Ballast Quality and Breakdown during Tamping

S. Caleb Douglas, P.E., Ph.D.

Manager Special Projects – Civil Geotechnical
Union Pacific Railroad
1400 Douglas Street, Stop 0910
Omaha, NE 68179
Office: 402-544-3581
Email: scdougla@up.com

ABSTRACT

Union Pacific Railroad has prioritized optimizing the life span of ballast material utilized across
the system. The quantification of ballast degradation due to tamping is an unknown variable in
the life cycle of ballast. A laboratory test procedure was developed to quantify the degradation
of ballast due to tamping and to evaluate the future performance of ballast materials. All thirteen
sources of ballast presently used on the UP System were tested. The results of the tamping test
results found no correlation to the Los Angeles Abrasion test or particle shape. This study
emphasizes the difficulty of predicting the field performance of ballast in the laboratory and
confirms the importance of utilizing hard, dense, and durable ballast which was properly
produced, transported, placed, and maintained.

INTRODUCTION

The American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) describes

ballast as a selected crushed and graded aggregate material that is placed on the roadbed for the
purpose of providing drainage, stability, flexibility, uniform support for the track structure,
distribution of track loadings to the subgrade, and facilitating maintenance (1). Ballast materials
must be very durable. The ballast used on the Union Pacific Railroad (UP) is generally
composed of granite, traprock, quartzite, rhyolite, and basalt. Standard laboratory testing is
typically conducted to provide an initial indication of material characteristics and durability.
AREMA and UP presently have recommended limiting values for the following laboratory tests:
gradation, bulk specific gravity, absorption, clay lumps/friable particles, Los Angeles (LA)
Abrasion, sodium sulfate soundness, and flat/elongated particles. AREMA (1) commentary
states the LA Abrasion test is a factor in determining the wear characteristics of the ballast
material. The LA Abrasion test has long been the primary abrasion, or degradation, laboratory
test in North America (2). Selig and Waters (2) indicate that some railway engineers believe the
LA Abrasion test is not sufficient, or even not useful. AREMA (1) commentary additionally
states the LA Abrasion test can produce laboratory results which are not representative of the
field performance of ballast materials. UP uses the LA Abrasion test plus five times the Mill
Abrasion test to evaluate breakdown potential.

The laboratory test procedure described in this paper provides a measure of ballast
breakdown from tamping which is an activity that every tie on every railroad system will
experience. A laboratory test procedure was developed to quantify the degradation of ballast due
to tamping and to evaluate the future performance of ballast materials. The test procedure was
developed as part of a broader ballast research program by Union Pacific Railroad to optimize

940 © AREMA 2013®

 the life span of ballast material. The optimization requires obtaining the most durable ballast for
the application coupled with characterizing ballast degradation, or breakdown, cycle. Other
recent Union Pacific ballast studies were described by Gehringer et al. (3) and Wnek et al. (4).

Ballast degrades primarily from traffic loading and tamping. Studies by Selig and Waters
indicate that 76% of the fouling material on North American railroads is due to ballast
degradation compared with 41% of the fouling material on the British Railway system being
from ballast degradation (2).

The portion of ballast degradation due to tamping has been studied previously with wide
ranging results. British Railways found a 15 to 45% reduction in the 1.5 to 2 inch (38 to 51 mm)
particle sizes and an increase from one to five percent in the material passing the 0.5 inch (13
mm) size after 20 consecutive tamping head insertions (2,5). Another study by British Railways
found that 4.4 to 8.8 lbs (2 to 4 kg) of material less than 0.5 inch (14 mm) was generated per
each tamp, which consisted of a single insertion (2,6). A study from Association of American
Railroad field tests found that 20 tamping squeezes resulted in the generation of six and ten
percent fine material in a granite and limestone ballast, respectively (2,7). A 2007 study by
Aursudkij found two granites to produce 0.1 and 0.6 lbs (0.05 and 0.25 kg) of minus 0.5-inch
(14-mm) material per tamp in a test which consisted of ten tamps (8).

TAMPING TEST PROCEDURE

A full size, Jackson tamping head was mounted inside a loading frame in a custom
machine constructed by Ballast Tools. A photograph of the machine is shown in Figure 1. Not
shown in the photograph are the computer which controls the test and the external hydraulic
pump/reservoir system. The ballast is contained in a box which is handled by a forklift to ease
loading and unloading ballast into the test machine. The tie is placed in a bracket on the ballast
box frame so that the tie cannot be uplifted during repeated tamping.

The initial testing consisted of a 25-cycle test on each of the 13 UP ballast sources.
Additional testing included 3, 12, 50, 62, and 100 cycles on selected ballast sources. All the tests
were performed in the dry, except for two 50-cycle tests where the ballast was soaked for 24
hours prior to testing. An overview of the testing procedure follows.

Step 1. Obtain a 350 lb (159 kg) sample of Class 1, mainline ballast.

Step 2. Complete an in-the-dry gradation analysis of the ballast sample with the following
sieve sizes: 2.5 in (64 mm), 2 in (51 mm), 1.5 in (38 mm), 1 in (25 mm), 0.75 in (19
mm), and 0.5 in (13 mm). A hand broom was utilized to obtain the fines from the
sample container, which was a 55-gallon (208-liter) metal drum. A Gilson vibratory
shaker was used for this task. Multiple iterations were required to pass the 350 lb
(159 kg) sample through the process.
Step 3. Place the minus 0.5-in (13-mm) material in a separate container. This material was
not placed into the tamping testing box for testing.

© AREMA 2013® 941

 FIGURE 1. Tamping testing machine.

Step 4. Place all the material larger 0.5 in (13 mm) into the 55-gallon (208-liter) metal drum.
Step 5. After all the material is placed in the drum, the sample was mixed by rolling the steel
drum with a fork lift for a distance of 150 ft (46 m) across the laboratory parking lot.
Step 6. Place the ballast sample into the ballast box for testing as shown in Figure 2. The
wood tie was clamped in place to the ballast box and the ballast was placed by hand
under the wood tie during filling.
Step 7. Place the ballast box in the testing machine and secure the ballast box.
Step 8. Complete the required number of tamping cycles. A computer program controlled
the test, the tamping head penetration, and the squeezing pressure. Some of the key
considerations in the tamping test were:
x Each tamping cycle was a “double tamp.” The double tamp consisted of:
o a complete insertion of the tamping tines (Position A to B as shown in
Figure 3),
o squeezing and releasing of the tines,
o a partial retraction of the tines (Position B to C),
o repenetration to depth (Position C to B),
o squeezing and releasing of the tines,
o and a complete retraction of the tines (Position B to A).
x Tamping head downward pressure setpoint: 1,800 psi

942 © AREMA 2013®

 x Tamping head squeeze pressure setpoint: 1,800 psi
Step 9. Remove the ballast box from the tamping test machine and collect the ballast sample.
A hand broom was utilized to obtain the fines from the ballast box.
Step 10. Complete an in-the-dry gradation analysis of the ballast sample with the following
sieve sizes: 2.5 in (64 mm), 2 in (51 mm), 1.5 in (38 mm), 1 in (25 mm), 0.75 in
(19 mm), and 0.5 in (13 mm).

FIGURE 2. Placing ballast into the ballast box.

Position A Position B Position C

FIGURE 3. Tamping tine position cycle.

© AREMA 2013® 943

 TEST RESULTS

The initial gradations of the mainline ballast for the thirteen ballast sources are shown in Table 1,
as well as the UP specification. The samples were obtained at the pits and shipped in 55-gallon,
metal drums to the UP laboratory.

The results of the tamping tests are shown in Table 2. Historical reference testing is also
included for the LA Abrasion and Flatness/Elongation based on a 3:1 standard. The change in
percent passing presented in Table 2 is the increase in finer material from the original gradation
for each sieve size as a result of tamping. Figure 4 illustrates the typical ballast breakdown
observed during removing the ballast from the box after tamping.

TABLE 1. Initial gradation and UP specification shown in percent passing

Sieve Size
Gradation 2.5 in 2 in 1.5 in 1 in 0.75 in 0.5 in Mineralogy
Description (64 (51 (38 (25 (19 (13
mm) mm) mm) mm) mm) mm)
UP 90-
100 50-80 10-35 0-10 0-5 Not Applicable
Specification 100
Ballast 1 100.0% 97.9% 62.3% 19.5% 7.4% 2.0% Granite Porphyry
Trachyte and Syenite
Ballast 2 100.0% 94.5% 55.5% 10.2% 1.7% 0.4%
Porphyry
Ballast 3 100.0% 86.7% 53.1% 14.3% 3.4% 0.9% Rhyolite Porphyry
Ballast 4 100.0% 89.6% 42.4% 7.4% 2.3% 0.9% Diabase and Rhyolite
Ballast 5 100.0% 94.9% 73.3% 21.8% 5.0% 2.2% Syenite
Ballast 6 100.0% 88.8% 43.9% 12.1% 4.3% 1.1% Quartzite
Ballast 7 100.0% 99.9% 84.8% 36.0% 14.7% 1.8% Rhyolite
Ballast 8 100.0% 82.4% 31.3% 6.0% 1.4% 0.8% Rhyolite Porphyry
Ballast 9 100.0% 84.6% 57.3% 31.2% 18.2% 5.5% Gabbro
Ballast 10 100.0% 89.7% 50.7% 10.2% 2.6% 0.8% Basalt (Traprock)
Ballast 11 100.0% 97.7% 69.9% 33.3% 12.7% 0.7% Basalt
Basalt/Diabase
Ballast 12 100.0% 92.7% 69.6% 32.6% 13.1% 2.5%
(Traprock)
Ballast 13 100.0% 93.9% 62.5% 25.5% 11.3% 2.4% Granite

944 © AREMA 2013®

 TABLE 2. Percent passing change in gradation from initial for various tamping cycles.

Number Sieve Size Reference Testing

Ballast of 2 in 1.5 in 1 in 0.75 in 0.5 in Flat/
Source Tamping LA
(51 (38 (25 (19 (13 Elong
Cycles Abrasion
mm) mm) mm) mm) mm) (%)
Ballast 1 25 0.7% 5.7% 9.9% 8.4% 6.0% 9.0 3.6
25 1.2% 6.0% 7.8% 6.0% 3.9%
Ballast 2 13.6 0.9
100 1.3% 11.1% 17.9% 15.2% 10.7%
25 3.1% 7.1% 10.1% 8.5% 5.8%
Ballast 3 16.4 1.8
100 2.9% 13.7% 22.4% 21.5% 16.2%
3 1.0% 2.0% 1.5% 0.9% 0.6%
12 1.5% 5.2% 4.8% 3.6% 2.6%
Ballast 4 25 3.4% 8.2% 10.0% 7.8% 6.0% 9.8 3.1
62 (Dry) 4.2% 16.0% 15.9% 12.8% 9.9%
50 (Wet) 4.9% 16.7% 16.5% 14.2% 11.0%
Ballast 5 25 1.1% 4.9% 10.3% 9.0% 6.0% 18.5 0.0
Ballast 6 25 0.9% 7.8% 9.2% 7.7% 5.9% 15.2 0.3
3 0.0% 0.0% 1.2% 2.0% 1.7%
12 0.0% 1.2% 4.8% 5.9% 4.9%
Ballast 7 25 0.0% 3.1% 9.2% 10.1% 8.8% 12.7 5.8
62 (Dry) 0.0% 3.2% 14.3% 19.3% 16.3%
50 (Wet) 7.5% 3.1% 13.6% 15.5% 13.5%
3 1.8% 3.1% 2.2% 1.6% 1.2%
12 4.3% 8.8% 5.7% 4.0% 2.6%
Ballast 8 25 5.7% 12.6% 10.0% 8.1% 5.8% 15.5 3.5
62 (Dry) 13.7% 27.6% 18.9% 14.8% 11.4%
50 (Wet) 9.8% 20.0% 13.8% 11.2% 8.4%
Ballast 9 25 3.7% 6.6% 6.8% 7.3% 6.5% 11.0 0.1
Ballast 10 25 4.2% 9.9% 8.9% 6.9% 4.7% 11.9 1.8
25 0.9% 3.7% 5.4% 5.1% 3.1%
Ballast 11 62 0.1% 3.6% 6.2% 7.2% 5.1% 8.8 0.1
100 1.0% 5.1% 10.3% 11.0% 7.5%
25 1.7% 5.0% 10.6% 11.7% 9.2%
Ballast 12 10.4 0.3
100 3.8% 11.3% 18.9% 21.6% 17.8%
25 1.4% 4.7% 7.8% 8.1% 6.5%
Ballast 13 50 1.8% 11.1% 12.7% 11.5% 8.9% 19.1 0.7
100 1.5% 12.4% 17.7% 18.1% 15.8%

© AREMA 2013® 945

 FIGURE 4. Typical ballast degradation observed after 50 tamping cycles.

With regard to settings during the test procedure, the tamping head downward pressure
setpoint was 1,800 psi (12,400 kPa) and generally required 1,300 to 1,400 psi (9,000 to 9,600
kPa) to penetrate the ballast to depth. The tamping head squeeze pressure setpoint was 1,800 psi
(12,400 kPa) and was approximately 2,000 psi (13,800 kPa) during squeezing while testing.

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

The results are presented as the change in percent passing as this allowed normalization of the
data. Attempts to correlate the data based on the amount of material generated at each sieve size
were skewed due to the variations in the initial gradation. The initial gradations tend to be
representative of the gradations produced at the quarries and the focus of the study was on the
performance of each material based on actual gradations. A laboratory prepared sample to an
exact gradation from each ballast source was not the intent of the study, but would likely provide
a more precise comparison between the ballast materials.

Table 3 provides the average change in percent passing for 1 in (25 mm), 0.75 in (19
mm), and 0.5 in (13 mm), as well as the rate of change per double tamp. Similar gradation
changes and trends were observed for the three particle sizes shown in Table 3. The rate of
degradation was shown to decrease as the number of tamping cycles increases. Considering the
percent passing the 0.5-in (13-mm) size at 25 cycles had an average rate of degradation of 0.24
percent and the sample weighed 350 lbs (159 kg), 0.8 to 0.9 lbs (0.36 to 0.41 kg) of minus 0.5-in
(13 mm) material is generated per tamp. This result is comparable to the results from the 1975
British Railways study (2,5), the 1989 AAR study (2,7), and the 2007 Aursudkij study (8).

946 © AREMA 2013®

 TABLE 3. Average percent passing change in gradation and rate of change for tamping cycles.

Sieve Size
Number of 1 in (25 mm) 0.75 in (19 mm) 0.5 in (13 mm)
Tamping Rate (% Rate (% Rate (%
Cycles % % %
Change Change Change
Change Change Change
per tamp) per tamp) per tamp)
12 5% 0.42% 4% 0.37% 3% 0.28%
25 9% 0.36% 8% 0.32% 6% 0.24%
62 14% 0.22% 14% 0.22% 11% 0.17%
100 17% 0.17% 17% 0.17% 14% 0.14%

Many researchers have attempted to correlate ballast durability to the LA Abrasion

Number as discussed previously. Figures 5 and 6 illustrate relationship between the tamping
testing completed in this study with the LA Abrasion Number, and flatness and elongation,
respectively. No statistically valid relationship between these parameters could be established
based on the tamping test data.

Ballast Numbers 2 and 11 produced the least amount of minus 0.5-inch (13-mm) material
for the 25-cycle tests and the 100-cycle tests. Minus 0.5-inch (13-mm) material for Ballasts 2
and 11 from the 100 cycle tests were passed through a No. 80 sieve and observed under a
microscope. The fine sand size particles shown in Figure 7 remain sub-angular to sub-round
with regard to roundness for these best performing materials.

14.0%
Change in Percent Passing

12.0%

10.0%

8.0%

6.0% 1-inch particle size

1/2-inch particle size
4.0%

2.0%

0.0%
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0
LA Abrasion Number

FIGURE 5. Change in percent passing in relation to LA Abrasion Number based on 25 cycle

testing.

© AREMA 2013® 947

 14.0%
Change in Percent Passing
12.0%

10.0%

8.0%

6.0% 1-inch particle size

1/2-inch particle size
4.0%

2.0%

0.0%
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Flatness and Elongation (%)

FIGURE 6. Change in percent passing in relation to flatness and elongation based on 25 cycle
testing.

Ballast 2
0.025 in (0.64 mm)

948 © AREMA 2013®

 Ballast 11

0.025 in (0.64 mm)

FIGURE 7. Particle images for Ballast 2 and 11 at 700x magnification after 100 tamping cycles.

The three tests where the ballast was soaked for 24 hours did not significantly change the
test results from the dry test. This would support the hypothesis that the influence of water on
degradation in the field is likely linked to the properties of the abrasive slurry that forms from the
combination of the water and the fines coupled with the pumping action resulting from dynamic
loading.

UP presently utilizes very hard ballast from thirteen sources with the highest LA
Abrasion number being 19. This study and many of the previous studies have focused on
laboratory prediction of ballast performance based on hardness and durability. Obtaining harder
ballast for use on the UP system does not appear feasible. Increasing ballast performance in the
future will require optimization of gradation, particle shape, texture, and mineralogy. The
tamping test can be extended to evaluate the influence of these factors on performance. With
regard to suggested practice, the 25-cycle test results shown in Figures 5 and 6 tend to support
establishing a preliminary limit of 6 percent for the 0.5-inch (13 mm) particle size for the change
in percent passing during the tamping test with regard to testing for future ballast suppliers.

CONCLUSIONS

A laboratory test for predicting the performance of ballast materials in track was developed at the
UP laboratory. The testing resulted in a rate of change for the percent passing ranging from 0.24
to 0.36% for 1 in (25 mm), 0.75 in (19 mm), and 0.5 in (13 mm) particles. A decrease in the rate
of degradation was observed for increasing tamping events. The tamping test data could not be
correlated to the LA Abrasion number or particle flatness/elongation. This study emphasizes the
difficulty of predicting the durability of ballast in the laboratory and confirms the importance of
utilizing hard, dense, and durable ballast which was properly produced, transported, placed, and
maintained.

© AREMA 2013® 949

 REFERENCES
(1) AREMA (2013). “Ballast,” Manual for Railway Engineering, Chapter 1, Part 2, Lanham,
Maryland.
(2) Selig, E.T., and Waters, J.H. (1994). Track Geotechnology and Substructure Management,
Thomas Telford, London.
(3) Gehringer, E., Read, D., and Tutumluer, E. (2012). “Characterization of Ballast
Performance in Heavy Axle Loading (HAL),” Proceedings of AREMA 2012 Conference,
Chicago, IL.
(4) Wnek, M.A., Tutumluer, E., and Moaveni, M. (2013). “Investigation of Aggregate
Properties Influencing Railroad Ballast Performance,” 92nd Annual Meeting of the
Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, January 13-17.
(5) Burks, M.E., Robson, J.D., and Shenton, M.J. (1975). “Comparison of Robel Supermat
and Plasser 07-16 Track Maintenance Machines,” Tech. Note TN SM 139, British
Railways Board R&D Division, December.
(6) Wright, S.E. (1983). Damage Caused to Ballast by Mechanical Maintenance Techniques,
British Rail Research Technical Memorandum TM TD 15, May.
(7) Chrismer, S.M. (1989). Track Surfacing with Conventional Tamping and Stone Injection,
Association of American Railroads Research Report No. R-719, Chicago, IL, March.
(8) Aursudkij, B. (2007). A Laboratory Study of Railway Ballast Behavior Under Traffic
Loading and Tamping Maintenance, Doctor of Philosophy Thesis, The University of
Nottingham, September.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Caleb Douglas is a Manager Special Projects Civil – Geotechnical for the Union Pacific
Railway. He has system wide responsibilities for geotechnical aspects, primarily supporting
Maintenance of Way projects. Caleb joined Union Pacific after practicing as a geotechnical
consultant in the southeast United States for 10 years. Dr. Douglas holds degrees from
Mississippi State University and Iowa State University. Caleb is a registered professional
engineer and is a member of AREMA Committee 1.

950 © AREMA 2013®

© AREMA 2013®
Ballast Quality and
Breakdown during
Tamping

Caleb Douglas, PE, PhD

Manager Special Projects – Civil Geotechnical
Union Pacific Railroad

September 29 – October 2, 2013

Indianapolis, IN

951
 Union Pacific System Introduction
Seattle

Portland
Eastport
Duluth
Ballast breakdown
Twin Cities Fast Facts Selig and Waters found that 76% of the fouling
Chicago • Commodity material on North American railroads was due
Revenue $15.5 B
Oakland SLC
Omaha
to ballast degradation
KC • Route Miles 32,200 in
Denver
23 States
Traffic Loading
St. Louis
Tamping
• Employees 49,000
LA Memphis
• Customers 25,000
Calexico Dallas
New • Locomotives 8,700
Nogales El Paso Orleans
Houston
Eagle Pass
Laredo
Brownsville

September 29 – October 2, 2013 September 29 – October 2, 2013

Indianapolis, IN Indianapolis, IN

Problem Statement Ballast Life Cycle

y
Quantification of ballast breakdown due to
tamping
Ballast fouling =
traffic damage + tamping damage

Development of laboratory test to predict

ballast performance in the field
Tests, such as LA Abrasion and Mill Abrasion,
have not been good predictors of performance

September 29 – October 2, 2013 September

S t b 29 – O October
t b 2 2, 2013
Indianapolis, IN Indianapolis, IN

Degradation Accumulation g
Degradation Trends
Increased
Traffic

Tamping
Degradation Tamping
Decreased
Traffic
Tamping
Tamping

Time

September 29 – October 2, 2013 September

S t b 29 – O October
t b 2 2, 2013
Indianapolis, IN Indianapolis, IN

952 © AREMA 2013®

 Tamping Test Equipment Test Procedure
Jackson tamping head Obtain 350 lb (159 kg) mainline ballast.
Complete an in-the-dry gradation analysis
of the ballast sample with the following
sieve sizes:
2.5 in (64 mm),
2 in (51 mm),
1.5 in (38 mm),
1 in (25 mm),
0.75 in (19 mm),
and 0.5 in (13 mm).
September 29 – October 2, 2013 September 29 – October 2, 2013
Indianapolis, IN Indianapolis, IN

Test Procedure (Cont.) Test Procedure (Cont.)

Place the minus Complete the required number of tamping
0.5-in (13-mm) cycles.
material in a A computer program controlled the test, the
separate container. tamping head penetration, and the squeezing
Mix by rolling in pressure.
Tamping head downward pressure: 1,800 psi
55-gallon drum
Tamping head squeeze pressure: 1,800 psi
Place into the Each tamping cycle was a “double tamp”
ballast box
Remove ballast and complete in-the-dry
gradation
September 29 – October 2, 2013 September 29 – October 2, 2013
Indianapolis, IN Indianapolis, IN

Double tamp cycle Tamping Test in Progress

1 cycle is 1 “double tamp”
A – B – C – B – A sequence
Position A Position B Position C

September 29 – October 2, 2013 September 29 – October 2, 2013

Indianapolis, IN Indianapolis, IN

© AREMA 2013® 953

 Ballast after testing Initial Gradations
Sieve Size
Gradation 2 in 1.5 in
2.5 in 1 in 0.75 in 0.5 in Mineralogy
Description (51 (38
(64 mm) (25 mm) (19 mm) (13 mm)
mm) mm)
UP
100 90-100 50-80 10-35 0-10 0-5 ---
Specification
Ballast 1 100.0% 97.9% 62.3% 19.5% 7.4% 2.0% Granite Porphyry
Trachyte and Syenite
Ballast 2 100.0% 94.5% 55.5% 10.2% 1.7% 0.4%
Porphyry
Ballast 3 100.0% 86.7% 53.1% 14.3% 3.4% 0.9% Rhyolite Porphyry
Ballast 4 100.0% 89.6% 42.4% 7.4% 2.3% 0.9% Diabase and Rhyolite
Ballast 5 100.0% 94.9% 73.3% 21.8% 5.0% 2.2% Syenite
Ballast 6 100.0% 88.8% 43.9% 12.1% 4.3% 1.1% Quartzite
Ballast 7 100.0% 99.9% 84.8% 36.0% 14.7% 1.8% Rhyolite
Ballast 8 100.0% 82.4% 31.3% 6.0% 1.4% 0.8% Rhyolite Porphyry
Ballast 9 100.0% 84.6% 57.3% 31.2% 18.2% 5.5% Gabbro
Ballast 10 100.0% 89.7% 50.7% 10.2% 2.6% 0.8% Basalt (Traprock)
Ballast 11 100.0% 97.7% 69.9% 33.3% 12.7% 0.7% Basalt
Basalt/Diabase
Ballast 12 100.0% 92.7% 69.6% 32.6% 13.1% 2.5%
(Traprock)
Ballast 13 100.0% 93.9% 62.5% 25.5% 11.3% 2.4% Granite
September 29 – October 2, 2013 September 29 – October 2, 2013
Indianapolis, IN Indianapolis, IN

Findings Poor Correlation with LA Abrasion

Average increase in particle sizes 14.0%

Sieve Size 12.0%

1 in (25 mm) 0.75 in (19 mm) 0.5 in (13 mm)
Number of
Change in Percent Passing

Rate (% Rate (% Rate (% 10.0%

Tamping
% Change % Change % Change
Cycles 8.0%
Change per Change per Change per
tamp) tamp) tamp) 1-inch particle size
6.0%
12 5% 0.42% 4% 0.37% 3% 0.28% 1/2-inch particle size

25 9% 0.36% 8% 0.32% 6% 0.24% 4.0%

62 14% 0.22% 14% 0.22% 11% 0.17%
2.0%
100 17% 0.17% 17% 0.17% 14% 0.14%
0.0%

25 cycle testing indicate 0.8 to 0.9 lbs 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0
LA Abrasion Number
14.0 16.0 18.0 20.0

(0.36 to 0.41 kg) of minus 0.5 in (13 mm) is

generated per tamp.
September 29 – October 2, 2013 September 29 – October 2, 2013
Indianapolis, IN Indianapolis, IN

Poor Correlation with Flatness and Particle Shapes after testing

Elongation
14.0% Ballast 2 after 100 cycles
12.0%
Change in Percent Passing

10.0%

8.0%

1-inch particle size

6.0%
1/2-inch particle size

4.0%

2.0%

0.0%
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Flatness and Elongation (%)

September 29 – October 2, 2013 September 29 – October 2, 2013

Indianapolis, IN Indianapolis, IN

954 © AREMA 2013®

 Particle Shapes after testing Influence of water
Ballast 11 after 100 cycles Three tests were conducted after soaking
the ballast for 24 hours.
Soaking did not significantly change the
test results from the dry test.
This would support the hypothesis that:
the influence of water on degradation in the
field is likely linked to the properties of the
abrasive slurry coupled with the pumping
action resulting from dynamic loading.

September 29 – October 2, 2013 September 29 – October 2, 2013

Indianapolis, IN Indianapolis, IN

Conclusions Questions
Rate of change for the percent passing ranging
from 0.24 to 0.36% for 1 in (25 mm), 0.75 in (19
mm), and 0.5 in (13 mm) particles.
0.8 to 0.9 lbs (0.36 to 0.41 kg) of minus 0.5-in (13
mm) material generated per tamp
Decrease in the rate of degradation was observed
for increasing tamping events.
The tamping test data could not be correlated to
the LA Abrasion number or particle shape.
Further studies are required to determine test
relationship with performance.

September 29 – October 2, 2013 September 29 – October 2, 2013

Indianapolis, IN Indianapolis, IN

© AREMA 2013® 955