-degree 
 curve, but this result is reversed for the much lower failure rates in the 
 3-degree curve. Variations in pad stiffness appear to have a much smaller 
 influence on fastener fatigue than does the increased loading from train 
 
 12 
 
operations on curves. There was also no measurable effect of pad stiffness 
 on clip installation strain or toe load. 
 
 e . Effect of Train Direction and Length on Fastener Dynamic 
 Strain - There was no evidence of any major influence of train direction on 
 the amplitude of dynamic strain. However, these measurements were made at 
 400 MGT when FAST operation had changed from an 80-car train to a 40- to 
 44-car train as a result of a derailment. The normal, longer train may 
 have caused higher lateral loads on the inner rail for counter-clockwise 
 (uphill) operation than were measured during Battelle's test program. 
 This may explain why the failure history shows a greater percentage of 
 fractures and fallouts at the IG position than would be expected based on 
 the measured strain data for the short train. 
 
 13 
 
IV. TEST PROCEDURE 
 
 Laboratorv Tests 
 
 The exploratory laboratory tests were performed using the set-up 
 shown in Figure 5. This set-up consisted of an actual concrete tie and 
 section of rail, along with tie pads and insulators which could be used 
 interchangeably. The fasteners were installed on the tie without the rail 
 section to record strain and deflection data as a function of vertical load 
 applied to the fastener toe. The fasteners were installed with the rail 
 section, insulators, and tie pad to measure installation strains, as well as 
 to measure strains due to applied vertical loads to the fastener and due to 
 lateral loads applied to the rail head (to simulate wheel/rail loading). 
 
 To obtain load-strain-deflection characteristics, the vertical load 
 was applied by an overhead crane through a strap attached to the fastener toe. 
 A load cell was placed in series between the crane hook and the strap to 
 monitor applied load. Relative displacement between the tie and fastener 
 (at the toe) was measured using a dial indicator. Strains were measured at 
 several locations on the fasteners, and in some cases plotted as a function 
 of applied load on an X-Y plotter. 
 
 Two instrumented fasteners were selected for further vertical load- 
 strain tests. These tests consisted of applying a vertical load to fasteners 
 that were installed in a manner that simulated actual service installation, 
 i e , with tie pad, insulator, and rail A set of "jaws" that were designed 
 for use on TTC's toe load measuring device was acquired and used in place of 
 the strap to pull on the fasteners at the toe with the overhead crane , 
 
 Another set of laboratory tests was conducted with two instrumented 
 fasteners installed in the test fixture to simulate actual service installation^, 
 Battelle's wheel/rail load calibration jack was used to apply a constant 
 15,000 lb vertical load and variable lateral load to the rail head. A photo- 
 graph of part of this set-up is shown in Figure 6. Strain measurements were 
 taken for applied lateral loads ranging from to about 6000 lbs with 
 instrumented fasteners installed in the field side and gage side positions. 
 
 14 
 
Strap 
 Attached 
 To Crane 
 
 Dial Indicator 
 to Measure Toe 
 Deflection 
 
 Instrumented 
 Fastener 
 
 Con-Force 
 Concrete Tie 
 
 FIGURE 5. PHOTOGRAPH OF SET-UP FOR LOAD-STRAIN- 
 DEFLECTION LABORATORY TESTS 
 
 15 
 
Lateral and 
 
 Vertical 
 
 Simulated Wheel/Rail 
 
 Loads Applied at Rail Head 
 
 Rail Specimen 
 
 Insulator 
 
 Tie Pad 
 
 Tie 
 
 FIGURE 6. PHOTOGRAPH OF INSTRUMENTED FASTENER INSTALLED 
 IN LABORATORY TEST FIXTURE FOR LATERAL LOAD- 
 STRAIN TESTS 
 
 16 
 
A polyethylene (high stiffness) tie pad and a Pandrol No c 1627 (low stiffness) 
 tie pad were used c 
 
 Selected fasteners were installed repeatedly in the test fixture to 
 simulate actual service installation with and without insulators and in the 
 normal and "overdriven" conditions c Strains were recorded for each installa- 
 tion, and in one case, the "before" and "after" fastener geometry was measured 
 In this manner, the effect of multiple installations on fastener preload and 
 repeatability of load-strain-deflection characteristics could be assessed c 
 
 To locate the strain gages on the fasteners, strain coat tests and 
 strain rosettes were used on sample fasteners to estimate the principal strain 
 directions. 
 
 Field Tests 
 
 Twelve new fasteners were instrumented with biaxial strain gages at 
 location "L", and three of these were also instrumented at location "S", as 
 shown in Figure ~l • These were tested in the laboratory before the field tests 
 to determine force-strain characteristics and to identify defective strain 
 
 cro ape _ 
 a. co o 
 
 The fastener strain gages were mounted in the vicinity of known 
 fatigue failure locations c At the "L" location shown in Figure 7, a biaxial 
 gage was located along and normal to the axis of the fastener At the "S" 
 location, a biaxial gage was aligned along the principle axis c The "L" 
 location was chosen as the primary gage location because it was least 
 sensitive to the fastener/shoulder boundary conditions „ It should be noted 
 that this was not the location of maximum strain on the fasteners „ Sub- 
 stantially higher strains were measured in laboratory tests with fasteners 
 instrumented at other locations. These results are discussed in detail in 
 subsequent sections of this report. However, fatigue failures have occurred 
 at both the "L" and "S" positions in service, so either of these positions 
 is adequate for characterizing the fastener strain environment. 
 
 These fasteners were installed at several locations in Section 17 
 of FAST to measure installed strain levels and dynamic strains due to 
 
 17 
 
Secondary "S" 
 Location (About 180° 
 from Arrow) 
 
 Primary 
 Location 
 
 FIGURE 7. PHOTOGRAPH OF INSTRUMENTED PANDROL FASTENER 
 (GAGES ON FASTENERS USED IN FIELD TESTS HAD 
 PROTECTIVE COATING) 
 
 18 
 
wheel/rail forces As mentioned previously, a pair of lateral and vertical 
 wheel/rail load circuits were installed on the high and low rails at one 
 location in the 5-degree curve so that the loading environment in that 
 section could be characterized. 
 
 The test matrix for the field tests is summarized in Table 3. Two 
 instrumented fastener configurations were used. These were: 
 
 (1) 6-Clip-Configuration - for each test, two sets of 3 
 fasteners were installed at r and omly- chosen locations 
 at the inner rail/gage side (IG) positions 
 
 (2) 8-Clip Configuration - for each test, two sets of 4 
 fasteners were installed on randomly-chosen ties at 
 each of the four fastener positions on each tie 
 
 The test matrix was based on the following reasoning: 
 
 (1) The 6-Clip Configuration would be used to examine the 
 effects of tie pad stiffness and the use of insulators 
 
 on fastener static and dynamic strains at the IG position 
 in the 5-degree curve „ This configuration would be used 
 also to determine the effects of train direction on 
 fastener dynamic strains. 
 
 (2) The 8-Clip Configuration would be used to examine the 
 influence of track "geometry", i e , tangent vs c 3-degree 
 curved vs c 5-degree curved track, on fastener static and 
 dynamic strains This configuration would be used also 
 to determine train direction effects in the 5-degree 
 curve. 
 
 Battelle's Mobile Instrumentation Laboratory was used to record the 
 field test data Static strain values were tabulated from a digital readoutc 
 Dynamic strains were recorded on a 14-channel FM tape recorder and played 
 back onto an oscillograph recorder „ The played-back data were filtered at a 
 1-KHz bandwidth and reduced manually 
 
 The output of each biaxial gage circuit was proportional to the sum 
 of the two orthogonal strain signals. Laboratory tests had shown that the 
 circuit output was a factor of about lo44 greater than the "axial" strain 
 
 19 
 
o 
 
 < 
 
 I— > 
 
 to 
 
 X 
 M 
 
 D£ 
 
 H 
 
 H 
 CO 
 
 J 
 t; 
 
 rn 
 W 
 
 < 
 
 o 
 
 2 
 
 en 
 
 v£> 
 
 o 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 ^H 
 
 IN 
 
 C*) 
 
 tn 
 
 o 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 •r* 
 
 — 1 
 
 <■ 
 
 00 
 
 CM 
 
 r- 
 
 rH 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 fl 
 
 
 -J 
 
 •a- 
 
 *?" 
 
 •» 
 
 C 
 
 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 
 4-1 
 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 2 
 
 S 
 
 £> 
 
 »5 
 
 <u 
 
 U 
 
 u 
 
 u 
 
 U 
 
 o 
 
 2 
 
 H 
 
 B 
 
 ^^* 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 •-^ 
 
 ■H 
 
 05 
 
 |TI 
 
 u 
 
 O 
 
 m 
 
 u 
 
 2 
 
 <T 
 
 0) 
 
 
 1 
 
 Uj 
 
 a 
 
 O 
 
 e 
 
 •** 
 
 r-i 
 
 3 
 
 H 
 
 *c 
 
 C/3 
 
 *— ' 
 
 >w^ 
 
 X X X X 
 
 xxxxxxxxx 
 
 X 
 
 — I o ^ o o 
 
 ^OOOnOOOOsTOn 
 II -II - I I 
 
 cooncocooncocoosco 
 
 vD v£> O NO vO NO NO vD NO 
 
 xxxxxxxx 
 
 X 
 
 X X X X 
 
 X X 
 
 X X 
 
 X X 
 
 X X 
 
 X X 
 
 X X 
 
 X X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 o en 
 
 o 
 
 0> 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 <-l <T 
 
 vD 
 
 r«. 
 
 
 
 \o 
 
 
 
 
 
 Cs 
 
 
 
 
 
 r-i en 
 
 in 
 
 lT, 
 
 -a- 
 
 r» 
 
 CM 
 
 <r 
 
 rs. 
 
 T— 1 
 
 c 
 
 CM 
 
 00 
 
 ■-I 
 
 in 
 
 CM 
 
 — i— 1 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 — 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 r» 
 
 r-l 
 1 
 
 CM 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 CM 
 1 
 
 r^ 
 
 i— 1 
 1 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 l 
 
 1 
 
 r-i NO 
 
 r^ 
 
 CM 
 
 (SI 
 
 m 
 
 en 
 
 CM 
 
 m 
 
 os 
 
 az 
 
 O 
 
 NO 
 
 OS 
 
 r*i 
 
 O 
 
 cm en 
 
 m 
 
 r^ 
 
 , — 
 
 CM 
 
 i— i 
 
 H 
 
 CM 
 
 O 
 
 H 
 
 CM 
 
 l—l. 
 
 H 
 
 CM 
 
 f\ 
 
 O en 
 
 m 
 
 m 
 
 r« 
 
 r- 
 
 r^ 
 
 p^ 
 
 r^ 
 
 r- 
 
 r« 
 
 r- 
 
 CO 
 
 00 
 
 CO 
 
 00 
 
 i-l rW 
 
 CM 
 
 CM 
 
 |j ^ > Is 
 
 uuuoooouu 
 
 0*n OS os o> 
 r-» r-» r~- r-~ 
 
 ■C ~? <T <T 
 CM CM CM CM 
 
 -<r -? -c- -3- 
 
 OS OS On OS On s On On OS 
 
 r^r^r^r^r^.1 — i — r^ r-~ 
 
 OOOcnenenenen^r 
 
 CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM 
 
 ^<T>?Nf<rNj«j<f-j 
 
 2 5 2 T£ 
 
 UOOOCJOOU 
 
 OS OS ON OS OS OS OS OS 
 
 r~-r~-.r^r^r**.r^r**r s *- 
 
 CMCMCMCMCMCMCMCM 
 
 «3-^3-<r<r<-v3-<r<3' 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 *»■ 
 
 **■ 
 
 3 
 
 12 2 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 u 
 
 u 
 
 l_> 
 
 u 
 
 U U 
 
 U 
 
 u 
 
 u 
 
 c_> 
 
 o 
 
 C_5 
 
 OS on O. OS 
 r-~. r^ r-~ P>- 
 
 CM CM CM CM 
 
 -c- -a >c <r 
 
 OS OS 
 
 in in 
 
 CM CM 
 
 HH N CNI 
 
 <r -a <■ ~s- 
 
 .— I.-ICN rl H N UN in rl 
 i— li— Ir-ICMCMCMCMCMin 
 
 r-i.— ir-iCMCMCNCMin 
 
 r-l i— I CM CM 
 
 rn n n n 
 
 in 
 
 01 
 
 CO 
 
 r» 
 
 Pm 
 
 o 
 
 
 r-l 
 
 01 
 
 r-l 
 
 T-l 
 
 P- 
 
 H 
 
 > 
 
 
 V, 
 
 <l) 
 
 C/3 
 
 •H 
 
 r- 
 
 H 
 
 H 
 
 
 cs 
 
 * 
 
 
 01 
 
 
 TJ 
 
 
 CO 
 
 Jn! 
 
 u 
 
 CM 
 
 o 
 
 
 05 
 
 0) 
 
 o 
 
 0) 
 4J 
 
 o 
 
 p- 
 
 rs. 
 
 CM 
 
 05 
 0> 
 
 o 
 
 C72 
 
 CM 
 
 m 
 
 •o 
 o 
 
 i 
 
 CO 
 
 NO 
 
 N-* 
 
 CO 
 Q 
 
 m 
 
 OS 
 CM 
 
 I 
 
 m 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 2 
 
 O 
 
 0) 
 
 i-l 
 
 Wl 
 
 o 
 
 V) 
 
 to 
 & 
 
 CM 
 
 m 
 o 
 
 D- 
 
 r-i 
 rs 
 oo 
 I 
 CS 
 O 
 
 CO 
 
 CM 
 
 10 
 
 K 
 
 01 
 
 01 
 
 >< 
 
 ►* 
 
 X 
 
 X 
 
 0) 
 
 0) 
 
 > 
 
 ^ 
 
 c 
 
 c 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 u 
 
 w 
 
 
 w 
 
 
 (/} 
 
 CM 
 
 r~- 
 
 - 
 
 H 
 
 5 
 
 c- 
 
 m 
 
 in 
 
 c 
 
 01 
 
 6C 
 
 c 
 re 
 
 H 
 
 /-s OS 
 
 <J 
 
 r-» 
 
 -<r 
 
 m 
 
 tn 
 
 CM 
 
 — i 
 
 1 
 
 i 
 
 m 
 
 o 
 
 m, 
 
 CM 
 
 m 
 
 r-i 
 
 CM 
 
 01 
 
 > 
 re 
 u 
 
 H 
 
 u 
 
 u 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 Q 
 
 01 
 
 -o 
 re 
 
 O 
 
 CI 
 
 > 
 
 a. 
 c 
 
 o 
 
 20 
 
component. For example, for a circuit output of 1000 jje, the "axial" and 
 "circumferential" strains would be about 700 ye and -300 ye, respectively 
 
 Static Toe Load Tests 
 
 A series of static toe load measurements was made in FAST Section 
 17 A summary of the measurement locations is shown in Table 4. 
 
 The measurements were made using TTC's static toe load measuring 
 device, which is shown in Figure 8. The device was designed to "grab" the 
 fasteners at the toe, and to pull the toe away from the rail base c The toe 
 load was measured by monitoring the output of a load cell placed in series 
 with the "jaws" The toe load was defined as the force required to pull the 
 toe away from the rail base by a prescribed displacement (typically o 010 in c )c 
 
 The procedure for measuring the toe load was as follows: 
 
 (1) Place "jaws" around fastener at toe 
 
 (2) Exert upward force on fastener until 0.010-in. feeler gage 
 can be inserted between fastener and rail base. 
 
 (3) Relax load until feeler gage cannot be withdrawn*, 
 
 (4) Exert upward force slowly until feeler gage can just be 
 withdrawn. 
 
 The force at this point was recorded as the static toe load. 
 
 Because of frequent failures of the "jaws" that were used to pull 
 the fasteners, the toe load measurements procedure was modified during the 
 test series. Thus, the complete set of toe load data were obtained in the 
 following manners : 
 
 (1) Toe loads measured by Battelle - vertical force exerted, 
 Pandrol-type "jaws" used 
 
 (2) Toe loads measured by TTC - vertical force exerted, 
 Pandrol type "jaws" used 
 
 (3) Toe loads measured by TTC - 14° off-vertical force 
 exerted, sidewinder type "jaws" used e 
 
 Most of the IG position toe loads were obtained by procedure (1) <. 
 Most of the remaining toe loads were obtained by procedure (3) . The toe 
 loads obtained by procedure (3) were adjusted for the 14° vertical direction 
 
 21 
 
TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF STATIC TOE LOAD 
 
 MEASUREMENTS IN FAST SECTION 17 
 
 Subsection 
 
 IF 
 
 Number of Measurements 
 
 IG 
 
 OG 
 
 OF 
 
 B (5° curve) 
 
 Dla (5° curve) 
 
 Dlb (5° curve) 
 
 D2 (5° curve-spiral) 
 
 G (tangent) 
 
 K2 (3° curve) 
 
 10 
 
 14*«" 
 
 10 
 
 15 
 
 25 
 
 25 (D 
 
 25 
 
 25 
 
 25 
 
 ^(l) 
 
 25 (D 
 
 25 
 
 11 
 
 17 (D 
 
 10 
 
 10 
 
 10 
 
 16 (1 > 
 
 12 
 
 12 
 
 _ 
 
 14 
 
 _ 
 
 _ 
 
 (1) 
 
 (2) 
 
 Measured by BCL; vertical pull, Pandrol-type "jaws". 
 Measured by TTC; vertical pull, Sidewinder-type "jaws' 
 
 All others measured by TTC, 14° off-vertical pull (data corrected to 
 represent vertical pull), Sidewinder-type "jaws". 
 
 22 
 
Load Cell 
 
 Signal 
 
 Conditioning 
 
 Digital 
 Readout 
 of Toe Load 
 
 Toe Load Measuring Device 
 
 FIGURE 8. PHOTOGRAPH OF INSTRUMENTATION SET-UP FOR TOE 
 LOAD MEASUREMENTS 
 
 23 
 
of pullc However, the toe load data listed in Table 5 shows some possible 
 discrepancies in the data from the different techniques. These differences 
 have not been fully resolved. 
 
 24 
 
V. TEST RESULTS 
 
 Static Toe Load Measurements and 
 Correlation With Other Field Test Data 
 
 The static toe load data shown in Table 5 are presented in the form 
 of average + 1 standard deviation values of toe loads at each position along 
 a tie. Comparisons are made also between inner total fastener pre-load for 
 the (IF + IG) and outer (OF + OG) rails in a subsection and in average toe 
 load across the tie between different subsections. 
 
 The most important observations shown in Table 5 are: 
 
 (a) The toe loads in the 5-degree curve at subsections 
 Dla and Dlb at the IG position are substantially 
 higher than those in the other subsections. 
 
 (b) The toe load averaged for all fastener positions in 
 a subsection is highest in the 5-degree curve at 
 'subsection Dlbo 
 
 (c) The IG position toe load averaged for all subsections 
 
 in the 5-degree curve is substantially higher than those 
 in the tangent and 3-degree curve subsections. 
 The significance of these observations becomes more clear when 
 interpreted with respect to the following results: 
 
 (a) There was no identifiable trend in installation strain 
 with track curvature and tie pad stiffness indicating 
 the geometry of the fastener shoulders and the pads 
 are comparable in all sections 
 
 (b) The majority of the fasteners in the 5-degree curve 
 were installed at 234 MGTo The majority of the 
 fasteners in the 3-degree curve and tangent track 
 subsections were original, i c e c , installed at MGT. 
 At the time of the toe load measurements, the track 
 had been subjected to a total of about 400 MGT of 
 traffic. 
 
 25 
 
> 
 < 
 
 9 
 
 cats 
 
 -s 
 
 c 
 
 c 
 
 - M 
 
 c 
 
 ■ « 
 
 -J 
 
 - > 
 
 
 < 
 
 0) 
 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 . 
 
 
 > 
 
 h. 
 
 c 
 
 O 
 
 to 
 
 V 
 
 M 
 
 O H 
 C O 
 c X 
 o 
 H 
 
 0) T3 
 ■H C5 
 H C- 
 
 VO 
 
 o 
 
 i—l 
 +1 
 
 +1 
 
 -H 
 
 -H 1 
 
 O 
 
 o | 
 
 CT. 
 
 «3 1 
 
 -H 
 
 -H 
 
 +1 
 
 +1 
 
 -H 
 
 00 
 
 10 
 
 o 
 
 in 
 
 m 
 
 n 
 
 "* 
 
 CO 
 
 r-i 
 
 CM 
 
 -H 
 
 + 1 
 
 -H 
 
 +1 
 
 -h 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 in 
 
 in 
 
 <r 
 
 co 
 
 o 
 
 —< 
 
 4< 
 
 c 
 
 CC 
 
 -H 
 
 +1 
 
 -H 
 
 M 
 
 -H 
 
 ■H 
 
 +1 
 
 CM 
 
 VD 
 
 r^ 
 
 CM 
 
 
 r^ 
 
 C-) 
 
 m 
 
 en 
 
 CM 
 
 61 
 
 3 
 
 > 
 
 U 
 
 U 
 
 
 3 
 
 c 
 
 U 
 
 in 
 
 c 
 O 
 
 6C 
 
 c 
 o 
 
 H 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 « 
 
 • 
 
 n 
 
 3 
 
 
 i-i 
 
 "to 
 
 i-H 
 
 O. 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 VM 
 
 
 U 
 
 CO 
 
 o. 
 
 
 
 
 0) 
 
 *") 
 
 
 
 
 "O 
 
 2 
 
 i-H 
 
 C 
 
 ■ 
 
 c 
 
 
 co 
 
 o 
 
 D 
 
 -H 
 
 ^H 
 
 u 
 
 ■H 
 
 u 
 
 St 
 
 o 
 
 ■H 
 
 4-1 
 
 
 
 01 
 
 u 
 
 U 
 
 u 
 
 4J 
 
 •o 
 
 •a 
 
 t- 
 
 01 
 
 a 
 
 ■H 
 
 c 
 
 01 
 
 M 
 
 i—i 
 
 CO 
 
 co 
 
 > 
 
 *-i 
 
 3 
 
 
 Cm 
 
 1 
 
 •e 
 
 CO 
 
 *> 
 
 
 lu 
 
 
 c 
 
 i— 1 
 
 1— i 
 
 lu 
 
 h 
 
 •H 
 
 rH 
 
 H 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 
 U-l 
 
 •o 
 
 c 
 
 C- 
 
 B 
 
 
 CD 
 
 
 
 -^ 
 
 TJ 
 
 X 
 
 t-l 
 
 ■-I 
 
 i—l 
 
 0i 
 
 
 CO 
 
 to 
 
 
 JJ 
 
 m 
 
 o 
 
 u 
 
 
 o 
 
 c 
 
 -1-1 
 
 ■H 
 
 a» 
 
 0> 
 
 o 
 
 AJ 
 
 JJ 
 
 o 
 
 u 
 
 ■H 
 
 u 
 
 u 
 
 c 
 
 u 
 
 j-i 
 
 01 
 
 OJ 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 B 
 
 CJ> 
 CQ 
 
 ^ 
 
 >■, 
 
 ^ 
 
 * 
 
 01 
 
 0) 
 
 T3 
 
 TJ 
 
 CC 
 
 CO 
 
 E 
 
 E 
 
 CC 
 
 03 
 
 4J 
 
 U 
 
 c 
 
 C 
 
 01 
 
 u 
 
 E 
 
 e 
 
 0) 
 
 01 
 
 i-i 
 
 '- 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 QJ 
 
 a 
 
 01 
 
 26 
 
Mean toe loads averaged across the tie varied from 1280 pounds to 
 1760 pounds compared to a Pandrol design goal of 1800 to 2200 pounds. There 
 is a strong indication that a "relaxation" process is causing a reduction in 
 preload with increasing tonnage. This observation is substantiated by the 
 test performed in Section 17 (see the test description under "General 
 Observations" in the "Installation Strain Characteristics" Section), where 
 the toe load of a relatively new instrumented fastener was about 36 percent 
 higher than that of the existing fastener that it replaced. If fastener 
 toe load is not relaxing with tonnage, then the geometry of the clips 
 installed originally at FAST must be sufficiently different from the cur- 
 rent configuration to produce the low measured toe loads. 
 
 By installing relatively new instrumented fasteners in Section 17, 
 there is no influence on the dynamic data of this "relaxation" effect. 
 Because there was no identifiable influence of tie pad stiffness or track 
 curvature on installation strain of these relatively new fasteners, it 
 seems reasonable that track curvature and tie pad stiffness in general have 
 a negligible effect on toe load. For example, if all of the fasteners in 
 Section 17 were replaced by new fasteners, the toe loads throughout the 
 section probably would be similar, and variations between subsections and 
 across the ties would be attributed only to dimensional tolerances in the 
 track components. 
 
 The variation in total load from the two fastener assemblies on 
 a tie is also of interest because tie skewing might result of the total 
 hold-down force on one rail is higher than the other rail. The data show 
 standard deviations of as much as 420 pounds for the total fastener load 
 (IF+IG or OF+OG), so differences in total clamping force of 2(420) = 860 
 pounds on individual ties, or 25 percent of the average force, would occur 
 frequently, with larger differences occurring less often based on normal 
 statistics . 
 
 27 
 
Laboratory Tests 
 General Comments 
 
 As mentioned previously, the laboratory tests were exploratory in 
 nature „ 
 
 Among the more important results obtained from the laboratory tests 
 were: 
 
 (a) Strains in excess of 10,000 ye were measured after fastener 
 installation,, These levels are sufficiently high to cause 
 yielding of the fasteners and some permanent deformation of 
 the fasteners was measuredo 
 
 (b) The force-strain-deflection characteristics were shown to 
 be very repeatible with successive installations of the 
 same fastener e 
 
 A detailed description of the laboratory tests is provided in the 
 remainder of this section 
 
 Load-Strain-Deflection Characteristics 
 
 Typical force versus toe deflection characteristics for an instru- 
 mented fastener are shown in Figure 9. For this test, the fastener was 
 installed in the tie without a rail segment, and a vertical load was applied 
 directly to the toe with an overhead crane „ The fastener exhibited a slight 
 "hardening spring" characteristic „ It is apparent from the figure that the 
 effective spring rate ranges from about 4000 lb/in c at small toe deflections 
 to about 5300 lb/in at large toe deflections, up to a maximum applied force 
 of about 2000 lb e These characteristics are consistent with analytical and 
 experimental results reported in previous studies. 
 
 1 H. C. Meacham et al, "Study of New Track Structure Design, Phase II," 
 Summary Report No. FRA-RT-72-15 , August, 1968, 
 
 28 
 
2.4 
 
 2.0 
 
 1.6 
 
 03 
 
 C- 
 
 CJ 
 
 g 1.2 
 
 o 
 
 — 
 u 
 
 I- 
 > 
 
 0.8 
 
 0.4 
 
 Lubricated 
 
 0.1 0.2 0.3 
 
 Toe Deflection, inches 
 
 Unlubricated 
 
 0.5 
 
 FIGURE 9. FASTENER FORCE-DEFLECTION CHARACTERISTICS 
 
 29 
 
The effect of friction at the clip/shoulder interface on force- 
 deflection characteristics is also shown in Figure 9. For the "lubricated" 
 case, in which the "leg" of the fastener was coated with EP grease to 
 minimize friction effects, the fastener was stiff er than for the nominal 
 unlubrlcated case at large toe deflections. At smaller deflections (less 
 than about 0*3 inch), the fastener stiffness for the two cases was nearly 
 identical. 
 
 The fastener force-deflection characteristics were very repeatible; 
 in fact, the deflection measurements were nearly identical with successive 
 loading and unloading of a particular fastener 
 
 Force-strain curves for the instrumented fastener were obtained in 
 laboratory tests made before the field tests „ The curves showed good repeat- 
 ability over consecutive loadings of the fasteners, as well as nearly linear 
 behavior during loading As mentioned previously, each biaxial gage was 
 combined in a half-active bridge arrangement so that the strains measured in 
 orthogonal directions were added c Typical force-strain characteristics for 
 this bridge arrangement are shown in Figure 10. The curves exhibit the 
 "hardening spring" effect representative of the force-deflection characteris- 
 tics mentioned previously,, 
 
 Typical results from the vertical (toe) load-strain tests (refer to 
 Figure 5) are shown in Figure 11. For these tests, a vertical load was applied 
 directly to the fastener toe while the fastener was installed in the test 
 fixture to simulate actual service installation. As shown in the figure, 
 the fastener force-strain relationship is nearly bilinear, with a sudden 
 change in slope near the toe load (installed preload) value (where the toe 
 load was determined by the procedure similar to that used in tests with TTC's 
 toe load measuring device) B At loads above the toe load, the fastener-to- 
 insulator/rail contact is broken, and the test conditions are similar to those 
 for the other force-strain tests mentioned previously. 
 
 Neither of the two test procedures mentioned above were sufficient 
 to calibrate the fasteners as "toe load transducers", because the test 
 fixture did not include the restraints provided by friction forces on the 
 rail base that occur on track. However, they were valuable in determining 
 
 30 
 
Fastener #11 
 
 2000 — 
 
 1500 
 
 ^ 1000 — 
 
 u 
 > 
 
 500 
 
 1000 2000 
 
 3000 4000 5000 6000 
 Fastener Strain, uc 
 
 7000 
 
 FIGURE 10. TYPICAL FORCE-STRAIN CHARACTERISTICS OF INSTRUMENTED 
 FASTENER 
 
 31 
 
Fastener #7 
 
 2500 
 
 2000 
 
 * 1500 — 
 
 1000 — 
 
 500 
 
 200 400 600 
 
 Total-Minus-Installed Strain, ye 
 
 800 
 
 1000 
 
 FIGURE 11. TYPICAL FORCE-STRAIN CHARACTERISTICS FOR INSTRUMENTED FASTENER 
 INSTALLED TO SIMULATE ACTUAL TRACK CONDITIONS 
 
 32 
 
the linearity of the strain readings with respect to applied load, as well as 
 the repeatability of the fastener force-strain-characteristics „ 
 
 Effect of Multiple-Installation 
 
 A sample Pandrol fastener was instrumented with 5 single-axis and 
 2 biaxial strain gages at the locations shown in Figure 12. The fastener 
 was installed in the field side of the test fixture five consecutive times , 
 For the first two installations, strains were not recordedc For the third 
 and fourth installations, an insulator was used between the fastener and rail, 
 For the fifth installation, no insulator was used c Strains were recorded in 
 the "installed" and "removed" conditions for the third, fourth, and fifth 
 installationSo The results of this test are summarized in the following 
 tabulation » 
 
 EFFECT OF REPEATED INSTALLATIONS ON 
 FASTENER STRAINS 
 
 
 Axial 
 
 (A) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Gage 
 
 or 
 a Hoop 
 
 (H) 
 
 Installation 
 
 Strain, us 
 
 (+ = tension) 
 
 Locatio: 
 
 Installed- 
 
 Removed 
 
 Installed 
 
 Removed ] 
 
 Instali 
 
 1 
 
 A 
 
 
 2354 
 
 -14 
 
 2276 
 
 -14 
 
 1054 
 
 2 
 
 H 
 
 
 -536 
 
 -4 
 
 -530 
 
 
 
 -270 
 
 3 
 
 A 
 
 
 4610 
 
 -38 
 
 4528 
 
 -40 
 
 2350 
 
 4 
 
 A 
 
 
 6950 
 
 134 
 
 6810 
 
 160 
 
 5196 
 
 5 
 
 A 
 
 
 8200 
 
 294 
 
 8046 
 
 354 
 
 4486 
 
 6 
 
 A 
 
 
 9794 
 
 562 
 
 9620 
 
 726 
 
 5550 
 
 *7 
 
 A 
 
 
 6730 
 
 380 
 
 6142 
 
 454 
 
 2974 
 
 *8(L) 
 
 A 
 
 
 4948 
 
 -4 
 
 5100 
 
 +8 
 
 3558 
 
 9 
 
 H 
 
 
 -1740 
 
 -4 
 
 -1872 
 
 -8 
 
 -1172 
 
 * 3rd 
 
 time 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ** Insu 
 
 lator removed 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 33 
 
Gages #1 to 7 
 
 Gages #8 and 9 
 
 (Same as "L" position 
 
 shown in Figure 3) 
 
 FIGURE 12. PHOTOGRAPH OF INSTRUMENTED FASTENER USED 
 IN LABORATORY TESTS 
 
 34 
 
The change in installation strains from the third to fourth 
 installations ranged from a 4 percent increase to a 15 percent decrease, and 
 after removal there was between about a zero to 30 percent additional measured 
 "permanent set" c 
 
 The strains recorded for the fifth installation, where no insulator 
 was used, were from about 30 to 55 percent less than those for the previous 
 installations with an insulator 
 
 A test was conducted with another fastener which was instrumented 
 with a single-axis gage positioned to measure the approximate axial strain 
 near location "S" in Figure 5. Strains were measured under the following 
 conditions (in chronological order) : 
 
 Strain Reading 
 
 (1) Installed and loaded to 2200 lb 3 times, 
 
 then removed - 
 
 (2) Installed to normal position with no 
 
 insulator 5,130 ye 
 
 (3) Fastener removed ye 
 
 (4) Gage "rezeroed", then installed to normal 
 
 ... . . . 10,110 ye 
 
 position with insulator 
 
 (5) Fastener driven to maximum "overdrive" 10,350 ye 
 position 
 
 (6) Fastener pulled back to normal position 10,320 ye 
 
 (7) Fastener removed 1,320 ye 
 
 In the "overdriven" position, the fastener was observed to "spread" 
 about 1/4 inch. Further, the effect on static strain of using an insulator 
 was to more than double the installation strain at that particular point on 
 the fastener. By overdriving the fastener, the installation strain at "S" 
 increased by only about 2.5 percent, but this increase appears to be almost 
 totally manifested in permanent deformation of the fastener e It is 
 estimated from the values listed above that about 85 percent of the 1320 ye 
 that was permanent occurred during installation of the fastener to the 
 "normal" position. j*bout 15 percent of the permanent strain was due to 
 
 35 
 
overdriving the fastener. Virtually none of the permanent strain was due to 
 the initial installation without an insulator. 
 
 The shoulder height in practice is usually adjusted to compensate 
 for the absence of insulators. In these laboratory tests, the same tie (one 
 intended for use with an insulator) was used to measure strains with and 
 without insulators „ Thus the results in the absence of the insulator are 
 much lower than they would be for a tie which was dimensioned correctly for 
 use without insulators 
 
 The distortion of fastener geometry was monitored during the test by 
 placing the fastener on a "surface table" after each removal. The distortion 
 due to installation without an insulator and after being overdriven is 
 sketched in Figure 13. The distortion due to installation without an 
 insulator was small compared to installation to the maximum overdriven 
 position 
 
 The fastener distortion may be interpreted as a combined bending 
 about an axis normal to the axis of the fastener through the toe and normal 
 to the axis through the leg at the leg/shoulder transition 
 
 The results of these tests indicate that the Pandrol fasteners 
 yield significantly during installation in the field, and particularly when 
 overdriven. 
 
 Field Tests 
 
 Track Loading Environment 
 
 As mentioned previously, a lateral and a vertical wheel /rail load 
 circuit were installed on both the high and low rails in the 5-degree curve of 
 Section 17 (located in the crib between ties 746 and 747). The time-histories 
 of the wheel/rail loads for one train pass in each direction were recorded and 
 played-back onto an oscillograph recorder,, The peak values of vertical and 
 
 1 The yield stress of the Pandrol fastener was quoted to be about 185 ksi by 
 
 L c D. Freeman of Pandrol, Inc. 
 
 36 
 
(2) 
 
 (1) 
 
 Orientation, inches 
 
 1 
 
 h, 
 
 h. 
 
 Initial 1 
 
 2.636 2.363 1.63! 
 
 After Installation - 2.633 2.368 1.643 
 no insulator 
 
 After Installation - 2.620 2.390 1.663 
 maximum overdriven, 
 insulator 
 
 * Fastener was installed twice prior to "Initial" readings. 
 
 FIGURE 13. EFFECT OF MULTIPLE INSTALLATIONS ON FASTENER DISTORTION 
 
 37 
 
lateral loads for each axle pass were obtained manually with a resolution of 
 about 1000 lb. The average values from all axles in the train are tabulated 
 below: 
 
 Average Wheel/Rail Load, kips 
 
 Train Train Low Rail _ __ ___ High Rail 
 
 Direction Speed, mph Lateral Vertical L/V Lateral Vertical L/V 
 
 CW(Downhill) 42.9 3.7 28.7 0.13 5.9 39 . 3 0.15 
 CCW(Uphill) 38.6 3 C 8 33.1 0.11 4.4 37.6 0.12 
 
 As shown above, the high rail lateral loads were about 34 percent 
 higher in the CW direction, while the low rail lateral loads were about the 
 same for both directions e The high rail vertical loads were about the same, 
 while those for the low rail were about 15 percent higher in the CCW direction, 
 The high rail experienced higher lateral and vertical loading than the low 
 rail for both directions of travel , 
 
 The dynamic loading of the fasteners is a function not only of the 
 magnitudes of the wheel/rail loads but also the location of the wheel/rail 
 contact point on the rail* Studies by Cooperrider, et al . have indicated 
 that the offset of the rail contact point from the rail centerline (for the 
 nonflanging case) can range from about 0.25 in„ toward the gage side to o 9 in. 
 toward the field side for the high rail, and about 0.4 In. toward the field 
 side to 0.9 toward the gage side for the low rail* The lower offset values 
 correspond to the case for new wheels on new rails at nominal gage. The 
 higher values correspond to "hollow" (severely worn) wheels on worn rails and 
 wide gage Thus, it is very difficult to predict the sensitivities to lateral 
 and vertical wheel/rail load components without a thorough chjraotertization 
 of the wheel/rail contact geometry throughout the test site. 
 
 Example situations in which the rail rollover moment might be 
 larger on the low rail than on the high rail include (1) a train running at 
 
 1 Cooperrider, N. K., et al 6 , "Analytical and Experimental Determination of 
 Nonlinear Wheel/Rail Geometric Constraints", Interim Report under Contract 
 DOT-OS-40018, December 30, 1975. 
 
 38 
 
underbalance speed in a curve (train weight shifted toward low rail) , 
 (2) a train "powering" uphill around a curve (larger lateral force on low 
 rail due to draft forces between cars) , and (3) asymmetrical wheel profiles 
 on individual axles resulting in large differences in locations of the 
 wheel/rail contact points between the low and high rails c 
 
 Installation Strain Characteristics 
 
 General Observations . The installation strain values typically 
 settled out after 2 to 3 train passes to an "equilibrium" value. For the 
 primary gage location (Location "L" in Figure 7) , the average axial 
 installation strain value for all fasteners at all locations (131 samples) 
 was about 4225 ye, with a range of about 1700 ye to 5200 ye c 
 
 It should be noted that these values are smaller than the maximum 
 values measured in laboratory tests. The magnitude of strain varies with 
 position along the fastener, and the "L" location may not have been the 
 location for maximum strain c Thus, some fasteners may experience higher 
 values of installation and dynamic strains at locations other than that 
 reported here, but many fatigue failures have occurred in the vicinity of the 
 "L" gage location* 
 
 Generally, the permanent strain recorded after the removal of each 
 fastener was negligibly small (less than 1 percent of the static value) This 
 was probably attributable to the location of the gage, which was close to that 
 for gage 8 of the fastener test results „ For gage 8, there was also a 
 negligible amount of permanent strain recorded after successive installations. 
 
 A single test was performed to compare toe load values with installed 
 strain values „ The toe load of an existing fastener in track was measured „ 
 The fastener was then removed and a new, instrumented fastener was installed. 
 The installation strain at the "L" and "S" locations were recorded e Then, the 
 toe load of the instrumented fastener was measured, and the corresponding 
 
 Unless otherwise specified, strain values quoted henceforth will correspond 
 to the axial value of the strain gage located at "L". 
 
 39 
 
strains were recorded. The results of this test are listed bel 
 
 ow: 
 
 Strain. 
 
 Toe Load, lbs. "L" "S" 
 Existing Fastener 1480 - - 
 
 Instrumented fastener, installed - 4254 7255 
 
 Instrumented fastener, toe load applied 2020 4574 7368 
 
 Some important results are shown by this test. The toe load of the 
 existing fastener, w T hich had experienced considerably more traffic than the 
 instrumented fastener, was more than 25 percent less than that of the 
 instrumented fastener This implies that there is considerable relaxation of 
 fastener preload with increasing tonnage, assuming that the two fasteners were 
 identical originally^ This issue is expanded on in the section on static toe 
 loads. Further, from these results an approximate estimate of fastener pre- 
 load based on installation strain is about 2000 ye/kip at the "L" location e 
 It should be noted also that the magnitudes of the strain readings are similar 
 to those measured in the laboratory tests (see the previous section) . 
 
 Influence of Track Curvature and Grade, and Location on Tie on 
 Installation Strains . To examine the effect of track curvature on 
 the static strains at the four fastener positions across a tie, average 
 installation strains were computed for each fastener position on each of four 
 ties per subsection To ensure a reasonably valid comparison, data were 
 taken from locations wherein the tie pad type (Konvex) was identical and 
 insulators were always used c Further, each fastener was used in the same 
 position on a given tie c Although the tie types differed, this probably had 
 a small effect on the differential installation strains across a given tie t 
 The results are tabulated on the following page. 
 
 40 
 
Installation Strain, yc* 
 
 Subsection IF IG OG OF AVG IF/IG OF/OG 
 
 G (Tangent) 4319 4308 4052 4225 4226 l c 00 l c 04 
 
 K2 (3 degree curve) 4488 3844 4281 4534 4287 1„17 1^06 
 
 Dlb (5 degree curve) 3951 3826 3774 4894 4111 lc03 l c 30 
 
 * IF = Inner rail, field side, IG = Inner rail, gage side 
 OG = Outer rail, gage side, OF = Outer rail, field side 
 
 The installation strains on the field side fasteners were always 
 greater than or equal to those for the gage side fasteners . This may be 
 attributed to the effect of the lateral wheel/rail forces which push the 
 rails outwardc The ratio of OF to OG position installation strains increases 
 with track curvature. This is expected, since the weight shift to the outer 
 rail increases with track curvature at a given speed, thus increasing the 
 propensity for outer rail shift to the field side No trend with track 
 curvature is apparent for the inner rail fasteners 
 
 Influence of Tie Pad Stiffness on Installation Strains , Three types 
 of tie pads were evaluated „ The Konvex pad is substantially softer than the 
 Portec and VP1107 (Polyethylene) pads* The VP1107 pad is slightly stiffer 
 than the Portec pad. Each of the pads have a nominal thickness of about 
 3/16 in. No information was located that quantified the stiffnesses of these 
 padsc The data listed on the following page represents averages of 12 samples 
 of installation strain values for the IG position in the 5-degree curve and on 
 identical ties (RT7SS) . 
 
 41 
 
Pad Type Average Installation Strain, ue (±1 Std, Dev/ i 
 Konvex 4224 ± 261 
 
 Portec 3911 ± 274 
 
 Portec* 3926 ± 414 
 
 VP1107 4318 + 378 
 
 * Without insulators. All others include insulators. 
 
 As indicated previously, there is no definite trend in average 
 installation strain with tie pad stiffness , The VP1107 pad group had about 
 10 percent higher installation strain than that for the Portec pad group and 
 about 2 percent higher strain than that for the Konvex pad group B However, 
 the "softer" Konvex pad group had installation strains that are about 7 per- 
 cent higher than those for the "stiff er" Portec pad group The .similarity 
 in levels of installation strain for the Portec pads with and without 
 insulators confirms that the shoulder height has been adjusted by design 
 to compensate for the absence of insulators. 
 
 Dynamic Strain Characteristics 
 
 Approach to Data Analysis 
 
 In order to evaluate the dynamic strain characteristics of the 
 Pandrol fasteners, the dynamic test data were- reduced to forms that would 
 reflect the relative propensities for failure c Thus, a "fatigue index" and 
 "fallout index" were defined. 
 
 Previous metallurgical studies had determined the failure mechanism 
 for fastener breakage to be high-cycle fatigue Thus, for the analysis of the 
 
 1 Buchheit, R. D< , and Broek, D c , "Failure Investigation of FAST Concrete- 
 Tie Fastener Clips", Report prepared by Battelle-Columbus Laboratories for 
 Transportation System Center, under Contract DOT-TSC-1044, Task 10, 
 TTD 1, June 9, 1978. 
 
 42 
 
test data, the Goodman diagram concept was adopted as a measure of the 
 severity of the fatigue loading environment. This "diagram" relates the 
 allowable dynamic stress for infinite fatigue life for a given mean stress 
 level, and is represented b} 7 a curve of the form 
 
 a r - 2a £ (1 - f ) (1) 
 
 u 
 
 where 
 
 a = endurance limit 
 e 
 
 a = range of alternating stress (peak-to-peak ' dynamic stress) 
 
 o = mean (installed) stress 
 
 m 
 
 o = ultimate tensile stress 
 
 U 
 
 For the Pandrol fasteners, the ultimate tensile stress is about 
 
 205 ksic It is reasonable to assume that a is no greater that a /2.^ 
 
 e u 
 
 Using these data and transforming Equation (1) to an analogous strain equation, 
 
 Ee = E(e - e ) 
 r u m 
 
 or 
 
 e = (6833-e ), ye . (2) 
 
 r m 
 
 ^ The term "peak-to-peak" refers to the total excursion of the cyclic 
 strain from the maximum compressive to the maximium tensile dynamic 
 value The term "zero-to-peak" refers to the total excursion from 
 the mean or installed value to the maximum tensile or compressive 
 value, as specified. The peak-to-peak and zero-to-peak values for 
 a typical waveform are shown in Figure 15 . 
 
 3 Pandrol PR-601A, 7/8-in. bar, SAE 5160H, at 44 Rockwell C Scale, 
 418 BHN, as provided by L t D. Freeman of Pandrol, Inc c 
 
 This is a upper bound for the endurance limit of most steels c 
 
 The value of a for the Pandrol fastener is not known, but 
 p 
 
 is expected to be less than o" u /2. There is some indication 
 that the endurance limit for a material of this type and hardness 
 may be about 35% of the ultimate, or 72 ksi. Fatigue tests using 
 actual clips are needed to better define the endurance properties. 
 
 43 
 
Equation (2) is an expression for the theoretical maximum allowable 
 
 range of alternating (peak-to-peak dynamic) strain, e r for a given mean strain 
 
 £ c The "fatigue index" is defined as the ratio of the measured peak-to-peak 
 m 
 
 dynamic strain to e . This index was used to determine the relative severity 
 of fatigue loadings under the prescribed test conditionso 
 
 It was hypothesized that the mechanism for fastener fallout might 
 be a progressive reduction in preload until insufficient preload exists to 
 hold the fastener in place c This would be manifested by a progressive yield- 
 ing of the fastener. At the strain gage location on the instrumented 
 fasteners, yielding would most likely occur in the tensile direction. Using 
 this reasoning, the fallout index was defined as the maximum value of dynamic 
 tensile (zero-to-peak) strain measured on a fastener for an entire train 
 pass. Thus, the location with the highest fallout index was assumed to have 
 the highest probability for reduction in preload, leading eventually to 
 fallout failure 
 
 The peak-to-peak dynamic data were reduced manually in the same 
 manner as were the wheel/rail loads. The values were placed in 140 ye "bins" 
 (corresponding to one division on the" strip chart time-histories) The 
 maximum dynamic tensile strain (zero-to-peak values) were measured off the 
 strip chart with a resolution of about 30 ye. 
 
 Waveform Characteristics . Strip-chart time-histories which are 
 typical examples of waveforms for the tangent track, and 3- and 5-degree 
 curved track subsections are shown in Figures 14 to 16. These examples show 
 the range of waveforms that were measured during the test program. 
 
 As shown in the figures, the strain. time-histories exhibited a wide 
 range of characteristics^ The directionality of the waveforms consisted of 
 either totally tensile strain, totally compressive strain, or combinations 
 of both in a sinusoidal-type cyclic waveform c Further, the response to the 
 passing of a single truck could consist predominately of either one or two 
 cycles, or pulses c 
 
 44 
 
c 
 
 M 
 
 U 
 W 
 c/2 
 
 PC 
 
 a: 
 
 in 
 
 u: 
 u 
 < 
 
 ex 
 
 H 
 
 H 
 
 fcJ 
 U 
 
 z 
 < 
 
 Z 
 
 W 
 
 lo 
 z 
 
 1-1 
 
 < 
 
 a: 
 E- 
 to 
 
 u 
 
 < 
 >< 
 
 w 
 
 CO 
 < 
 
 c 
 
 >H 
 
 c£ 
 O 
 H 
 
 CO 
 
 I 
 
 < 
 
 t— 1 
 
 E- 
 
 a: 
 
 M 
 Cn 
 
 45 
 
CD 
 
 E 
 
 C 
 M 
 
 Eh 
 
 CO 
 
 ta 
 
 c/; 
 
 EC 
 
 > 
 
 PS 
 
 u 
 
 I 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 c/: 
 
 
 
 Pd 
 
 
 
 63 
 
 
 
 Z 
 
 
 
 Ed 
 
 
 
 t- 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 
 fa 
 
 o 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 , „ 
 
 q 
 
 en 
 
 CD 
 
 *— ' 
 
 to 
 
 x 
 
 >- 
 
 i_ 
 
 o 
 
 
 o 
 
 1_ 
 
 7 — 
 
 <*— 
 
 CD 
 
 LC 
 
 o 
 
 Q. 
 
 i — 
 
 CD 
 
 
 ~ 
 
 ^— 
 
 CD 
 
 1 
 
 CD 
 
 to 
 
 
 X3 
 
 3 
 
 j£ 
 
 CD 
 
 CL 
 
 c— 
 
 CD 
 
 CD 
 
 
 
 O 
 
 < 
 
 1 — 
 fa 
 
 >- 
 E— 
 
 •H 
 
 06 
 
 — 
 
 ^ 
 
 46 
 
E 
 
 < 
 
 a: 
 H 
 
 OS 
 
 w 
 
 H 
 < 
 
 c 
 
 v: 
 H 
 
 2 
 
 C 
 
 c u 
 
 M pQ 
 
 a w 
 
 M > 
 
 _2 u 
 
 < I 
 
 U o 
 
 i— i m 
 c- 
 
 >- z 
 
 H H 
 
 vO 
 
 at 
 
 47 
 
It is interesting that, in some cases, the waveform characteristics 
 at a particular location would change for consecutive train passes, and some- 
 times change within a given train pass. This behavior seems to indicate 
 some influence of individual car dynamics on the measured strains. 
 Specifically, the differences in dynamics between for example the front, 
 middle and rear sections of the train may be manifested in the fastener 
 response. 
 
 Certain trends in waveform characteristics at given locations 
 could be identified. For example, in the 5- and 3-degree curves, the wave- 
 forms for the gage side fasteners were predominately of the tensile strain pulses, 
 one pulse per truck type, while those for the field side fasteners were 
 predominately of the compressive strain pulse, two pulses per truck type. 
 For the tangent track fasteners, the waveforms are typically two pulses per 
 truck with varying direction (tensile and compressive) . Those fasteners 
 subjected to the two pulses per truck would be expected to suffer greater 
 fatigue damage, assuming equal loading, because they would experience twice 
 the number of cycles of dynamic loading for each train pass, than those 
 fasteners subjected to one pulse per truck type loadingo It should be 
 noted that for sufficiently high installation strains, the severity of 
 fatigue loading is independent of the direction of the small strain pulses 
 (i.e., whether they are tensile or compressive) which are superimposed on 
 the large mean tensile strain from installation. 
 
 Influence of Installation Strains on Dynamic Strains . The influence 
 of installation strains on the dynamic levels could not be identified from 
 inspection of the test data. This seems to imply that this influence is 
 probably smaller than the influence of variations in dimensional tolerance 
 (e*g. shoulder height, tie pad position, insulator wear, variations in the 
 position of the fastener, etc c ). Dynamic strain range varied from about 5 to 
 25 percent of the installed values, with an average of about 10 percent of 
 the installed values (see Table 6) . 
 
 48 
 
TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF DYNAMIC STRAINS AND FATIGUE INDEX 
 
 Subsection 
 
 Dvnamic Strain 
 
 Train Direction 
 
 Tie 
 
 
 Range 
 
 - ye 
 
 
 No. 
 
 IF 
 
 IG 
 
 OG 
 
 OF 
 
 1 
 
 284 
 
 298 
 
 368 
 
 309 
 
 2 
 
 364 
 
 408 
 
 361 
 
 408 
 
 3 
 
 277 
 
 391 
 
 305 
 
 450 
 
 4 
 
 205 
 
 220 
 
 300 
 
 216 
 
 G(Tangent) 
 0.15% Grade 
 
 CCW (downhill) 
 
 Average Range 
 Mean Strain, ye 
 Allowable Range, ye 
 Fatigue Index 
 
 283 329 334 346 
 
 4319 4308 4052 4225 
 
 2500 2500 2750 2550 
 
 0.12 0.13 0.12 0.14 
 
 II. K2(3-degree curve) 
 0.15% Grade 
 
 CCW (downhill) 
 
 1 
 
 605 
 
 580 
 
 416 
 
 386 
 
 2 
 
 766 
 
 666 
 
 391 
 
 432 
 
 3 
 
 489 
 
 516 
 
 302 
 
 293 
 
 4 
 
 786 
 
 693 
 
 289 
 
 232 
 
 Average Range 
 Mean Strain, ye 
 Allowable Range, ye 
 Fatigue Index 
 
 662 614 350 336 
 
 4488 3844 4281 4534 
 
 2350 3000 2550 2300 
 
 0.28 0.22 0.14 0.15 
 
 III. Dlb(5-degree curve) 
 2% Grade 
 
 CCW (uphill) 
 
 1 724 871 481 1174 
 
 2 636 902 414 634 
 
 3 255 893 430 809 
 
 Average Range 
 Mean Strain, ye 
 Allowable Range, ye 
 Fatigue Index 
 
 538 889 442 872 
 
 3951 3825 3774 4899 
 
 2880 3000 2650 1950 
 
 0.19 0.30 0.17 0.37 
 
 IV. Dlb(5-degree curve) 
 2% Grade 
 
 CW (downhill) 
 
 1 861 827 618 741 
 
 2 557 666 580 1202 
 
 Average Range 
 Mean Strain, ye 
 Allowable Range, ye 
 Fatigue Index 
 
 709 747 599 972 
 
 3951 3826 3774 4894 
 
 2880 3000 2650 1950 
 
 0.25 0.25 0.23 0.41 
 
 49 
 
Influence of Track Curvature on Dynamic Strains . The fatigue data 
 listed in Table 6 were calculated for fastener locations on ties with Konvex 
 pads. It is evident from these data that the relative propensity for fatigue 
 for the 5-degree curve is higher than that for either the 3-degree curve or 
 tangent sections. The fatigue index for the 5-degree curve is 36% greater than 
 the 3-degree curve and more than twice that for the tangent section at the IG 
 location where most fatigue failues occur. As expected, the severity of 
 fatigue loading is lowest and roughly uniform across a given tie for the 
 tangent track subsection* 
 
 For the 5-degree curve and CCW (uphill) train travel, the fatigue 
 loading at the IG position is about 60 percent higher than that at the IF 
 position, and the OF loading is more than twice the OG loading. 
 
 These results indicate that the OF and IG position in the 5-degree 
 curve should be the most likely to experience fatigue failure. The fact that 
 the OF index is higher than the IG index contradicts the failure history of 
 the fasteners, wherein the number of failures at the IG position in the 5-degree 
 curve were more than twice that for any other position on the tie One 
 explanation for this inconsistency may be that the loading of the inner rail 
 in the 5-degree curve may be influenced significantly by train length, which 
 influences track loading through the draft forces. The fastener failure 
 history was based on a train length of about 80 cars, while the train length 
 for the field tests was about 40 cars. It is conceivable that the inner-rail 
 loading, particularly for CCW (uphill) travel, was reduced substantially due 
 to the decreased train length. Thus, the dynamic strains experienced by the 
 inner rail fasteners may be lower in the field tests than with those experi- 
 enced with the full 80-car train c 
 
 At Battelle's request, the Train Operations Simulator (TOS) was 
 exercised at TSC to simulate the FAST train negotiating Section 17 in the CCW 
 direction. The results of the simulation showed an increase in maximum truck 
 L/V of about 22 percent and an increase in maximum draft force of about 
 47 percent for an 80-car train (4 GP-40 locomotives and 76 loaded hopper cars) 
 over a 40-car train (2 GP-40's and 38 hoppers) „ Since the trains typically 
 ran at or below balance speed up the 5-degree curve (2 percent grade) , it 
 
seems reasonable that the increases in L/V and draft force would be manifested 
 in higher loading of the inner rail c 
 
 In the table below, the "fallout" indices, i.e^, the maximum 
 dynamic tensile strains for a train pass (CCW direction) , are listed for two 
 instrumented ties with Konvex pads in each subsection 
 
 Fallout Index, u£ 
 
 Subsection 
 
 Curvature 
 
 IF 
 
 IG 
 
 OG 
 
 OF 
 
 G 
 
 Tangent 
 
 236 
 
 250 
 
 194 
 
 361 
 
 
 
 208 
 
 139 
 
 83 
 
 264 
 
 K2 
 
 3° Curve 
 
 264 
 
 403 
 
 375 
 
 250 
 
 
 
 398 
 
 359 
 
 222 
 
 398 
 
 Dlb 
 
 5° Curve 
 
 222 
 
 625 
 
 389 
 
 264 
 
 
 
 236 
 
 694 
 
 347 
 
 194 
 
 The most important observation that can be made from these results 
 is that the IG position in the 5-degree curve clearly experiences the highest 
 dynamic tensile loading of all the fastener positions and track subsections. 
 This is consistent with the fastener failure history in Section 17, wherein 
 most "fallouts" occurred in the IG position. 
 
 It is interesting that the gage side fasteners consistently experi- 
 enced the highest dynamic tensile loading in the 5-degree curve. However, 
 this trend was not consistent in the 3-degree curve and tangent track sub- 
 sections,, As mentioned previously, the relative loading across a tie is 
 influenced strongly by the location of the wheel/rail contact point on the 
 rail. On tangent track and large radius curves, the wheelset is nearly 
 centered. Thus, the rail contact point (for new wheels on new rails) is 
 located up to about o 4 inch toward the gage side from the rail centerline. 
 Then, the moment exerted about the rail base due to the vertical wheel/rail 
 load would cause loading of the field side fasteners, particularly if the 
 opposing moment due to the lateral loads is relatively small. On smaller 
 radius curves, where large wheelset tracking errors and excessive rail wear 
 
 51 
 
due to flanging exist, the rail contact points may be shifted to the field 
 side, resulting in moments due to the vertical loads tending to lead the gage 
 side fasteners in tension. The lateral loads are typically larger on the 
 outer rail, than on the inner rail, particularly during flanging conditions. 
 The moment due to this load would also load the gage side fastener in tension. 
 
 Influence of Train Direction and Grade on Dynamic Strain . Similar 
 
 data were taken for both train directions for sites Dla and Dlb (5-degree 
 
 curve) only. These data are presented below in the form of maximum zero-to- 
 peak dynamic tensile strain per train pass: 
 
 Fallout Index, pe 
 
 Subsection 
 
 Direction 
 
 IF 
 
 LG 
 
 OG 
 
 OF 
 
 IG/IF 
 
 OG/OF 
 
 Dla 
 
 ccw 
 
 181 
 
 403 
 
 194 
 
 236 
 
 2 C 23 
 
 o 82 
 
 
 
 97 
 
 500 
 
 306 
 
 83 
 
 5 15 
 
 3.69 
 
 
 cw 
 
 208 
 
 486 
 
 444 
 
 278 
 
 2.34 
 
 1.60 
 
 
 
 264 
 
 486 
 
 292 
 
 139 
 
 1.84 
 
 2.10 
 
 Dlb 
 
 ccw 
 
 222 
 
 625 
 
 389 
 
 264 
 
 2.82 
 
 1.47 
 
 
 
 236 
 
 294 
 
 347 
 
 194 
 
 2.94 
 
 1.79 
 
 
 cw 
 
 417 
 
 444 
 
 528 
 
 208 
 
 1.06 
 
 2.54 
 
 
 
 458 
 
 375 
 
 444 
 
 167 
 
 0o82 
 
 2 66 
 
 An example of direction and grade effects is shown below in terms of 
 the Fatigue Index: 
 
 Fatigue Index 
 
 Subsection Direction IF IG OG OF 
 
 Dlb CCW 0.19 0.30 0.17 0.37 
 
 (2% grade) (uphill) 
 
 CW 0.25 0.25 0.23 C 41 
 (downhill) 
 
 52 
 
Dlb 
 
 Konvex 
 
 Yes 
 
 Dla 
 
 Portec 
 
 Yes 
 
 D2 
 
 Portec 
 
 No 
 
 B 
 
 VP1107 
 
 Yes 
 
 From inspection of the data listed above, no significant trend in 
 dynamic strain with train direction and grade are evident. 
 
 Influence of Tie Pad Stiffness . Using Equation (2), the ratios of 
 actual peak-to-peak dynamic strains to the theoretical allowable value, i.e., 
 the "Fatigue Index", were calculated for IG fasteners located in the 5-degree 
 curve with RT7SS ties and CW train travel. The results are presented below: 
 
 Peak-Peak Dynamic Strain, ye, 
 Subsection Pad Type* Insulators (Avg ± Std . Dev. ) Fatigue Index 
 
 447 ± 49 0.18 
 
 427 ± 65 0.15 
 
 437 ± 110 0.15 
 
 384 ± 85 0.16 
 
 * In order of increasing tie pad stiffness. 
 
 The results presented above show that the dynamic strains for fasteners 
 on ties with the stiff est (VP1107) pads were about 16 percent lower than those 
 with the softest (Konvex) pads, and about 11 to 14 percent lower than those 
 with "medium stiffness" (Portec) pads. This comparison neglects the contri- 
 bution of the static strain to the severity of fatigue loading. However, as 
 mentioned previously, the test data indicate that the dynamic strains are nearly 
 independent of the static strains. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that 
 these trends in dynamic strain would exist for identical static strains. 
 
 The Fatigue Index listed above includes the average measured static 
 strain values for the particular pad type. In this format, the VP1107 pad 
 appears to offer no reduction, and in fact, offers a slight increase in 
 severity of fatigue loading over the Portec pads, and an improvement of about 
 11 percent over the Konvex pads. 
 
 It is also noteworthy that the variance in mean values increases 
 with increasing tie pad stiffness with insulators, and is largest for Portec 
 pads without insulators. 
 
 53 
 
Subsection 
 
 Tie Pad* 
 
 Insulators 
 
 Dlb 
 
 Konvex 
 
 Yes 
 
 Dla 
 
 Portec 
 
 Yes 
 
 D2 
 
 Portec 
 
 No 
 
 B 
 
 VP1107 
 
 Yes 
 
 Calculations were made to determine the influence of tie pad 
 stiffness on the propensity for fastener "fallout" in the IG position. 
 These calculations are summarized below: 
 
 Avg. + 1 Std. Dev. Value of 
 
 6 Values of Maximum 
 Dynamic Tensile Strain, ye 
 
 359 ± 58 
 
 419 ± 96 
 
 479 ± 177 
 413 ± 125 
 * Listed in order of increasing tie pad stiffness. 
 
 It is interesting that the trend for "fallout" with tie pad 
 stiffness is almost a reversal of the trend in fatigue failure with tie 
 pad stiffness. As shown above, the maximum (per train pass) dynamic tensile 
 strain for the Konvex pad is about 17 percent less than that for the 
 VP1107 pad, about 14 percent less than that for the Portec pad with 
 insulators, and about 25 percent less than that for the Portec pad without 
 insulators. Further, the value for Portec pads without insulators is about 
 14 percent higher than the same pad with insulators, perhaps due to the 
 different restraint condition at the rail base. This is in contrast with 
 the effects on fatigue loading, wherein the absence of insulators had a 
 negiligibly small effect on the "fatigue index" and the average peak-to- 
 peak values . 
 
 One explanation for the difference in trends for fatigue auu 
 "fallout" may be that the rail rotation point probably changes with pad 
 stiffness. For a relatively stiff tie pad, the rail probably rotates about 
 a point near the edge of the rail base. As the pad stiffness is decreased, 
 the point of rotation probably moves closer to the center of the rail base. 
 Thus, the response of the gage side clip to an applied moment for a stiff 
 pad would be predominately in tension in a pulse-like waveform. For a soft 
 
pad, the response would be a combination of tension and compression in a 
 sinusoidal-type waveform. The magnitudes of peak tensile strain would be 
 determined by the net effects of pad compression due to the vertical load 
 and pad deformation/rail rotation due to the net moment applied to the rail, 
 Thus, if the peak-to-peak dynamic strains for both cases were equal, the 
 peak tensile dynamic strain would be higher for the stiffer pad. 
 
 55 
 
APPENDIX 
 
 REPORT OF INVENTIONS 
 
 This report presents an evaluation of the performance of Pandrol 
 rail fasteners at the Facility for Accelerated Service Testing track in 
 Pueblo, Colorado. The evaluation was based on laboratory and field tests 
 using strain-gaged fasteners and a toe-load measurement device provided by 
 the Transportation Test Center. Based on a detailed review of this work, 
 it is concluded that no inventions, discoveries, or improvements of 
 inventions were made. However, the results of this program provide valuable 
 information about the factors which have contributed to fastener failure. 
 This concludes the effects of track curvature and grade, tie pad stiffness 
 and train direction. 
 
 56 
 
4% 
 
 Batteile 
 
 Columbus Laboratories 
 
 505 King Avenue 
 
 Columbus, Ohio 43201 
 
 Telephone (614) 424-6424