Proceedings of JRC2006

April 4-6, 2006, Atlanta, GA, USA

Joint Rail Conference

JRC2006-94050
UNDERSTANDING THE BENEFITS OF LONG TRAVEL CONSTANT CONTACT SIDE BEARINGS
Darrell ller Transportation Technology Center, Inc. ABSTRACT In 2001, a comprehensive test program was conducted under the AAR strategic research initiatives program by the Transportation Technology Center, Inc. (TTCI), Pueblo, Colorado, to determine the best types of constant contact side bearings (CCSBs) for use in 10 different North American freight cars. Test results indicated that long travel (LT) CCSB designs generally provided the best overall performance, which lead to an industry wide rule change. By using LT-CCSB, rail operations can be improved by maintaining better vertical wheel loads, providing high-speed stability, and providing more predictable truck turning forces. With a better understanding of both CCSB performance and the needs of the rail industry, an updated specification M-948 (AAR's Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices) [Ref. 1] was researched and revised
conducted on three different cars, which were a refrigerated orange juice boxcar (operated in high speed intermodal or "Ztrain" service), an intermodal car, and a coal gondola. Using the data from these cars and knowledge from participants in the CCSB supply industry, the M-948 specification was revised to represent and preserve the operational benefits derived from CCSBs. This paper will also document an audit of the specification to highlight advantages from the revised M-948 specification. Constant contact side bearings (CCSB), long travel (LT), freight cars, and rail service testing. NOMENCLATURE AND TERMS AAR - Association of American Railroads FRA - Federal Railroad Administration CCSB -Constant contact side bearing LT-CCSB - Long travel CCSB IWS - Instrumented Wheelset Side Bearing - A load bearing surface originally designed as a solid steel block that is located 25 inches from the center of the center bowl on both sides. The side bearing typically has a 0.25-inch air gap between the carbody bottom and the side bearing surface. The side bearing aids in vertical load distribution across the bolster as the car rocks or twists from side to side.

KEYWORDS

in 2005. This paper documents the evolution of LT-CCSB research and the industry's implementation efforts since testing began in 2001. The testing and modeling that was performed in 2001 concentrated on car types that had a history of unpredictable performance. Well-maintained cars were selected to highlight the characteristics of long, short, tall, and torsional stiffness that each plays a part in the vehicles ability to reliably negotiate the railroad. Of the 10 cars, four were both track tested and modeled and the balance were only modeled. In almost every case, the railcars had a demonstrable performance improvement with the simple application of LT-CCSBs. The AAR quickly reacted by requiring all new cars and cars meeting certain conditions to have LT-CCSB (Rule 88) [Ref. 2]. Following this test program two other independent tests were conducted, which demonstrated the advantages of LT-CCSBs. The first was a rail service test of two diesel tank cars and the second was a series of controlled tests on a tank car that had derailed at high speed. In both cases performance was markedly improved by the application of LT-CCSB. Finally the industry needed to update the side bearing specification M-948, in order to reliably control the performance of LT-CCSBs and preserve the benefit derived from their use. In preparation, a 2-year rail service test was

Roller Side Bearing - A side bearing constructed with one or two steel rollers to aid in bolster rotation while contacting the carbody bottom (under load from rocking or twisting). While not loaded this side bearing typically has a 0.25-inch air gap.
Constant contact side bearing (CCSB) - A side bearing design that remains in contact with the body bolster at all times. The force at this contact point is determined by an internal spring. The contact point slides longitudinally when the bolster rotates providing frictional rotation resistance. This side bearing has three typical designs.

Copyright 2006 by ASME

1. Standard travel - The CCSB compresses approximately 0.25 inches before hitting a solid stop. 2. Long Travel - The CCSB compresses approximately 0.63 inches before hitting a solid stop. 3. Roller Assist - Exists as either a standard or long travel version but employs a roller for the solid stop to aid in reducing tuming resistance.
IWS - An instrumented wheelset utilizing data from strain gage circuits, which are collected and manipulated to produce realtime lateral, vertical, and longitudinal wheel forces.

Table 1: Rail Cars Selected for Testing and Modeling

Car Type Aluminum Coal Gondola

Test/ Model
Yes / Yes Yes / Yes
Yes / Yes Yes / Yes

Bulkhead Flat Car Short Covered Hopper Long Tank Car

Grain Covered Hopper Plastic Pellet Covered Hopper Centerbeam Short Tank Car
Mill Gondola (52 ft)

No / Yes No / Yes
No / Yes No / Yes

Research Committee (MRC), which provided funding and additional oversight. The EEC selected and prioritized a list of cars to test and model as shown in Table 1. These cars were selected based on the FRA accident / incident database and on railroad experiences with the cars.

INTRODUCTION The freight car in North America has slowly but surely changed as greater demands were placed on performance. The traditional three-piece truck has provided a long history of service that though enhanced is still utilized today. Other components like the axle bearings have seen the benefit of new technologies as they emerge and are proven. Side bearings are another component that has improved but this history is more recent. Railcar side bearings have traditionally had a singular role of limiting the amount of carbody roll. As railroad capacity improved by handling higher loads at higher speed requirements from side bearing performance changed also. The first prominent change was from a non-contacting side bearing to one that was designed to stay in contact with the side bearing wear plates on the car body. The initial design function was to improve carbody roll control. Later, with the increased speeds, the benefit of better truck hunting control was discovered and soon became the primary objective of CCSB design. This paper documents research and performance advantages from the latest evolution of increased travel in constant contact side bearings. BACKGROUND Applying CCSB to railcars has elicited polarizing responses depending on the geographic location. The paradigm of the time (2000) was that CCSB were only necessary in the west but a costly disadvantage in the east. Railroads running railcars in the eastern US avoided CCSB applications, given their past experience that it greatly increased truck-turning resistance. Conversely, railroads in the western US relied heavily on the application of CCSBs to offer protection from rail car hunting potentially causing damage to sensitive lading or unfavorable car performance. An industry resolution to reduce the stress state of the railroad initiated an industry wide directive to equip all railcars with CCSBs. Following the resolution an extensive research program was initiated to determine the effects of CCSBs on the performance of various car types. CONTROLLED TESTING OF CARS WITH CCSB Under the direction of two AAR committees, a test plan was developed that would quantify performance in curving, twist and roll and high-speed stability (these regimes are all defined in an AAR specification) [Ref. 3]. The two committees were the Equipment Engineering Committee (EEC), which was tasked with oversight and execution, and the Mechanical

No / Yes No / Yes

Boxcar (60 ft)

Track tests and modeling studies indicated that the use of LTCCSBs provided the best overall performance in combined issues of curving, roll control, vertical load equalization, and high-speed stability. It was also surprising to discover that CCSBs generally performed well in comparison to double rollers in loaded truck turning resistance tests. Once the EEC and MRC reviewed the results from these tests they added language to Rule 88 which reads, "...after January 1, 2003, all new cars and cars that are rebuilt, cars given extended service, or increased in gross rail load, in accordance with AAR Office Manual Rule 88, must be equipped with metal-capped LT-CCSBs." Since that time, LT-CCSB retrofit plans benefiting other car types have been scheduled accordingly.

RESULT SUMMARY

INSTRUMENTATION METHODOLOGIES AND MATHEMATICS Three AAR M-1001 Chapter XI test regimes were chosen to quantify the differences in car performance due to CCSBs, high-speed stability, constant curving, and dynamic curving. In order to quantify the differences in each of these regimes instrumentation was applied to allow the following measurements: * Lateral, vertica1l, and longitudinal wheel forces * Truck tuming rmoments * Truck warp * Truck rotation * Lateral carbod~ y acceleration * Carbody Roll
Lateral, vertical, and longitudinal wheel forces were measured directly using two AAR designed instrumented wheelsets (IWS). The IWS were placed in axle positions one and two on the leading end of the car. Truck tuming moments are derived from both the lateral and longitudinal forces measured by the IWS. The total truck turning moment is defined as: Warp Moment + Steering Moment = Truck Turning Moment

Copyright 2006 by ASME

The warp moment is calculated from the wheelset's lateral forces, which are vector-summed on each axle and then multiplied by the one half of the wheelbase. The vector sum is necessary because the IWS do not follow a conventional right hand rule coordinate system (the lateral forces for a wheelset are positive when pushing outward on the rail). The steering moment is computed by multiplying the longitudinal force with the distance between the wheels' contact position and summing the two axle couples together along with the two moments calculated from the warp or lateral components. The calculation is performed using time series data, which creates a dynamic measurement of the total truck turning moment (see Figure 1).

with (Bottom) A Close-Up of the Displacement Transducer's Connection to the Side Frame

rl*uu.c -.

I '-pi

.1.r

Oe

...

tUOVU LJ

rVrnabu,V

fI u%.

vvarp

Turning Moment = M >ment + Steer rc Mom ent Wa<n

Figure 1: Truck Turning Moments used to Compare CCSBs with Traditional Roller Side Bearings

The amount of data collected from this series of controlled tests has been documented in several TTCI Technology Digests; [Ref. 4,5,6,7, and 8]. A complete graphic documenting track testing results is shown in Table 2. With limited funding, not all combinations could be tested; therefore, please note that * means in was not tested or modeled. Table 2: Controlled Testing Results from Four Rail Cars with Various Side Bearings. Results Demonstrate the Consistent Performance Benefit from using LT-CCSBs
Chapter Xi
Tank Loaded

DETAILED CONTROLLED TESTING RESULTS

Roller
Yes
No No
No

ST
Yes No

STRA
Yes No No
Yes

STNM

LT
Yes

LTRA Yes Yes

LTSH

Empty

Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes

Truck warp was measured by locating a beam on each end of the bolster parallel to the side frame, then measuring the displacement between the beam and the side frame. Figure 2 is a picture of the warp measurement arrangement. The measurement in radians is based on the difference in the delta displacement at each end divided by the distance between them. It is a trigonometric calculation utilizing the small angle theorem since warp angles are typically less than 5 to 15 milliradians. Truck rotation was measured at the end of the bolster with respect to the carbody. Truck rotation is computed by the arc tangent of the delta displacement divided by one half the bolsters width (d). Truck Rotation = Arc-tangent * (displacement delta / d)

Hopper Loaded

Empty
Bulkhead Loaded

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes

Empty
Gondola Loaded No
No No Yes

Yes

Empty

Legend:
* * * * * * ST - Standard Travel STRA - Standard Travel Roll Assist STNM - Standard Travel Non Metal Cap LT - Long Travel LTRA - Long Travel Roll Assist LTSH - Long Travel Shear

Carbody roll in degrees was calculated using two lateral accelerometers at a known vertical distance apart, which were ratioed based on the similar triangle theorem. The difference in their amplitudes produced the angle of carbody roll and the roll center. The remaining measurement, lateral carbody acceleration, was used to quantify high-speed stability performance for hunting.

Table 2 documents the improvement in performance by indicating whether or not the car met M-1001 Chapter XI requirements. All four cars (having every other aspect held constant) experienced marked improvement against Chapter XI criteria by simply changing to a LT-CCSB design. In similar fashion the results from modeling are reported in Table 3 where again LT-CCSB performed consistently within the criteria of chapter XI.

Copyright O 2006 by ASME

Table 3: Modeling Results from Four Rail Cars with Various Side Bearings. Results Demonstrate the Consistent Performance Benefit from using LT-CCSBs
Center Beam Loaded Empty 60-foot Box car Loaded Empty Grain Hopper Loaded Empty Pellet Hopper Loaded Empty Short Tank
Loaded

70%
4'

60%

ChqaptrXl

Rolle

IST ISTRA
Yes Yes

#TNM

L
Yes
e

LTRA

LTSI
Yes e

50%

40%

Yes

Yes

30%
0

Ye YeYs Yes Yes

Yes
Yes Yes
Yes

No Yes No

No Yes

20%h 10'h
0%

v N.. '101,\ NI-11

15

1111_91n.
20 25 30 Speed (mph, -4- Double Rollers -_ Non-Metal -fr-Long Travel -.*- Standard Roll Assist
35

No

10

Yes
No
Yes
No e

Yes
No

Yes
Yes

Yes
No

Yes

Empty 52-Foot Mill-Go"

Loaded

*Yes

Ye

YesYe
NoYe

Figure 3: Statistical Minimums from Each of the Side Bearing Designs Running in the Dynamic Curve

Empty

No

100%
60

-r

long liquid propane tank car. These two cars were chosen since they represent both ends of the spectrum of performance for all the cars tested. The long tank car enjoyed many benefits with the use of LT-CCSBs, whereas the short covered hopper did not garnish a similar increase in benefits. SHORT COVERED HOPPER RESULTS The short covered hopper (BNSF409040) is equipped with 11 0-ton Barber S-2-D trucks cast in June-98 employing seven D5 outer, and four D5 inner and inner-inner coils. The lightweight and load limits were 57,100 and 228,900 pounds, respectively. Car length is 40 feet over strikers with truck centers of 29.5 feet. All side bearings were tested without lubrication and truck center plates were left in dry condition as received. The car had accumulated more than 60,000 service miles prior to testing. The hopper was filled with sand in loaded tests to approximate the center of gravity of the typical lading of cement. One issue with curving is maintaining vertical wheel load in the entry and exit spirals. Two plots show how the hopper car performed in this arena. The first is from the loaded hopper running in dynamic curving. This test combines elements of curving, with twist and roll. Figure 3 shows that the long travel side bearing consistently provided more vertical wheel load than the other side bearing designs. Whether or not the dip (18 mph) in the long travel result is realistic, it is important to concentrate on the fact that vertical wheel loads stayed well above the minimum criteria of 10 percent as compared to the other side bearings. In spiral negotiation vertical wheel loading was not as good with the long travel as it was with the double roller. The cumulative histograms of each side bearings' performance are demonstrated in Figure 4. Since the car has a short truck center the difference in twist from lead to trail in the exit spiral is easily accounted for in the 0.25 inch air gap of the double roller side bearings.

performance results measured on a short covered hopper and a

The next two sections will document the specific

40%

= _

--

E 20%

0%

Vertical Load (kips) -Double Roller - Non4Metal -Long Travel - Standard Travel RA

10

Figure 4: Cumulative Histograms of Vertical Loads for Four Types of Side Bearings on the Short Covered Hopper

However, since typical maintenance standards allow the double roller air gap to degrade to zero before maintenance, a valid argument could be made that vertical loading performance with the long travel design would prove comparable to the double roller given the additional travel clearance under tight conditions. The two conditions, optimal and tight, are compared in Figures 5 and 6, which are NUCARSTM predictions of the percent wheel load retained in the limiting spiral (specified in AAR's Chapter XI). The light blue line in Figures 5 and 6 represents the equivalent crosslevel of the hopper (approximately 1.5 inches) given its 29.5foot truck centers. In the optimal condition no side bearing stands apart as best for negotiating the spiral. However, under tight conditions, the long travel design demonstrates the benefit of the additional travel (Compare remaining vertical wheel load for each condition (optimal and tight) for the three side bearing types using the light blue line).

10

Copyright C) 2006 by ASME

0%0

1
E

j 0%
40%

80%

Benefits from using LT-CCSBs on this tank car were much more pronounced. During initial empty car tests with roller side bearings the tank car derailed on an exit spiral from a 12degree curve. The following tests, performed with long travel designs, allowed safe spiral negotiation without any issue. The key to this incident was primarily vertical wheel loading which is demonstrated in Figures 7 and 8. Side bearings providing additional travel allow the trucks to freely rock (rotate around the longitudinal axis) below the carbody and maintain vertical loads during negotiation of cross level variations.
0

30%

0.5

Roder -

1 2.5 1.S 2 Crosslbvel (in) mdard Trael - Long Travel - Ncn-Metal

| 60
-

"!

Figure 5: Empty Car - Lead Outside Wheel Vertical Load Short Hopper Modeling Results Finally, truck-turning resistance indicated elevated levels (10 to 35 percent) when using LT-CCSBs as compared to double rollers in optimal conditions. The result is not surprising since rotation under optimal conditions is only resisted by the centerbowl when using double roller side bearings. This expectation would however, quickly reverse given tight side bearing conditions resulting in turning moments that could almost be equivalent.
100%

40
30

Yls.
lb

.A."

e 10
I

20

Nhm
I

16
30
40

Sned (mohi _ Doubb Roler _ Standard Tmvel -*- Long Travel Rot Assist -- Long Travel

10

20

Figure 7: Vertical Wheel Loading Comparison in the Dynamic Curve on a Long Propane Tank Car with Various Side Bearings

_ 90%
0 -J

II

80%
166%-

10^

..

8 70%

.-

e
E
ir

60%
50%

146%___
0

40%
1 1.5 2 Crosslevel (In) - Roller - Standard Travel - Long Travel

30%

0.5

2.5
-

%.4
Doubl ROlOM
-

'-

..........
12

1I

Non-setal

Stlad Trtl

Short Hopper Modeling Results with Tight Side Bearings LONG TANK CAR RESULTS Trucks used during empty car tests were new, 110-ton Barber S-2-HD cast in August-99 with a standard suspension (seven D5 outer coil springs and six D5 inner coil springs). Loaded car tests were performed with the higher mileage truck borrowed from an aluminum gondola previously tested (AAR TD-02021). The lightweight and load limits were 98,200 and 164,800 pounds, respectively. Car length was 66 feet over strikers with truck centers of 55 feet. Side bearings were tested without lubrication and center plate bowls were left in dry condition as received. The car was new and had acquired less than 5,000 service miles prior to testing. In loaded car tests, the tank was filled with water resulting in a center of gravity below the normal location.

Figure 6: Empty Car - Lead Outside Wheel Vertical Load -

La" Travl RA -La Travw

Figure 8: Vertical Wheel Loading Comparison in the 12Degree Exit Spiral on a Long Propane Tank Car with Various CCSB Using NUCARS" modeling methods, vertical load plots were constructed to illustrate the performance differences between the various side bearing applications. Figure 9 demonstrates the percent vertical load response of the long tank car in spirals. The light blue vertical line indicates the tank car's performance in the limiting spiral, which would subject the car (based on truck centers) to approximately 2.6 inches of crosslevel. Note the long travel design is predicted to provide more vertical load equalization than the other side bearing designs, which was confirmed in test. The performance with traditional double roller or block side bearings degrades more with tighter side bearing clearances.

11

Copyright 2006 by ASME

4 UU

ie
.1

I 60%
~1
IfliL

80%

90%

this test. Figure 11 provides a map of the routes that were covered during the 4,100 miles of testing.
I

70%

7 c1hiie -

E 40%
30%
0 I

\ N1*
2
Crosslevel (in.)

4
Figure 10: Two BNSF Diesel Oil Tank Cars used in Rail Service Tests

-Rolbr 8Standard Trel _ Long Travel Figure 9: NUCARSTm Prediction of Remaining Percent Vertical Load in the Limiting Spiral (approximately 2.6 inches of Crosslevel)

CONTROLLED TEST RESULTS CONCLUSION The body of evidence produced from testing and modeling clearly indicated the favorable performance of LT_CCSB with little downside. The AAR committees took the results with the intention of requiring the best side bearing for each car type but ended up simplifying the requirement by using LT-CCSB in all cars. The EEC recommendation to the Technical Services Working Committee was, "after January 1, 2003, all new cars that are rebuilt, and cars given extended service or increased in gross rail load, be equipped with long-travel CCSBs in accordance with AAR Office Manual Rule 88." The rule was accepted and made effective in 2003.
In 2001, one additional test was performed using intermodal double stacks with offset loads. This test and the result are critical to understanding the risk in allowing loads to travel in this condition. The test indicated that offset loads will produce results that nearly exceed Chapter XI criteria, obviously the more the offset the more risk in derailment. The use of other side bearings does not necessarily relieve this condition because the result will be higher truck turning forces and reduced vertical wheel loading capacity making legacy configurations susceptible to derailment. Better loading rules and inspections should warn and watch for this condition in an effort to avoid any potential issues.

83NS1P
D 1 ,4 1111

,b

The it
ocf.r

INDEPENDENT OFFSET LOAD TEST

Figure 11: Route Traversed by the Two Tank Cars during a BNSF Test Covering 4,100 Miles

INDEPENDENT RAIL SERVICE TESTING RESULTS Following the initial LT-CCSB work performed under the direction of the MRC and the EEC, there were several proprietary test programs conducted that produced findings, which also support the benefits derived from applying LT-CCSBs.
In the first quarter of 2003, two diesel oil tank cars from BNSF were used in a rail service test see Figure 10 [Ref. 9]. The cars were identical in setup with the only exception being that one had LT-CCSB and the other had block style side bearings. Both cars traveled in the empty condition for the duration of

BNSF RAIL SERVICE TEST

For one of two configurations, IWS were placed in the lead axle of each car providing real-time vertical, lateral, and longitudinal wheel forces. Vertical and lateral accelerometers were placed on each end of the tank cars. The initial move leaving LaJunta, Colorado, ran at speeds of 50 mph, however the tank car with block side bearings had too many severe hunting incidents. The test plan was revised and maximum test speeds were reduced to 45 mph to avoid tank car hunting. CCSBs have long been known for improving highspeed stability. Unfortunately the wheelsets were not always located in the configuration discussed above, which would have allowed comparison of the two cars with respect to vertical loading and LN ratios. The author only states the following, "the car equipped with long travel constant-contact side bearings still performed slightly better than the car equipped with solid-block side bearings, based on measured single wheel L/V ratio and lateral car-body accelerations results." TANK CAR TEST RESULTS Another independent test involving LT-CCSBs was conducted at the request of CN [Ref. 10]. In 2003, CN experienced a high-speed hunting derailment with a privately owned, tank car. Derailments of this type are not frequent but can be very costly. In discussions, CN indicated that most of their empty tank car derailments occurred in exit spirals at low speeds. They wanted TTCI to determine if the block side bearings had any impact on both types of these derailments.

12

Copyright

2006 by ASME

The test parameters required the car to remain in the as received condition. No condemnable conditions were observed on the car. The side bearings met the current FRA rules by not being in contact with the car body; however, the clearance on each of the side bearings and their respective locations turned out to be a significant factor in the car's performance. Earlier a discussion was offered regarding the increased risk of performance issues resulting from a reduction in side bearing clearance. It turns out this test highlighted this condition. Table 5 documents the clearances measured in the four side bearing positions. Table 4: Side Bearing Clearances of the Tank Car Measured in as-Received Condition before Testing Location B-Left B-Right A-Left A-Right

higher vertical loads to the wheels. It should be stated that the poor results measured during block side bearing tests were exacerbated by the uneven clearances. Figure 13 shows the minimum vertical wheel loads for each of the noted speeds in the twist and roll test. The test for the block side bearings was stopped after 50 mph for two reasons. First the car began to severely hunt just prior to entering the test zone and then, at 50 mph, the lowest vertical load of the test series was recorded. These two events, truck hunting and wheel unloading, could occur simultaneously and lead to a rail climb derailment at high speed, which is what was described in the original derailment that lead to the investigation.
90%

60%
, 70%
1

Side Bearing Gap

1/8th

5/16th

7/16th

1/64th

60%

The key here is that the clearances diagonally opposed from each other, B-left and A-Right, were tight. With the B-end leading this set up a circumstance that restrained the truck in a left-hand entry spiral from equalizing vertical load to the leading inside wheel. The suspension in the empty condition is too stiff to provide any compliance. Figure 12 is a cumulative distribution comparing long travel side bearings to the as received block side bearing performance. The position Al (an IWS label) is located on the lead axle right side (inside curve B-end leading) position. Note that railcar performance improved by distributing 7 to 8 kips more load to the inside lead wheel and the outside (axle 3 left wheel) when the truck is allowed to distribute the load side to side (please note the A3 is an IWS label). Fortunately, in this direction, derailment is not imminent since the most important railcar wheel (not shown in the plot) is carrying significant vertical load. However, in a right hand exit spiral, the situation would reverse and cause undesirable wheel unloading as the track twists away to a tangent level geometry. A rail climb derailment under this scenario would be likely.
160%
80%

X 50%
-: 40%
* 30% *A 20%
01

10%
0%
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Sped (mph)
Block * CCSB

Figure 13: Twist and Roll Vertical Wheel Load Statistics for the Tank Car With over 2 years of testing and modeling to support the benefit of LT-CCSBs, the rules for upgrading side bearings became an integral part of reducing the stress state of the railroad. What remains now is the fact that no specification exists to detail the performance requirements of CCSBs.

a.I

60%

'3

la 40%

20%

0%

6 6 Vertical Wheel Load (kips)

- --__ ..-.

.. 1. -.u-,- - - __ __ -

UPDATING THE CCSB SPECIFICATION Within the AAR Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices, is the historical side bearing specification M-9481997. The specification was mostly designed to control the performance of block and roller side bearings with only a short section that tested the vertical fatigue of the CCSB. The specification had no criteria for success or failure, just a basic application and approval process. Once the rail industry knew how a CCSB needed to perform, an updated specification became essential. The AAR sponsored a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) staffed with members from the railroads, side bearing suppliers, and TTCI. The first objective outline by the TAG was to define the railroad environment. The rail service testing was sponsored by an AAR research program and conducted by TTCI. Three high utilization car types were selected to acquire the environmental data of CCSBs.
CCSB ENVIRONMENT IN RAIL SERVICE In 2003, three cars known to experience high mileage in service were selected to ascertain the environment experienced by LTCCSBs [Ref. 11]. The three cars were a refrigerated boxcar (runs in high-speed service), an intermodal well car, and a coal

Figure 12: Cumulative Distribution of Vertical Wheel Loads Comparing the Two Side Bearing Types

The tank car was then tested using the twist and roll regime. In comparing the two side bearing configurations the LT-CCSB recovered after the resonance point in carbody roll to provide

13

Copyright c 2006 by ASME

gondola. Each of the cars was instrumented to measure bolster rotation (CCSB longitudinal sliding), car body roll in the center bowl (CCSB vertical cycles), lateral accelerations at each end, speed, and GPS. The purpose for the instrumentation was to quantify the inputs into LT-CCSBs. It was anticipated at the time that three cars and the services they operate in would be a challenging factor in LT-CCSB performance; this, however, was not realized in all cases. The total mileage from colleted data was over 25,000 miles for the three cars. The first test was conducted on a 76-foot refrigerated boxcar owned by Tropicana and used to ship orange juice in highspeed traffic lanes from Tampa, Florida to Los Angeles, California (Figure 14).

Figure 14: 76-foot Refrigerated Boxcar from Tropicana Used in Assessing the LT-CCSB Environment

The Tropicana cars frequently ran at high speeds (60 to 70 mph) given the time sensitive nature of the orange juice they carry. The route was traversed three times between Tampa and Los Angeles as depicted in Figure 15. The car is equipped with ASF Super Service Ride Master trucks using Lord primary suspension pads and A.Stucki SSB-5000 side bearings. Tropicana does an exceptional job of maintaining their railcar fleet, which proved beneficial on the wear and tear of components like trucks and CCSBs.

Figure 15: Path Traversed by the Tropicana Boxcar

i~Ap

CCSB VERTICAL CYCLES Considering the available data set the most notable observation is the absence of any challenging inputs into LT-CCSB from the three cars. It was anticipated that plentiful high-speed instability events would give an indication of the frequencies and amplitudes that a LT-CCSB experiences while in railroad service. Those cycles would then be quantified and used when developing inputs for a CCSB laboratory test. Instead only one of the three cars (the boxcar) produced Over-the-Road (OTR) inputs that could provide validation to lab test inputs. The other two cars had good truck performance, which meant that nothing was recorded that would challenge CCSBs. Focusing on the data from the boxcar there were a few useful observations. The available service data was analyzed for the vertical displacements of the CCSB. Table 5 provides the cycle counts measured in the vertical direction as compared to those published in the updated M-948-2004 [Ref. 12] specification.
Table 5: Comparison of Vertical Cycle Counts between Service Tests and the Updated M-948-2004

0.125 0.250

U.373
0.500 0.625

2,841,318 140,966 24,215 6,551

2,591

1,200,000 240,000 40,000 10,000 2,500

The cycle counts (at normal operational frequencies of 0.1 to 2.5 Hz) at the lower amplitude range are not particularly challenging to typical side bearings, so the difference in cycle counts at 0.125 inches is assumed insignificant. The M-9482004 mid-range cycles are more numerous making the test more conservative. Since rail cars have frequent rest periods while in service, the fact that the vertical lab inputs are continuous should also facilitate a more conservative test. CCSB LONGITUDINAL CYCLES Gleaning any correlation to longitudinal CCSB cycles proved difficult with the good performance measured from the three cars. Only the boxcar experienced a brief incident that could provide a snapshot of how severe hunting can become. The refrigerated boxcar made three trips between Tampa and Los Angeles totaling 14,000 miles. In one of those trips, the leading truck (B-end) experienced high-speed instability continuously for over two miles. Figure 16 shows the traces from this event. Using this brief occurrence the data is compared to the inputs specified in M-948-2004. M-948-2004 requires that for 37-hours and 20-minutes, a CCSB be subjected to hunting cycles that combine both vertical and lateral displacements in phase. The vertical cycle (peak-to-peak) is 0.125 inches at 3.0 Hz, and the longitudinal cycles are 0.25 inches. Figure 17 shows the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) of the filtered (FIR filter at 10 Hz) displacement signals from the boxcar; note that the frequency in both cases is about 3.0 Hz. When analyzing the time series data from Figure 16 the signals were determined to be out of phase. Since the forces into the side bearing are the same the phase is not considered to be important.

14

Copyright c 2006 by ASME

AF~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.

s.

...

14-

-., "'''- ~~~~~~...

'-..'

,~~~~~~~~~_

>... _.,_e>v_xs __tJ1

populations in service.

Figure 16: Three Miles of Data Recorded on the Refrigerated Boxcar near Wilcox, Arizona A final segment in the lab test in the simulated service life section is intended to replicate curving. The data from over the road was not analyzed to provide any correlation to the lab requirements. It has been suggested that this segment is too severe and far removed from conditions in service. Given the severity of all the lab inputs, side bearings that meet these performance levels should provide reliable performance in service. In order to validate this statement, the AAR conducted a test on two typical LT-CCSBs that have significant

Figure 18: Dual Axis MTS Load Frame Used in LT-CCSB Tests

The remaining requirements from M-948-2004 were not performed, as they are requirements for defining the function of a CCSB (preload, travel, etc.). VERTICAL M-948-2004 RESULTS The vertical test took a little over 10 days at 24 hours a day for each LT-CCSB. A vertical stifffiess plot was generated at the beginning and end of both tests to document the vertical fatigue performance. In addition, load values were recorded following the 30-minute static squeeze per M-948-2004 requirements. Figure 19 illustrates the force/displacement curves for the one of the side bearings.

,..vtw ,t.Sa

M22

.j

P4Lpw0

If

1.

i,W

04.4' _d

If

4 t44

:4i4-jp ^-

Figure 17: FFT of Vertical and Longitudinal CCSB Frequencies Matching the M-948-2004 Lab Requirements

Figure 19: Hysteresis Curves (Initial and Final) From M-9482004 Testing of a Typical LT-CCSB

TESTING OF TWO LT-CCSB Two typical LT-CCSBs being used in rail service were selected to undergo M-948-2004 requirements in two of the test procedures [Ref. 13]. Those procedures were the Vertical Fatigue Cycling test (M-948-2004 4.1.2) and the Simulated Service Test (M-948-2004 4.1.3). The tests were performed on MTS controlled two-axis load fixtures (Figure 18) having a 50-kip vertical and 10- to 35-kip longitudinal capacity.

M-948-2004 has two ratings for side bearings, which are premium (65 percent preload retention) and standard (50 percent preload retention). Both side bearings met premium requirements in the vertical fatigue test.

LONGITUDINAL M-948-2004 RESULTS Longitudinal hysteresis curves have a unique shape since they represent several conditions as the side bearing is loaded longitudinally. In a typical metal-capped side bearing the first event offers almost zero resistance because the cap is merely translating with respect to the base due to the clearance (the
Copyright
2006 by ASME

15

spring element is shearing). Once the inner cap hits the limit of the outer base longitudinal force builds under static friction. Then when the force has increased to the break away point the side bearing is no in full slip or friction is saturated. This shape is outlined in Figure 20 below where each of the components of the cycle can be observed.

n a.

0 U-

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0.1

0.2

0.3

I-Start

Displacement (in) -End -Theoretical Hysteresis

The red rectangle is a theoretical longitudinal cycle of a side bearing. The starting and ending hysteresis areas are also demonstrated. It is the ratio of the final to the initial hysteresis areas that is specified. In M-948-2004, standard performance is specified with a ratio > 25 percent and for premium the ratio > 45 percent. In the test cases of the two LT-CCSB, both units met the premium requirements. The loss in area is caused by the degradation of the spring load. The polymer element used by many CCSB designs degrades with the intense heat that is caused from the inputs of this testing. It is important to realize that this is not representative of service conditions; therefore meeting these requirements should give the industry confidence in the longterm performance of these LT-CCSBs. A companion requirement to the ratio is the loss in the length of the slipping region where friction is saturated. To guard against a side bearings' clearance wearing this criteria requires that the difference in the "gap" or leading edge of impending CCSB slip cannot exceed 0.125 inch for the standard requirement and 0.0625 inch for a premium designation. This requirement is illustrated in Figure 21. Again, both our test specimens met premium requirements.

Figure 20: Typical Longitudinal Hysteresis Curves from a Metal Capped LT-CCSB Several other pieces of information are included in Figure 20.

Figure 21: Methodology to Measure Reduction in Saturated Friction (a - b = longitudinal slip) CONCLUSION By using LT-CCSBs, rail operations can be improved by maintaining better vertical wheel loads, providing high-speed stability, and providing more predictable truck turning forces. This observation was well supported with several years of modeling and testing conducted under the AAR strategic research program. Understanding how the CCSB works and what the rail industry needs from its performance was also a The updated M-948-2004 benefit from the testing. specification now captures this knowledge and preserves the
CCSBs' function.

Using M-948-2004, two typical CCSBs were evaluated and determined to meet premium performance levels. The corollary is that these units are also known to be performing better in service than earlier CCSB designs. Presently, this indicates assurance that the new specification benefits the industry by ensuring the stringent lab performance requirements will facilitate excellent LT-CCSBs..
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Russell Walker Senior 1I Engineer TTCI A. Stucki Company Amstead Rail Group BNSF Canadian National Railway Company
CSX Transportation Miner Enterprises Standard Car Truck TTX Company Union Pacific Railroad Company

16

Copyright 2006 by ASME

REFERENCES
1

3
4

5
6

Association of American Railroads, "Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices," Section D, Specification M948, 1997. Association of American Railroads, "2005 Office Manual of the AAR Interchange Rules," Pueblo, Colorado, Rule 88.C.3.c.18.m, pp. 28. 2005. Association of American Railroads, "Manual of Standards and Section Recommended Practices," C, Chapter XI, 1986. R. Walker, "Side Bearing Performance Under Adverse Conditions," TTCI, TD-02-014, Pueblo, CO, 2002. D. Iler, "Assessing Constant Contact Side Bearing Performance for an Aluminum Coal Gondola," TTCI, TD-02-02 1, Pueblo, CO, 2002. D. Iler, "Assessing Constant Contact Side Bearing Performance for an Short Covered Hopper," TTCI, TD-02023, Pueblo, CO, 2002.

8
9 10
11 12

13

D. Iler, Walker, R., "Assessing Constant Contact Side Bearing Performance for a Long Tank Car," TTCI TD-02027, Pueblo, CO, 2002. D. Iler, Walker, R., "Assessing Constant Contact Side Bearing Performance for a Bulkhead Flatcar," TTCI, TD03-006, Pueblo, CO, 2003. D. Li, Bidwell, R., Malone, J., "Over-The-Road Test: Track Geometry and Tank Car Performance," TTCI, P-03016, Pueblo, CO, 2003 (proprietary). D. Iler, "Tank Car Derailment Study," TTCI, P-03-036, Pueblo, CO, 2003 (proprietary). D. Iler, "Constant Contact Side Bearing Environment," P-05-027, Pueblo, CO, 2005. Association of American Railroads, "Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices," Section D, Specification M948, 2004. D. Iler, "Testing of Constant Contact Side Bearings Using AAR Specification M-948," TTCI, P-05-028, Pueblo, CO, 2005.

17

Copyright D 2006 by ASME