Brent D. Williams

Analysis of the Lateral Load Path in Concrete Crosstie Fastening Systems

Increasing axle loads of today’s North American heavy haul freight trains have presented numerous engineering challenges for the design and performance of concrete crossties and fastening systems. Several research studies have been conducted to understand the path of the vertical load from the wheel/rail interface through the fastening system and into the crosstie with successful results. However, problems arise due to the failure of fastening system components caused by high lateral and longitudinal loads in addition to vertical loads. Failed components are often seen in demanding track environments such as sharp curves or steep grades. It is hypothesized these component failures are caused by high lateral and longitudinal loads, respectively. Until now, attempts to measure lateral forces in the fastening system have been relatively unsuccessful. This study focuses on gaining a better understanding of the lateral load path in concrete crosstie fastening systems through the use of novel instrumentation techniques to quantify the magnitude of lateral forces induced from various types of rolling stock. A thorough understanding of the lateral load path, lateral load magnitudes, and their impact on failure modes will aid in the future mechanistic design of fastening systems. Ultimately, mechanistic design will lead to fastening system components that are able to withstand heavy axle freight train loads with longer service lives. Preliminary results show that the type of rolling stock and resulting wheel loads greatly affect the magnitude of lateral forces in the fastening system.

Reported Harvest and Days Afield Among Waterfowl Hunters: Do Pre-season Contacts Make a Difference?

Wildlife management requires accurate harvest estimates. Because hunters harvest fewer large game species (e.g., moose, elk, deer) compared to other species, harvest numbers for these species are less subject to recall bias or errors. Small game species, however, are harvested in greater numbers over longer seasons and harvest estimates are more prone to recall bias, heaping, and multiplier effects (Beaman, Vaske, & Miller, 2005a, 2005b; Miller & Anderson, 2003; Schmidt & Chapin, 2014; Vaske & Beaman, 2006). Harvest record logs, mailed prior to the start of hunting seasons, are commonly used to reduce reporting errors. Researchers have assumed that record logs reduce recall bias and increase reporting accuracy by providing hunters an opportunity to accurately record harvest and days hunted per species. The Illinois Natural History Survey has conducted annual harvest surveys of waterfowl hunters in Illinois beginning in 1981. Each year, a random sample of 5,000 waterfowl stamp purchasers is selected and mailed a pre-season harvest record card. Hunters are instructed to record individual duck and goose species harvested, along with number of days and counties hunted. Following conclusion of all waterfowl hunting seasons in the state, participants are mailed an Illinois Waterfowl Hunter Survey questionnaire; questionnaire mailings and postcard reminders are mailed in 2-week intervals. Questionnaires contain items related to harvest, number of days afield, preferences for management actions, and season dates. Hunters are instructed to not return the harvest card, but refer to it when completing the harvest and days hunted portions of the questionnaire. We tested the assumption that the pre-season harvest card influenced reported waterfowl harvests and days afield. We mailed harvest cards to the standard random sample of 5,000 waterfowl stamp purchasers and then selected an additional 2,500 stamp purchasers who were not mailed harvest record cards. Other than mailing the pre-season

Probative, Dialectic, and Moral Reasoning in Program Evaluation

Current idealized evaluation practices are often modeled on a probative, criteria and standards-based approach endorsed by Michael Scriven. The authors find this logical, rule-governed approach insufficient for most program evaluations. By focusing on more technical aspects of the evaluand and the evaluative process, important and valid evaluand characteristics and stakeholder viewpoints can be lost or marginalized. The authors believe a dialectical evaluation process will generate fuller representations of quality while also treating the evaluand as more than simply a technical object. In this article, the authors summarize the probative evaluation approach, discuss aspects of moral reasoning that may limit this standards-based model, and propose an alternative dialectical persuasion.

Do Personal Records Make a Difference in Reported Days Afield and Harvest Among Waterfowl Hunters

Numbers and species of wildlife harvested during regulated hunting seasons are important for determining compensatory mortality and population estimates for wildlife management. As federally protected migratory birds, both individual states and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service record waterfowl species harvested within each of the four flyways (Raftovich, Chandler, & Wilkins, 2014). Obtaining accurate and reliable harvest data is important, but several factors may influence the validity of reported harvests (Vaske & Beaman, 2006). Recall error, over-estimation, and episode enumeration can all produce response heaps that influence reported harvest and days afield means and totals. The Illinois Natural History Survey has conducted an annual mail survey of waterfowl hunters randomly selected from state waterfowl permit purchasers since 1982 (Williams, Crain, Campbell, & Miller, 2015). From 1982 through 2013 waterfowl hunters were mailed a report card before the start of waterfowl seasons and asked to record their harvests and days afield. Crain, Campbell, and Miller (2015) conducted a controlled study of hunter harvest estimates resulting from the use of this card and concluded there was no effect of the harvest card on reported harvest, resulting in the decision to stop using the card. The authors proposed that some hunters used their own records to record their personal harvest and days afield. To test this concept the Illinois Waterfowl Hunter Survey included a question asking hunters if they kept personal records of their hunting harvest and days afield. Data for this article were obtained from the 2014–2015 Illinois Waterfowl Hunter Survey, a repeat-wave mail survey of 5,000 randomly selected individuals who purchased a 2014–2015 Illinois state waterfowl hunting permit. Individual species harvested and days afield were provided through open-ended items in the questionnaire. A total of 2,212 (48%) completed questionnaires were received. Harvest record keeping was used as an independent variable to test two hypotheses: