Transcript Transportation Technology Center, Inc., a subsidiary of the Association of American Railroads North American Research and Technology Overview Semih Kalay Sr.

Transportation Technology Center, Inc., a subsidiary of the Association of American Railroads
North American
Research and
Technology Overview
Semih Kalay
Sr. Vice President
Technology
© TTCI/AAR,11/6/2015. HALERC, p1
®
North American Railway Industry
Technology Development Goals
• Technology Driven Safety Improvements;
• Reductions in train accidents
• Reductions in:
• rail-highway crossing accidents
• trespasser incidents
• employee casualty rate
• probability of hazmat releases
• Technology Driven Productivity Improvements
• Asset utilization improvements: increases in ton-miles/mile of
track owned
• Productivity improvements: increased revenue ton-miles per
constant $ of operating expense
• Continued reductions in revenue ton-miles per gallon of fuel
• Continued reductions in NOx and particulates from operations
© TTCI/AAR,11/6/2015, HALERC p2
®
AAR Strategic Research Program
• New technologies under development
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Fatigue and wear resistant rail steels and rail welding
Improved track substructure (ballast and formation)
Advanced special trackwork designs and materials
Bridge life extension strategies and advanced designs
Improved strength sleeper systems
Laser-based rail flaw inspection and phased arrays
Machine vision inspection of track
Machine vision inspection and automated freight car
condition monitoring & preventive maintenance
Integrated truck suspension designs
Improved car component designs and materials
Fatigue and wear resistant wheel steels
Improved brake systems
Wheel/rail interface management
Development of a new wheel and rail profiles
© TTCI/AAR,11/6/2015, HALERC p3
®
Facility for Accelerated Service Testing
• FAST/Heavy Axle Load Implementation:
• Test and evaluate new and untried
• components before they are
• implemented in revenue service
• Mitigate adverse effects of HAL
• HAL Operations
• 16,000-tonne train with 105 cars
• Newer and more fuel efficient locomotives (3 SD70 locos)
• Unmanned operations under computer control
• Accumulated 164 MGT in 2012
© TTCI/AAR,11/6/2015, HALERC p4
FAST Rail Performance Testing
®
•
•
•
•
ERMS (USA) – 1 grade: OCP
Tata Steel (France) – 1 grade: MHH HE (HH)
Nippon (Japan) – 1 grade: HEX (control rail)
JFE (Japan) – 2 grades: JFE-A (SP2), JFE-B
(SP3)
• Mittal (USA) – 1 grade: HC
• Panzhihua (China) – PG4 (head hardened)
• Voestalpine (Austria) – 3 grades: VAS-1,
• VAS-2, 400NEXT
400NEXT
VAS-2
VAS-1
PG4
MITTAL
JFE-B
JFE-A
NIPPON
TATA STEEL
Rail Type
29 MGMT
55 MGMT
81 MGMT
128 MGMT
182 MGMT
242 MGMT
271 MGMT
310 MGMT
348 MGMT
ERMS
Rail Wear [mm2]
Average High Rail Wear Area
300
270
240
210
180
150
120
90
60
30
0
Light
Medium
Severe
Extreme
Relative wear and fatigue performance:
• No internal defects to date
• Wear performance superior to earlier
rail steels
• Rail failure mode has changed
• More rail base breaks
• Rolling Contact Fatigue has become
the major problem with higher
hardness rail steels
© TTCI/AAR,11/6/2015, HALERC p5
®
Improved Rail Welding Methods
• Current practice have limitations when used on HAL
lines
• Rail consumption can change rail neutral temperature and
require extra work
• Thermite welds can have lives shorter than parent rail
• Implementation of Heat Affected Zone (HAZ), the
weakest part of a field weld, treatments in revenue
service trials of this weld life improvement technique
© TTCI/AAR,11/6/2015, HALERC p6
®
•
•
Bridge Research
Older bridges
• Many bridges over 50 years old
• Focus on bridge life extension
• Selective member replacement
• More effective repairs
• Science based inspection and fatigue life estimates
Advanced designs and
materials also being developed
and used
•
•
Hybrid composite
concrete spans
Light-weight tied-arch
• 2nd gen successfully
• tested at FAST
• Will install in
revenue service
© TTCI/AAR,11/6/2015, HALERC p7
®
Improved Track Substructure for HAL
• Ballast test at UP western mega site
• Quantify breakdown of ballast types under HAL traffic
• Relate ballast condition to strength and deformation characteristics from
•
triaxial lab tests
Use data for improved maintenance guidelines
Repeated axial stress
(deviator stress)
Plastic
strain
Axial
strain
© TTCI/AAR,11/6/2015, HALERC p8
®
Improved Track Components
• Improved strength “Half-frame” sleepers
•
Features
• Tabs provide:
• Larger vertical footprint
• Larger end footprint
• Integral bottom of tie pads
• Five-fold decrease in surfacing
© TTCI/AAR,11/6/2015, HALERC p9
®
Improved Special Track Work Designs
• Specialness of special trackwork
• Often involves more than one track
• Surface discontinuities
• Change in track stiffness/structure
• A continuous running surface turnout
• Vertical switch
• Lift frog
© TTCI/AAR,11/6/2015, HALERC p10
®
Next generation Insulated Rail Joints
• Insulated & mechanical joints typically weaker than rail
• Revenue Service testing of next generation designs
• Eighty two prototype IJ are in RS
Center liner
Durable adhesive
and surface
treatment
Lap joint
Keyed Joint
IJ System
© TTCI/AAR,11/6/2015, HALERC p11
Onboard Track Inspection
Laser-based rail inspection
®
Inspection box
Carriage
Transducer Mounts
VSH
Stepper Motors
TD
TD
VSH
URail Inspection Box
© TTCI/AAR,11/6/2015, HALERC p12
®
Phased Array Rail Flaw Detection
• Phased Array System and Roller Search Unit (RSU)
32 Element Linear Array Transducers inside the RSU
© TTCI/AAR,11/6/2015, HALERC p13
®
Automated Inspection of Track
Automated Switch Inspection Systems
● Hyrail laser and camera system – inspects rail portions of turnouts
● Reported gage-related defect and some, but not all, running
surface conditions present
● Gage calibration problem
● Post-processing required before inspection report was issued
Frog flangeway obstruction - reported
Switch point gap (1/8-inch) – not reported
© TTCI/AAR, 11/6/2015, RTWC p14
®
Track Structure Inspection
• Poor substructure leads to geometry problems and
accelerated component failure and chronic geometry
issues
• Worse with heavier axle loads
• Improvements needed
• Root cause analysis: trenching and cone penetrometer tests
• Automated inspection using ground penetrating radar
• Significant ballast pocket problems and soft clay
© TTCI/AAR, 11/6/2015, RTWC p15
®
•
•
Improved Rolling Stock Components:
Next Generation Freight Car Truck
Objectives: Test & evaluate proposed OEM truck suspension designs:
Loaded & empty car hunting; vertical & lateral track forces; curve
resistance
Five truck types been tested:
• Truck 1: Improved wedge design, rubber pads, increased longitudinal
clearance between adapter & pedestal
• Truck 2: Frame bracing, rubber pads, increased longitudinal clearance
between adapter & pedestal
• Truck 3: Spring plank, polymer pads, increased longitudinal clearance
between adapter & pedestal
• Truck 4: Frame bracing, rubber adapter pads
increased longitudinal clearances
• Truck 5: Spring plank, polymer pads
© TTCI/AAR,11/6/2015, HALERC p16
•
High Performance Wheels
Revenue service test on UP train
®
• Unit coal train, rebuilt with AAR M-976 trucks
• 3 years, 223,000 revenue service miles
• 41% of wheels inspected, other cars in different trains
• Class C w/ Composition brake shoes worst condition
•
Type 7 similar condition to Class C
• Only 1 car inspected with Type 4
• Removed all Type 6, SRI wheelsets
C = Class C
Cmp = Composition Brake Shoes
TC A = Tread Conditioning Brake
Shoe Type “A”
TC B = Tread Conditioning Brake
Shoe Type “B”
© TTCI/AAR,11/6/2015, HALERC p17
®
Vehicle Health Monitoring Systems:
Next Generation Cracked Wheel Detection Systems
♦ Ultrasonic Inspection System
● Cooperative agreement signed with Sheenline/Tycho and
Chinese Academy of Railway Science (CARS)
● Sensor array inside a gage-widened track segment
● Liquid required for UT sensor coupling to wheel
● No robotics
© TTCI/AAR,11/6/2015, HALERC p18
®
•
Rolling Stock Health Monitoring
Automated Inspection of Structural Components
• Missing/Loose coupler pin/draft gear carrier fasteners
• Brake Beam/Brake Rigging condition
• Broken/Cracked/Bent side and/or center sill
• Bogie condition/springs, wedge rise, etc.
© TTCI/AAR, 1/11/2012, Filename p19
®
North American Railroad Safety
and Productivity Improvements
Chart 2: Average Freight Train Load
Chart 4: U.S. Rail Accident & Employee Casualty Rates
(Tonnes)
12
3,400
3,200
10
3,000
8
Casualties Per 200,000
Rail Employee-Hours: Down
84% 1980-2011
The average freight train carried a
near-record 3,209 tonnes of freight in
2011, up 59 percent since 1980.
2,800
2,600
6
2,400
4
2,200
Train Accidents Per
Million Train-Miles:
Down 76% 1980-2011
2
2,000
1,800
1,600
0
'80
'81 '83 '85 '87 '89 '91 '93 '95 '97 '99 '01 '03 '05 '07 '09 '11
'83 '85 '87 '89 '91 '93 '95 '97 '99 '01 '03 '05 '07 '09 '11
Data are for U.S. Class I railroads. Source: AAR
Source: Federal Railroad Administration
Chart 1: Gross Ton-Kilometers Per Kilometer of RR
Chart 3: Demand For Freight Transportation
(Millions)
(Billions of Tons Transported in U.S.)
2010
18.3 bil
2040p
27.5 bil
0
5
10
The U.S. DOT
projects a 50%
increase in
U.S. freight
demand by
2040.
15
20
25
p - projected Source: FHWA Office of Freight Management and Operations
30
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
'81 '83 '85 '87 '89 '91 '93 '95 '97 '99 '01 '03 '05 '07 '09 '11
*Including weight of wagons. Data are for U.S. Class I railroads. Source: AAR
© TTCI/AAR, 11/6/2015, p20
®
Safety: Reduce Mainline
Derailments / Train Mile by 50%
© TTCI/AAR, 11/6/2015, p21
®
© TTCI/AAR, 11/6/2015, p22