Wheel Profile Maintenance Guidelines (2015)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Wheel Profile Maintenance Guidelines PART 3 Development of New Wheel Profiles for Port Authority Trans-Hudson

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................... i LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................... ii LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................................... iii SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 2 CHAPTER 2 Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 3 CHAPTER 3 Review of Current Conditions ............................................................................................... 4 CHAPTER 4 Generation of Candidate Profiles ........................................................................................... 6 CHAPTER 5 Dynamic Performance Evaluation ......................................................................................... 9 5.1 Performance Criteria ........................................................................................................... 9 5.2 Dynamic Modeling ............................................................................................................. 9 5.3 Curving Analysis .............................................................................................................. 10 5.3.1 Wear Index ........................................................................................................... 10 5.3.2 Rolling Resistance ............................................................................................... 11 5.3.3 Contact Stress ...................................................................................................... 13 5.3.4 Contact Angle ...................................................................................................... 14 5.3.5 L/V Ratio ............................................................................................................. 14 5.4 Stability Analysis .............................................................................................................. 15 CHAPTER 6 Validation ............................................................................................................................ 22 CHAPTER 7 Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................... 26 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 27 APPENDIX A Proposed New Wheel Profile Arc Radius, Arc Center, and Segment Point Coordinates . 28 APPENDIX B Proposed New Wheel Profile (X,Y) Coordinates ............................................................. 29 i

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 List of Figures Figure 1. Measured Newly Trued and Worn Wheel Profiles .......................................................... 4 Figure 2. Measured Rail Profiles .................................................................................................... 5 Figure 3. Existing Wheel Template and Worn Wheel Profiles ....................................................... 6 Figure 4. Existing and Proposed Wheel Template Profiles ............................................................ 7 Figure 5. Existing and APTA 240 Wheel Template Profiles .......................................................... 7 Figure 6. Contact between Worn Rail and Existing AAR S-622-78 Wheel Template Profiles ...... 8 Figure 7. Contact between Worn Rail and Proposed Wheel Template Profiles ............................. 8 Figure 8. Wear Indices for Alternative Wheel and Rail Profiles – 147-foot Radius Curve .......... 10 Figure 9. Wear Indices for Alternative Wheel and Rail Profiles – 300-foot Radius Curve .......... 11 Figure 10. Rolling Resistances for Alternative Wheel and Rail Profiles – 147-foot Radius Curve ...................................................................................................... 12 Figure 11. Rolling Resistances for Alternative Wheel and Rail Profiles – 300-foot Radius Curve ...................................................................................................... 12 Figure 12. Contact Stresses for Alternative Wheel and Rail Profiles – 147-foot Radius Curve ...................................................................................................... 13 Figure 13. Contact Stresses for Alternative Wheel and Rail Profiles – 300-foot Radius Curve ...................................................................................................... 13 Figure 14. L/V Ratios for Alternative Wheel and Rail Profiles – 147-foot Radius Curve ........... 14 Figure 15. L/V Ratios for Alternative Wheel and Rail Profiles – 300-foot Radius Curve ........... 15 Figure 16. Truck Frame Lateral Acceleration for Alternative Wheel Profiles – New 100RB Rail ............................................................................................................... 16 Figure 17. RRD for Alternative Wheel Profiles on New 100RB Rails......................................... 17 Figure 18. Comparisons of Axle and Truck Movement between APTA 240 and S-622-78 Wheels ............................................................................................................... 18 Figure 19. Truck Frame Lateral Acceleration for Alternative Wheel Profiles – AREMA 115RE Rail ........................................................................................................ 18 Figure 20. Comparison of Rail Profiles ........................................................................................ 19 Figure 21. Rolling Radius Difference for Alternative Wheel Profiles on New 115RE Rails .............................................................................................................. 20 Figure 22. Truck Frame Lateral Acceleration for Alternative Wheel Profiles – Slightly worn Rail Measured on Tangent Track ............................................................... 20 Figure 23. Truck Frame Lateral Acceleration for Alternative Wheel Profiles – Moderately Worn Rail Measured on Tangent Track ........................................................ 21 ii

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 Figure 24. Slightly Worn and Moderately Worn Rail Profiles Measured on Tangent Track ....... 21 Figure 25. Measured Track Geometries ........................................................................................ 22 Figure 26. Car Response Time Histories of P5 Car running on Measured Track Geometry ........ 23 Figure 27. Comparisons of Truck Frame Lateral Acceleration RMS Values ............................... 24 Figure 28. Comparisons of Wheel L/V Ratios .............................................................................. 25 Figure A-1. Proposed New Wheel Profiles ................................................................................... 28 List of Tables Table 1. Curving Simulation Details ............................................................................................ 7 iii

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 Summary Transit Cooperative Research Program’s project (TCRP D7 Task Order 20: wheel profile maintenance guidelines for transit systems) has an objective to demonstrate the application of guidelines and procedures developed in a selected transit system. As part of the project, Transportation Technology Center, Inc. (TTCI) has conducted a wheel/rail interaction study for Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation (PATH). A new wheel profile has been developed to decrease wheel and rail wear and to improve vehicle and track dynamic performances. NUCARS® analyses were performed with a PA5 car operating on a variety of curved and tangent track. The analyses compared performances of four alternative wheel profiles: a new proposed profile, PATH’s existing design (AAR S-622-78), APTA 240, and PATH worn wheels. Preliminary analysis has shown that the new proposed wheel profile provides overall best performance. The wheel wear index, contact stress, rolling resistance, and lateral/vertical (L/V) ratio of the proposed profile are lower than those of the existing cylindrical AAR S-622-78 wheel template profile. Trucks implemented with the proposed new wheel profiles would not hunt at speeds up to 80 mph for all simulated cases. The APTA 240 wheel profile offers good curving capability with the lowest L/V ratio and rolling resistance, but its hunting speed is lowest among wheel profiles studied. There would be a higher risk of truck hunting if the APTA 240 wheel profile is used in the PA5 car, especially on tangent track with newly installed 100 RB rails. It is recommended that the proposed wheel profile be tested in service. The test should include the following stages: 1. Manufacture templates for the wheel lathe to produce the proposed profile. 2. Lathe true four wheelsets using the new template and install them in a car. 3. True another set of four wheelsets using the existing wheel template and install them in another car. 4. Document two car numbers, wheel identification, and general conditions. 5. Conduct a revenue service test to measure truck and carbody accelerations according to the test plan TTCI submitted. 6. Analyze and compare the dynamic performances of the tested trucks. 7. Put the cars in revenue service and periodically (every 3 months) locate the two test cars, measure wheel profiles, and record surface conditions. 8. Document reasons for reprofiling the two test car wheels when this becomes necessary. True the wheels to the same profiles (proposed or existing template) as trued in the beginning of the test. 9. Analyze all test results and report on the findings. It is anticipated that the wear monitoring test will be carried out over a period of one year. Appendices A and B provide the geometric properties of the proposed wheel profile, in arc segment format and (X,Y) coordinates. 1

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 C H A P T E R 1 Introduction Transportation Technology Center, Inc. (TTCI) has been contracted under the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) to develop wheel profile maintenance guidelines for rail transit systems. One objective of this project is to demonstrate the application of guidelines and procedures developed from this study in a selected transit system. TTCI has conducted a wheel/rail interaction study for Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corporation (PATH). A new wheel profile was designed to decrease wheel and rail wear and to improve vehicle and track dynamic performances. In July 2012, TTCI visited PATH and measured wheel and rail profiles. A draft report was prepared and submitted to PATH in August 2012 to summarize wheel and rail profile measurements and findings (Madrill and Shu 2010). This report summarizes the development of the new wheel profile and recommendations. 2

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 C H A P T E R 2 Methodology The following methodology was used in the development of a new wheel profile: 1. Review of current wheel/rail interface issues 2. Generation of a new wheel profile 3. Analysis of the effect of the new proposed profile on vehicle dynamic performance by using TTCI’s NUCARS® vehicle dynamic model 4. Evaluation of the new wheel profile through service tests These steps are described in the following sections of this report. 3

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 C H A P T E R 3 Review of Current Conditions PATH has been operating PA5 cars in revenue service since 2009. The PA5 cars are 51 feet (16 meters) long and approximately 9 feet 2 3/4 inches (2.813 meters) wide. The maximum running speed is 55 mph. Each car seats 35 passengers on longitudinal seating, with a larger number of standees. PATH adopted the Association of American Railroads (AAR) S-622-78 cylindrical wheel profile for new car purchases and as the wheel truing template. Wheels are trued about every 3 years, using mill type and lathe type wheel truing machines. The average wheel life is about 8 years. The infrastructure at PATH, including tunnels and tracks, was mostly built a century ago. The PATH system (ex-Hudson and Manhattan Railroad) was opened in 1907. 100RB rails were used for many years. In 2005, the rail manufacturer stopped fabricating 100RB rail and replaced it with 100-8 rail, which has a similar profile to American Railway Engineering Maintenance of Way Association (AREMA) 115RE rail. PATH continues to install the 100RB rail in stock, and has also started installing the standard AREMA 115RE rail. Currently, the mainline track consists of 50 percent 100RB rail and 50 percent 115RE rail (including 100-8 rail). It will take time for the newly installed 100RB rail to be replaced. In July 2012, 50 wheel profiles were measured in the PATH wheel shop, and 56 rail profiles were measured on revenue service track. All profiles were measured using MiniProf™ (Greenwood Engineering A/S, Denmark) profilometers. Measured wheel profiles were selected from wheelsets in the workshop either just before or just after reprofiling. A few wheel profiles were measured on cars in the yard. Figure 1 shows the measured new and worn wheel profiles. Figure 1. Measured Newly Trued and Worn Wheel Profiles 4

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 Figure 2 shows rail profiles that were measured on tangent tracks and curves at PATH. High wear rates were observed not only on high rails, but also on restraining rails adjacent to the low rails due to the small curve radii. Figure 2. Measured Rail Profiles All measurement results were provided by Madrill and Shu 2012. The following is a summary of the main findings and conclusions: • Wheels and rails wear to a steeper contact angle of about 75 degrees. • Wheels have high flange wear and slight tread hollowing. • The high rails and the worn wheels wear into conformal shapes. • The worn high rail/new wheel contact shows strong two-point contact. • The low rails show flattening and hollowing on top of the rail due to contact with the cylindrical part of worn and new wheels. • The 100RB rail and AREMA 115RE rail wear into similar shapes. Controlling wheel and rail wear is one of the main tasks for wheel profile designs (Shu Part 1 2014). However, wheel profile changes are constrained by existing vehicle and track conditions. New wheel profile designs or truing templates should be optimized on the basis of existing rail wear conditions, vehicle design and maintenance standards, and special trackwork maintenance requirements (Shu Part 1 2014). 5

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 C H A P T E R 4 Generation of Candidate Profiles An optimized wheel profile should provide the following: • Stable performance over the range of normal train speeds • Safety from derailment under normal operating conditions • Maximized wheel and rail life by decreasing wear The following three general guidelines are used in wheel profile design: • The wheel flange angle should be at least 72 degrees, preferably 75 degrees, to protect against flange climbing derailments. • The slope of the wheel tread (tread taper) should produce a low conicity with different rail shapes in tangent track. • The profile in the flange root should blend smoothly with the flange and tread. It should be close to the typical worn profile to give relatively conformal contact on rails, minimize the contact stress, and minimize the amount of metal removed during reprofiling. The rail profiles used for the new wheel design include new 100RB rail profiles, new AREMA 115RE rail profiles, and measured worn rail profiles including slightly, moderately, and heavily worn shapes. The new rail profile is the standard 100RB and 115RE rail with 1:40 inclination. Typical worn profiles were measured on tangent tracks and curves on PATH. A new wheel profile was designed using these guidelines and guidelines developed in the report for Part 2 of this project (Shu Part 2 2014). Figures 3 to 5 compare the new wheel profiles with a representative worn wheel profile, the existing template AAR S-622-78 wheel profile, and the APTA 240 wheel profile. Figure 3. Existing Wheel Template and Worn Wheel Profiles 6

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 Figure 4. Existing and Proposed Wheel Template Profiles Figure 5. Existing and APTA 240 Wheel Template Profiles Figure 3 shows that existing wheels mainly wore on the flange and flange root areas, with metal flow extending into the flange root. The new wheel profile design extends the flange root to the cylindrical tread with a larger arc radius than the existing wheel template, and increases the maximum flange angle to 75 degrees, as Figure 4 shows. The tread is slightly tapered, but close to cylindrical. The other parts of the proposed wheel profile are identical to the existing cylindrical wheel template. APTA 240 wheel profile could be another potential candidate wheel profile, because it meets the requirements for rail transit cars (APTA SS-M-015-06, 2007). It has a 1:40 slope on tread, and a larger radius arc in flange root, as Figure 5 shows. The wheel profile differences are most significant in the wheel flange root. Figure 6 shows that the AAR S-622-78 wheel profile contacts on the worn high rail. Because the arc radius on wheel flange root is much smaller than the radius of the gage corner of the high rail, it produces two points of contact – one on the top and the other on the gage face of the high rail. Severe two-point contact is known to cause large tangential forces between the wheel and the rail that increase wear and rolling contact fatigue (RCF). 7

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 Figure 6. Contact between Worn Rail and Existing AAR S-622-78 Wheel Template Profiles Figure 7 shows that the proposed wheel profile closely matches the worn rail profile with little gap in the gage corner to allow the wheels to quickly wear conformal to the rails. Figure 7. Contact between Worn Rail and Proposed Wheel Template Profiles Simulations were performed to evaluate the proposed wheel profile and compare it with the existing AAR S-622-78 wheel template profile and the APTA 240 wheel profile and the results are given in the following section. 8

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 C H A P T E R 5 Dynamic Performance Evaluation 5.1 Performance Criteria Profile design is a matter of optimizing several criteria. Some criteria must be satisfied; others can be compromised to achieve an overall optimum solution. The following criteria have been used to evaluate the new wheel profiles (Wu et al. 2005): • Wear Index – should be as low as possible to decrease wear on wheels and on the high rail in curves • Rolling Resistance – should be as low as possible to reduce energy consumption and draft gear forces • Contact Stress – should be as low as possible to decrease RCF and metal flow • Lateral to Vertical (L/V) Ratio – should be less than the Nadal limit to avoid flange climbing derailments • Lateral Stability – should be achieved for normal operating speeds for cars with deteriorated suspension system 5.2 Dynamic Modeling Dynamic modeling was performed with a NUCARS® model of the PA5 car in the empty condition (Ketchum and Meddah 2014). Curving simulations were performed using curves with radii of 147 feet and 300 feet. Superelevations for these curves were 4 inches and 2.75 inches, respectively. The curving simulations did not include a restraining (guard) rail for the following reasons: • Wheel flange back wear caused by contact on the restraining rail was less severe compared to tread wear. Most wheels wore on flange root and tread, as observed in the PATH railcar fleets. • An optimized wheel profile can decrease wheel flange and high rail wear even with the existing configuration of the restraining rail (Ketchum and Meddah 2014). To reduce wear on the restraining rail, the most effective way is by adjusting the restraining rail flange way clearance, not by changing wheel profile and back-to-back distance. Restraining rail installation guidelines have been published by TCRP (Shu and Wilson 2010). The railcar running speed used in the simulations was 12 mph. The wheel/rail coefficient of friction was 0.5, representing a dry rail condition without lubrication. Table 1 summarizes the data used in the curving simulations. Table 1. Curving Simulation Details Radius (foot) 147 300 Superelevation (inch) 4 2.75 Speed (mph) 12 12 The following five different rail profiles were used in the curving simulations: 1. New 100RB rail 2. New AREMA 115RE rail 9

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 3. Slightly worn rail measured on tangent track located at milepost 1092+10 in Tunnel A-4 4. Moderately worn rail measured on the 300-foot radius curves located at milepost 1089+36 in Tunnel A-4 5. Heavily worn rail measured on the 147-foot radius curve located at milepost 1064+60 in Tunnel A-4 The same PA5 car model was used for the curving analysis and for the lateral stability simulations, except the suspension parameters (such as the lateral and longitudinal stiffness and damping on primary and secondary suspension system) were lower than normal values to simulate deteriorated suspension conditions. A lateral track discontinuity was used to excite lateral motion. The discontinuity had a cosine shape with 50-foot wavelength and 1-inch amplitude. A 0.3 g truck frame acceleration root-mean-square value, defined in the Federal Railroad Administration 49 CFR Part 213 Track Safety Standard8, was used to evaluate truck stability. 5.3 Curving Analysis 5.3.1 Wear Index It is widely accepted that wheel/rail wear can be evaluated in terms of wear index. In NUCARS, the wear index is calculated as the sum of the tangential forces (Tx, Ty, and Mz) multiplied by the creepages (γx, γy, and ωz) at the contact patch, as Equation 1 shows. A higher wear index can induce either RCF or higher rate of wear. (1) Figure 8 shows the wear index results for the outside wheel of the leading axle on the 147-foot radius curve. Results are given for all combinations of wheel and rail profiles that have been modeled. Rail and wheel wear is proportional to the wear index when the wear index is greater than 50 lb-in/in. Below that value, the wear is mild and RCF may be expected. Figure 8 shows that in all cases, the wear index is greater than 50 lb-in/in. Figure 8. Wear Indices for Alternative Wheel and Rail Profiles – 147-foot Radius Curve Wear Index T T Mx x n y y z z= + +∑ γ γ ω 10

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 Figure 8 shows that the proposed wheel profile produces the lowest wear indices among all simulated rail profiles. The APTA 240 wheel provides the second lowest wear indices. A heavily worn wheel generates significantly higher wear indices on AREMA115RE rail and on worn rail, indicating the importance of proper wheel maintenance for control of wheel and rail wear. Figure 9 shows the wear index for the outside wheel of the leading axle on a 300-foot radius curve. The proposed wheel profile produces the lowest wear indices on 300-foot radius curves among all simulated rail profiles. Figure 9. Wear Indices for Alternative Wheel and Rail Profiles – 300-foot Radius Curve 5.3.2 Rolling Resistance Figure 10 shows the total rolling resistance from all eight wheels of the PA5 car on a 147-foot radius curve. Results are given for all combinations of wheel and rail profiles that have been modeled. Figure 10 shows that the APTA 240 wheel produces the lowest rolling resistance on all simulated new rail profiles. The proposed wheel produces slightly higher rolling resistance on AREMA 115RE rail than the APTA 240 wheel does. 11

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 Figure 10. Rolling Resistances for Alternative Wheel and Rail Profiles – 147-foot Radius Curve Figure 11 shows that the APTA 240 wheel produces the lowest rolling resistance on all simulated new rail profiles on a 300-foot radius curve, and the proposed wheel produces the second lowest rolling resistance. The large flange root arc radius of the APTA 240 wheels, which results in one-point contact on rails with a lower contact angle for most simulated cases, and its tapered tread contributes to the best curving performances compared to other alternative wheels. Figure 11. Rolling Resistances for Alternative Wheel and Rail Profiles – 300-foot Radius Curve 12

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 5.3.3 Contact Stress Figure 12 compares the flange contact stress from the outside wheel of PA5 car on the high rail of a 147-foot radius curve for all combinations of wheel and rail profiles that have been modeled. Figure 12. Contact Stresses for Alternative Wheel and Rail Profiles – 147-foot Radius Curve Figure 12 shows that the worn wheel produces the lowest contact stresses on a 147-foot radius curve, especially on the worn rail due to a conforming shape between the worn wheel and rail. The proposed wheel produces the second lowest contact stress for most simulated cases. The same conclusions can be drawn from the modeling results of the PA5 car traveling through a 300- foot radius curve, as Figure 13 shows. Figure 13. Contact Stresses for Alternative Wheel and Rail Profiles – 300-foot Radius Curve 13

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 5.3.4 Contact Angle The maximum contact angle on the outside wheel of the lead axle during flange contact is 75 degrees for the proposed wheel profile. The maximum contact angle of existing S-622-78 wheel profile is 72 degrees. Higher flange angles provide a higher resistance to flange climb derailment. 5.3.5 L/V Ratio Figure 14 shows the L/V ratio for the PA5 car on the outside wheel of the lead axle in the 147-foot radius curve. It is positive when the wheel is in flange contact with the high rail. Figure 14. L/V Ratios for Alternative Wheel and Rail Profiles – 147-foot Radius Curve Figure 14 shows that the APTA 240 wheel produces the lowest L/V ratio (lower than 0.8) among all simulated wheel profiles on a 147-foot radius curve. The worn wheel produces the highest L/V ratio on the AREMA 115RE rail. The large flange root arc radius and tapered tread on the APTA 240 wheel contribute to the lowest L/V ratio. The proposed wheel produces the second lowest L/V ratio for most simulated cases. Similar conclusions can be drawn from the simulation results on the 300-foot radius curve, as Figure 15 shows. 14

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 Figure 15. L/V Ratios for Alternative Wheel and Rail Profiles – 300-foot Radius Curve A safe value of L/V ratio depends on the wheel/rail friction conditions and the distance over which the L/V ratio is high. Values below 0.8 are generally considered to be safe. PATH installs restraining rails on all curves with radii less than 800 feet, which increases resistance to flange climb derailment (Shu and Wilson 2010). 5.4 Stability Analysis Hunting (lateral instability) is a common dynamic phenomenon for railroad and rail transit cars, and is primarily a function of the following: • Wheel/rail conicity – higher conicity increases likelihood of hunting • Vehicle speed – higher speeds increase likelihood of hunting • Vehicle longitudinal, lateral, and yaw suspension stiffnesses – softer stiffness increases likelihood of hunting Any disturbance on the track, such as track perturbations, can trigger hunting. Once hunting starts, the wheelset moves laterally and at the same time yaws around the vertical axis perpendicular to the track surface, with gradually increased amplitudes as it travels on the track. Hunting can sometimes be stopped, if the wheelset encounters another disturbance, or if the track curvature changes. Tread conicity has a significant effect on wheelset hunting. The higher the conicity, the higher the risk of hunting. One way to avoid hunting is to use cylindrical wheels, which generate zero conicity when the two cylindrical treads contact on rails. However, due to wear, the wheel treads do not keep their cylindrical shape, and worn wheels promote hunting (Shu Part 1 2014). Hunting mostly occurs on tangent track or shallow curves, and rarely occurs on tight curves (curve radius less than 750 feet). One obvious reason is that the speed on tangent track or shallow curves is normally higher than that on tight curves. Another reason could be that curvature variations disturb the hunting development before it reaches a stable limiting cycle. Four types of rails, the new 100RB rail, new AREMA 115RE rail, slightly worn rail, and moderately worn rail, measured on tangent track were used to perform hunting simulation. The moderately worn rail shape was included, because most rails on tangent track wear into a worn shape after they were put in revenue service. 15

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 Figure 16 shows the lowest hunting speed (50 mph) occurs with the APTA 240 wheel running on 100RB rails indicating an unsafe operating condition. The reason is that its conicity on the tread is the highest among all simulated wheel profiles and increasing conicity lowers the hunting speed. Figure 16. Truck Frame Lateral Acceleration for Alternative Wheel Profiles – New 100RB Rail The conicity can be calculated from the wheel rolling radius difference (RRD) function. In general, the effective conicity is defined by Equation 2: 𝜆𝜆 = 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 2𝑦𝑦 (2) where y is the wheelset lateral shift. The equivalent conicity defined in Equation 2 is half of the slope of the linearized wheel RRD function in the range of wheel lateral shift before reaching flange contact. Figure 17 shows how the RRD varies with lateral shift of the wheelset for the different wheel profiles. The new 100RB rail profile was used to calculate these results. 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 40 50 60 70 80 Tr uc k Fr am e La t. A cc el . R M S (g ) Speed (mph) New Design s-622-78 APTA240 Worn Wheel FRA 213 Limit 16

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 Figure 17. RRD for Alternative Wheel Profiles on New 100RB Rails Figure 17 shows that the APTA 240 wheel profile produces a step increase in RRD with lateral shift before flange contact is made, which generates the highest conicity. The proposed wheel and S-622-78 wheel profiles produce zero conicity before flange contact. The worn wheel profile also introduces a step change in RRD before flange contact is made, which produces the second highest conicity. The proposed wheel conicity lies between that of the S-622-78 and worn wheels. Figure 18 shows the comparisons of the axle lateral displacement and truck acceleration between APTA 240 and S-622-78 wheels at a speed of 50 mph. The cylindrical wheel deviates from the track center and stays on the right side of the track center once it passes the perturbation. This is to be expected, because the cylindrical profile does not steer well and results in some flange contact, which causes flange and gage face wear that can be seen in the tangent track worn profiles, whereas the APTA 240 wheel gradually increases lateral displacement amplitudes as it travels on the track with no signs of diminishing. 17

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 Figure 18. Comparisons of Axle and Truck Movement between APTA 240 and S-622-78 Wheels Figure 19 shows the lowest hunting speed occurs with the APTA 240 wheel running on AREMA 115RE rails. Its truck frame acceleration root-mean-square (RMS) value exceeds the FRA CFR 213 Track Safety Standards limit at 70 mph. The other three wheel types did not show hunting for speeds up to 80 mph. Figure 19. Truck Frame Lateral Acceleration for Alternative Wheel Profiles – AREMA 115RE Rail 18

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 Clearly, the increase of hunting speed was caused by the change of rail profiles, because other parameters used in the modeling did not change. Figure 20 overlays the two rail profiles. The 100RB rail has a protruding gage corner compared to the AREMA 115RE rail, which contacts on the wheel flange root. The APTA 240 wheel has the largest flange root arc radius among all simulated wheel profiles, which makes flange root contact on high rail on the rail gage corner when the axle moves only 1.0 millimeter laterally, as Figure 17 shows. Figure 20. Comparison of Rail Profiles Figure 21 shows the RRDs for alternative wheel profiles on new AREMA 115RE rails. The wheel/rail clearances increased for all wheels when the protruding gage corner on 100RB rail was replaced with a shape conformal to wheel flange root. However, when the APTA wheel contacts on the new AREMA 115RE rail it moves about 5.7 millimeters, and it still generates the highest conicity among all simulated wheels. Figures 22 and 23 also show the lowest hunting speed (70 mph) occurs with the APTA 240 wheel running on slightly worn rail and moderately worn rail measured on tangent track. 19

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 Figure 21. Rolling Radius Difference for Alternative Wheel Profiles on New 115RE Rails Figure 22. Truck Frame Lateral Acceleration for Alternative Wheel Profiles –Slightly worn Rail Measured on Tangent Track 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 40 50 60 70 80 Tr uc k Fr am e La t. A cc el . R M S (g ) Speed (mph) New Design s-622-78 APTA240 Worn Wheel FRA 213 Limit 20

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 Figure 23. Truck Frame Lateral Acceleration for Alternative Wheel Profiles – Moderately Worn Rail Measured on Tangent Track Figure 24 compares the slightly worn and moderately worn rail profiles measured on tangent track. The wheel/rail clearances increased for all wheels due to wear on the rail gage face. However, the APTA 240 wheel conicity is still the highest among all simulated wheels, which contributes to the lowest hunting speed. Figure 24. Slightly Worn and Moderately Worn Rail Profiles Measured on Tangent Track Because the APTA 240 wheel is prone to hunt at speeds of 50 mph on 100RB rails, lower than the operation speed, it not recommended for use at PATH, even though it improves curving performance. The proposed wheel, which has the best wear performance and does not hunt at speeds up to 80 mph, is recommended to test on track and to conduct further evaluation. 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 40 50 60 70 80 Tr uc k Fr am e La t. A cc el . R M S (g ) Speed (mph) New Design s-622-78 APTA240 Worn Wheel FRA 213 Limit 21

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 C H A P T E R 6 Validation The curving and hunting performances of the proposed new wheel profile were further evaluated through simulation using measured track geometry and rail profiles from PATH. The track geometries, as Figure 25 shows, were measured from Journal Square Station to Exchange Place Station. Figure 25. Measured Track Geometries 22

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 Figure 26 shows the time histories of the truck frame lateral acceleration, W/R forces, and wheel L/V ratios of the P5A car with three different alternative wheel profiles at a speed of 60 mph. On tangent track from 500 to 3,000 feet, the time history peak values were dominated by responses using APTA 240 wheels (red color); on curves from 3,300 to 4,400 feet, the time history peak values were dominated by responses using cylindrical wheels (green color). Figure 26. Car Response Time Histories of P5 Car running on Measured Track Geometry The time histories were processed based on the FRA 213 Track Safety Standard (FRA CFR 213 2012). Figure 27 shows the truck frame acceleration RMS value of the P5A car equipped with cylindrical wheel (S-622-78) is the lowest among the three simulated wheels, indicating the best hunting performance. The new design wheel is stable at speeds up to 65 mph. The APTA 240 wheel starts hunting at speeds over 60 mph. 23

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 Figure 27. Comparisons of Truck Frame Lateral Acceleration RMS Values Figure 28 shows the wheel L/V ratio of the P5A car equipped with APTA 240 wheel is the lowest among three simulated wheels, indicting the best curving performance. The cylindrical wheel (S-622-78) L/V ratio is higher that of other two wheels. The new design wheel ratio is lower than that of the existing cylindrical wheel. 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 50 55 60 65 Tr uc k Fr am e La t. A cc el . R M S (g ) Speed (mph) APTA240 New Design S-622-78 FRA 213 Limit 24

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 Figure 28. Comparisons of Wheel L/V Ratios Clearly, the proposed new design wheel, which has similar hunting performance but better curving performance than the existing cylindrical wheel, demonstrates overall optimal dynamic performances under various track conditions. 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 50 55 60 65 H ig h Ra il W he el L/ V Ra tio Speed (mph) APTA240 New Design S-622-78 25

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 C H A P T E R 7 Conclusions and Recommendations Preliminary analysis has shown that the proposed new wheel profile provides the overall best performance among all wheel profiles that were considered. The wheel wear index, contact stress, rolling resistance, and L/V ratio of the proposed new wheel profile are lower than those of the existing cylindrical AAR S-622-78 wheel template profile. For all simulated cases, trucks implemented with the proposed new wheel profiles did not hunt at speeds up to 80 mph. The APTA 240 wheel profile offers good curving capability with the lowest L/V ratio and rolling resistance, but its hunting speed is the lowest among all wheel profiles considered. There is a higher risk of truck hunting when using the APTA 240 wheel profile in the PA5 car, especially on tangent track with newly installed 100RB rails. It is recommended that the proposed new wheel profile be tested in revenue service over a one year period. The test should include the following steps: 1. Manufacture templates for the wheel lathe to produce the proposed new profile. 2. Lathe true four wheelsets using the new template and install them in a car. 3. True another set of four axle wheels using the existing wheel template and install them in another car. 4. Document two car numbers, wheel identification, and general conditions such as mileage and maintenance records. 5. Conduct revenue service tests to measure truck accelerations, carbody accelerations, and W/R forces by using instrumented wheelsets. 6. Analyze and compare the dynamic performance of the tested trucks. 7. Put the cars into service and periodically (every 3 months) locate the two test cars, measure wheel profiles, and record wheel surface conditions. 8. Record the reasons for reprofiling the two test car wheels when it becomes necessary. True the wheels to the same profiles (proposed or existing template) as trued in the beginning of the test. 9. Analyze all test results and report the results. The wear monitoring test should be conducted over a period of one year. Appendices A and B contain the geometric properties of the proposed new wheel profiles, in arc segment format and (X,Y) coordinates. 26

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 References American Public Transit Association. APTA SS-M-015-06, Standard for Wheel Flange Angle for Passenger Equipment, 2007. Federal Railroad Administration, Code of Federal Regulations 49 CFR 213, Track Safety Standards, Subpart G, Train Operations at Track Classes 6 and Higher, 2012. Ketchum, C.D. and A. Meddah. “Performance Based Track Geometry Port Authority Trans Hudson (PATH) System.” TCRP D-7 Task 19 Report, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2014. Madrill, B. and X. Shu. “PATH Wheel and Rail Profile Measurement and Summary.” Letter Report, Transportation Technology Center, Inc., Pueblo, CO, 2012. Shu, X. and N. Wilson. “Guidelines for Guard/Restraining Rail Installation.” In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 71, Volume 7, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010. Shu, X. “Survey of Current Wheel Profiles and Maintenance Practices.” TCRP D-7 Task 20 Part 1 Report, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2014. Shu, X. “Wheel Profile Design and Maintenance Guidelines for Transit Rail Operation.” TCRP D-7 Task 20 Part 2 Report, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2014. Wu, H., X. Shu, N. Wilson, and W. Shust. “Flange Climb Derailment Criteria and Wheel/Rail Profile Management and Maintenance Guidelines for Transit Operations.” In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 71, Volume 5, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005. 27

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 A P P E N D I X A Proposed New Wheel Profile Arc Radius, Arc Center, and Segment Point Coordinates Figure A-1. Proposed New Wheel Profiles Table A-1. Arc Segments (inch) Segment Point X Y Arc Radius Arc Center X Arc Center Y A 0.000000 0.277953 B 0.121260 0.736220 1.283465 1.251969 0.133071 C 0.523622 1.047244 0.622047 0.669291 0.444882 D 0.736220 1.043307 0.389370 0.618110 0.669291 E 1.188976 0.539370 0.669291 0.531496 0.401575 F 1.511811 0.120079 -0.562992 1.744094 0.633858 G 1.933071 0.021969 -1.161417 1.980315 1.181102 H 3.208661 0.000634 -28.425197 3.047244 28.425197 I 4.881890 -0.054724 21.614173 3.350394 -21.614173 J 5.472441 -0.716535 0.618110 4.881890 -0.673228 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Y (in ch ) X (inch) A B C D E F H G I J 28

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 A P P E N D I X B Proposed New Wheel Profile (X,Y) Coordinates Table B-1. Proposed Wheel Profile (X,Y) Coordinates (millimeters) X(mm) Y(mm) 1.40E-02 7.562701829 4.75E-02 7.815829134 8.30E-02 8.06868635 0.120453897 8.321257966 0.159884653 8.573528488 0.201290048 8.82548244 0.244667541 9.077104367 0.290014471 9.328378832 0.337328055 9.579290421 0.386605392 9.829823742 0.437843459 10.07996343 0.491039113 10.32969413 0.546189089 10.57900053 0.603290006 10.82786733 0.66233836 11.07627927 0.723330528 11.32422111 0.78626277 11.57167764 0.851131224 11.81863368 0.917931912 12.06507408 0.986660735 12.31098371 1.057313477 12.55634751 1.129885804 12.8011504 1.204373265 13.04537739 1.280771288 13.28901347 1.359075189 13.53204372 1.439280163 13.77445321 1.52138129 14.01622709 1.605373534 14.25735051 1.691251742 14.49780868 1.779010646 14.73758686 1.868644862 14.97667034 29

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 X(mm) Y(mm) 1.960148892 15.21504444 2.053517122 15.45269455 2.148743826 15.68960609 2.24582316 15.92576452 2.344749169 16.16115535 2.445515786 16.39576415 2.548116828 16.62957653 2.652546001 16.86257814 2.7587969 17.09475468 2.866863006 17.32609192 2.97673769 17.55657566 3.088414211 17.78619176 3.201885719 18.01492614 3.317145253 18.24276477 3.434185742 18.46969367 3.553000006 18.69569892 3.675625614 18.92031043 3.801872942 19.14290643 3.931708874 19.36342854 4.06509935 19.5818189 4.202009377 19.79802022 4.342403041 20.0119758 4.486243512 20.2236295 4.633493057 20.4329258 4.784113048 20.63980979 4.938063975 20.84422721 5.09530545 21.04612443 5.255796227 21.24544849 5.419494202 21.44214709 5.586356435 21.63616865 5.756339153 21.82746226 5.929397763 22.01597774 6.105486869 22.20166564 6.284560278 22.38447724 6.466571013 22.5643646 6.651471329 22.74128052 6.83921272 22.91517859 7.029745938 23.0860132 7.223021 23.25373952 7.418987205 23.41831356 7.617593145 23.57969215 7.818786721 23.73783296 30

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 X(mm) Y(mm) 8.022515154 23.89269449 8.228725001 24.04423613 8.437362168 24.19241812 8.648371922 24.33720158 8.861698911 24.47854855 9.077287173 24.61642194 9.295080153 24.75078557 9.515020719 24.88160421 9.737051174 25.00884354 9.961113272 25.13247017 10.18714824 25.25245169 10.41509678 25.3687566 10.64489909 25.48135441 10.87649489 25.59021558 11.10982343 25.69531154 11.3448235 25.79661473 11.58143345 25.89409858 11.81959121 25.98773751 12.05923431 26.07750696 12.30029988 26.16338337 12.54272469 26.24534423 12.78644514 26.32336803 13.03139729 26.3974343 13.27751689 26.46752361 13.52473937 26.53361758 13.77299989 26.59569887 14.01419372 26.65612442 14.25683038 26.71046743 14.50075651 26.75869354 14.74581792 26.80077226 14.99185971 26.836677 15.23872636 26.86638506 15.48626183 26.88987766 15.73430966 26.90713997 15.98271306 26.91816105 16.23131502 26.92293396 16.47995839 26.92145567 16.72848602 26.91372711 16.97674081 26.89975317 17.22456585 26.87954269 17.47180448 26.85310843 17.71830044 26.82046711 31

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 X(mm) Y(mm) 17.96389791 26.78163936 18.20844166 26.73664972 18.45177712 26.68552664 18.69375046 26.62830241 18.93420876 26.56501322 19.17300001 26.49569907 19.41799922 26.41565651 19.66175675 26.33190873 19.90421658 26.244475 20.14532296 26.1533754 20.38502048 26.05863088 20.62325404 25.96026322 20.85996887 25.85829502 21.09511057 25.75274973 21.32862507 25.64365161 21.56045871 25.53102573 21.7905582 25.41489799 22.01887063 25.29529507 22.24534354 25.17224448 22.46992485 25.04577449 22.69256295 24.91591418 22.91320667 24.7826934 23.13180527 24.64614277 23.34830852 24.50629368 23.56266665 24.36317827 23.77483038 24.21682945 23.98475094 24.06728086 24.19238008 23.91456686 24.39767008 23.75872257 24.60057373 23.59978381 24.80104441 23.43778711 24.99903604 23.2727697 25.19450309 23.10476953 25.38740064 22.93382521 25.57768434 22.75997604 25.76531047 22.58326197 25.95023588 22.40372363 26.13241808 22.22140228 26.31181517 22.03633984 26.48838594 21.84857885 26.66208978 21.65816246 26.83288677 21.46513445 32

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 X(mm) Y(mm) 27.00073764 21.26953918 27.16560383 21.07142163 27.32744742 20.87082732 27.48623122 20.66780237 27.64191872 20.46239344 27.79447414 20.25464776 27.94386242 20.04461308 28.09004921 19.83233767 28.2330009 19.61787034 28.37268465 19.40126037 28.50906834 19.18255757 28.64212062 18.96181221 28.7718109 18.73907502 28.89810938 18.51439721 29.02098702 18.28783042 29.14041558 18.05942673 29.2563676 17.82923865 29.36881644 17.59731909 29.47773624 17.36372135 29.58310197 17.12849914 29.6848894 16.89170652 29.78307514 16.65339793 29.87763662 16.41362814 29.9685521 16.17245227 30.05580069 15.92992576 30.13936232 15.68610435 30.2192178 15.4410441 30.29534876 15.19480133 30.36773771 14.94743264 30.436368 14.69899491 30.50122385 14.44954523 30.56229037 14.19914095 30.61955352 13.94783962 30.67300012 13.69569901 30.71835876 13.44057994 30.7683326 13.18632464 30.82290521 12.93301658 30.88205869 12.68073893 30.94577361 12.42957453 31.01402905 12.17960586 31.08680261 11.93091498 31.16407037 11.68358354 33

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 X(mm) Y(mm) 31.24580699 11.43769277 31.3319856 11.1933234 31.42257793 10.95055566 31.51755423 10.70946927 31.6168833 10.47014338 31.72053254 10.23265658 31.82846792 9.99708685 31.94065398 9.763511528 32.05705391 9.532007311 32.17762947 9.302650213 32.30234108 9.075515542 32.43114779 8.850677876 32.56400731 8.628211039 32.70087601 8.408188078 32.84170895 8.190681235 32.9864599 7.975761928 33.13508132 7.763500724 33.28752441 7.553967318 33.44373912 7.347230509 33.60367416 7.143358177 33.76727702 6.942417264 33.93449397 6.744473748 34.10527012 6.54959262 34.27954938 6.357837871 34.45727453 6.169272461 34.63838723 5.983958305 34.82282799 5.80195625 35.01053627 5.623326055 35.20145043 5.448126372 35.39550778 5.276414727 35.59264461 5.108247501 35.79279619 4.94367991 35.99589679 4.78276599 36.20187973 4.625558575 36.41067739 4.472109284 36.62222119 4.3224685 36.83644169 4.176685358 37.05326853 4.034807725 37.27263054 3.896882185 37.49445568 3.762954026 37.71867112 3.633067222 37.94520324 3.50726442 34

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 X(mm) Y(mm) 38.17397765 3.385586927 38.40491925 3.268074696 38.63795219 3.154766311 38.87299998 3.045698976 39.10851511 2.942842131 39.34491735 2.842040913 39.58218876 2.743302973 39.82031135 2.646635804 40.05926702 2.552046741 40.29903766 2.459542965 40.53960505 2.369131495 40.78095095 2.280819194 41.02305704 2.194612763 41.26590493 2.110518746 41.50947622 2.028543524 41.75375239 1.948693319 41.99871492 1.870974191 42.24434522 1.795392039 42.49062465 1.721952598 42.7375345 1.650661442 42.98505605 1.581523983 43.23317051 1.514545467 43.48185904 1.449730977 43.73110278 1.387085432 43.98088281 1.326613588 44.23118017 1.268320032 44.48197586 1.212209191 44.73325085 1.158285321 44.98498607 1.106552515 45.23716242 1.0570147 45.48976076 1.009675636 45.74276191 0.964538914 45.99614667 0.921607961 46.24989582 0.880886036 46.5039901 0.842376227 46.75841021 0.806081459 47.01313686 0.772004485 47.26815071 0.740147892 47.5234324 0.710514098 47.77896257 0.683105351 48.03472182 0.657923733 48.29069073 0.634971153 35

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 X(mm) Y(mm) 48.54684989 0.614249354 48.80317984 0.595759909 49.05966114 0.579504221 49.31627433 0.565483523 49.57299991 0.55369888 49.83206092 0.543593774 50.09112553 0.533581694 50.35019373 0.52366264 50.60926547 0.513836614 50.86834072 0.504103616 51.12741945 0.494463649 51.38650162 0.484916713 51.64558721 0.47546281 51.90467617 0.466101941 52.16376848 0.456834106 52.4228641 0.447659308 52.681963 0.438577548 52.94106514 0.429588826 53.2001705 0.420693144 53.45927903 0.411890503 53.7183907 0.403180904 53.97750549 0.394564348 54.23662335 0.386040836 54.49574426 0.37761037 54.75486817 0.36927295 55.01399507 0.361028578 55.27312491 0.352877255 55.53225765 0.344818981 55.79139328 0.336853758 56.05053175 0.328981586 56.30967303 0.321202468 56.56881708 0.313516403 56.82796388 0.305923392 57.08711339 0.298423438 57.34626558 0.29101654 57.6054204 0.2837027 57.86457784 0.276481919 58.12373786 0.269354197 58.38290041 0.262319535 58.64206548 0.255377935 58.90123302 0.248529397 59.160403 0.241773923 36

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 X(mm) Y(mm) 59.4195754 0.235111512 59.67875017 0.228542166 59.93792728 0.222065886 60.1971067 0.215682672 60.45628839 0.209392526 60.71547233 0.203195448 60.97465847 0.197091438 61.2338468 0.191080499 61.49303726 0.18516263 61.75222983 0.179337833 62.01142448 0.173606107 62.27062116 0.167967454 62.52981986 0.162421875 62.78902053 0.15696937 63.04822314 0.15160994 63.30742766 0.146343586 63.56663405 0.141170308 63.82584229 0.136090107 64.08505233 0.131102983 64.34426414 0.126208938 64.6034777 0.121407972 64.86269296 0.116700085 65.1219099 0.112085278 65.38112848 0.107563552 65.64034866 0.103134908 65.89957042 9.88E-02 66.15879372 9.46E-02 66.41801853 9.04E-02 66.6772448 8.64E-02 66.93647252 8.24E-02 67.19570165 7.85E-02 67.45493214 7.47E-02 67.71416398 7.11E-02 67.97339713 6.75E-02 68.23263154 6.40E-02 68.4918672 6.06E-02 68.75110406 5.73E-02 69.01034209 5.40E-02 69.26958126 5.09E-02 69.52882154 4.79E-02 69.78806289 4.49E-02 70.04730528 4.21E-02 37

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 X(mm) Y(mm) 70.30654868 3.93E-02 70.56579304 3.67E-02 70.82503835 3.41E-02 71.08428456 3.16E-02 71.34353164 2.93E-02 71.60277956 2.70E-02 71.86202828 2.48E-02 72.12127778 2.27E-02 72.38052801 2.07E-02 72.63977895 1.87E-02 72.89903056 1.69E-02 73.15828281 1.52E-02 73.41753566 1.36E-02 73.67678908 1.20E-02 73.93604304 1.06E-02 74.1952975 9.21E-03 74.45455243 7.95E-03 74.7138078 6.78E-03 74.97306358 5.70E-03 75.23231972 4.72E-03 75.4915762 3.82E-03 75.75083299 3.03E-03 76.01009004 2.32E-03 76.26934733 1.71E-03 76.52860482 1.19E-03 76.78786249 7.64E-04 77.04712029 4.32E-04 77.30637819 1.92E-04 77.56563616 4.57E-05 77.82489417 -7.70E-06 78.08415218 3.20E-05 78.34341016 1.65E-04 78.60266807 3.91E-04 78.86192589 7.10E-04 79.12118357 1.12E-03 79.38044109 1.63E-03 79.63969841 2.23E-03 79.8989555 2.92E-03 80.15821233 3.70E-03 80.41746886 4.58E-03 80.67672505 5.55E-03 80.93598088 6.61E-03 38

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 X(mm) Y(mm) 81.19523632 7.77E-03 81.45449132 9.02E-03 81.71374585 1.04E-02 81.97299988 1.18E-02 82.23234905 1.32E-02 82.49169886 1.45E-02 82.75104924 1.57E-02 83.01040015 1.67E-02 83.26975151 1.76E-02 83.52910328 1.84E-02 83.7884554 1.91E-02 84.04780781 1.96E-02 84.30716045 2.01E-02 84.56651326 2.04E-02 84.82586618 2.05E-02 85.08521917 2.06E-02 85.34457215 2.05E-02 85.60392508 2.04E-02 85.86327788 2.01E-02 86.12263052 1.96E-02 86.38198292 1.91E-02 86.64133503 1.84E-02 86.9006868 1.76E-02 87.16003816 1.67E-02 87.41938905 1.56E-02 87.67873943 1.45E-02 87.93808922 1.32E-02 88.19743838 1.18E-02 88.45678684 1.02E-02 88.71613455 8.59E-03 88.97548145 6.81E-03 89.23482748 4.91E-03 89.49417259 2.89E-03 89.75351671 7.41E-04 90.01285978 -1.53E-03 90.27220176 -3.92E-03 90.53154258 -6.43E-03 90.79088218 -9.06E-03 91.05022051 -1.18E-02 91.30955751 -1.47E-02 91.56889312 -1.77E-02 91.82822728 -2.08E-02 39

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 X(mm) Y(mm) 92.08755993 -2.41E-02 92.34689102 -2.74E-02 92.60622049 -3.09E-02 92.86554829 -3.46E-02 93.12487434 -3.83E-02 93.3841986 -4.22E-02 93.64352101 -4.61E-02 93.90284151 -5.02E-02 94.16216003 -5.45E-02 94.42147654 -5.88E-02 94.68079096 -6.33E-02 94.94010323 -6.79E-02 95.19941331 -7.26E-02 95.45872113 -7.74E-02 95.71802663 -8.24E-02 95.97732976 -8.75E-02 96.23663046 -9.27E-02 96.49592867 -9.80E-02 96.75522433 -0.103485714 97.01451739 -0.109061012 97.27380779 -0.114758801 97.53309546 -0.120579081 97.79238036 -0.126521851 98.05166242 -0.132587108 98.31094158 -0.138774853 98.5702178 -0.145085082 98.829491 -0.151517796 99.08876113 -0.158072992 99.34802814 -0.164750669 99.60729197 -0.171550826 99.86655256 -0.17847346 100.1258098 -0.185518571 100.3850638 -0.192686157 100.6443143 -0.199976216 100.9035613 -0.207388747 101.1628048 -0.214923748 101.4220448 -0.222581218 101.681281 -0.230361153 101.9405136 -0.238263554 102.1997424 -0.246288418 102.4589674 -0.254435743 102.7181885 -0.262705528 40

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 X(mm) Y(mm) 102.9774057 -0.271097771 103.2366189 -0.279612469 103.495828 -0.288249621 103.755033 -0.297009225 104.0142339 -0.305891279 104.2734305 -0.314895782 104.5326229 -0.32402273 104.7918109 -0.333272122 105.0509945 -0.342643956 105.3101736 -0.35213823 105.5693483 -0.361754942 105.8285183 -0.371494089 106.0876838 -0.381355669 106.3468445 -0.391339681 106.6060005 -0.401446122 106.8651517 -0.41167499 107.124298 -0.422026281 107.3834395 -0.432499995 107.6425759 -0.443096129 107.9017073 -0.453814681 108.1608336 -0.464655647 108.4199548 -0.475619026 108.6790708 -0.486704815 108.9381814 -0.497913011 109.1972868 -0.509243613 109.4563868 -0.520696618 109.7154813 -0.532272022 109.9745704 -0.543969824 110.2336539 -0.555790021 110.4927318 -0.567732611 110.751804 -0.57979759 111.0108705 -0.591984955 111.2699312 -0.604294705 111.528986 -0.616726837 111.788035 -0.629281347 112.0470779 -0.641958233 112.3061149 -0.654757492 112.5651458 -0.667679121 112.8241706 -0.680723117 113.0831891 -0.693889478 113.3422015 -0.707178201 113.6012075 -0.720589281 41

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 X(mm) Y(mm) 113.8602071 -0.734122718 114.1192004 -0.747778506 114.3781871 -0.761556644 114.6371673 -0.775457129 114.8961409 -0.789479957 115.1551079 -0.803625124 115.4140682 -0.817892629 115.6730216 -0.832282468 115.9319683 -0.846794637 116.1909081 -0.861429133 116.4498409 -0.876185954 116.7087667 -0.891065095 116.9676855 -0.906066554 117.2265972 -0.921190326 117.4855016 -0.93643641 117.7443989 -0.951804801 118.0032888 -0.967295495 118.2621715 -0.98290849 118.5210467 -0.998643783 118.7799144 -1.014501368 119.0387746 -1.030481243 119.2976273 -1.046583405 119.5564723 -1.06280785 119.8153096 -1.079154573 120.0741392 -1.095623572 120.332961 -1.112214843 120.5917749 -1.128928382 120.8505808 -1.145764185 121.1093788 -1.162722249 121.3681688 -1.17980257 121.6269506 -1.197005143 121.8857243 -1.214329966 122.1444898 -1.231777034 122.403247 -1.249346344 122.6619959 -1.267037891 122.9207364 -1.284851671 123.1794684 -1.302787681 123.438192 -1.320845917 123.6969069 -1.339026374 123.9556133 -1.357329049 124.214311 -1.375753937 124.473 -1.394301034 42

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 X(mm) Y(mm) 124.7317048 -1.40732033 124.9901597 -1.424606046 125.2482942 -1.446153478 125.5060381 -1.47195676 125.7633211 -1.502008867 126.0200734 -1.53630162 126.2762249 -1.574825683 126.531706 -1.61757057 126.7864471 -1.664524645 127.0403789 -1.715675126 127.2934322 -1.77100809 127.5455381 -1.830508474 127.7966281 -1.894160082 128.0466338 -1.961945586 128.2954871 -2.033846536 128.5431203 -2.109843357 128.7894659 -2.189915364 129.034457 -2.274040759 129.2780268 -2.362196643 129.5201091 -2.454359017 129.7606378 -2.550502796 129.9995476 -2.650601806 130.2367735 -2.7546288 130.4722508 -2.86255546 130.7059154 -2.974352408 130.9377037 -3.08998921 131.1675527 -3.209434389 131.3953998 -3.33265543 131.6211829 -3.459618792 131.8448406 -3.590289912 132.066312 -3.724633221 132.2855369 -3.862612149 132.5024554 -4.004189136 132.7170087 -4.149325644 132.9291383 -4.297982163 133.1387864 -4.450118228 133.3458959 -4.605692425 133.5504106 -4.764662406 133.7522747 -4.926984896 133.9514333 -5.09261571 134.1478322 -5.26150976 134.3414179 -5.433621071 43

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 X(mm) Y(mm) 134.5321376 -5.608902793 134.7199396 -5.787307211 134.9047726 -5.968785763 135.0865864 -6.153289046 135.2653314 -6.340766836 135.4409591 -6.531168101 135.6134215 -6.72444101 135.7826718 -6.920532952 135.9486639 -7.119390548 136.1113525 -7.320959667 136.2706935 -7.525185438 136.4266434 -7.73201227 136.5791598 -7.941383861 136.7282011 -8.153243217 136.8737269 -8.367532669 137.0156974 -8.584193882 137.1540741 -8.803167881 137.2888192 -9.024395056 137.4198961 -9.247815187 137.5472691 -9.473367457 137.6709036 -9.700990467 137.7907658 -9.930622256 137.9068232 -10.16220031 138.0190441 -10.3956616 138.127398 -10.63094257 138.2318555 -10.86797917 138.332388 -11.10670689 138.4289683 -11.34706072 138.5215699 -11.58897526 138.6101678 -11.83238463 138.6947378 -12.0772226 138.7752569 -12.3234225 138.8517031 -12.57091732 138.9240557 -12.81963969 138.9922949 -13.0695219 139.0564022 -13.32049593 139.1163601 -13.57249347 139.1721524 -13.82544591 139.2237637 -14.0792844 139.2711802 -14.33393984 139.3143887 -14.58934291 139.3533777 -14.84542409 44

TCRP WOD 65 Part3 X(mm) Y(mm) 139.3881365 -15.10211367 139.4186556 -15.35934177 139.4449267 -15.61703837 139.4669427 -15.87513333 139.4846976 -16.13355638 139.4981865 -16.39223719 139.5074057 -16.65110534 139.5123529 -16.91009035 139.5130265 -17.16912173 139.5094265 -17.42812897 139.5015537 -17.68704157 139.4894105 -17.94578904 139.4729999 -18.20430094 45