Rail RCF damage quantification and comparison for different damage models

Abstract

There are several fatigue-based approaches that estimate the evolution of rolling contact fatigue (RCF) on rails over time and built to be used in tandem with multi-body simulations of vehicle dynamics. However, most of the models are not directly comparable with each other since they are based on different physical models even though they shall predict the same RCF damage at the end. This article studies different approaches to quantifying RCF and puts forward a measure for the degree of agreement between them. The methodological framework studies various steps in the RCF quantification procedure within the context of one another, identifies the ‘primary quantification step’ in each approach and compares results of the fatigue analyses. In addition to this, two quantities—‘similarity’ and ‘correlation’—have been put forward to give an indication of mutual agreement between models. Four widely used surface-based and sub-surface-based fatigue quantification approaches with varying complexities have been studied. Different operational cases corresponding to a metro vehicle operation in Austria have been considered for this study. Results showed that the best possible quantity to compare is the normalized damage increment per loading cycle coming from different approaches. Amongst the methods studied, approaches that included the load distribution step on the contact patch showed higher similarity and correlation in their results. While the different approaches might qualitatively agree on whether contact cases are ‘damaging’ due to RCF, they might not quantitatively correlate with the trends observed for damage increment values.

Keywords

Rolling contact fatigue / Rail surface damage / Wedge model / KTH model / Surface fatigue index / Multi-body simulation / Track-friendliness

References

[1.] Krishna VV Hossein-nia S Casanueva C Stichel S. Long term rail surface damage considering maintenance interventions. Wear, 2020 460–461 203462

[2.] Six K Mihalj T Marte C . Rolling contact fatigue behaviour of rails: Wedge model predictions in T-Gamma world. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part F J Rail Rapid Transit, 2020 234 1335-1345

[3.] Trummer G Marte C Dietmaier P . Modeling surface rolling contact fatigue crack initiation taking severe plastic shear deformation into account. Wear, 2016 352–353 136-145

[4.] Dirks B Enblom R Ekberg A Berg M. The development of a crack propagation model for railway wheels and rails. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct, 2015 38 1478-1491

[5.] Ekberg A Åkesson B Kabo E. Wheel/rail rolling contact fatigue - Probe, predict, prevent. Wear, 2014 314 2-12

[6.] Burstow MC (2003) Whole life rail model application and development for RSSB—development of an RCF damage parameter. RSSB Report, AEATR-ES-2003–832, Issue 1, Rail Safety & Standards Boards, London, UK

[7.] Meierhofer A (2015) A new wheel-rail creep force model based on elasto-plastic third body layers. Dissertation, Graz University of Technology

[8.] Meierhofer A, Müller G, Six K, Dietmaier P (2016) A wheel-rail creep force model considering normal stress and temperature dependent plasticity effects. In: The Dynamics of Vehicles on Roads and Tracks, Proceedings of the 24th Symposium of the International Association for Vehicle System Dynamics (IAVSD 2015). CRC Press, Graz, Austria

[9.] Six K Meierhofer A Müller G Dietmaier P. Physical processes in wheel–rail contact and its implications on vehicle–track interaction. Veh Syst Dyn, 2015 53 635-650

[10.] Hossein-Nia S Sichani MS Stichel S Casanueva C. Wheel life prediction model – an alternative to the FASTSIM algorithm for RCF. Veh Syst Dyn, 2018 56 1051-1071

[11.] Hossein-Nia S (2017) On heavy-haul wheel damages using vehicle dynamics simulation. Dissertation, KTH Royal Institute of Technology

[12.] Trummer G Six K Marte C . An approximate model to predict near-surface ratcheting of rails under high traction coefficients. Wear, 2014 314 28-35

[13.] Franklin FJ Chung T Kapoor A. Ratcheting and fatigue-led wear in rail–wheel contact. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct, 2003 26 949-955

[14.] Persson I (2020) GENSYS. http://www.gensys.se/index.html#. Accessed 25 Feb 2021

[15.] Simpack (2020) Dassault Systèmes, , Vélizy-Villacoublay Cedex, France. https://www.3ds.com/products-services/simulia/products/simpack/. Accessed 25 Feb 2021

[16.] Six K Meierhofer A Trummer G . Plasticity in wheel–rail contact and its implications on vehicle–track interaction. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part F J Rail Rapid Transit, 2017 231 558-569

[17.] Leitner T Trummer G Pippan R Hohenwarter A. Influence of severe plastic deformation and specimen orientation on the fatigue crack propagation behavior of a pearlitic steel. Mater Sci Eng A, 2018 710 260-270

[18.] Trummer G Marte C Scheriau S . Modeling wear and rolling contact fatigue: Parametric study and experimental results. Wear, 2016 366–367 71-77

[19.] Johnson KL. Contact Mechanics, 1985 Cambridge Cambridge University Press

[20.] Jendel T. Prediction of wheel profile wear—comparisons with field measurements. Wear, 2002 253 89-99

[21.] Ekberg A Kabo E Andersson H. An engineering model for prediction of rolling contact fatigue of railway wheels. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct, 2002 25 899-909

[22.] Dirks B Enblom R Berg M. Prediction of wheel profile wear and crack growth – comparisons with measurements. Wear, 2016 366–367 84-94

[23.] Trummer G Scheriau S Dietmaier P Six K. Reproducing rolling contact fatigue relevant loading conditions of railway operation on a test rig. Tribol - Mater Surfaces Interfaces, 2021 15 127-137

Funding

H2020 European Research Council(826206)