Research & Development Information

PCA R&D Serial No. 2795

SLAB TRACK LABORATORY TEST

PROGRAM
by Claire G. Ball

(Revised on June 11, 2004)

©Portland Cement Association 2004

All rights reserved
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

Summary Highlights ...........................................................................................................1

Objective .............................................................................................................................1

Introduction.........................................................................................................................3

Background .........................................................................................................................3

Test Program.......................................................................................................................4

Test Procedures...................................................................................................................7
Simulated Subgrade.....................................................................................................7
Concrete Slab Designs.................................................................................................7
Dfst Slab And Fastener System...................................................................................9
Idbt Slab And Independent Dual Block Track System ...............................................10
Casting Of Dfst Slab....................................................................................................10
Casting Of Idbt Slab ....................................................................................................10
Slab Test Setup ............................................................................................................22
Slab Instrumentation....................................................................................................30
Slab Test Loads ...........................................................................................................30
Slab Test Data Acquisition..........................................................................................46
Fastener System Tests .................................................................................................46
Vertical Load/Spring Rate Test .............................................................................46
Lateral Load/Spring Rate Test...............................................................................48
Lateral Restraint Test ............................................................................................48
Electrical Tests ......................................................................................................48
Dynamic To Static Stiffness Test ..........................................................................51
Longitudinal Restraint Test ...................................................................................51

Test Results.........................................................................................................................51
Simulated Subgrade Tests ...........................................................................................51
Fastener System Tests .................................................................................................55
Slab Track Static Tests ................................................................................................55
Slab Track Repeated Load Tests .................................................................................67
Impact Load Tests .......................................................................................................84

Conclusions.........................................................................................................................89

Acknowledgements.............................................................................................................89

i
 SLAB TRACK LABORATORY TEST
PROGRAM
by Claire G. Ball*

SUMMARY HIGHLIGHTS
Laboratory tests were conducted on two slab track designs. Full-scale direct fixation slab track
(DFST) and independent dual block track (IDBT) slabs were cast on simulated subgrade. Each
design was subjected to static and 3 million cycle repeated load tests designed to simulate the
train load conditions at the Transportation Technology Center, Inc. (TTCI). Additionally,
fastener system tests were conducted on each design. Both designs met the fastener test
requirements.
Both concrete slab track designs laboratory tested met all predicted expectations and
performed well during the static and repeated load tests. Test results from the static slab load
tests are summarized in Table 1. No high deflection or strain data were recorded. The DFST
system had approximately 30% to 35% more vertical rail deflection then the IDBT system. The
analytical analysis showed fairly good agreement between the measured behavior and the
calculated behavior of the slab track, demonstrating the validity of the method of analysis used
for the design of the slab track systems.

OBJECTIVE
The objective of the laboratory test program was to demonstrate the capability of two different
types of concrete slab track designs to withstand heavy freight load conditions, including:
• Conduct fastener system and slab track tests on direct fixation slab track (DFST) and
independent dual block track (IDBT) track designs.
• Construct full-scale concrete slabs in the laboratory for each design.
• Evaluate the performance of the designs under simulated heavy axle static, dynamic, and
repeated loads.
• Compare recorded slab track deflections and strains with theoretical deflections and strains.
• Provide data to validate the methods of structural analysis used in the slab designs.
• Verify that the designs satisfy program requirements and will withstand the heavy freight
loading applied at the Transportation Technology Center, Inc. (TTCI) High Tonnage Loop
(HTL) for in-track performance evaluation.

*
Project Manager, Structural and Transportation Laboratory, Construction Technology Laboratories, Inc.,
5400 Old Orchard Road, Skokie, Illinois USA, 60077, 92 pages. www.ctlgroup.com.
Table 1. Slab Track Laboratory Test Result Summary

Under Vertical Load Under Vertical and Lateral Load

Parameter Location DFST IDBT DFST IDBT
Under Rail 0.015 0.011 0.016 0.013
Slab Movement, in.
Slab Center 0.007 0.006 0.005 0.006
At Fasteners 0.182 0.138 0.179 0.132
Vertical Rail
Between Fasteners 0.209 - 0.204 -
Movement, in.
At Fasteners 0.034 0.041 -0.080 -0.127
Lateral Rail
Between Fasteners -0.004 - -0.132 -
Movement, in.
At Fasteners 414 384 1,039 641
Rail Strain − Between Fasteners 439 321 757 605
Maximum, µ in./in.
At Fasteners 311 320 811 610
Rail Strain − Average, Between Fasteners 365 268 647 580
µ in./in.
Longitudinal - 51 7 58 10
Concrete Strain − Surface 75 37 83 37
Maximum, uin./in. Transverse -
Surface
Longitudinal - 24 4 31 4
Concrete Strain − Surface 40 14 44 17
Typical, µ in./in. Transverse -
Surface
Longitudinal - 20 - 21
Rebar Strain − Transverse - 14 - 12
Maximum, µ in./in.

2
INTRODUCTION
A Cooperative Slab Track Research and Demonstration Program for Shared Freight and High
Speed Passenger Service research and demonstration program was initiated by the Portland
Cement Association (PCA) to advance concrete slab track technology and to demonstrate the
capability of slab track to provide a low-maintenance and safe track structure on track shared by
high-speed and freight trains in the United States. This program included the development of
design methodology, design of the slab track test sections, preparation of a slab track
recommended practice design guide, life cycle cost studies, laboratory tests, and field tests. The
slab track laboratory test program was designed to test and evaluate two types of slab track. One
type used direct fixation fasteners mounted to the top surface of a concrete slab. The second type
used concrete blocks with rubber boots and pad embedded in recesses in the top of a concrete
slab. Following successful completion of the laboratory tests, field tests on slab track are to be
conducted on the High Tonnage Loop (HTL) and Railroad Train Track (RTT) at the
Transportation Technology Center, Inc. (TTCI) in Pueblo, Colorado. This report only covers the
laboratory test program.
The laboratory research and demonstration program was funded by PCA. The Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) and PCA will share the TTCI field test program funding.
Advanced Track Products, Inc. provided the rail fastener for the laboratory and field direct
fixation slab track test slabs and the Sonneville International Corporation/The Permanent Way
Corporation provided the rail fasteners and concrete blocks for the independent dual block track
test slabs.

BACKGROUND
Concrete slab track has been tested and used in Japan and Germany for 30 years. Engineers in
Japan have concluded that ballasted track is not adequate for their high-speed Shinkansen trains
and have developed a well-engineered slab track system. The Canadian Pacific Railroad, Long
Island Railroad, and Amtrak have used slab track for tunnels, on bridges, and on soil subgrade.
Transit systems have used slab track extensively in right-of-ways shared with street traffic, in
tunnels, and on aerial structures.
While slab track for high-speed rail has been used for decades in Europe and Japan, its
use in North America has been limited. Now, as alternative modes of public transportation
become necessary, there is a need for a safe, reliable, durable, and economical track system
which can endure the heavy axle loads imparted by freight traffic while maintaining the stringent
tolerances required for high-speed rail traffic.
Slab track provides a track system that meets the needs of shared high-speed passenger
rail (HSR) and freight by maintaining the strict tolerances required by HSR and reliably
supporting the increasingly heavy loads of freight without the excessive maintenance of ballasted
track. The use of concrete slab track reduces maintenance and prevents accidents because the
slab track structure is much stronger and stiffer than ballasted track. Slab track has a lateral
resistance, which prevents rail buckling and reduces lateral track movement in curves. With the
use of slab track, rail geometry can be held within FRA and Amtrak limits even under heavy
freight loads. Slab track spreads the axle loads to the soil subgrade uniformly and therefore the
soil pressure is lower than in ballasted track. In addition, the slab track is able to span weak

3
spots in the subgrade, reduce deformations, and lower rail stresses which in turn result in longer
rail life. The slab track is impervious; it helps keep water out of the subgrade directly below the
track. Because it requires less maintenance than ballast track, the reduction in maintenance
cycles will benefit train operations and reduce yearly maintenance costs.

TEST PROGRAM
The test program was set up to test the two slab track designs in CTL’s structural laboratory.
The DFST design is shown in Figure 1. The IDBT design is shown in Figure 2. The two
laboratory test slabs were built in accordance with the slab track design selected by PCA for
installation in the test track at TTCI. Each laboratory slab represented a 26-ft-long section of
reinforced concrete slab track complete with 136-lb rails attached to the slab using the fastener
system design being evaluated. The concrete slabs were cast on a rubber pad to simulate the
actual subgrade support condition at TTCI. Static, dynamic, and repeated loads were applied to
each slab track test specimen to investigate the effect of TTCI train loads on the slab track
designs. Instrumentation

4
Figure1. Direct fixation test slab. (15290)

5
Figure 2. Independent dual block track test slab. (15291)

6
was installed to measure the response of the slab track to the laboratory test loads. Visual
inspections of the concrete slabs and rail fastener systems were made periodically during the
testing program. Additional fastener system tests were conducted on the direct fixation fastener
and independent dual block fastener. Details of the test procedures and test results are presented
in the following sections of this report.

TEST PROCEDURES
Laboratory tests were conducted to:
• Determine the material to be used for the simulated subgrade support for the test slabs.
• Verify the strength properties of the DFST and IDBT rail fastener systems.
• Use the selected concrete design mixes and construction procedures to cast a full size
section of track for each design.
• Test the performance of the two slab track designs under simulated TTCI train load
conditions.

Details of the testing procedures are presented below.

Simulated Subgrade
CTL conducted preliminary tests on different thickness samples of 40-, 50-, 60-, and 70-
durometer rubber pads to determine the rubber durometer and thickness that should be used to
best simulate the actual subgrade conditions at TTCI. Based on information provided by TTCI,
the TTCI subgrade was characterized by a tangent modulus of 10,000 to 20,000 psi. This was
converted by CTL to a subgrade spring modulus of k = 500 pci. Following the preliminary tests,
30-in.-diameter plate bearing tests were conducted on 1.00-, 1.75-, and 2.50- in.-thicknesses of
large rubber sheets being used to simulate the subgrade in the laboratory tests.

Based on the results of the plate bearing tests, a 1-in.-thick layer of 40-durometer rubber pads
was selected for the simulated subgrade. This was placed between the laboratory structural floor
and the concrete test slab. Prior to casting the concrete test slab, a 30-in.-diameter plate bearing
test was conducted on the 1-in.-thick layer of rubber pads to determine the actual simulated
subbase stiffness.

Concrete Slab Designs

Because of extensive experience with concrete pavements in the United States, PCA selected a
continuously reinforced concrete pavement for the slab track tests. The design of the
continuously reinforced concrete slab combined the design methods for foundations on grade
with the design method for joint-free highway pavements. Longitudinal reinforcement in the
slab was designed for longitudinal bending moments and to keep shrinkage cracks very small
and uniformly distributed. Transverse reinforcement in the slab was provided to resist transverse
bending moments. Reinforcement in both directions was placed in top and bottom rebar mats.
The top-down construction method was selected and specified by PCA to accurately
position the rail and rail fastener system on the slab. Although other methods have been
employed in slab construction, the top-down method was chosen because of its inherent low cost

7
and ease of attaining the strict tolerances required for high-speed rail track systems. The system
was constructed in accordance with Amtrak Standard MW 100 for Class 9 Track for a maximum
speed of 200 mph. The vertical tolerance for the track surface during construction was limited to
1/8 in. for deviation at the mid-ordinate of a 62-ft chord and 1/8-in. deviation from zero cross
level. The track was laid at standard gage of 4 ft 8-1/2 in. with tolerances of +1/16 in. to -3/32 in.
Deviation in horizontal alignment was not to exceed the 1/8-in. requirement.
Two test slabs 10 ft 6 in. wide by 26 ft long were cast. The slab width was chosen by
PCA in part to correspond to the recommendations of AREMA Chapter 8, Part 27 and to keep
the subgrade pressure at values less than 20 psi, thereby assuring exceptional performance even
across small areas of poor soil. The 10-ft-6-in. width also eliminates the development of punch-
out failures, which are due to high edge loadings in highway pavements. The 26-ft-slab length
was determined by freight car geometry considerations to support the test loading of four car
axles consisting of two car end trucks with axles spacing of 6 ft and an axle spacing across the
coupler between cars of 7 ft. This loading was selected to represent the heaviest loading applied
in a given area of the slab by the ends of two freight cars. Additionally, this loading provided
test information when the car axles were directly over the fasteners and also midway between the
fasteners. The DFST slab was 12 in. thick and the IDBT slab was 15 in. thick. Both concrete
slabs were reinforced in the longitudinal and transverse directions to resist bending moments
determined in the finite element structural analysis (FEM) of each slab. In the FEM analysis
each slab was subjected to the same vertical wheel live loads of 39 kips, and an impact load of
60% of the live loads was applied simultaneously at all load application points. Each slab had
two layers of reinforcement in each direction. The reinforcement was supported on chairs to
ensure that proper reinforcement heights were maintained during concrete placement. The steel
reinforcement was specified by PCA to be uncoated and have a yield stress of 60,000 psi. The
cover over the reinforcement was 2 in. on all sides of the slab. The specified 28-day concrete
compressive strength was 5,000 psi.
The concrete mix designs were provided by PCA. The DFST slab and the IDBT base
(Phase 1) slab were the standard Illinois Department of Transportation mix #D104 typically used
in paving applications. It was a 6-bag mix consisting of 560 lb of portland cement, 150 lb of fly
ash, 964 lb of fine aggregate (FA-1), 1,987 lb of coarse aggregate (CA-11), 32 gallons of water, a
water-reducing gent, and an air-entraining agent. Also specified was a water-cement (w/c) ratio
of 0.38, a slump of 3 in. +/- 1 in., air content between 4% and 7%, a maximum aggregate size of
1 in., and an unconfined compression strength of 5,000 psi at 28 days. The top IDBT Phase 2
slab was self-compacting concrete (SCC). It was selected by PCA because of the tight
clearances between the Phase 1 slab and the tie blocks and the extreme flowability characteristics
inherent in the SCC mix. Axim Concrete Technology, Inc. provided the SCC required additives,
mix design, and field expertise during construction. Trial mixes were made by CTL prior to
selecting the final mix for the slab. Mixes were supplied by a ready mix concrete supplier. The
additives for the SCC concrete were added at CTL prior to casting. Concrete cylinders were
taken during casting to monitor the compressive strength of the slab. After casting, the slabs
were covered by a polyethylene plastic sheet to keep the concrete moist for 7 days during curing.
The slabs were cured a minimum of 28 days prior to testing.

8
DFST Slab and Fastener System
The DFST slab test section is shown in Figure 1. The Advanced Track Products (ATP) modified
Acoustical Loadmaster “40” direct fixation fastener system, shown in Figure 3, was used for the
DFST test. The Acoustical Loadmaster fasteners were slightly modified by ATP to better resist
the heavier freight loads stipulated in the test protocol. A drawing of the Loadmaster “40” is
shown in Figure 4.

Figure 3. Loadmaster “40” direct fixation fastener. (15292)

9
Figure 4. Loadmaster “40” drawing.

9
IDBT Slab and Independent Dual Block Track System
The IDBT slab test section is shown in Figure 2. The Low Vibration Track (LVT) slab track
system, shown in Figure 5, was supplied by The Permanent Way Corporation. The concrete
blocks were spaced at 24 in. on centers. The 7-3/4-in.-thick Phase 1 base slab was cast first with
the side curbs shown in Figure 2. A drawing of the concrete block, rubber boot, microcellular tie
pad, and rail fastening system is shown in Figure 6.

Casting of DFST Slab

A drawing of the DFST laboratory test slab is presented in Figure 7. Forms for casting the slab
were made by CTL and secured to the rubber subgrade material. Steel reinforcing was placed in
the form, as shown in Figure 8. The fastener spacing was 24 in. center to center of fasteners.
Because the fasteners were not available at the time of slab casting, the wooden jigs shown in
Figure 9 were made by CTL to simulate the fasteners and hold the four 5-in.-long Richmond
fastener anchor bolt inserts in place during casting. During top-down construction, the fastener
wooden jigs were attached to the rails and supported a 20.5 x 14 x 1/8-in. steel plate above the
slab at the correct fastener elevation and spacing, as shown in Figure 10. The concrete was cast
around the fastener inserts and up under the wooden fastener jigs, as shown in Figure 11. The
concrete was placed from one side across under the fastener plates to try and minimize the
development of voids under the plates. After a minimum of 7 days curing of the concrete
covered with plastic, as shown in Figure 12, the fastener bolts and wooden jigs were removed
and the top surface of the slab at the fastener locations was inspected. Because the concrete mix
was relatively stiff during placement, some voids were present under the plates. Photographs of
the typical voids and the largest voids are shown in Figure 13. Where necessary, any voids in the
top surface of the slab/fastener area were patched with a patching mortar as shown in Figure 14.
The patching mortar was cured and then the fasteners were attached to the slab. Thirteen
fasteners were attached to each continuous 136-lb rail with conventional rail fastener Pandrol e-
clips.

Casting of IDBT Slab

A drawing of the DFST laboratory test slab is presented in Figure 15. Forms for casting the slab
were made by CTL and secured to the rubber subgrade material. Steel reinforcing for the base
slab was placed in the form, as shown in Figure 16. Casting of the base slab with curbs is shown
in Figure 17. The base slab was allowed to cure for at least 7 days. The fastener spacing was the
same 24 in. center to center as the DFST fasteners. Then the concrete blocks were positioned on

10
Figure 5. Permanent way concrete block system. (15393)

11
Figure 6. Permanent way concrete block drawing.

12
Figure 7. Direct fixation slab track test slab cross section.

13
Figure 8. Direct fixation slab track form with rails and reinforcing. (15294)

14
Figure 9. Direct fixation slab track fastener jigs. (15295)

Figure 10. Direct fixation slab track fastener jigs prior to casting. (15296)

15
Figure 11. Direct fixation slab track concrete placement. (15297)

Figure 12. Direct fixation slab track concrete curing. (15298)

16
Figure 13. Direct fixation slab track concrete voids that developed under the fasteners during
casting. (15299 & 15300)

17
Figure 14. Direct fixation slab track concrete void repair. (15301 & 15302)

18
Figure 15. Independent duel block track test slab cross section.

19
Figure 16. Independent duel block track base slab reinforcing. (15303)

20
Figure 17. Independent duel block track base slab casting. (15304 & 15305)

21
the base slab and attached to the rails with their standard rail clips. The rubber boots with the tie
pads inside were taped at the top to the concrete blocks. The rails and concrete blocks were
attached to Gage Support Fixtures (GSF), which held the blocks in place during the casting of
the top concrete around the IDBT concrete blocks. The GSF system, designed by Iron Horse
Engineering Company to hold rails and fastener systems in place during top-down construction,
is shown in Figure 18. As shown in Figure 19, the fixtures attach to the rails and can be adjusted
for the specified rail gage, rail cant, and rail height. Prior to casting the top slab, three trial SCC
mixes were made to determine the amount of additives required for an optimum mix. The slump
of the selected SCC mix is shown in Figure 20. After the trial mix had cured for 1 day, the trial
mix concrete block was removed to check for voids that may have occurred during casting. As
shown in Figure 21, there were no significant voids under the block during the casting of the trial
mix. Based on the results of the third trial mix, this mix was selected for the laboratory slab top
Phase 2 concrete. Casting of the top slab is shown in Figure 22. The GSF fixtures were left in
for approximately 2 days, as shown in Figure 23. Then the fixtures were removed and the
concrete was cured by covering with plastic, the same as the DFST slab.

Slab Test Setup

The test slabs were cast under CTL’s load frame shown in Figure 24. Vertical and lateral loads
were applied to both rails simulating the wheel load condition produced by the ends of two
freight cars coupled together. Eight vertical loads were applied with the pairs of hydraulic
actuators shown in Figure 25. All actuators were connected to a central hydraulic oil pumping
system and electronic servo-hydraulic controls applied the vertical and lateral wheel loads to the
rail. The horizontal hydraulic actuators, shown in Figure 26, were attached between the rails at
two locations to apply lateral gage side loads to the rail. A photograph of the combined vertical
and lateral loading test setup is presented in Figure 27. The actuators were controlled by a
computer program that applied vertical and horizontal loads to the rails to simulate the loads
produced by trucks at the ends of the two adjacent railcars. Based on the TTCI test train car
dimensions and typical axle spacing, the test load spacing was set at 6 ft between truck axles and
7 ft between the two adjacent truck axles. As shown in Figure 28, this applied one set of four
truck wheel loads directly over the rail fasteners and the other set of four truck wheel loads
midway between rail fasteners. With this load pattern, test data could be obtained for the two
primary wheel-rail-fastener-slab load conditions. The applied loads and loading pattern are
described below.

22
Figure 18. Independent duel block track construction fixtures. (15306 & 15307)

23
Figure 19. Independent duel block track fixture. (15308)

24
Figure 20. Independent duel block track top slab concrete trial mix. (15309)

figure 21. Independent duel block track top slab concrete trial mix voids under block. (15310)

25
Figure 22. Casting of Independent duel block track top slab. (15311)

Figure 23. Independent duel block track fixtures after top slab casting. (15312)

26
Figure 24. Laboratory test setup. (15313)

Figure 25. Vertical rail load hydraulic actuators. (15314)

27
Figure 26. Lateral rail load hydraulic actuator. (15315)

Figure 27. Vertical and lateral loading actuators. (15316)

)

28
Figure 28. Slab load locations.

29
Slab Instrumentation
The slab track was instrumented to monitor the following conditions during static load tests
before and after the 3-million-cycle repeated load test:

• Rail deflection at and between fasteners

• Slab deflection

• Slab strain

• Rail strain

Locations of the slab and rail movement instrumentation are shown in Figure 29. Slab and rail
deflections were measured relative to reference frames mounted to the rigid laboratory floor.
Photographs of the slab deflection and rail movement instrumentation are shown in Figures 30
and 31, respectively. Locations of the DFST concrete strain gages are shown in Figure 32.
Locations of the IDBT concrete strain gages are shown in Figure 33. A photograph of the DFST
embedment strain gages cast inside the slab near the bottom surface is shown in Figure 34. A
photograph of the concrete strain gages bonded to the top surface of the slabs is shown in Figure
35. All concrete surface and embedded strain gages were 4-in.-long gage lengths. The locations
of the IDBT reinforcing strain gages are shown in Figure 36. A photograph of the IDBT rebar
strain gages is shown in Figure 37. Rail bending strains were monitored with strain gages
attached to the top surface of the rail base ½ in. in from the edge at the locations shown in Figure
38 for the loads being applied midway between fasteners and directly over the fastener. A
photograph of the rail strain gage is shown in Figure 39. Rail strain gages had a 0.25-in. gage
length.

Slab Test Loads

Slab load tests consisted of:

• Static load tests (before and after repeated load test)

• Repeated load test

• Impact load tests

30
Figure 29. Slab deflection and rail movement instrumentation locations.

31
Figure 30. Slab deflection instrumentation. (15317)

Figure 31. Rail movement instrumentation. (15318)

32
Figure 32. Direct fixation slab track concrete strain gage locations.

33
.

Figure 33. Independent duel block track concrete strain gage locations.

34
Figure 34. Direct fixation slab track concrete embedment strain gages. (15319)

Figure 35. Direct fixation slab track and idbt concrete surface strain gages. (15320)

35
Figure 36. Independent duel block track reinforcing strain gage locations.

36
Figure 37. Independent duel block track reinforcing strain gages. (15321)

37
Figure 38. Rail strain gage locations.

38
Figure 39. Rail strain gages. (15322)

39
Loads applied during the laboratory slab tests were selected to match the track loads TTCI
indicated typically occur in the HTL test tracks at TTCI. The range and frequency of vertical
and lateral wheel loads supplied by TTCI for test track Section 37 are presented in Tables 2 and
3, respectively.
For the static load tests, vertical wheel loads up to 68,000 lb and combined vertical and
lateral loads up to 68,000 lb vertically and 21,760 lb laterally were applied. The vertical loads
were applied together, in 2,000-b increments, at each of the 8 vertical load locations shown in
Figure 40. Vertical and lateral rail loads were applied at the two locations as shown in Figure 28.
Lateral loads were applied in combination with the four vertical rail loads closest to the coupler.
One lateral load location was at the vertical rail loads directly over the fasteners and the other
lateral load location was with the vertical rail loads midway between the fasteners. Lateral loads
were applied at the two locations with an actuator positioned between the rail heads. Lateral
loads were applied concurrently with each vertical load increment at an L/V ratio of 0.32.
During the repeated load test, vertical and lateral wheel loads equal to the spectrum of
train wheel loads shown in Tables 2 and 3 were applied to the slab track. Repeated loads were
applied to simulate wheel loads applied by a train moving across the slab test track. The
computer-generated load program was designed by CTL so that the vertical rail loads were timed
to duplicate the axle spacing of a typical TTCI test train freight car. The train load pattern is
shown in Figure 41. Repeated loads were applied simultaneously at all eight vertical actuator
locations and two lateral actuator locations. In order to eliminate any excessive heat buildup in
any of the track fastener components due to continuous cyclic loading and also operate within
the oil capacity of our hydraulic loading system, the repeated loads were applied simulating
trains moving across the slab at 15 to 20 mph. The repeated loads were applied for three (3)
million load cycles.
For the impact load tests, an 89-lb falling weight, shown in Figure 42, was dropped from
12 in. The impact load was applied to one rail directly over the sixth fastener from one end of
the slab. The effect of the impact drop was monitored with a Nicolet Phaser twin-channel
Dynamic Signal Analyzer coupled to a PCB Type 393 accelerometer (No. 1) with a sensitivity of
1.0 volt/g and a PCB Type 626A seismic accelerometer (No. 2) with a sensitivity of 10.0 volt/g.
Both accelerometers had a frequency range of 0.025 to 800 Hz. Rail acceleration readings (No.
1) were taken on the rail head 12, 24, 36, and 84 in. away from the impact location. Concrete
slab acceleration readings (No. 2) were taken on the slab surface midway between the rails
directly opposite from the impact location and 72 in. along the slab from the impact location.

40
Table 2. Vertical Wheel Load Spectrum for Repeated Load Test

Vertical Wheel Loads from TTC Section 38

for the Trailing Axle @ 40 mph Number of Cycles for Slab Track Test
Wheel Percentage No. of Test
Vertical of Time Probability Number Cycles Number of MGT
Load in Occurrence of of Exceeding Cycles for Cycles
kips Average Exceedance Cycles Vertical Load Selected Selected
18 0.01% 100.00% 327 3,000,000
20 0.22% 99.99% 6,550 2,999,673
22 0.63% 99.77% 18,994 2,993,123
24 1.55% 99.14% 46,501 2,974,129
26 2.64% 97.59% 79,249 2,927,628
28 6.00% 94.95% 180,111 2,848,379
30 7.12% 91.94% 213,554 2,668,268
32 6.65% 81.82% 199,557 2,454,714
34 6.52% 75.17% 195,483 2,255,157
36 5.91% 68.66% 177,235 2,059,674
38 5.46% 62.75% 163,720 1,912,439
39 5.50% 57.29% 164,975 1,718,719 1,446,256 56.4
40 5.54% 51.79% 166,231 1,553,744
42 5.79% 46.25% 173,768 1,387,513
44 5.27% 40.46% 158,104 1,213,745
46 5.06% 35.19% 151,709 1,055,641
48 6.01% 30.13% 180,285 903,932
50 6.37% 24.12% 191,097 723,647 1,021,194 51.1
52 6.58% 17.75% 197,454 532,550
54 5.01% 11.17% 150,261 335,096 347,715 18.8
56 3.31% 6.16% 99,397 184,835
58 1.72% 2.85% 51,529 85,439 150,926 8.8
60 0.78% 1.13% 23,271 33,910
62 0.23% 0.35% 6,981 10,638 30,253 1.9
64 0.11% 0.12% 3,324 3,657
66 0.00% 0.011% - 332
68 0.01% 0.011% 332 332 3,657 0.2
Total 100.00% 3,000,000 3,000,000 137.1

41
Table 3. Lateral Wheel Load Spectrum for Repeated Load Test

Wheel Percent of No. of Test

Lateral Time Probability Number Cycles Number of
Load Occurrence of of Exceeding Cycles
in kips Average Exceedance Cycles Lateral Load Selected
-2 1.00% 100.00% 30,000 3,000,000
0 7.00% 99.00% 210,000 2,970,000
2 10.00% 92.00% 300,000 2,760,000
4 13.00% 82.00% 390,000 2,460,000
6 18.50% 69.00% 555,000 2,070,000
8 21.00% 50.50% 630,000 1,515,000
10 12.50% 29.50% 375,000 915,000
12 7.50% 17.00% 225,000 510,000 1,446,256
14 5.00% 9.50% 150,000 285,000
16 2.00% 4.50% 60,000 135,000 1,021,194
18 1.50% 2.50% 45,000 75,000 498,641
20 0.50% 1.00% 15,000 30,000 30,253
22 0.50% 0.50% 15,000 15,000 3,657
Total 100.00% 3,000,000 3,000,001

42
Figure 40. Test setup for vertical and lateral loading. (15336)

43
Figure 41. Loading pattern for repeated load test.

44
Figure 42. Impact load test. (15335)

45
Slab Test Data Acquisition
Data were collected with the computer-based data acquisition system shown in Figure 43.
Instrumentation was monitored during the static load tests before and after the repeated load test.
Visual inspection of the slab and fastener system was made periodically during the static
and repeated load tests. Drawings were made showing the development and growth of any
cracking in the concrete slabs prior to and at the completion of the repeated load test.

Fastener System Tests

The following fastener tests were conducted to validate the strength properties of the fastener
systems:

• Vertical load/spring rate

• Lateral load/spring rate

• Lateral restraint

• Electrical

• Dynamic to static stiffness

• Longitudinal restraint

Prior to each of the above vertical and lateral load tests, the fasteners were preloaded twice to the
specified test loads to make sure the rail and all fastener components were properly seated.
Fastener tests were conducted in accordance with the following typical test procedures:

Vertical Load/Spring Rate Test. The fasteners were vertically loaded in 1,000-lb increments
up to 68,000 lb at a rate of approximately 1,000 lb per minute. Vertical deflection of the rail was
recorded at each increment and one minute after the vertical load was released to zero with
0.0001-in. increment digital dial gages. A photograph of the test on the DFST fasteners is shown
in Figure 44. Load-deflection curves were plotted and the vertical spring rates for the fasteners
were calculated for selected load increments. The fasteners were visually inspected for structural
damage.

46
Figure 43. Data acquisition system. (15323)

Figure 44. Fastener vertical load test. (15324)

47
Lateral Load/Spring Rate Test. Combined vertical and lateral loads were applied to the rail
in lateral to vertical load ratios (L/V) of 0.315 and 0.400 up to a maximum vertical load of
39,000 lb and maximum lateral loads of 12,285 lb for L/V of 0.315 and 15,600 lb for L/V of
0.400. The vertical load was applied to the center of the railhead and the lateral load was applied
horizontally 0.625 in. below the top of the rail. A photograph of the test on the DFST fasteners
is shown in Figure 45. Loading was applied in 1,000-lb vertical and 315-lb lateral load
increments and then the test was repeated in 1,000 lb vertical and 400-lb lateral load increments.
Lateral rail deflections were recorded at each load increment and one minute after the loads were
released to zero with 0.0001-in. increment digital dial gages. Lateral load-deflection curves were
plotted and the lateral spring rates for the fasteners were calculated for selected load increments.
The fasteners were inspected visually for structural damage.

Lateral Restraint Test. Lateral loads were applied to the base of the rail each side of the
fastener in 1,000-lb increments to 16,000 lb per fastener. Lateral movement of the rail base was
recorded for each load increment and one minute after the load was released to zero with 0.0001-
in. increment digital dial gages. A photograph of the test on the DFST fasteners is shown in
Figure 46.

Electrical Tests. Electrical tests were conducted on the DFST fastener by attaching it to 1/8-
in.-thick steel base plates and attaching a 1-ft-long section of rail to the fastener with the standard
fastener rail clips. Electrical tests were conducted on the IDBT fasteners by clamping a steel
ground plate to the outside surface of the tie block and attaching a 1-foot-long section of rail to
the fastener with its standard fastener rail clips.
For the wet impedance tests, the fasteners were submerged in a tank of water for a
minimum of 6 hours. Water level was at least midway up the height of the rail web and covering
all of the fastener components. Water temperature was between 70 and 80ºF. The resistivity of
the water was between 1,000 and 1,500 ohm-cm. Within 1 hour after removal from the water, an
a-c 10 volt 60-hertz potential was applied between the rail and the steel ground plate for a period
of 15 minutes. The current flow was measured and the impedance was determined.

48
Figure 45. Fastener lateral load test. (15325)

49
Figure 46. Lateral restraint test. (15326)

50
Dynamic to Static Stiffness Test. An oscillating downward vertical load was applied to the
centerline of the rail directly over the center of the fastener. A photograph of the test on the
DFST fasteners is shown in Figure 47. A sinusoidal load alternating between 4,000 and 20,000 Revised
lb was applied at a rate of 10 Hz to15 Hz for a minimum of 1,500 cycles. During the last 500 6/11/2004

cycles, the peak-to-peak dynamic load and dynamic rail deflection was recorded with a high-
speed data acquisition system. The dynamic stiffness was determined by dividing the average
dynamic load by the average dynamic deflection.
Between 5 and 10 minutes after completion of the dynamic stiffness measurements, a
static vertical load was applied to the fastener in 1,000-lb increments up to a maximum load of
20,000 lb. Rail deflection readings were recorded at each load increment. The static stiffness
was determined by dividing the 16,000-lb load between 4,000- and 20,000-lb loads by the rail
deflection between 4,000 and 20,000 lb. The dynamic to static stiffness ratio for the fastener was
calculated by dividing the dynamic stiffness by the static stiffness.

Longitudinal Restraint Test

A longitudinal load was applied to the base of the rail in 500-lb increments until the rail slid
longitudinally 0.25 in. Deflection readings were taken at each load increment. Load versus
deflection curve was plotted.

TEST RESULTS
Results from the subgrade tests, fastener system tests, and DFST and IDBT slab track tests are
presented below.

Simulated Subgrade Tests

Data from the preliminary rubber pad tests on different durometer rubber are shown in Figure 48.
Based on these tests and some additional tests on different thickness of rubber pads, it was
determined that 40-durometer rubber would be used. Large sheets of 40-durometer rubber were
purchased and full size soil 30-in.-diameter plate bearing tests were conducted on 1.00-, 1.75-,
and 2.50-in. thick layers of rubber. Results of the plate bearing tests expressed as applied
pressure versus deflection are shown in Figure 49. Results of the test expressed as applied
pressure versus

51
Figure 47. Dynamic to static stiffness test. (15327)

52
 `
350

300

250

200
Load, psi

150

100 40 Durometer
50 Durometer
60 Durometer
50
70 Durometer

0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Deflection, in.

Figure 48. Subgrade rubber durometer test results.

53
 20

18

16

14
Applied Pressure, psi

12

10

4 2.50 in. Thick

1.75 in. Thick
1.00 in. Thick
2

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Deflection, in.

Figure 49. Subgrade 40-durometer rubber thickness test results.

54
subgrade spring modulus, k, are presented in Figure 50. Based on calculated subgrade pressure
of 10 psi and a TTCI subgrade spring modulus of approximately 500 psi, the test results indicate
that a 1-in. thickness of 40-durometer rubber would most closely represent the TTCI field
conditions.

Fastener System Tests

Fastener tests were conducted on the direct fixation and dual block systems. Results of the tests
are summarized in Table 4. Results for the vertical load tests are presented in Table 5 and the
load-deflection curves are shown in Figure 51. As designed, both fastener systems had spring
rates that were softer for the lighter transit loads and then increased and became stiffer for the
heavier railroad vertical rail loads. Results for the lateral load tests are presented in Table 6.
Load-deflection curves for the 0.315 and 0.400 lateral to vertical (L/V) ratio tests are shown in
Figures. 52 and 53, respectively. The lateral deflection at the maximum test loads were
approximately the same for both fastener systems with the direct fixation system having a
slightly softer lateral spring rate at the lower loads. Results of the lateral restraint test on the
direct fixation system are presented in Table 7 and Figure 54. The lateral restraint test was not
conducted on the dual block system because the block is not restrained in the concrete slab and
the test could not be conducted on a single block test setup without the block rotating out of its
recess in the slab. Both systems had good electrical isolation properties. The test results for
electrical impedance tests were 186,670 ohms for the direct fixation and 219,700 ohms for the
dual block compared to an allowable minimum impedance of 20,000 ohms. Results from the
Revised
dynamic to static stiffness tests provided dynamic to static ratios of 1.49 and 1.93 for the direct 6/11/2004
fixation and dual block systems for vertical loads ranging between 4,000 and 19,500 lb.
Longitudinal restraint test results are presented in Table 8 and Figure 55. The longitudinal loads
required to cause rail slippage in the direct fixation and dual block systems were 2,580 and 3,400
lb, respectively. The slippage loads for both systems met the AREMA requirement that the rail
not slide in the fastener system below a longitudinal rail load of 2,400 lb.

Slab Track Static Tests

Static vertical and vertical/lateral load tests were conducted prior to (initial tests) and after (final
tests) the slab 3-million-cycle repeated load test. A summary of the slab movements, rail
movements, rail strains, concrete strains, and IDBT slab reinforcing steel strains are presented in
Table 1. The vertical slab movements were approximately the same for both systems. The
vertical rail movement for the DFST system under the heavy 68,000-lb wheel loads was
approximately 35% higher than the IDBT system. Under the heavy 21,760-lb lateral wheel
loads, the lateral rail deflection for the IDBT system was approximately 60% higher than the
DFST system. The rail strains were similar for both systems under vertical rail loads. However,
the maximum rail strains under heavy lateral loads were up to 75% larger for the direct fixation
system compared to the dual block system. All measured rail strains were below any critical rail
cracking strains. All measured concrete and rebar strains were relatively small. There was no
significant difference between the concrete strains recorded for the two systems.

55
 20

18

16

14
Applied Pressure, psi

12

10

6
2.50 in. Thick
1.75 in. Thick
4
1.00 in. Thick

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
k, psi

Figure 50. Subgrade rubber applied pressure vs subgrade spring modulus test results.

56
Table 4. Fastener System Test Results

Test Description Direct Fixation Dual Block

Vertical Load Deflection at 39,000 lb, in. 0.2152 0.1621

Spring Rate(1) lb/in. 844,400 363,300

Lateral Load L/V = 0.315 Deflection at 12,285 lb/in. 0.1853 0.1856

L/V = 0.400 Deflection at 15,600 lb/in. 0.3684 0.3730
L/V = 0.315 Spring Rate(2) lb/in. 107,500 73,500
L/V = 0.400 Spring Rate(2) lb/in. 78,800 46,200

Lateral Restraint Deflection at 16,000 lb/in. 0.1915 -

Electrical Impedance 10 volts AC Wet (15 min), ohms 186,670 219,780

Revised
Dynamic to Static Stiffness Dynamic to Static Ratio 1.49 1.93 6/11/2004

Longitudinal Restraint Sliding Load, lb 2,580 3,400

(1) Between 20,000 and 39,000 lb vertical loads
(2) Between lateral loads corresponding to 20,000 and 39,000 lb vertical loads

57
Table 5. Fastener Vertical Load Test

Vertical Deflection, in.

Load, lb Direct Fixation Dual Block
0 0 0
2,000 0.0551 0.012
4,000 0.0989 0.025
6,000 0.1206 0.0371
8,000 0.1371 0.0495
10,000 0.1524 0.0619
12,000 0.1652 0.0715
14,000 0.1752 0.0811
16,000 0.1825 0.0906
18,000 0.1912 0.1015
20,000 0.1927 0.1098
22,000 0.1966 0.1181
24,000 0.2001 0.1255
26,000 0.2030 0.1319
28,000 0.2055 0.1387
30,000 0.2078 0.1434
32,000 0.2098 0.1485
34,000 0.2116 0.1529
36,000 0.2132 0.1570
38,000 0.2145 0.1607
40,000 0.2158 0.1637
42,000 0.2171 0.1664
44,000 0.2186 0.1690
46,000 0.2192 0.1717
48,000 0.2202 0.1743
50,000 0.2211 0.1770

58
 50,000

45,000
Direct Fixation
40,000
Dual Block
35,000
Vertical Load, lb

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Deflection, in.

Figure 51. Fastener vertical load test results.

59
Table 6. Fastener Lateral Load Tests

L/V=0.315 L/V=0.400
Lateral Deflection, in. Lateral Deflection, in.
Vertical Lateral Direct Dual Lateral Direct Dual
Load, lb Load, lb Fixation Block Load, lb Fixation Block
0 0 0.0000 0.0000 0 0.0000 0.0000
2,000 630 0.0265 0.0133 800 0.0452 0.0228
4,000 1,260 0.0474 0.0266 1,600 0.0770 0.0456
6,000 1,890 0.0657 0.0419 2,400 0.1080 0.0685
8,000 2,520 0.0792 0.0547 3,200 0.1378 0.0913
10,000 3,150 0.0917 0.0665 4,000 0.1628 0.1141
12,000 3,780 0.1034 0.0739 4,800 0.1872 0.1330
14,000 4,410 0.1108 0.0827 5,600 0.2147 0.1519
16,000 5,060 0.1177 0.0912 6,400 0.2386 0.1707
17,700 5,670 0.1236 0.0967 7,200 0.2539 0.1896
20,000 6,300 0.1296 0.1042 8,000 0.2719 0.2085
22,000 6,930 0.1352 0.1113 8,800 0.2910 0.2228
24,000 7,560 0.1411 0.1185 9,600 0.3020 0.2370
26,000 8,190 0.1464 0.1256 10,400 0.3148 0.2513
28,000 8,820 0.1525 0.1328 11,200 0.3269 0.2655
30,000 8,450 0.1579 0.1399 12,000 0.3362 0.2823
32,000 10,080 0.1631 0.1502 12,800 0.3453 0.3005
34,000 10,710 0.1699 0.1606 13,600 0.3517 0.3212
36,000 11,340 0.1758 0.1709 14,400 0.3583 0.3419
38,000 11,970 0.1821 0.1813 15,200 0.3651 0.3626
39,000 12,285 0.1853 0.1856 15,600 0.3684 0.3730
0 0 0.0019 0 0.0857

60
 40,000

35,000 Direct Fixation

Dual Block
30,000

25,000
Vertical Load, lb

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20
Lateral Deflection, in.

Figure 52. Fastener lateral (l/v=0.315) load test results.

61
 40,000

35,000 Direct Fixation

Dual Block
30,000

25,000
Vertical Load, lb

20,000
62

15,000

10,000

5,000

0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40
Lateral Deflection, in.

Figure 53. Fastener lateral (l/v=0.400) load test results.

62
Table 7. Fastener Lateral Restraint Tests

Deflection, in.
Load, lb
Direct Fixation
0 0.0000
1,000 0.0195
2,000 0.0438
3,000 0.0685
4,000 0.0864
5,000 0.0990
6,000 0.1107
7,000 0.1204
8,000 0.1295
9,000 0.1385
10,000 0.1472
11,000 0.1553
12,000 0.1632
13,000 0.1708
14,000 0.1784
15,000 0.1848
16,000 0.1915
0 0.0055

63
 16,000

14,000
Direct Fixation
12,000

10,000
Load, lb

8,000

6,000
64

4,000

2,000

0
0.0000 0.0200 0.0400 0.0600 0.0800 0.1000 0.1200 0.1400 0.1600 0.1800 0.2000
Deflection, in.

Figure 54. Direct fixation fastener lateral restraint test results.

64
 Table 8. Fastener Longitudinal Restraint Tests

Deflection, in.
Load, lb
Direct Fixation Dual Block
0 0.0000 0.0000
400 0.0135 0.0002
800 0.0268 0.0006
1,200 0.0428 0.0011
1,600 0.0580 0.0022
2,000 0.0754 0.0043
2,400 0.0934 0.0070
2,580 0.2000 -
2,800 - 0.0106
3,200 - 0.0138
3,400 - 0.2000

2,400 (3 min.) 0.0937 0.0077

2,400 (15 min.) 0.0939 0.0082

65
 4,000

3,500

3,000
Longitudinal Load, lb

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000 Direct Fixation

Dual Block
500

0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20
Rail movement, in.

Figure 55. Fastener longitudinal restraint test results.

66
Results of the DFST initial and final static vertical load and vertical/lateral load tests are
presented in Tables 9-13. All results presented in these tables are for the maximum vertical load
of 68,000 lb and maximum lateral load of 21,760. The locations listed in these tables are shown
in Figures. 29 and 32. Tables 9 and 10 show the slab and rail movements due to the vertical and
vertical/lateral load tests. Tables 11 and 12 show the longitudinal and transverse concrete strains
due to the vertical and vertical/lateral load tests. Table 13 shows the rail strains for both loading
conditions.
Results of the IDBT initial and final static vertical load and vertical/lateral load tests are
presented in Tables 14-18. All results presented in these tables are for the maximum vertical
load of 68,000 lb and maximum lateral load of 21,760, when lateral loads were applied. The
locations listed in these tables are shown in Figures. 29, 33, and 36. Tables 14 and 15 show the
slab and rail movements due to the vertical and vertical/lateral load tests. Tables 16 and 17 show
the longitudinal and transverse rebar and concrete strains due to the vertical and vertical/lateral
load tests. Table 18 shows the rail strains for both loading conditions.

Slab Track Repeated Load Tests

Both the DFST and IDBT systems withstood the 3 million cycle repeated load tests without any
significant problems. No fastener system failures occurred. Only small, shrinkage-type cracks
developed in each of the slab systems. These cracks were expected in the continuous reinforced
concrete slab designs being tested. DFST concrete slab had no visible cracking prior to starting.
DFST slab cracking at the completion of the repeated load test is shown in Figure 56. IDBT
concrete slab cracking prior to starting and at the completion of the repeated load test is shown in
Figures. 57 and 58. Photographs of the IDBT typical cracking around the corners of the blocks
are shown in Figure 59. Maximum width of the cracks in the IDBT slab was 0.013 of an inch.

67
Table 8. Fastener Longitudinal Restraint Tests

Deflection, in.
Load, lb
Direct Fixation Dual Block
0 0.0000 0.0000
400 0.0135 0.0002
800 0.0268 0.0006
1,200 0.0428 0.0011
1,600 0.0580 0.0022
2,000 0.0754 0.0043
2,400 0.0934 0.0070
2,580 0.2000 -
2,800 - 0.0106
3,200 - 0.0138
3,400 - 0.2000

2,400 (3 min.) 0.0937 0.0077

2,400 (15 min.) 0.0939 0.0082

68
 4,000

3,500

3,000
Longitudinal Load, lb

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000 Direct Fixation

Dual Block
500

0
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20
Rail movement, in.

Figure 55. Fastener longitudinal restraint test results.

69
Table 9. Direct Fixation Slab Track 68 kip Vertical Rail Load Test Results

Deflection, in.
North Rail South Rail Average
Instrumentation Location Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final
SN1 & SS1 0.026 0.020 0.014 0.020 0.020 0.020
Vertical Slab
SN2 & SS2 0.016 0.016 0.011 0.013 0.014 0.015
Movement -
SN3 & SS3 0.011 0.010 0.013 0.004 0.012 0.007
Under Rails
SC1 - - - - 0.013 0.007
Vertical Slab
SC2 - - - - 0.006 0.007
Movement -
SC3 - - - - 0.001 -
Center
VN1 & VS1 0.235 - 0.115 0.197 0.175 0.197
VN2 & VS2 0.192 0.177 0.140 0.157 0.166 0.167
VN3 & VS3 0.191 0.187 0.165 0.182 0.179 0.185
VN4 & VS4 0.205 0.156 0.185 0.169 0.195 0.163
Vertical Rail
VN5 & VS5 0.224 0.177 0.191 0.185 0.206 0.181
Movement
VN6 & VS6 0.231 0.201 0.207 0.194 0.220 0.198
VN7 & VS7 0.223 0.193 0.214 0.202 0.219 0.198
VN8 & VS8 0.199 0.173 0.195 0.181 0.197 0.177

LN1 & LS1 0.030 0.040 0.020 0.035 0.025 0.038

LN2 & LS2 0.017 0.018 0.021 0.012 0.019 0.015
LN3 & LS3 0.024 0.025 0.040 0.044 0.032 0.035
LN4 & LS4 -0.011 0.004 - 0.024 -0.011 0.014
Lateral Rail
LN5 & LS5 0.006 -0.008 0.007 -0.003 0.007 -0.006
Movement
LN6 & LS6 -0.012 -0.003 0.010 -0.009 -0.001 -0.006
LN7 & LS7 0.011 -0.001 0.007 0.007 0.009 0.003
LN8 & LS8 -0.001 -0.003 0.009 0.006 0.004 0.002

70
Table 10. Direct Fixation Slab Track 68 kip Vertical and 21.76 Lateral Rail Load Test Results

Deflection, in.
North Rail South Rail Average
Instrumentation Location Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final
SN1 & SS1 0.024 0.020 0.011 0.019 0.018 0.020
Vertical Slab
SN2 & SS2 0.017 0.018 0.012 0.013 0.015 0.016
Movement -
SN3 & SS3 0.012 0.011 0.010 0.003 0.011 0.007
Under Rails
SC1 - - - - 0.009 0.006
Vertical Slab
SC2 - - - - 0.004 0.005
Movement -
SC3 - - - - -0.002 -0.008
Center
VN1 & VS1 0.223 - 0.105 0.197 0.164 0.197
VN2 & VS2 0.182 0.176 0.142 0.161 0.162 0.169
VN3 & VS3 0.179 0.185 0.166 0.185 0.173 0.185
VN4 & VS4 0.191 0.155 0.184 0.166 0.191 0.161
Vertical Rail
VN5 & VS5 0.226 0.173 0.186 0.185 0.206 0.179
Movement
VN6 & VS6 0.230 0.197 0.199 0.189 0.215 0.193
VN7 & VS7 0.217 0.195 0.213 0.199 0.215 0.197
VN8 & VS8 0.195 0.174 0.190 0.178 0.193 0.176

LN1 & LS1 0.024 0.035 0.010 0.033 0.017 0.034

LN2 & LS2 -0.025 -0.047 -0.039 -0.077 -0.032 -0.062
LN3 & LS3 -0.047 -0.107 -0.067 -0.099 -0.057 -0.103
LN4 & LS4 -0.071 -0.084 -0.039 -0.113 -0.055 -0.099
Lateral Rail
LN5 & LS5 -0.115 -0.111 -0.075 -0.146 -0.095 -0.129
Movement
LN6 & LS6 -0.136 -0.157 -0.073 -0.160 -0.105 -0.159
LN7 & LS7 -0.099 -0.137 -0.063 -0.112 -0.081 -0.125
LN8 & LS8 -0.059 -0.058 -0.012 -0.036 -0.036 -0.047

71
Table 11. Direct Fixation Slab Track 68 kip Vertical Rail Load Test Results

Concrete Strain, µ in./in.

Top Gages Bottom Gages
Instrumentation Location Initial Final Initial Final
2 -43 -51 - 19
4 -10 -14 - 21
7 -26 -46 14 28
9 -21 -45 10 20
12 -11 - -6 -8
14 - 10 -13 -14
Longitudinal 17 - -9 -2 -4
Concrete Strain 19 2 4 -6 -3
22 -8 -33 20 7
24 -16 -11 6 -
27 -32 -20 11 8
29 -12 -18 17 12

1 6 2 -6 -9
3 4 9 -9 -12
5 -50 -34 37 18
6 1 7 -5 10
8 -5 7 5 -15
10 -26 -31 10 25
Transverse 11 -1 - - 2
Concrete Strain 13 -2 0 -3 -1
15 -75 -58 43 32
16 - - -5 -1
18 - 5 -3 -7
20 -43 -12 21 4
21 - - -12 -8
23 -3 -3 -2 2
25 -59 -56 38 35
26 6 5 -5 -4
28 16 16 -15 -14
30 -28 -12 13 -

- Compression
+ Tension

72
Table 12. Direct Fixation Slab Track 68 kip Vertical and 21.76 Lateral Rail Load Test
Results

Concrete Strain, µ in./in.

Top Gages Bottom Gages
Instrumentation Location Initial Final Initial Final
2 -43 -58 - 18
4 -9 -15 - 19
7 -20 -42 10 24
9 -18 -44 7 17
12 -10 - -10 -14
14 13 13 -16 -12
Longitudinal 17 -15 - -6 -3
Concrete Strain 19 6 6 -10 -4
22 -7 -30 17 10
24 -15 -9 5 -
27 -35 -20 11 10
29 -19 -17 17 14

1 4 5 -2 -8
3 1 4 -6 -10
5 -52 -32 37 18
6 -1 8 -4 -10
8 -8 6 5 -15
10 -29 -33 12 24
Transverse 11 0 - 1 3
Concrete Strain 13 -4 -8 -4 -3
15 -83 -73 47 36
16 4 - -4 -1
18 3 4 -2 -3
20 -40 -24 25 10
21 5 4 -11 -5
23 -7 -5 1 1
25 -61 -57 38 37
26 7 4 -7 -5
28 19 13 -14 -14
30 -27 -12 13 6

- Compression
+ Tension

73
Table 13. Direct Fixation Slab Track 68 kip Vertical Load Test and 68 kip Vertical and
21.76 kip Lateral Rail Load Test Results

Rail Strain, µ in./in.

Vertical Load Vertical and Lateral Load
Instrumentation Location Initial Final Initial Final
R-1 414 384 641 1039
Rail Base Strain, R-2 79 232 -91 -205
at Fastener R-5 183 281 638 924
R-6 339 343 67 -121

R-3 413 439 643 757

Rail Base Strain, R-4 394 325 154 -46
between R-7 319 360 545 644
Fasteners R-8 339 334 178 -

74
Table 14. Independent Duel Block Track 68 kip Vertical Rail Load Test Results

Deflection, in.
North Rail South Rail Average
Instrumentation Location Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final
SN1 & SS1 0.013 0.009 0.009 0.004 0.011 0.006
Vertical Slab
SN2 & SS2 0.011 0.011 0.013 0.006 0.012 0.009
Movement -
SN3 & SS3 0.012 0.010 0.012 0.008 0.012 0.009
Under Rails
SC1 - - - - 0.001 0.001
Vertical Slab
SC2 - - - - 0.006 0.006
Movement -
SC3 - - - - 0.004 0.004
Center
VN1 & VS1 0.139 0.138 0.106 0.132 0.123 0.135
VN2 & VS2 0.125 0.116 0.093 0.118 0.109 0.117
VN3 & VS3 0.138 0.138 0.132 0.141 0.135 0.140
VN4 & VS4 0.138 0.153 0.121 0.145 0.130 0.142
Vertical Rail
VN5 & VS5 0.117 0.117 0.122 0.142 0.120 0.119
Movement
VN6 & VS6 - - - - - -
VN7 & VS7 0.137 0.134 0.127 0.132 0.132 0.133
VN8 & VS8 0.118 0.125 0.127 0.121 0.123 0.124

LN1 & LS1 0.021 0.068 0.014 - 0.018 0.068

LN2 & LS2 0.037 0.054 0.025 0.032 0.031 0.043
LN3 & LS3 0.039 0.044 0.040 0.034 0.040 0.042
LN4 & LS4 0.016 0.046 0.031 0.040 0.024 0.043
Lateral Rail
LN5 & LS5 0.052 0.070 0.032 0.030 0.042 0.056
Movement
LN6 & LS6 - - - - - -
LN7 & LS7 0.059 0.068 0.007 - 0.033 0.068
LN8 & LS8 0.057 0.083 0.007 - 0.032 0.083

75
Table 15. Independent Duel Block Track 68 kip Vertical and 21.76 kip Lateral Rail Load Test Results

Deflection, in.
North Rail South Rail Average
Instrumentation Location Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final
SN1 & SS1 0.013 0.014 0.011 0.021 0.012 0.018
Vertical Slab
SN2 & SS2 0.012 0.013 0.013 0.016 0.013 0.013
Movement -
SN3 & SS3 0.011 0.010 0.012 0.010 0.012 0.010
Under Rails
SC1 - - - - 0.000 0.006
Vertical Slab
SC2 - - - - 0.006 0.006
Movement -
SC3 - - - - 0.004 0.003
Center
VN1 & VS1 0.136 0.142 0.092 0.129 0.114 0.136
VN2 & VS2 0.116 0.115 0.092 0.115 0.104 0.115
VN3 & VS3 0.134 0.130 0.129 0.131 0.132 0.131
VN4 & VS4 0.122 0.130 0.085 0.123 0.104 0.127
Vertical Rail
VN5 & VS5 0.115 0.122 0.117 0.128 0.116 0.125
Movement
VN6 & VS6 - - - - - -
VN7 & VS7 0.135 0.139 0.134 0.126 0.135 0.133
VN8 & VS8 0.115 0.128 0.127 0.120 0.121 0.124

LN1 & LS1 0.007 0.067 0.001 - 0.004 0.067

LN2 & LS2 -0.049 -0.038 -0.077 -0.059 -0.063 -0.047
LN3 & LS3 -0.133 -0.117 -0.133 -0.125 -0.133 -0.121
LN4 & LS4 -0.073 -0.072 -0.116 -0.068 -0.095 -0.070
Lateral Rail
LN5 & LS5 -0.093 -0.085 -0.110 -0.094 -0.102 -0.090
Movement
LN6 & LS6 - - - - - -
LN7 & LS7 -0.091 -0.077 -0.136 -0.144 -0.114 -0.111
LN8 & LS8 0.008 0.034 -0.039 -0.048 -0.016 -0.007

76
Table 16. Independent Duel Block Track 68 kip Vertical Rail Load Test Results

Concrete Strain, µ in./in.

Top Gages Bottom Gages
Instrumentation Location Initial Final Initial Final
Longitudinal 1 16 8 19 4
Rebar Strain 2 - 8 - 6
in Base Slab 3 7 8 3 7
4 8 6 5 6
5 -5 8 5 -3
6 - 12 11 -1
7 3 - - -
8 5 17 - 6
9 13 6 20 -
10 - - - -
11 2 3 9 2
12 14 - - -
13 10 18 -7 4
14 6 0 - -1
Transverse 15 -4 12 -2 -1
Rebar Strain 16 - 8 - -
in Base Slab 17 - 7 14 4
18 - 2 -5 0
19 5 3 - -8
20 2 3 - -
Longitudinal 21 - 4 - -
Rebar Strain 22 3 5 - 6
in Side Curbs 23 10 11 12 -2
24 - 13 - -
Longitudinal S-1 2 -
Concrete S-2 - -3
Surface Strain S-3 7 6
in Top Slab S-4 - -
S-5 2 2
S-6 -4 0
S-7 -3 0
S-12 3 5
S-13 14 10
Transverse S-8 4 2
Concrete S-9 0 -5
Surface Strain S-10 29 18
In Top Slab S-11 37 -
Block Corner S-14 11 -
Concrete S-15 -24 -26
Surface Strain S-16 - -
in Top Slab S-17 - -
- Compression
+ Tension

77
Table 17. Independent Duel Block Track 68 kip Vertical and 21.76 Lateral Rail Load Test
Results

Concrete Strain, µ in./in.

Top Gages Bottom Gages
Instrumentation Location Initial Final Initial Final
1 21 6 14 5
2 - 6 - 6
3 6 7 3 8
4 7 6 4 5
5 -2 7 -5 -1
6 -7 8 8 -2
Longitudinal 7 - - - -
Rebar Strain 8 3 10 3 4
in Base Slab 9 12 5 15 -
10 - - - -
11 2 3 8 0
12 12 - - -
13 11 10 -11 0
14 6 2 - -1
15 -3 12 -2 -2
16 - 10 - -
Transverse 17 - 10 8 -1
Rebar Strain 18 - 2 -9 -3
in Base Slab 19 10 7 - -9
20 6 5 - -
21 - 5 - -
Longitudinal 22 6 5 -6 4
Rebar Strain 23 11 10 8 0
in Side Curbs 24 - 13 -8 -
S-1 3 -
S-2 - -2
Longitudinal S-3 8 10
Concrete S-4 - -
S-5 1 0
Surface Strain
in Top Slab S-6 -6 -
S-7 -3 -
S-12 6 11
S-13 14 12
Transverse S-8 8 -
Concrete S-9 3 -2
Surface Strain S-10 30 21
In Top Slab S-11 37 -
Block Corner S-14 46 31
Concrete S-15 41 44
Surface Strain S-16 - -
In Top Slab S-17 - -

- Compression
+ Tension

78
Table 18. Independent Duel Block Track 68 kip Vertical Load Test and 68 kip Vertical and
21.76 kip Lateral Rail Load Test Results

Rail Strain, µ in./in.

Vertical Load Vertical and Lateral Load
Instrumentation Location Initial Final Initial Final
R-1 269 278 581 594
Rail Base Strain, R-2 339 320 -41 -87
at Fastener R-5 323 296 625 641
R-6 384 349 20 -61

R-3 263 265 575 552

Rail Base Strain,
R-4 321 260 -3 -31
Between
R-7 267 265 586 605
Fasteners
R-8 252 250 -79 -103

79
Figure 56. Direct fixation slab track slab cracking at completion of repeated load test.

80
80

Figure 57. Independent duel block track slab cracking prior to starting repeated load test

81
Figure 58. Independent duel block track slab cracking at completion of repeated load test.

82
Figure 59. Independent duelblock track typical slab cracking at corners of blocks. (15328)

83
At the completion of the repeated load tests, the rails were removed from each slab, the direct
fixation fasteners were removed and visually inspected, and the IDBT concrete blocks were
removed from their recesses in the slab and visually inspected.
During the DFST final inspection, no direct fixation fastener component failures were
observed. The rail clips and anchor bolts were visually uncracked. The only observed effect of
the 3 million cycles was the presence of small cracks between the fastener elastomer and fastener
outer steel casting in five fasteners. Most of these cracks were on the top, as shown in Figure 60.
One crack was observed in the bottom corner of a fastener, as shown in Figure 61. None of the
cracks appeared to have any effect on the performance of the fastener system.
During the IDBT final inspection, no concrete block or rail fastener component failures
were observed. The only visible damage to the rail fasteners was a cracked end in one of the rail
clip insulators and one broken corner in one of the rail base insulators. Photographs of the two
insulator breaks are shown in Figures. 62 and 63. Both breaks appear to have occurred during
the installation of the fastener prior to starting the slab static and repeated load tests. No rubber
boot, microcellular pad, or rail pad damage was visible in any of the test samples. After the
concrete blocks were removed from the slab, the recesses were inspected for voids that occurred
during casting. Only minimal voids, like the one shown in Figure 64, were present in most of the
recesses. A couple of recesses had larger voids like the one shown in Figure 65. None of the
voids appeared to have any effect on the performance of the IDBT system.

Impact Load Tests

During the DFST impact tests, accelerometer time trace readings on the rail near the drop point
occasionally showed instability, caused by the high accelerations on the rail. Both the rail
accelerations (No. 1) and the slab accelerations (No. 2) showed a characteristic frequency of
approximately 190 Hz. This frequency was attenuated by a factor of approximately 25 by the
rail fastener (0.45 g on the rail and 0.017 g on the slab, as an example). A secondary broader
band peak occurred at approximately 60-65 Hz, with a peak acceleration of between 0.040 and
0.070 g on the rail and an attenuation factor of approximately 20 between the rail and the slab.
No frequency peaks were observed in the 0-30 Hz range.
The results of the impact tests on the IDBT slab were similar to the DFST slab. Both the
rail accelerations (No. 1) and the slab accelerations (No. 2) showed a characteristic frequency of
approximately 195 Hz. This frequency was attenuated by a factor of approximately 25 by the
rail fastener (0.40 g on the rail and 0.015 g on the slab, as an example). A secondary broader
band peak occurred at approximately 70-75 Hz, with a peak acceleration of between 0.045 and
0.075 g on the rail and an attenuation factor of approximately 20 between the rail and the slab.
No frequency peaks were observed in the 0-30 Hz range.

84
Figure 60. Direct fixation fastener top surface cracking. (15329)

85
Figure 61. Direct fixation fastener bottom corner cracking. (15330)

86
Figure 62. Independent duel block track rail clip insulator cracking. (15331)

Figure 63. Independent duel block track rail base insulator cracking. (15332)

87
Figure 64. Independent duel block track block recess typical voids. (15333)

Figure 65. Independent duel block track block recess maximum amount of voids. (15334)

88
CONCLUSIONS
Both concrete slab track designs laboratory tested met all predicted expectations and performed
well during the static and repeated load tests. No high deflection or strain data were recorded.
Per the designs, the DFST system had approximately 30% to 35% more vertical rail deflection
then the IDBT system. Both designs withstood the static and repeated load tests without any slab
or fastener system failures or visible damage.
The measured behavior of both slab designs showed fairly good agreement with the
analytical analysis and the calculated behavior of the slab track, demonstrating the validity of the
method of analysis used for the design of the slab track. The comparison of the laboratory test
results with the analysis results is contained in a report on the analysis methods.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research reported in this paper (PCA R&D Serial No. 2795) was conducted by Construction
Technology Laboratories, Inc., with the sponsorship of the Portland Cement Association (PCA
Project Index No. 01-06b). The contents of this paper reflect the views of the author, who is
responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented. The contents do not necessarily
reflect the views of the Portland Cement Association.

89