DOT/FRA/ORD-12/03 Final Report

March 2012

Cracking and Impact Performance Characteristics 

of Plastic Composite Ties

Office of Railroad

Policy and Development

Washington, DC 20590

U.S. Department 

of Transportation

Federal Railroad 

Administration
NOTICE

The United States Government does not endorse products or 

manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely 

because they are considered essential to the objective of this report.

NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department 

of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United 

States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. 

Any opinions, findings and conclusions, or recommendations expressed 

in this material do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the 

United States Government, nor does mention of trade names, commercial 

products, or organizations imply endorsement by the United States 

Government. The United States Government assumes no liability for the 

content or use of the material contained in this document.
i

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form approved

OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding 

this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Washington Headquarters 

Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of 

Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0702-0288), Washington, D.C. 20503

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

March 2012 Technical Report

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Cracking and Impact Performance Characteristics of Plastic Composite Ties

5. FUNDING NUMBERS

 

6. AUTHOR(S)

Richard Reiff and Carmen Trevizo 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

Transportation Technology Center, Inc.

P.O. Box 11130

Pueblo, CO 81001

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBERS

DTFR53-00-C-00012

Task Order 227

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration

Office of Railroad Policy and Development, MS 20

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY 

REPORT NUMBER

DOT/FRA/ORD-12/03

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Program Manager: Mahmood Fateh

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

This document is available to the public on the FRA Web site at 

http://www.fra.dot.gov.

13. ABSTRACT

As followup to a workshop on Engineered Composite Ties sponsored by the American Railway Engineering and 

Maintenance-of-Way Association and the Federal Railroad Administration, the Transportation Technology Center, Inc., 

in Pueblo, CO, conducted a series of tests addressing material performance issues. A primary objective of the workshop 

was to identify performance concerns and potential areas of research by using input from the Class I railroad 

representatives. Class I railroads have installed plastic/composite ties in their tracks for several years for evaluation 

purposes. A panel of Class I railroad engineers attending the workshop noted tie cracking and fractures during handling, 

installation, and service as priority areas of concern.

14. SUBJECT TERMS

High-density polyethylene, modulus of elasticity, modulus of rupture, plastic 

composite ties

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

54

16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

OF REPORT

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 

OF THIS PAGE

19. SECURITY 

CLASSIFICATION OF 

ABSTRACT

20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT

UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)

Prescribed by ANSI/NISO Std. 239.18

298-102
ii

METRIC/ENGLISH CONVERSION FACTORS

ENGLISH TO METRIC METRIC TO ENGLISH

LENGTH (APPROXIMATE) LENGTH (APPROXIMATE)

1 inch (in) = 2.5 centimeters (cm) 1 millimeter (mm) = 0.04 inch (in)

1 foot (ft) = 30 centimeters (cm) 1 centimeter (cm) = 0.4 inch (in)

1 yard (yd) = 0.9 meter (m) 1 meter (m) = 3.3 feet (ft)

1 mile (mi) = 1.6 kilometers (km) 1 meter (m) = 1.1 yards (yd)

1 kilometer (km) = 0.6 mile (mi)

AREA (APPROXIMATE) AREA (APPROXIMATE)

1 square inch (sq in, in2) = 6.5 square centimeters 

(cm2)

1 square centimeter (cm2) = 0.16 square inch (sq in, in2)

1 square foot (sq ft, ft2) = 0.09 square meter (m2) 1 square meter (m2) = 1.2 square yards (sq yd, 

yd2)

1 square yard (sq yd, yd2) = 0.8 square meter (m2) 1 square kilometer (km2) = 0.4 square mile (sq mi, mi2)

1 square mile (sq mi, mi2) = 2.6 square kilometers 

(km2)

10,000 square meters (m2) = 1 hectare (ha) = 2.5 acres

1 acre = 0.4 hectare (he) = 4,000 square meters (m2)

MASS - WEIGHT (APPROXIMATE) MASS - WEIGHT (APPROXIMATE)

1 ounce (oz) = 28 grams (gm) 1 gram (gm) = 0.036 ounce (oz)

1 pound (lb) = 0.45 kilogram (kg) 1 kilogram (kg) = 2.2 pounds (lb)

1 short ton = 2,000 

pounds (lb)

= 0.9 tonne (t) 1 tonne (t) =

=

1,000 kilograms (kg)

1.1 short tons

VOLUME (APPROXIMATE) VOLUME (APPROXIMATE)

1 teaspoon (tsp) = 5 milliliters (ml) 1 milliliter (ml) = 0.03 fluid ounce (fl oz)

1 tablespoon (tbsp) = 15 milliliters (ml) 1 liter (l) = 2.1 pints (pt)

1 fluid ounce (fl oz) = 30 milliliters (ml) 1 liter (l) = 1.06 quarts (qt)

1 cup (c) = 0.24 liter (l) 1 liter (l) = 0.26 gallon (gal)

1 pint (pt) = 0.47 liter (l)

1 quart (qt) = 0.96 liter (l)

1 gallon (gal) = 3.8 liters (l)

1 cubic foot (cu ft, ft3) = 0.03 cubic meter (m3) 1 cubic meter (m3) = 36 cubic feet (cu ft, ft3)

1 cubic yard (cu yd, yd3) = 0.76 cubic meter (m3) 1 cubic meter (m3) = 1.3 cubic yards (cu yd, yd3)

TEMPERATURE (EXACT) TEMPERATURE (EXACT)

[(x-32)(5/9)] F = y C [(9/5) y + 32] C = x F

QUICK INCH - CENTIMETER LENGTH CONVERSION

0 1 2 3 4 5

Inches

Centimeters 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

QUICK FAHRENHEIT - CELSIUS TEMPERATURE CONVERSION

 -40° -22° -4° 14° 32° 50° 68° 86° 104° 122° 140° 158° 176° 194° 212°

 

°F

 °C -40° -30° -20° -10° 0 ° 10° 20° 30° 40° 50° 60° 70° 80° 90° 100°

For more exact and or other conversion factors, see NIST Miscellaneous Publication 286, Units of Weights and 

Measures. Price $2.50 SD Catalog No. C13 10286 Updated 6/17/98
iii

Acknowledgments

A test of this scope required the cooperative effort of several individuals and companies. 

The Federal Railroad Administration, through Mahmood Fateh of the Office of Railroad 

Policy and Development, provided the funding and technical direction for this project. 

Mr. Richard Lampo of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and

Development Center, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory at Champaign, IL, 

provided direct technical assistance. Transportation Technology Center, Inc., support 

was provided by Rafael Jimenez and James Rzonca. BNSF Railway provided ties and 

outside technical assistance through John Bosshart and Henry Sullivan of TieTek. 

Without the generous support and cooperation from these individuals and their 

employers, this program could not have been conducted.
iv

Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 1

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 2

2 Objectives and Findings .............................................................................................. 3

3 Approach ..................................................................................................................... 4

4 Methodology................................................................................................................ 5

5 Ties Evaluated ............................................................................................................. 6

6 Test Matrix .................................................................................................................. 7

6.1 RS Tests—Bending.............................................................................................. 7

6.2 RS Tests—Impact Loading .................................................................................. 7

6.3 Center Bending Tests........................................................................................... 8

7 Results ......................................................................................................................... 9

7.1 RS Stiffness: Half-Length Tie Samples, No Fastener System Attached............. 9

7.2 RSP: Half-Length Tie Samples with Holes Predrilled for SS Plates, No 

Fastener System Attached.................................................................................. 10

7.3 RSP: Half-Length Tie Samples with SS Fastening System Plate Installed ...... 11

7.4 RSP: Half-Length Tie Samples, with Overdriven SS Fastener System 

Attached ............................................................................................................. 13

7.5 RSP: Half-Length Tie Samples with CS Fastener System Attached ................ 14

7.6 RSN: Half-Length Tie Samples with CS Fastener System Attached................ 14

7.7 RSN: Half-Length Tie Samples with SS Fastener System Attached ................ 16

7.8 RSN Tests by Tie Type ...................................................................................... 17

7.9 Impact Tests: RSP, Half-Length Tie Samples .................................................. 18

7.10 Overall Impact Testing Results.......................................................................... 24

7.11 Full-Length Tie Center Bending—MOE ........................................................... 24

7.12 Full-Length Tie Center Bending—MOR........................................................... 25

8 Addendum to Test Matrix ......................................................................................... 27

8.1 Overview of Additional Testing for Repeatability............................................. 27

8.2 Results Separated by Tie Manufacturer ............................................................. 29

8.3 Summary of Observations: Effects from Tie Aging and Retesting after 

Outside Storage .................................................................................................. 34

8.4 Testing Procedures............................................................................................. 34

8.5 Tie Samples Required to Obtain Statistically Sound Average........................... 35
v

9 Discussion of Results and Recommendations........................................................... 36

9.1 Items to Consider for Further Testing................................................................ 36

9.2 Recommendations for Future Testing................................................................ 37

Appendix A. Test Matrix and Codes ............................................................................... 38

Abbreviations and Acronyms............................................................................................ 44
vi

Illustrations

Figure 1. Test Setup for RS Stiffness Testing; Supports Are 30 in Apart ....................... 9

Figure 2. RS Bending Stiffness, No Fastening System or Drilled Holes....................... 10

Figure 3. RSP, Holes Only (New) and Holes from Overdriven SSs, -25°F, 

No Fastener ..................................................................................................... 11

Figure 4. RSP, Half-Length Tie Test Fixture Setup for SSs Tie Plate System 

Fitted to the RS................................................................................................ 12

Figure 5. RSP Results from Evaluating a SS System on All New Ties......................... 12

Figure 6. RSP Stiffness Using an Overdriven SS Fastening System Attached ............. 13

Figure 7. RSP Stiffness Using Standard CSs/Tie Plate System with No Predrilling of 

Holes on New Ties.......................................................................................... 14

Figure 8. RSN Bending Load Fixture and Setup ........................................................... 15

Figure 9. RSN Bending Test Results, All New Ties, CS Fastening System ................. 15

Figure 10. RSN Bending Results, All New Ties, SS Fastening System........................ 16

Figure 11. RSN Bending Results, All Ties, Overdriven SS Fastening System............. 16

Figure 12. RSN Results, All Fastening Systems, for Type A Only............................... 17

Figure 13. RSN Results, All Fastening Systems, for Type B Only ............................... 17

Figure 14. RSN Results, All Fastening Systems, for Type C Only ............................... 18

Figure 15. Impact Loading Test Fixture and Configuration .......................................... 19

Figure 16. RSP, Type A—Standard SS Plate, Fully Applied with Normal Holes, 

No Plate, New Ties.......................................................................................... 20

Figure 17. RSP, Type A—SS Plate Overdriven, Fully Applied with Overdriven 

Holes Only, No Plate....................................................................................... 20

Figure 18. RSP, Impact Type A—Overdriven, Standard SS Plate Fully Applied and 

with Normal Holes, No Plate .......................................................................... 21

Figure 19. RSP, Impact Type C—SS Fastening System Fully Applied with 

Overdriven Holes Only, No Tie Plate ............................................................. 22

Figure 20. RSP, New Type B—Standard SS Plate Fully Applied with Normal Holes, 

No Plate ........................................................................................................... 23

Figure 21. RSP, Type B—SS Plate Overdriven Fully Applied with Overdriven Holes 

Only, No Plate ................................................................................................. 23

Figure 22. Tie Test Center Bending Load Fixture Setup............................................... 24

Figure 23. RS Bending Test Results, Average Stiffness for All Tests Conducted 

May 2007......................................................................................................... 28

Figure 24. Standard Deviation of Bending Test Results Shown in Figure 23 ............... 28
vii

Figure 25. Results from Single and Multiple Tests Conducted on Type A Tie 

Samples ........................................................................................................... 30

Figure 26. Results from Single and Multiple Tests Conducted on Type B Tie 

Samples ........................................................................................................... 31

Figure 27. Results from Single and Multiple Tests Conducted on Type C Tie 

Samples ........................................................................................................... 33
viii

Tables

Table 1. Summary of Load/Deflection Results—Center Bending ................................ 25

Table 2. MOR Test Results............................................................................................ 26

Table 3. MOR Summarized Results .............................................................................. 26
1

Executive Summary

As followup to a workshop on Engineered Composite Ties sponsored by the American Railway 

Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA), the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), and the Transportation Technology Center, Inc. (TTCI), in Pueblo, CO,

conducted a series of tests addressing material performance issues. The workshop’s primary 

objective was to identify performance concerns and potential areas of research by using input 

from Class I railroad representatives. Class I railroads have installed plastic/composite ties in 

their tracks for several years for evaluation purposes with respect to both performance and 

economy. A panel of Class I railroad engineers attending the workshop noted tie cracking and 

fractures during handling, installation, and service as priority areas of concern. 

Selecting a laboratory test to screen the performance of plastic/composite ties before their use in 

service may depend on specific material characteristics or proprietary differences between ties. 

Overall, most bending tests of half-length and full-length tie samples that were provided for 

testing suggest the biggest differences were noted when tests were conducted with cold materials

(-25°F). During these controlled temperatures, overall stiffness increased significantly more than

tests conducted at ambient and elevated temperatures. The addition of holes (from cut spikes 

(CSs) or screw spikes (SSs)) did not significantly change performance results. 

The laboratory test procedures followed by TTCI were not able to re-create cracks in the tie 

samples. For this reason, the influence of pre-existing cracks could not be evaluated as 

originally planned. Numerous attempts to produce cracks by improperly installing fasteners did 

not produce failures as reported from railroad field sites. This suggests that a full understanding 

of what causes crack initiation upon fastener insertion does not yet exist. Therefore, additional 

effort is needed to develop a procedure that can screen ties prone to cracking during the fastener 

installation process. 

When SS fastening systems were installed and the SSs were purposely overdriven (―overdriven‖

meaning using an undersized predrill to see if it was the cause in the failed attempt to produce 

cracks), the result increased rail seat (RS) bending stiffness, except at elevated temperatures.

The combination of a plate held down with overdriven SSs appeared to reinforce the tie in 

bending, suggesting that ties should be tested with no fastener system to ensure that results are 

not influenced by improperly installed plates. Elevated temperatures tended to reduce bending 

stiffness even when the fastening systems were installed on the ties.

Most results for tie bending stiffness varied the same by manufacturer regardless of whether the 

test was conducted for RS positive (RSP), RS negative (RSN), or full-length center bending.

The largest difference in performance between manufacturers was shown during impact tests, all 

of which were conducted with ties at -25°F. All ties survived 10 repeated impacts of 

50,000 pounds (lb) of force with the fastening system installed on the ties (and impact load 

applied to the tie plate); however, two of the three tie types failed the impact tests when the load 

was applied directly to the RS area of the ties. This suggests that the fastening system offers a 

significant attenuation and reduction of impact load applied to the tie.
2

1. Introduction

As followup to a workshop on Engineered Composite Ties sponsored by AREMA and FRA, 

during April 29–30, 2004, TTCI conducted a series of tests addressing material performance 

issues. The workshop’s primary objective was to identify performance concerns and potential 

areas of research by using input from Class I railroad representatives. Class I railroads have 

installed plastic/composite ties in their tracks for several years for evaluation purposes. A panel 

of Class I railroad engineers attending the workshop noted tie cracking and fractures during 

handling, installation, and service as priority areas of concern. 

Concerns voiced by the panel of Class I railroad engineers at the workshop and TTCI’s 

experience suggest that some performance characteristics of plastic/composite ties need further 

evaluation to allow laboratory-based screening of ties before selection and installation. To 

address these concerns, FRA has sponsored a series of laboratory evaluations to identify 

improved specifications for selecting plastic/composite ties to ensure long-term safety when 

installed in track. 
3

2. Objectives and Findings

Many issues related to plastic/composite tie performance were raised at the Engineered 

Composite Ties workshop. AREMA Committee 30 used the workshop results to propose future 

updates to Chapter 30, Part 5, of the AREMA Railway Engineering Manual. Questions 

regarding major issues with plastic/composite tie performance addressed at the workshop and 

that were evaluated in this FRA-sponsored project include the following:

 Do the stress risers created by the SS threads as they cut into the plastic/composite tie 

material weaken the RS area? 

 Does the reduction of cross-sectional area (approximately 10 percent), caused by 

predrilling for SSs, reduce the bending strength of the RS area with the fastening system 

(four SSs and tie plate) in place?

 Does a plastic/composite tie that is cracked as a result of SS installation provide less 

bending strength in the RS area with the fastening system (four SSs and tie plate) in 

place?

 What is the bending strength in the RS area with the SSs and tie plate removed when 

cracks are present and without cracks?

 Because of the wide range of tie plate hole patterns, some railroads prefer to install CSs 

without first predrilling a pilot hole. What effect does the wedging force created when 

CSs are pressed into the plastic/composite ties have on weakening the RS area? 

 In a simulated center-bound tie condition (three-point bending), how much centerbending load will result in 1-inch track gage widening? When the load is released, will 

the tie be permanently deformed?

 The load environment under heavy axle load (HAL) traffic can be quite severe. How do 

plastic/composite ties perform under simulated impact forces?

 What is the effect of ambient temperature on:

- Modulus of elasticity (MOE)?

- Modulus of rupture (MOR)?

- Permanent deformation after bending at the tie center?
4

3. Approach

Plastic/composite ties from three different manufacturers are beginning to see more widespread 

use in Class I railroad applications. Examples of these ties were selected to obtain performance 

data on designs with known performance history. These same three tie types have also been in 

service successfully under 39-ton HAL traffic on the High Tonnage Loop (HTL) at the Facility 

for Accelerated Service Testing (FAST) for at least 400 million gross tons (MGT); a few of the 

initial plastic/composite ties installed in the HTL have seen 1,000 MGT.

Since the initiation of this test program, two of the three manufacturers have ceased producing 

plastic/composite ties. Through cooperative efforts from Association of American Railroads 

(AAR) member railroads (along with purchases from excess stock), TTCI was able to obtain 

25 new, unused, and properly stored tie samples from three designs. All tie designs tested met 

the following criteria: 

 Tie samples passed all existing, current AREMA Chapter 30 requirements for 

plastic/composite ties. 

 A minimum of 10 tie samples had survived in revenue service or at FAST, demonstrating 

that they can survive under freight railroad operating conditions. 

The FRA Contract Officer Technical Representative approved tie designs selected for testing.
5

4. Methodology

The Test Implementation Plan generated for this project focused on three areas of interest: 

1. RS Bending

- In the RS area with each fastening system (CSs, SSs, and their corresponding tie 

plates) in place—no cracks in the tie

- In the RS area with SS system in place when cracks are present in the tie

- In the RS area with the SSs removed—vacant holes—no cracks in the tie

- In the RS area with the SSs removed—vacant holes with cracks in the tie

- Calculated MOR

- Compared with a plastic/composite tie, virgin RS area—never predrilled, never 

fastened

- Compared with an oak tie with SSs and tie plate in place

2. RS Impact Loading

- In the RS area with SS system in place with no cracks in the tie

- In the RS area with SS system in place when cracks are present in the tie

- In the RS area with the SSs removed—vacant holes—no cracks in the tie

- In the RS area with the SSs removed—vacant holes with cracks in the tie

- Accessed RS condition 

3. Tie Center Bending

- At the center of the tie—MOE, MOR, and permanent deformation at 1-inch gage 

widening

- Compared with published MOE and MOR test results

The tests were performed to produce three-point positive and three-point negative bending 

moments by using a Material Testing System (MTS) machine. Vertical deflection at the neutral 

axis, center of each span, was measured using a string potentiometer. A load cell on the MTS 

machine was used to measure the applied loads.

The tests were repeated using CSs and SSs at tie-center temperatures of -25°F ( 5), 80°F

(ambient) ( 5) and at 120°F ( 5). The low-temperature requirement was achieved by storing 

the test tie samples in a cold storage room at Transportation Technology Center (TTC), in 

Pueblo, CO. Heat lamps were used to raise the test tie samples to the high-temperature 

requirement. A thermocouple was embedded near the center of the test tie samples at the neutral 

axis to monitor temperature.

All load and deflection data was collected using TTCI’s electronic data acquisition system. Each 

sample tie was used for one test only.
6

5. Ties Evaluated

Most current plastic composite ties use high-density polyethylene (HDPE) as the primary 

manufacturing component. Other materials are added to the basic tie mix for several reasons—

one of which is to act as reinforcing material to improve specific physical properties. Ties made 

from 100-percent HDPE would be too flexible to hold gage under load or meet the AREMA 

minimum-bending modulus. Each manufacturer has its own proprietary mix of ingredients and 

production process. Ties from three manufacturers used in this study have the following generic 

descriptions:

 Type A: Two different thermoplastics are mixed in this formula. Polystyrene plastic is 

added to HDPE as reinforcement.

 Type B: HDPE with crystalline mineral fillers added to increase compression strength 

and abrasion resistance. Reinforcing fibers are added to increase bending modulus.

 Type C: Glass fibers are added to HDPE to increase bending modulus and abrasion 

resistance. 

 Type D: Wood (oak) is used as a control.
7

6. Test Matrix

The Appendix shows a matrix of all ties tested. Each test summary section shows details of the 

setup. The following provides an overview of the tests.

6.1 RS Tests—Bending

The RS tests were performed on half-length tie samples as follows:

 CSs: 14-inch tie plate with five CSs—two diagonally opposed anchor spikes, two gageside rail spikes, and one field-side rail spike—no pilot holes.

 The CSd test tie samples were loaded in the center of a 28-inch span.

 SSs: 16-inch tie plate with four standard 15/16-inch SSs—11/16-inch diameter by

5-inch-deep pilot holes.

 Cracked RS tests: RS cracks were intended for 21 ties by inserting SSs into smalldiameter pilot holes. Although this occurs in TTCI’s field tests, laboratory simulations 

produced no cracks in ties.

 The SSd test tie samples were loaded in the center of a 30-inch span.

 The RSs were loaded to a maximum 20-kilopound (kip) vertical load or failure at a rate 

of 5 kip per minute (min).

 Positive moment loads were applied directly onto the tie plates. Negative moment loads 

were applied to a 51⁄2 × 9 × 1-inch-thick rubber support (50 durometer, A scale) on the 

bottom of the test tie sample directly under the RS. In both cases, a 2 × 9 × 1-inch-thick 

rubber support (50 durometer, A scale) was used at each reaction point.

6.2 RS Tests—Impact Loading

The RS tests were performed on half-length tie samples as follows:

 Fastening system: 16-inch tie plate with four standard 15/16-inch SSs, 11/16-inch

diameter by 5-inch deep pilot holes, and two e-clip rail fasteners.

 Cracked RS tests: RS cracks were intended to be created in six ties by inserting SSs into 

small-diameter pilot holes. Although this created cracks in TTCI’s field tests, the 

laboratory simulations did not produce cracks.

 The SSd test tie samples were loaded in the center of a 30-inch span.

 An impact load, to simulate those caused by wheel flats and special trackwork, was

applied to a short rail section fastened to the tie sample.

 A pretest trial was performed to verify that the impact pulse and duration (delta time) is

within the range seen in track.

 Each test configuration was subjected to 10 impacts.
8

6.3 Center Bending Tests

The center bending tests were performed on full-length ties as follows:

 MOE and Permanent Deformation:

- The test ties were loaded at the center of a 60-inch span using a 51⁄2 × 9 × 1-inch-thick 

rubber support. A 2 × 9 × 1-inch-thick rubber support (50 durometer, A scale) was

used at each reaction point.

- The vertical load was applied at a crosshead speed of 1 in/min until the tie-center 

deflection measured at the neutral axis reached 2.5 in.

- The 2.5-inch tie-center deflection was held for 30 min at ambient temperature and 

then unloaded.

- Residual tie-center deflection were measured once the load is released and again after 

24 hours.

- MOE was calculated as tangent modulus (from 0 to 400 pounds per square inch (psi)) 

per American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standards test method 

D6109.

 MOR:

- The test ties were loaded at the center of a 60-inch span.

- The vertical load was applied at a crosshead speed of 1 in/min to a maximum tiecenter deflection of 5 in or failure.

- MOR was calculated as per ASTM test method D6109.
9

7. Results

Sections 7.1 through 7.12 summarize results from testing each configuration. Tie samples from 

all three tie manufacturers were evaluated at the three specified temperatures for each 

configuration. As much as feasible, tie temperatures during all tests were controlled to ±5°F: 

 Low (-25°F)

 Ambient (80°F)

 Elevated (120°F)

Test fixture layout and tie size/support are changed for each configuration as specified in the test 

plan. A sketch showing the overall layout, load path, and support conditions is shown for each 

configuration. 

Data was collected for load and deflection, recorded, and summarized for posttest analysis. The 

data shown is the summary and end-of-test, data for load/deflection and converted to stiffness 

values. Temperatures represent the average for all tie samples tested. 

7.1 RS Stiffness: Half-Length Tie Samples, No Fastener System Attached

The RS stiffness test was conducted to evaluate the bending strength of the RS area of an 

unmodified, bare, half-length tie sample. As no fasteners or holes were attached or drilled, this is 

an evaluation of the tie’s pure material/shape strength characteristics. 

A total of nine tests were conducted. Figure 1 shows the test setup. 

Figure 1. Test Setup for RS Stiffness Testing. Supports Are 30 in Apart

Examination of Figure 2 shows that the bending stiffness of all the ties tested increased as the 

temperature was lowered from 120 to -25°F. The material and configuration used in the Type C

design produced greater stiffness values than the other two tie types.
10

Figure 2. RS Bending Stiffness, No Fastening System or Drilled Holes

As this test only evaluates bending stiffness of the tie material, it does not show the effect 

(increase or decrease) on bending stiffness that may result from the addition of holes, tie plates, 

or fasteners. Other tests, as outlined in Sections 7.2 through 7.9, repeat these basic evaluations 

of RS bending but with the addition of various fastening systems.

No ties failed or broke during these RSP tests.

7.2 RSP: Half-Length Tie Samples with Holes Predrilled for SS Plates, No 

Fastener System Attached

The RSP bending test was conducted to evaluate the effect of drilling a set of holes into the ties 

to hold a SS tie plate on the bending strength of the RS area of a half-length tie sample. This 

series used a total of six tie samples, two from each of the three manufacturers. None of the ties 

had a specific side identified as the top or bottom of the tie; therefore, TTCI arbitrarily selected

the top of the tie for the purpose of installing the fastening system.

One set of three ties used four holes drilled to the specified size (11/16-inch diameter), whereas

the second set of three ties used overdriven SSs into undersized (7/16-inch diameter) holes.

Overdriven SSs were used to simulate ties with pre-existing cracks. The intent, based on the test 

plan, was to create ties that had holes with cracks because of improper installation procedures. 

To obtain such cracks in a repeatable fashion, 5-inch-deep undersized holes of 7/16 in with a 

5/8 × 1-inch deep counter bore were first drilled in a pattern to hold a SS tie plate (four holes); 

SSs were then force driven into the holes in an attempt to create cracks initiating from and 

around the hole. The counter bore was needed to allow the SS to start. Such cracks have been 

noted in field installations of plastic/composite ties when improper (too small) holes were drilled 

for SSs. Although TTCI evaluated a number of hole patterns and sizes during pretest trials, none

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

-27 83 120

(Thousands)

Temperature °F

Stiffness (lb/in)

Type A (3, 2, 1) Type C (69, 68, 67) Type B (36, 35, 34)
11

of them produced visible cracking on the tie samples tested. This suggests that other factors may 

have been encountered at some field installations where such cracks occurred with some 

regularity.

For purposes of this project, ties intended to be tested with cracks in the hole area are identified 

as overdriven rather than precracked because no visible cracks were produced.

It was assumed that ties with cracked/overdriven SSs would be most susceptible to increased 

failure when brittle, thus susceptible to failure at lower temperatures. For this comparison, ties 

with pre-drilled and overdriven SSs were limited to tie samples tested at -25°F. 

Figure 1 shows that the test setup used for these tests was the same but with ties with predrilled 

holes. Figure 3 shows the test results. As a reminder, these tie samples had no fastening system 

or plate installed during the tests and contained pilot holes only. 

Figure 3. RSP, Holes Only (New) and Holes from Overdriven SSs, -25°F, No Fastener

Figure 3 shows that the addition of holes for SSs had little effect when compared with ties with 

no holes (Figure 2), as values produced by standard holes (new) were slightly higher than the 

baseline test results. 

Comparing the test results for standard holes and holes created by overdriven SSs shows that, 

with the exception of the Type C tie, the holes created by overdriven SSs produced about the 

same or slightly higher stiffness values. 

Within expected repeatability, no differences among ties without holes, ties drilled with standard 

holes, or ties with holes created by overdriven SSs were noted. 

7.3 RSP: Half-Length Tie Samples with SS Fastening System Plate Installed

The RSP bending test was conducted to evaluate the effect of a SS fastening system fully 

attached to the RS area with four SSs on the bending strength of the RS area of a half-length tie 

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

New Overdriven

Stiffness (lb/in)

Type A (18, 33) Type C (84, 99) Type B (51, 66)
12

sample. SS holes of proper size were predrilled, and SSs were firmly driven into the ties using 

pneumatic air drivers. 

This series of tests, when compared with the basic results presented in Section 7.1, show the 

effect of a SS fastening system properly attached to the RS on RSP stiffness. Figure 4 shows the 

test fixture setup used for this test. Figure 5 shows the test results. For this test sequence, the 

performance of a standard oak tie with the same SS fastening system attached is shown for 

reference.

Figure 4. RSP, Half-Length Tie Test Fixture Setup for SSs Tie Plate System Fitted to the RS

Figure 5. RSP Results from Evaluating a SS System on All New Ties

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

-25 83 119

Tie Temperature °F

Stiffness (lb/in)

Type A (12, 11, 10) Type C (78, 77, 76) Type B (45, 44, 43) Oak (33)
13

When compared with the data in Figure 2, results suggest a similar trend between elevated and 

low temperatures for all ties. Both the Type A and Type B ties exhibited a reduction in stiffness 

at ambient temperature (compared with elevated temperatures) with the SS fastening system 

attached. With no fastening system, this trend was noticeable only with the Type C tie. 

When overall bending stiffness values are compared, the addition of the SS fastening system 

increased stiffness, especially in the tests conducted at low temperature. This increase in 

bending stiffness as a result of the installation of the fastening system was not consistently 

obtained at other temperature conditions, suggesting the actual force and seating of the tie plate 

may not have been uniform in all cases.

Overall, the addition of a SS fastening system fully attached to the RS increased the stiffness at 

-25°F, whereas for other temperatures some tie samples exhibited a reduction in stiffness.

7.4 RSP: Half-Length Tie Samples, with Overdriven SS Fastener System 

Attached 

The RSP bending test was conducted to evaluate the effect of a SS fastening system fully 

attached to the RS area with four overdriven SSs on the bending strength of the RS area of a 

half-length tie sample. Undersized holes were predrilled, and SSs were firmly driven into the 

ties using pneumatic air drivers.

These series of tests, when compared with the results presented in Section 7.3, show the effect of 

a SS fastening system improperly attached to the RS on RSP bending stiffness. 

The test fixture setup used for this test was the same as shown in Figure 4. Figure 6 shows the 

results obtained in this series of tests. 

Figure 6. RSP Stiffness Using an Overdriven SS Fastening System Attached

The test results demonstrate that the application of the fastening system using overdriven SSs 

increased the bending stiffness of the ties in all cases compared with the same setup without 

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

-25 83 119

Tie Temperature °F

Stiffness (lb/in)

Type A (27, 26, 25) Type C (93, 92, 91) Type B (60, 59, 58)
14

overdriven SSs (Figure 5). The largest increase was noted in the low temperature test, whereas

elevated temperature testing indicated the least increase in bending stiffness. 

7.5 RSP: Half-Length Tie Samples with CS Fastener System Attached

This RSP bending test was conducted to evaluate the effect of a standard CS/tie plate system. 

This system was fully attached to the RS area with four CSs driven without predrilling the tie on 

the bending strength of the RS area of a half-length tie sample. Although some railroads and 

manufacturers specify that CSs should be driven only in predrilled holes, many field installations 

are conducted without the benefit of predrilling the ties. For this reason, and to establish a worstcase condition, CS fasteners were evaluated without predrilling the ties. 

The test fixture setup used for this test was the same as shown in Figure 5. Figure 7 shows the 

results obtained in this series of tests.

Figure 7. RSP Stiffness Using Standard CSs/Tie Plate System with No Predrilling of Holes

on New Ties

The test results demonstrate that the standard CS fastening system does not increase the bending 

stiffness of the ties to the same degree as the SS fastening system (Figure 5). 

Data in Figures 2 and 7 suggests that the addition of a standard CS fastening system has little 

effect on the bending stiffness of the ties. 

7.6 RSN: Half-Length Tie Samples with CS Fastener System Attached

The RSN bending test is similar to that of the RSP bending test; however, the tie and fastening 

system is inverted in the loading fixture. Load is applied to the bottom of the tie, reversing the 

bending pattern. Figure 8 shows the load fixture and setup used for all negative bending tests. 

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

-25 83 119

Tie Temperature °F

Stiffness (lb/in)

Type A (6, 5, 45) Type C (72, 71, 70) Type B (39, 38, 37)
15

Figure 8. RSN Bending Load Fixture and Setup

The RSN bending test was conducted to determine whether the application of reverse loading 

with the holes/fastening system attached to the ties leads to premature breakage or reduced 

stiffness.

Figure 9 shows the results for the ties equipped with a CS fastening system. 

Figure 9. RSN Bending Test Results, All New Ties, CS Fastening System

Results of RSN bending tests, when compared with those obtained in the RSP bending tests 

(Section 7.5), show mixed effects. At the low temperature, only the Type A tie exhibited any 

reduced stiffness (slight) under negative bending, whereas at ambient temperature, it was 

substantially higher. The Type B tie exhibited greater stiffness under positive bending at room 

and elevated temperatures. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

-30 83 117

(Thousands)

Temperature °F

Tie Stiffness (lb/in)

Type A Type C Type B
16

7.7 RSN: Half-Length Tie Samples with SS Fastener System Attached

RSN bending tests were also conducted using a SS fastening system. Two versions of SS

attachments were evaluated. The normal application is with SSs firmly driven using standard 

predrilled holes and SSs overdriven into smaller-than-specified holes. Figures 10 and 11 show 

data from these tests.

Figure 10. RSN Bending Results, All New Ties, SS Fastening System

Figure 11. RSN Bending Results, All Ties, Overdriven SS Fastening System

Figure 10 (which also includes oak tie performance), when compared with the positive bending 

test results (Figure 5), suggests that Type C ties exhibit the same stiffness regardless of 

temperature under negative bending, whereas the other two tie types have increased stiffness 

with decreasing temperature as in all other tests.

In most instances, the stiffness of the ties when equipped with a SS fastening system was 

generally lower in positive bending than negative bending mode. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

-30 83 117

(Thousands)

Temperature °F

Tie Stiffness (lb/in)

Type A Type C Type B Oak

0

20

40

60

80

100

-30 83 117

(Thousands)

Temperature °F

Tie Stiffness (lb/in)

Type A Type C Type B
17

Overdriving the SSs (Section 7.4) had the effect of reducing stiffness at elevated temperature, 

less of an influence at ambient temperature, and mixed results at the low temperature. 

7.8 RSN Tests by Tie Type

The RSN bending test results varied considerably by tie manufacturer. Figures 12–14 show the 

test results for each tie separately. 

Figure 12. RSN Results, All Fastening Systems, for Type A Only

Figure 13. RSN Results, All Fastening Systems, for Type B Only

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

-30 83 117

(Thousands)

Temperature °F

Tie Stiffness (lb/in)

CSs SSs Overdriven SSs Oak SS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

-30 83 117

(Thousands)

Temperature °F

Tie Stiffness (lb/in)

CSs SSs Overdriven SSs Oak SS
18

Figure 14. RSN Results, All Fastening Systems, for Type C Only

Figures 12–14 suggest the following:

 All tie types show increased negative bending stiffness with decreased temperatures.

 None of the plastic/composite ties shows as high a stiffness as the oak tie at ambient 

temperature.

 With one exception, Type B at the low temperature, oak exhibits the highest stiffness for 

all temperature ranges.

 CSs are generally associated with the lowest stiffness for any given temperature 

(exceptions are Type C and possibly Type B at the low temperature).

 The influence of overdriven SSs is mixed.

7.9 Impact Tests: RSP, Half-Length Tie Samples

The tie bending tests are quasi-static in nature, with the load applied relatively slowly as it is 

incrementally increased to the test target value. High-impact wheel loads are occasionally 

encountered in the operating railroad environment. To simulate the higher than average load 

experienced under those conditions, impact loading tests were conducted. 

Figure 15 shows the loading fixture used to conduct the impact tests. The load was applied using 

a hydraulic ram, which applied a 50,000-pound impact load for 0.6 seconds.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

-30 83 117

(Thousands)

Temperature °F

Tie Stiffness (lb/in)

CSs SSs Overdriven SSs Oak SS
19

Figure 15. Impact Loading Test Fixture and Configuration

The load applied was based on current and future AAR interchange condemning criteria for 

high-impact wheels. The current interchange limit of 90,000 lb will gradually be reduced to 

78,000 lb. If a typical 110-ton car (286,000-pound gross load) is used, the resulting wheel load 

is 36,000 lb. Applying a dynamic factor of 2, the resulting impact force on the top running 

surface of the rail is 72,000 lb.

A worst-case condition was considered when 65 percent of the vertical load applied at the top of 

rail head is transmitted to the base and tie (with the remaining split to adjacent ties). For the 

planned condemning limit for high-impact wheels (78,000 lb), this results in an impact load into 

the tie plate of 50,700 lb, which is likely to be seen only for the most severe high-impact wheels. 

One test series was conducted with ties having normal sized holes with and without a SS

fastening system installed on the tie. A second series of tests was conducted with undersized 

holes, again with and without SS fastening systems installed on the tie. 

Figures 16 through 24 summarize the test results by tie type and for various fastening system 

configurations.
20

Figure 16. RSP, Type A—Standard SS Plate, Fully Applied with Normal Holes, No Plate, 

New Ties

Figure 17. RSP, Type A—SS Plate Overdriven, Fully Applied with Overdriven Holes 

Only, No Plate

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Run Number

Tie Stiffness (lb/in)

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Run Number

Tie Stiffness (lb/in)

SS No Fastener/Pilot Hole

140,000

120,000

100,000

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

0

SS No Fastener/Pilot Hole
21

All ties were tested at -25°F. In each case, new half-length tie sections were used for each series 

of 10 impacts. The tie was positioned in the test fixture; then, 10 repeated impacts of 50,000 lb

each were applied while measuring the deflection of the tie. The stiffness value for each impact 

is shown for run numbers 1 through 10. All ties survived 10 impacts when the SS system was 

applied, as shown in blue. The no fastener/pilot hole bars represent the 10 impacts when no 

fastening system was installed on the tie. 

The Type A tie survived 10 impacts when both normally installed and overdriven SS systems were 

firmly bolted to the tie. Figure 18 shows the results for tests conducted with drilled holes only. 

The Type A tie failed after five impacts with holes produced by overdriving the SSs into smallerthan-specified holes. The average of all impact stiffness values with the fastening system attached 

to the tie was higher than the average value obtained with no fastening system attached to the tie,

and the average stiffness with fastening systems having overdriven SSs was less than that with 

normally applied fastening systems. 

Figure 18. RSP, Impact Type A—Overdriven, Standard SS Plate Fully Applied and with 

Normal Holes, No Plate

Type C ties survived 10 impacts under all configurations tested, with and without plates and with 

normal and overdriven SSs holes. The average stiffness measured without plates was less than 

when a plate was fastened, and little difference existed in stiffness between overdriven and 

normal-driven conditions. Figure 19 shows tests conducted with RSP impact for the Type C tie 

overdriven SS plate.

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Run Number

Tie Stiffness (lb/in)

SS No Fastener/Pilot Hole

60,000
22

Figure 19. RSP, Impact Type C—SS Fastening System Fully Applied with Overdriven 

Holes Only, No Tie Plate

Results from the Type B tie indicate that the ties failed after one impact when no fastening 

system was attached to the tie, with normally formed predrilled holes, and with holes formed by 

overdriving the SSs into smaller-than-specified holes. The average impact stiffness for 

overdriven fasteners was less than that with normally driven; however, 1 of the 10 tests indicated 

a much higher stiffness than the others. Figures 20 and 21 show RSP impact test results for the 

Type B ties with overdriven holes only, no plate.

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Run Number

Tie Stiffness (lb/in)

SS No Fastener/Pilot Hole
23

Figure 20. RSP, New Type B—Standard SS Plate Fully Applied with Normal Holes, 

No Plate

Figure 21. RSP, Type B—SS Plate Overdriven Fully Applied with Overdriven Holes Only, 

No Plate

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Run Number

Tie Stiffness (lb/in)

SS No Fastener/Pilot Hole

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Run Number

Tie Stiffness (lb/in)

SS No Fastener/Pilot Hole
24

7.10 Overall Impact Testing Results

Impact test results indicate that no ties failed when the fastening system was firmly attached to 

the ties, but two of the three tie types failed before 10 impacts when no fastening system was 

attached. 

This suggests that ties in the field with loose or worn fastening systems may become more 

susceptible to fracture from exposure to impact loads. 

7.11 Full-Length Tie Center Bending—MOE 

For this test series, full-length tie samples were supported, as Figure 22 shows, and tested with 

no fastening systems or predrilled holes. 

Figure 22. Tie Test Center Bending Load Fixture Setup

Ties were loaded to produce 1-inch center deflection per minute until a center deflection of 2.5 in 

was obtained. The load was then held for 30 min, after which, the tie was unloaded. The center 

deflection was then measured, the tie was stored for 24 hours (in the case of cold ties, the ties 

were stored in the cold room), and the center deflection was remeasured. Table 1 summarizes 

the data from the center bending tests. 
25

Table 1. Summary of Load/Deflection Results—Center Bending

Pass/

Fail Loading Deflection Temperature

Pre- Post- Delta Core Skin

Pass Run 

No.

Tie 

Type Min. Max. Delta PostAfter 

24-

Hours

Pre- Post- Pre- PostFail 21 New 

Type A -15 25449 25464 3.422 5.202 1.78 178 Failed -31 -31 19 24

Pass 20 New 

Type A 17 18520 18503 0.226 2.814 2.588 2.121 1.693 72

Pass 19 New 

Type A -10 12485 12495 0 2.5 2.535 2.185 117

Fail 54 New

Type B -20 24846 24866 3.085 4.418 1.333 1.78 Failed -25 -28 13 17

Fail 53 New 

Type B

-

0.005 13.684 13.689 0.07 2.009 1.939 Failed 80

Pass 52 New 

Type B 2 11203 11201 0.024 2.608 2.584 2.69 2.252 121

Fail 87 New 

Type C -27 42404 42431 3.539 4.886 1.347 1.347 Failed -28 -30 20 24

Fail 86 New 

Type C -10 26362 26372 0.437 1.922 1.485 Failed 79

Fail 85 New 

Type C -20 18608 18628 0.38 2.411 2.031 Failed 122

Table 1 shows that most ties failed (fractured) before a 2.5-inch center deflection could be 

obtained.

7.12 Full-Length Tie Center Bending—MOR

The test setup used to conduct the full-length tie center bending test to determine MOR was 

similar to that of MOE, with the exception of the loading that was applied at a rate to produce a 

1-inch center deflection per minute to a maximum of 5 in or failure (tie rupture). These tests 

were also conducted with no fastening system or predrilled holes in any tie. Table 2 shows the 

results obtained in this series of tests. 
26

Table 2. MOR Test Results

Pass/Fail Loading Deflection Temperature

Run 

No. Tie Type Min. Max. Delta Min. Max. Delta Core Skin

Pass 24 New 

Type A -47 22534 22581 3.463 5.008 1.545 -32 -29 13 23

Fail 23 New 

Type A -18 18732 18750 0.285 3.72 3.435 81

Pass 22 New 

Type A -13 16281 16294 0.274 5.348 5.074 121

Pass 57 New 

Type B -27 19279 19306 2.157 3.214 1.057 -29 -30 27 18

Pass 56 New 

Type B -13 14379 14392 0.121 2.412 2.291 80

Fail 55 New 

Type B -15 10534 10549 0.087 3.028 2.941 121

Pass 90 New 

Type C -44 42329 42373 3.657 5.272 1.615 -29 -31 13 -23

Fail 89 New 

Type C -13 24057 24070 0.364 2.147 1.783 79

Fail 88 New 

Type C -13 21308 21321 0.484 3.933 3.449 120

Only the Type A tie, when tested at 121°F, did not fail before a 5-inch center deflection was 

reached. Most ties failed before reaching a 3-inch center deflection. Ties tested at the low 

temperature failed well before a 2-inch center deflection was reached, which was similar to that 

achieved in the previous MOE tests. 

With the formula suggested by AREMA Committee 30 for bending stress, the stress (S) at 

fracture (rupture) was computed using S = 0.204 P, where P is the load in pounds. Table 3 

shows summarized MOR test results.

Table 3. MOR Summarized Results

Test Run Tie Type Temperature

°F

MOR

(psi)

24 Type A -32 4,607

23 Type A 81 3,825

22 Type A 121 **

57 Type B -29 3,938

56 Type B 80 2,936

55 Type B 121 2,152

90 Type C 129 8,644

89 Type C 79 4,910

88 Type C 120 4,350

** Note: Type A tie at the elevated temperature did not fracture. Testing stopped at 5.074 inches of center 

deflection with a load at 16,294 lb.
27

8. Addendum to Test Matrix

After assessing results from over 130 tests (all of which were single tests on individual tie 

samples), reviewers raised a concern regarding variability within materials and statistical 

significance of the data. To stay within the budget limitation of the statement of work, which 

directed the test plan, only the numbers of tests called for in the statement of work were 

conducted. This resulted in one tie sample per test for each variation of temperature and tie 

plate/fastening system. These results, from 130 variations, have been evaluated and reported as 

per the deliverable requirements. 

During the tie acquisition process, extra tie samples were obtained as a contingency in case of 

damage during testing; thus, an opportunity to conduct additional testing on the remaining tie 

sample existed. A critical review of test results indicated some variations that did not follow 

expected trends. From this list of questionable results and the inventory of available half-length 

tie samples, a matrix for testing remaining tie samples within the remaining budget was prepared. 

To conduct the additional tests, approval was received to address the questionable results and to 

improve overall statistical soundness of some key data. 

Specifically, additional tests were conducted to:

 Determine variability in RS bending for several nearly identical tie samples from the 

same manufacturer or two half-lengths of the same tie.

 Determine variability of repeated tests on the same tie sample. 

 Confirm the influence, if any, of CS tie plates in their ability to increase bending 

stiffness.

 Confirm the influence, if any, of SS tie plates to increase bending stiffness.

8.1 Overview of Additional Testing for Repeatability

Average bending stiffness of multiple tie samples was determined using the remaining tie 

samples as follows:

 Tie-only (half-length tie, no holes or fasteners) tie samples from all three manufacturers 

were evaluated to determine RS stiffness. These RS stiffness tests were performed on 

new ties and are shown as RS/New. 

 After RS stiffness testing, these same tie samples had tie plates attached with CSs and 

RSP bending tests conducted. Figures 23 and 24 show the data plots as RSP/Used/CS. 

 Sufficient, new (untested) ties from Type C were available for RSP testing and were 

prepared with tie plates attached with CSs. Figures 23 and 24 show these results as 

RSP/New/CS.

 Sufficient, new (untested) ties from Type B were available for RSP testing and were 

prepared with SSs and tie plates. Figures 23 and 24 show these results as RSP/New/SS.
28

Figure 23 shows the results of RS bending. Figure 24 shows the corresponding standard 

deviation for these results. 

Figure 23. RS Bending Test Results, Average Stiffness for All Tests Conducted May 2007

Figure 24. Standard Deviation of Bending Test Results Shown in Figure 23

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

Average Stiffness (lb/in)

RS/New 

RSP/Used/

CS

RSP/New/

CS

RSP/New/

SS

Type A Type B Type C

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

Stiffness STD

RS /New 

RSP/Used/

CS

RSP/New/

CS

RSP/New/

SS

Type A Type B Type C
29

Results of RS area bending tests performed on ties with and without fastening systems 

(Figure 23) suggest the following:

 CS Fasteners: Results show that the addition of tie plates with CSs resulted in a very 

slight reduction of measured stiffness (approximately 10 percent) for Type A and Type B

ties. The same stiffness tests conducted on the Type C material show that the addition of 

tie plates with CSs on used and new ties resulted in a significant lower stiffness compared 

with a bare tie (approximately a 22-percent reduction).

Therefore, although conventional wisdom suggests the addition of a tie plate should stiffen the 

RS area, results of these multiple tests suggest that this was not the case. For the ties evaluated, 

the addition of tie plates with cuts spikes actually lowered the measured stiffness.

 SS Fasteners: Results conducted on the Type B ties, where sufficient tie samples were 

available to conduct multiple tests, show an increase in stiffness compared to bare ties

(approximately a 19-percent increased stiffness). In addition, ties with SSs produced 

higher stiffness than ties with CSs from that same manufacturer (approximately a 

40-percent increase).

 Variability: The standard deviation (Figure 24) for the Type A and Type B test results 

was relatively low compared with the results for Type C ties, which exhibited a much 

higher variation. This suggests a higher variation in material properties from tie to tie 

with Type C ties. The number of repeated runs for each test configuration was still 

relatively low (approximately five) because of the limited tie samples available. Results 

suggest that more testing of multiple tie samples from a range of ties in each batch is 

needed to ensure that viable values are being obtained. 

8.2 Results Separated by Tie Manufacturer

Figures 25, 26, and 27 show the results by manufacturer (Type A, Type B, and Type C, 

respectively).

8.2.1 Type A Tie Samples Results

Figure 25, results for Type A, includes the following notes: 

 The first entry pair, shown as 06 and marked as tie samples 2 and 5, is the result from the 

original matrix (conducted December 2006). The second entry pair marked 07 is 

the result from testing conducted in May 2007 on the same tie samples tested in 

December 2006. 

 All other entries (P1-A and P1-B through P3-B/4) were tested in May 2007. 

- P1, P2, P3, and P4 indicate a number of full-length ties for inventory control.

- P1-A and P1-B indicate the two half-length tie samples from the same tie (P1). The 

same marking procedure holds for P2-A, P2-B, P3-A, and P3-B. 

- Four example tests on tie samples P3-B are as follows: first, P3-B1; second, P3-B2;

third, P3-B3; and fourth, P3-B4.
30

 Tie sample P1-B shows no data for a test conducted for RSP/Used/CS. This tie sample 

was tested first new for RS, but during the spiking operation in preparation for RSP 

testing, however, the tie fractured. No RSP was performed. 

Figure 25. Results from Single and Multiple Tests Conducted on Type A Tie Samples

Results for the Type A tie samples indicate and suggest the following:

 Tie samples 2 and 5 exhibited very large (250 percent) increases in stiffness from the 

December 2006 to May 2007 tests. It is not certain at this time if aging (from outside 

storage of this tie sample), any potential differences in test setup, or differences in the 

temperature between December 2006 and May 2007 tests could explain this large 

discrepancy between results. 

 Four multiple repeated tests conducted at the same time (P3-B to P3-B/4) produced 

virtually identical results. No degradation or change in stiffness was noted over four

repeated tests. 

 This suggests that the test results are repeatable within a given tie sample.

 The May 2007 test results suggest little variation between the different ties tested.

 The addition of CSs had little effect on stiffness when compared with a bare tie.

 Tie sample P1-B was the only tie sample that cracked during spiking operations for 

testing conducted in December 2006 and May 2007. 

Type A Ties

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

06 07 P1-A P1-B P2-A P2-B P3-A P3-B P3-B/2 P3-B/3 P3-B/4

Tie Sample

Stiffness (lb/in)

RS RSP/Used/CS Cracked @ Spiking

Sample 2

Sample 5

Sample 2

Sample 5
31

8.2.2 Type B Tie Samples Results

Figure 26, results for Type B, includes the following notes:

 The first entry pair, shown as 06 and marked as tie samples 35 and 38, are the results 

from the original matrix (conducted December 2006); the second entry pair marked 07 

are the results from testing conducted in May 2007 on the same tie samples tested in 

December 2006. 

 All other tie sample entries (T1-A to T5-A) were tested in May 2007. 

 Tie samples marked T1-A and T1-B are two half-length tie segments from the same fulllength tie (tie sample T1). The full-length ties T2, T3, and T4, where A and B are from 

the same tie, are also tie segments from the same full-length tie. 

- The half-length tie samples T1-A to T3-B were first tested bare; a CS was then 

applied and tested. 

- Three half-length tie samples T4 and T5 from new full-length ties were tested only 

with SSd plates. 

 Entries T3-A, T3-A/2, and T3-A/3 were repeated RS tests on the same tie sample.

 No data are shown for tie sample T2-A. Tie sample T2-A fractured during RS tests at 

approximately 18,500-pound load and 0.8-inch deflection. 

 The figure does not show a tie sample that fractured during the preparation process 

during spiking while it was being prepared for an RSP/New/CS test. This tie sample was 

being prepared to compare with used tie CS tests. 

Figure 26. Results from Single and Multiple Tests Conducted on Type B Tie Samples

Type B Ties

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

06 07 T1-A T1-B T2-A T2-B T3-A T3-

A/2

T3-

A/3

T3-B T4-A T4-B T5-A

Tie Sample

Stiffness (lb/in)

RS RSP/Used/CS RSP/New/SS

Sample 35

Sample 38

Sample 35Sample 38

Not tested for RS / cracked at spiking for RSP.
32

Results for the Type B tie samples indicate and suggest the following:

 Potential differences in test setup or differences in ambient temperature between testing 

in December 2006 may have influenced the change in stiffness for the same tie sample 

tested in May 2007.

- Bare tie sample 35 exhibited a stiffness decrease of 20 percent between results from 

December 2006 to May 2007.

- The tie sample with a CSd plate (tie sample 38) exhibited an increase in stiffness of 

approximately 25 percent between results from December 2006 to May 2007.

 Three multiple, repeated tests conducted at the same time (tie sample T3-A to T-3A/3) 

produced virtually identical results. No degradation or change in stiffness was noted on 

the same tie sample for three repeated tests. 

 The addition of tie plates held by CSs reduced the stiffness by a small amount in three of 

the four tie samples tested. 

 The addition of tie plates held by SSs generally increased stiffness by a small amount 

over that of bare ties (tie samples T4-A to T5-A). 

 The tie sample that failed during RS testing (tie sample T2-A) had a lower measured 

stiffness value (23,125 lb/in)) at the point of failure than the average value for the other 

ties tested that did not break. 

8.2.3 Type C Tie Samples Results

Figure 27, results for Type C, include the following notes:

 The first entry pair, shown as 06 and marked as tie samples 68 and 71, is the result from 

the original matrix (conducted December 2006). The second entry pair marked 07 is 

the result from testing conducted in May 2007 on the same tie samples tested in 

December 2006. 

 All other tie sample entries (U1-A to U6-A) were tested in May 2007. 

 Tie samples marked U1-A, U1-B, U2-A, U2-B to U6-A, and U6-B were the two halflength tie segments from the same full-length tie. Two test tie samples were obtained 

from each of the six following full-length ties: U1, U2, U3, U4, U5, and U6. 

- One of each of the six new half-length tie samples was RS tested—no plates 

(RS results marked as Ux-A).

- From this group, five of the six ties then had a tie plate with CSs applied and retested 

for RSP bending (RSP/Used/CS results marked as Ux-A).

- Five of the remaining six untested half-length tie samples had a tie plate with CSs 

applied and tested for RSP bending (RSP/New/CS marked as Ux-B).

- For each full-length tie, two identical half-length tie samples were generated. An RS

test was performed on one half-length tie sample from each tie. After the test’s 

completion, a tie plate with CSs was installed on each one of these tie samples, and a 
33

RSP bending test was performed. The other untested half-length tie sample of this 

group of ties was only tested after the installation of the tie plate with CSs. 

- RS testing was repeated three times on tie sample U6-A. Repetitions are noted as U6-

A, U6-A/2, and U6-A/3. 

Figure 27. Results from Single and Multiple Tests Conducted on Type C Tie Samples

Results for the Type C tie samples indicate and suggest the following:

 Potential differences in test setup or differences in ambient temperature between 

December 2006 and May 2007 tests may have influenced the change in stiffness for the 

same tie sample tested in December 2006 and May 2007. The large increase in results 

with the tie plate attached (tie sample 71) may be an anomaly from the December 2006 

tests. 

- Tie sample 68 (RS) exhibited a 21-percent decrease in stiffness.

- Tie sample 71 (used tie sample with tie plate/CS) exhibited a 660-percent increase. 

 Repeated RS on the half-length tie samples of U6 produced similar results between 

measurements. 

 Other RS (tie only) results between different half-length tie samples exhibited a wide 

range of values (32,000–52,000 lb/in). Two of the six half-length tie samples produced 

significantly lower stiffness values than the others.

 The addition of tie plates held by CSs generally reduced the stiffness on four of the five

ties tested, with the exception of tie sample U5-A, which indicated no change. 

Type C Ties

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

06 07 U1-A U1-B U2-A U2-B U3-A U3-B U4-A U4-B U5-A U5-B U6-A U6-A/2 U6-A/3

Tie Sample

Stiffness (lb/in)

RS RSP/Used/CS

)

RSP/New/CS

Sample 68

Sample 71

Sample 68

Sample 71
34

 The addition of plates held with CSs on new, previously untested ties, when compared 

with the bare tie tests from the other half-length of the same tie, generally reduced 

stiffness with one exception—tie sample U5-B, which indicated no change. The trend of 

higher or lower stiffness, when compared with each pair of half-length tie samples, was 

generally the same for both halves of the same tie. This suggests that individual tie 

stiffness varied considerably from tie to tie but was uniform within a tie. 

8.3 Summary of Observations: Effects from Tie Aging and Retesting after 

Outside Storage

All tie samples tested in December 2006 were subsequently stored outside. The retesting of 

limited tie samples, for the most part, did not exhibit the same stiffness as the original tests. The 

six tie samples selected for repeated evaluations results show the following:

 Three ties exhibited a significant increase in stiffness during the second test type.

 One tie exhibited a slight increase in stiffness during the second test type.

 Two ties exhibited a slight decrease in stiffness during the second test type.

Reasons for such variations may include:

 Change in tie performance because of weathering from outside storage.

 Variable test fixture setup and conduct—although the same equipment, process, and 

operator was used for the tests performed in December 2006 and May 2007.

 Variation in internal temperature of ties stored before the test.

 Seating or other changes in fastener system hold-down performance.

Field data from FAST and revenue service is generally from monitoring gage widening 

performance and not RS bending. To date, although plastic ties being monitored in track have 

exhibited some change in gage restraint with time, these changes do not approach the differences 

in RS bending noted in the laboratory tests repeated between December 2006 and May 2007. 

Most plastic tie failures are related to cracking and breakage after some time in track; thus, RS

bending tests over time may be a means of assessing such changes in strength. 

8.4 Testing Procedures

Multiple consecutive tests on the same tie sample usually produced nearly identical results. With 

the exception of one manufacturer, bare tie RS stiffness tests produced similar results for all 

runs. This suggests that the test procedure was reasonably repeatable. 
35

8.5 Tie Samples Required to Obtain Statistically Sound Average

One manufacturer’s ties exhibited a higher range of results than the two others. This suggests 

that production variations produced a wider range of tie stiffness for this batch of ties. For ties 

exhibiting low standard deviation, the testing of five ties appears to provide a sufficiently low 

variability needed to determine average strength, whereas those that show a large standard 

deviation after testing five tie samples will require additional samples to be obtained and tested. 

The number of ties will depend on expected production variability, source material control, and 

variations from storage. 

Ties with tie plates/CSs exhibited more variation between tests than bare tie or ties with 

SSs/plates. 
36

9. Discussion of Results and Recommendations

The following experiment design limitations must be taken into consideration when assessing the 

results obtained in this test program:

 Data were based on one tie sample and one test per variable—this limitation was 

recognized from the beginning. Budget constraints did not enable test design that would 

give a high degree of confidence. The experimental test matrix was developed to show 

trends with the results suggesting future experimental focus. 

 Fastener systems were manually installed.

 Variability between fastener plates was not accounted for in the experiment design.

 Variability between CSs was not accounted for in the experiment design.

The following observations can be made based on the test results:

 The tests performed at low temperatures produced the most consistent results.

 For the tie seat bending tests, low temperatures produced the highest tie stiffness values.

 For the tie seat bending tests, elevated temperatures produced the lowest tie stiffness 

values.

 For the tie impact tests, low temperatures produced the most tie failures.

 For the modulus tests, low temperatures produced the most tie failures.

For the most part, the above results are consistent with prior expectations.

9.1 Items to Consider for Further Testing 

 Data and results should be shared with AREMA Committee 30 for use in upgrading 

laboratory screening tests of plastic/composite ties. 

 The research team should determine which laboratory tests are most likely to identify

poor performing ties. A comparison of known field failures or inadequate performance 

with laboratory results should be conducted to determine whether a correlation with early 

failure of a tie and laboratory test results exists. 

 The experiment design needs to incorporate repeatability and reproducibility.

Other areas to investigate to improve the statistical robustness of results include the following:

 Experiment design should be modified to include testing more than one tie sample per 

test variable to generate statistically valid test results.

 Tie samples that produce unexpected test results should be further evaluated to determine 

the cause of the unexpected behavior. This could include conducting nondestructive and 

destructive testing to better characterize the tie.
37

 Repeat tests with existing tie samples should be conducted while mixing previously 

assigned temperatures (e.g., if tie sample previously was tested at the low temperature). 

The tests should also be repeated using the elevated temperature to document variation in 

tie bending stiffness and impact resistance as a result of changes in tie temperature.

 Researchers should obtain additional tie samples and repeat tests using the revised 

experiment design to produce statistically valid results. 

9.2 Recommendations for Future Testing

The major objective of the added tests was to use remaining tie samples to investigate statistical 

repeatability/variability in the results reported from the evaluation of 130 single tie samples. 

Results show that variability is dependent on several sources:

 Some manufacturers’ products exhibited higher variation than others.

 Weathering, storing, or aging appeared to alter stiffness of some ties.

 At least five test tie samples are needed to ensure that a viable average is obtained.

Additional testing is needed to address the potential influence of weathering and tonnage on 

bending strength. Changes due to aging can come from exposure to weathering or storage, as 

well as combined weathering and in-track loads. This will require for selected tie samples to be 

removed from track (after exposure to tonnage) and from tie samples stored outside. Results 

must be compared with baseline data from the same batch of ties tested before installation. A

matrix of tests covering ties to be measured before installation and after specified intervals of 

tonnage and weathering cycles would need to be developed. 

As several tie samples from each manufacturer were tested multiple times during May 2007, 

which generally indicated much lower variation than in comparing the December 2006 to 

May 2007 tests, it is suggested that future evaluations consider the following:

 Conduct each bending test several times to ensure that data results are repeatable.

 Conduct tests from several tie samples from the same batch.

 Consider testing without fastening systems to evaluate material and manufacturing 

consistency.

It is suggested that additional RS (bare tie) tests should be repeated with a larger number of tie 

samples from a variety of manufacturers to obtain a better value for nominal stiffness and 

standard deviation. This information will be useful in determining a minimum number of tie 

samples needed to benchmark new designs and material makeup, as well as establishing 

minimum and maximum recommended values. 
38

Appendix A. Test Matrix and Codes

Bending Strength and Impact Tests on Plastic/Composite Ties

Test Matrix

Test 

Number Tie Type Test

Number 

of Test 

Ties 

Required

Fastener

(Pilot Hole)

Tie-Center 

Temperature 

(±5°F)

1 Type A New RS 1/2 None 120

2 Type A New RS 1/2 None 70 (Ambient)

3 Type A New RS 1/2 None -25

4 Type A New RSP 1/2 CS (No Pilot Hole) 120

5 Type A New RSP 1/2 CS (No Pilot Hole) 70 (Ambient)

6 Type A New RSP 1/2 CS (No Pilot Hole) -25

7 Type A New RSN 1/2 CS (No Pilot Hole) 120

8 Type A New RSN 1/2 CS (No Pilot Hole) 70 (Ambient)

9 Type A New RSN 1/2 CS (No Pilot Hole) -25

10 Type A New RSP 1/2 SSs (11/16" × 5") 120

11 Type A New RSP 1/2 SSs (11/16" × 5") 70 (Ambient)

12 Type A New RSP 1/2 SSs (11/16" × 5") -25

13 Type A New RSN 1/2 SSs (11/16" × 5") 120

14 Type A New RSN 1/2 SSs (11/16" × 5") 70 (Ambient)

15 Type A New RSN 1/2 SSs (11/16" × 5") -25

16 Type A New RSP—Impact 1/2 SSs (11/16" × 5") -25

17 Type A New RSP—Impact 1/2

No Fasteners 

(11/16" × 5" 

Pilot Hole)

-25

18 Type A New RSP 1/2

No Fasteners 

(11/16" × 5" 

Pilot Hole)

-25

19 Type A New

Center—Bending 

(MOE & 

Deformation)

1 N/A 120

20 Type A New

Center—Bending 

(MOE & 

Deformation)

1 N/A 70 (Ambient)

21 Type A New

Center—Bending 

(MOE & 

Deformation)

1 N/A -25

22 Type A New Center—Bending 

(MOR) 1 N/A 120
39

Test 

Number Tie Type Test

Number 

of Test 

Ties 

Required

Fastener

(Pilot Hole)

Tie-Center 

Temperature 

(±5°F)

23 Type A New Center—Bending 

(MOR) 1 N/A 70 (Ambient)

24 Type A New Center—Bending 

(MOR) 1 N/A -25

25 Type A Cracked RSP 1/2 SSs 120

26 Type A Cracked RSP 1/2 SSs 70 (Ambient)

27 Type A Cracked RSP 1/2 SSs -25

28 Type A Cracked RSN 1/2 SSs 120

29 Type A Cracked RSN 1/2 SSs 70 (Ambient)

30 Type A Cracked RSN 1/2 SSs -25

31 Type A Cracked RSP—Impact 1/2 SSs -25

32 Type A Cracked RSP—Impact 1/2 No Fasteners -25

33 Type A Cracked RSP 1/2 No Fasteners -25

34 Type B New RS 1/2 None 120

35 Type B New RS 1/2 None 70 (Ambient)

36 Type B New RS 1/2 None -25

37 Type B New RSP 1/2 CS (No Pilot Hole) 120

38 Type B New RSP 1/2 CS (No Pilot Hole) 70 (Ambient)

39 Type B New RSP 1/2 CS (No Pilot Hole) -25

40 Type B New RSN 1/2 CS (No Pilot Hole) 120

41 Type B New RSN 1/2 CS (No Pilot Hole) 70 (Ambient)

42 Type B New RSN 1/2 CS (No Pilot Hole) -25

43 Type B New RSP 1/2 SSs (11/16" × 5") 120

44 Type B New RSP 1/2 SSs (11/16" × 5") 70 (Ambient)

45 Type B New RSP 1/2 SSs (11/16" × 5") -25

46 Type B New RSN 1/2 SSs (11/16" × 5") 120

47 Type B New RSN 1/2 SSs (11/16" × 5") 70 (Ambient)

48 Type B New RSN 1/2 SSs (11/16" × 5") -25

49 Type B New RSP—Impact 1/2 SSs (11/16" × 5") -25

50 Type B New RSP—Impact 1/2

No Fasteners 

(11/16" × 5" 

Pilot Hole)

-25

51 Type B New RSP 1/2

No Fasteners 

(11/16" × 5" 

Pilot Hole)

-25

52 Type B New

Center—Bending 

(MOE & 

Deformation)

1 N/A 120
40

Test 

Number Tie Type Test

Number 

of Test 

Ties 

Required

Fastener

(Pilot Hole)

Tie-Center 

Temperature 

(±5°F)

53 Type B New

Center—Bending 

(MOE & 

Deformation)

1 N/A 70 (Ambient)

54 Type B New

Center—Bending 

(MOE & 

Deformation)

1 N/A -25

55 Type B New Center—Bending 

(MOR) 1 N/A 120

56 Type B New Center—Bending 

(MOR) 1 N/A 70 (Ambient)

57 Type B New Center—Bending 

(MOR) 1 N/A -25

58 Type B Cracked RSP 1/2 SSs 120

59 Type B Cracked RSP 1/2 SSs 70 (Ambient)

60 Type B Cracked RSP 1/2 SSs -25

61 Type B Cracked RSN 1/2 SSs 120

62 Type B Cracked RSN 1/2 SSs 70 (Ambient)

63 Type B Cracked RSN 1/2 SSs -25

64 Type B Cracked RSP—Impact 1/2 SSs -25

65 Type B Cracked RSP—Impact 1/2 No Fasteners -25

66 Type B Cracked RSP 1/2 No Fasteners -25

67 Type A New RS 1/2 None 120

68 Type A New RS 1/2 None 70 (Ambient)

69 Type A New RS 1/2 None -25

70 Type A New RSP 1/2 CS (No Pilot Hole) 120

71 Type A New RSP 1/2 CS (No Pilot Hole) 70 (Ambient)

72 Type A New RSP 1/2 CS (No Pilot Hole) -25

73 Type A New RSN 1/2 CS (No Pilot Hole) 120

74 Type A New RSN 1/2 CS (No Pilot Hole) 70 (Ambient)

75 Type A New RSN 1/2 CS (No Pilot Hole) -25

76 Type A New RSP 1/2 SSs (11/16" × 5") 120

77 Type A New RSP 1/2 SSs (11/16" × 5") 70 (Ambient)

78 Type A New RSP 1/2 SSs (11/16" × 5") -25

79 Type A New RSN 1/2 SSs (11/16" × 5") 120

80 Type A New RSN 1/2 SSs (11/16" × 5") 70 (Ambient)

81 Type A New RSN 1/2 SSs (11/16" × 5") -25
41

Test 

Number Tie Type Test

Number 

of Test 

Ties 

Required

Fastener

(Pilot Hole)

Tie-Center 

Temperature 

(±5°F)

82 Type A New RSP—Impact 1/2 SSs (11/16" × 5") -25

83 Type A New RSP—Impact 1/2

No Fasteners 

(11/16" × 5" 

Pilot Hole)

-25

84 Type A New RSP 1/2

No Fasteners 

(11/16" × 5" 

Pilot Hole)

-25

85 Type A New

Center—Bending

(MOE & 

Deformation)

1 NA 120

86 Type A New

Center—Bending 

(MOE & 

Deformation)

1 N/A 70 (Ambient)

87 Type A New

Center—Bending 

(MOE & 

Deformation)

1 N/A -25

88 Type A New Center—Bending 

(MOR) 1 N/A 120

89 Type A New Center—Bending 

(MOR) 1 N/A 70 (Ambient)

90 Type A New

Center—Bending 

(MOR) 1 N/A -25

91 Type A Cracked RSP 1/2 SSs 120

92 Type A Cracked RSP 1/2 SSs 70 (Ambient)

93 Type A Cracked RSP 1/2 SSs -25

94 Type A Cracked RSN 1/2 SSs 120

95 Type A Cracked RSN 1/2 SSs 70 (Ambient)

96 Type A Cracked RSN 1/2 SSs -25

97 Type A Cracked RSP—Impact 1/2 SSs -25

98 Type A Cracked RSP—Impact 1/2 No Fasteners -25

99 Type A Cracked RSP 1/2 No Fasteners -25

100 Type D New RS 1/2 None 120

101 Type D New RS 1/2 None 70 (Ambient)

102 Type D New RS 1/2 None -25

103 Type D New RSP 1/2 CS (No Pilot Hole) 120

104 Type D New RSP 1/2 CS (No Pilot Hole) 70 (Ambient)

105 Type D New RSP 1/2 CS (No Pilot Hole) -25

106 Type D New RSN 1/2 CS (No Pilot Hole) 120

107 Type D New RSN 1/2 CS (No Pilot Hole) 70 (Ambient)

108 Type D New RSN 1/2 CS (No Pilot Hole) -25
42

Test 

Number Tie Type Test

Number 

of Test 

Ties 

Required

Fastener

(Pilot Hole)

Tie-Center 

Temperature 

(±5°F)

109 Type D New RSP 1/2 SSs (11/16" × 5") 120

110 Type D New RSP 1/2 SSs (11/16" × 5") 70 (Ambient)

111 Type D New RSP 1/2 SSs (11/16" × 5") -25

112 Type D New RSN 1/2 SSs (11/16" × 5") 120

113 Type D New RSN 1/2 SSs (11/16" × 5") 70 (Ambient)

114 Type D New RSN 1/2 SSs (11/16" × 5") -25

115 Type D New RSP—Impact 1/2 SSs (11/16" × 5") -25

116 Type D New RSP—Impact 1/2

No Fasteners 

(11/16" × 5" 

Pilot Hole)

-25

117 Type D New RSP 1/2

No Fasteners 

(11/16" × 5" 

Pilot Hole)

-25

118 Type D New

Center—Bending 

(MOE & 

Deformation)

1 N/A 120

119 Type D New

Center—Bending 

(MOE & 

Deformation)

1 N/A 70 (Ambient)

120 Type D New

Center—Bending 

(MOE & 

Deformation)

1 N/A -25

121 Type D New Center—Bending 

(MOR) 1 N/A 120

122 Type D New Center—Bending 

(MOR) 1 N/A 70 (Ambient)

123 Type D New Center—Bending 

(MOR) 1 N/A -25

124 Type D Cracked RSP 1/2 SSs 120

125 Type D Cracked RSP 1/2 SSs 70 (Ambient)

126 Type D Cracked RSP 1/2 SSs -25

127 Type D Cracked RSN 1/2 SSs 120

128 Type D Cracked RSN 1/2 SSs 70 (Ambient)

129 Type D Cracked RSN 1/2 SSs -25

130 Type D Cracked RSP—Impact 1/2 SSs -25

131 Type D Cracked RSP—Impact 1/2 No Fasteners -25

132 Type D Cracked RSP 1/2 No Fasteners -25

133 New Oak (Control) RSP 1/2 SSs (11/16" × 5") 70 (Ambient)

134 New Oak (Control) RSN 1/2 SSs (11/16" × 5") 70 (Ambient)
43

Test 

Number Tie Type Test

Number 

of Test 

Ties 

Required

Fastener

(Pilot Hole)

Tie-Center 

Temperature 

(±5°F)

135 New Oak 

(Comparison)

Center—Bending 

(Published MOE 

& MOR)

N/A N/A 70 (Ambient)

136 New Oak (Control) RSP 1/2 SSs (11/16" × 5") 70 (Ambient)

137 New Oak (Control) RSN 1/2 SSs (11/16" × 5") 70 (Ambient)

138 New Oak 

(Comparison)

Center—Bending 

(Published MOE 

& MOR)

N/A N/A 70 (Ambient)
44

Abbreviations and Acronyms

AAR Association of American Railroads

AREMA American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials 

CS cut spike

FAST Facility for Accelerated Service Testing

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

HAL heavy axle load

HDPE high density polyethylene

HTL High Tonnage Loop

MGT million gross tons

MOE modulus of elasticity

MOR modulus of rupture

MTS Material Testing System

PSI pounds per square inch

RS rail seat

RSP rail seat positive

RSN rail seat negative

S stress

SS screw spike

TTC Transportation Technology Center (the site)

TTCI Transportation Technology Center, Inc. (the company)