Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Engineering
Development of a wheel wear and rolling contact fatigue model
1 February 2006
RSSB copyright 2006. This research report, excluding any logos, may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for research, private study or for internal circulation within an organization. This is subject to it being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Rail Safety & Standards Board copyright and the title of the publication specified.
Disclaimer: This report was prepared for members of the Rail Safety & Standards Board by TTCI(UK) Ltd., a subsidiary of the Transportation Technology Center, Inc. (TTCI) Pueblo, Colorado, USA. It is based on investigations conducted by TTCI(UK) Ltd. with the direct participation of the members of the Rail Safety & Standards Board to criteria approved by them. The contents of this report imply no endorsements whatsoever by TTCI(UK) Ltd. of products, services or procedures, nor are they intended to suggest the applicability of the test results under circumstances other than those described in this report. The results and findings contained in this report are the sole property of the Rail Safety & Standards Board. The contents of this report may not be released by anyone to any party other than the Rail Safety & Standards Board without the written permission of the Rail Safety & Standards Board. TTCI(UK) Ltd. is not a source of information with respect to this report, nor is it a source of copies of this report. TTCI(UK) Ltd. makes no representations or warranties, either expressed or implied, with respect to this report or its contents. TTCI(UK) Ltd. assumes no liability to anyone for special, collateral, exemplary, indirect, incidental, consequential, or any other kind of damages resulting from the use or application of this report or its contents.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Task T549 is a Rail Safety & Standards Board project to develop a wheel wear and rolling contact fatigue (RCF) model. TTCI(UK) Ltd. is leading this project with help from Interfleet Technology Ltd. and the Rail Technology Unit of Manchester Metropolitan University. The project begins with this report, which covers current best practices in wheel wear and RCF. Shear stresses at and just below the surface are shown to be driven by forces generated during steady-state curving. Repeated applications of plastic shear stresses causes shear deformation of the material at and just below the wheels surface. This can eventually lead to the formation and growth of surface cracks. Depending on the contact conditions, the surface cracks can develop into either wear or RCF. Tangential and normal forces, contact pressure, creepage, and the presence of fluid are important factors in determining the amount of wear and RCF. High strength wheel steels have been developed to withstand severe service loads. New materials and treatments are being developed to extend wheel life. Currently, train operators in the UK are managing wheels affected by RCF by reducing wheel profiling intervals. Braking characteristics and alternative wheel materials are also being investigated. The references quoted in this report show that RCF and wear of rails and wheels have been the subject of investigation for over 25 years. Several welldeveloped models exist for predicting wheel and rail wear. New models are emerging for rail RCF. These need to be further developed to be applicable to wheels.
1 February 2006
Page i
1 February 2006
Page ii
Table of Contents
1 2 Introduction......................................................................................................................1 Load environment............................................................................................................2 2.1 2.2 2.3 3 Wheel/Rail Curving Forces ...............................................................................2 Contact Conditions............................................................................................7 Traction & Braking Forces...............................................................................10
Wheel Materials.............................................................................................................11 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Wheel Steels Currently Used on Network Rail ................................................11 Other Wheel Materials ....................................................................................12 Microstructure .................................................................................................14 Shakedown .....................................................................................................15
Wheel Wear...................................................................................................................18 4.1 4.2 Wear Mechanisms ..........................................................................................18 Wear Models...................................................................................................19 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 Energy transfer wear models..............................................................20 Sliding wear models ...........................................................................23
Effect of Fluid on Wear....................................................................................25 Effects of Metallurgy on Wear .........................................................................25 Effects of Change in Direction on Wear ..........................................................26
Wheel Rolling Contact Fatigue ......................................................................................27 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 RCF Mechanism .............................................................................................27 RCF Models ....................................................................................................33 Effect of Metallurgy on RCF ............................................................................37 Effects of Change in Direction on RCF............................................................38 Interaction between RCF and Wear ................................................................39
6 7
1 February 2006
Page iii
1 February 2006
Page iv
1 INTRODUCTION
Task T549 is a Rail Safety & Standards Board project to develop a wheel wear and rolling contact fatigue (RCF) model. TTCI(UK) Ltd. is leading this project with help from Interfleet Technology Ltd. and the Rail Technology Unit of Manchester Metropolitan University. The project begins with this report, which covers current best practices in wheel wear and RCF, addressing the following subject areas: Description of the load environment experienced by wheels in service. The derivation of surface and sub-surface stresses in the wheel from fundamental principles of wheel/rail interaction is described. Materials that have been developed to withstand service stresses. Information is given on the microstructure of wheel steels and the changes that occur to the material properties in service. Descriptions of two main failure modes of wheels in service wear and RCF. Mechanisms of failure are described and the current state-of-the-art of modelling failure is given. Information on current practice in managing the wheel asset in operation on Network Rail controlled infrastructure is provided. A list of notations and some important definitions, including a figure showing nomenclature for the parts of a wheel, are provided in the appendix.
1 February 2006
Page 1
2 LOAD ENVIRONMENT
2.1 Wheel/Rail Curving Forces An unconstrained wheelset steers in a curve by generating a rolling radius difference between the wheel on the outside rail and the wheel on the inside rail. The rolling radius difference results from a lateral shift of the wheelset and the coned profiles of the wheels, as Figure 1 illustrates.
When the unconstrained wheelset negotiates a curve and maintains a radial orientation, there are no tangential forces between the wheels and the rails. In this orientation, creep, which is defined as the velocity of the wheel relative to the rail, is zero at both contact points. When wheelsets are combined in a bogie, they are no longer unconstrained. Each wheelset is prevented from aligning itself radially in the curve by its connection (usually through the bogie frame) to the other wheelset. The constraining forces between wheelsets are reacted by longitudinal forces between the wheels and rails. These wheel/rail forces are generated by longitudinal creep that results from a lateral shift of the wheelset from its unconstrained rolling line. Figure 2 shows a bogie in a typical position during curving. In this example, the curve radius is 1000m, the cant is 100mm and the vehicle is travelling at the balance speed of 92km/hour. The vehicle in the example is a typical multiple unit with primary yaw stiffness of 16MNm/rad. Wheel and rail profiles are conformal giving a relatively high conicity. The coefficient of friction at all wheel/rail contact points is 0.4.
Prepared by TTCI(UK) Ltd. 1 February 2006 Page 2
Figure 2 shows that the leading wheelset has moved laterally outside the equilibrium rolling line and developed a positive angle-of-attack (AOA) to the rail. The trailing wheelset has stayed close to the equilibrium rolling line and has developed a negative AOA that has a smaller magnitude than that for the leading wheelset. The AOA (the yaw rotation of the wheelsets relative to the radius of the curve) causes lateral creep between the wheels and rails and results in lateral creep forces. In addition, spin creep arises from the angular rotation of the wheelset resolved perpendicular to the plane of contact. Figure 3 shows the magnitude and direction of the creepages for the example used in Figure 2. Creepage (also called creep ratio) is creep divided by the forward velocity of the wheelset.
1 February 2006
Page 3
Figure 3 shows that the lateral displacement of the leading wheelset has produced almost equal and opposite longitudinal creepages at the wheels. Because the trailing wheelset is close to the equilibrium rolling line, it does not produce significant longitudinal creepages. The AOA of the leading wheelset has produced lateral creepages at both wheels. Because the AOA for the trailing axle is smaller and in the opposite direction, the creepages there are smaller and in the opposite direction to those at the leading wheelset. The forces that arise from the creepages between wheel and rail depend on the shape of the contact patch and the wheel and rail material properties. They are usually calculated using creep coefficients derived by Kalker.1 Figure 4 shows typical forces acting on the wheels of a bogie for the same example used in Figure 2.
1 February 2006
Page 4
Figure 4 shows that the longitudinal creepages on the leading wheelset result in equal and opposite longitudinal creep forces. Although the lateral creepages are the same for both wheels on the leading wheelset, the lateral creep forces are not equal. This is because the lateral creep forces shown in Figure 4 are in the plane of the contact patch. The angle of the contact plane to the horizontal plane is different for each contact point (see Figure 5). Because the vehicle is running round the curve at balance speed, the resultant of the lateral creep forces and the normal forces in the horizontal plane from all contact points should be zero.
1 February 2006
Page 5
Figure 5. Typical Contact Angles and Forces on the Leading Wheelset when Curving
The example given above is one of fairly moderate curving. Larger displacements, creepages, and forces can readily be produced. Significant factors affecting curving performance include (in no particular order): Curve radius Wheel and rail profiles Cant deficiency Wheelset yaw stiffness Bogie wheelbase Axleload Coefficient of friction between wheel and rail
1 February 2006
Page 6
2.2 Contact Conditions Wheel/rail contact is typically assumed to be Hertzian, in which case the shape of the contact patch on the wheel and rail is elliptical and the contact pressure is distributed elliptically over the contact area. The length and width of the ellipse are similar in magnitude when contact occurs on the tread of the wheel. For contact on the flange of the wheel, the ellipse tends to become long and thin, with the longest axis oriented along the rail. Figure 6 shows the maximum contact pressure, contact patch area, and contact position for each contact point in the example used in Figure 2. The contact position, d, is relative to the tread datum (positive towards the flange, negative towards the rim).
Johnson shows how the surface and sub-surface stresses are distributed in the material in and around the contact patch for the relatively simple case of a cylinder sliding on a plane surface.2 Figure 7 shows how the shear and longitudinal surface stresses vary under tangential traction q0 acting from right to left. In this example the coefficient of friction = 0.4. The distribution of direct stress in the longitudinal direction (normalised by the contact pressure) is shown by the solid line. The dashed line shows the distribution of shear stress
1 February 2006
Page 7
(normalised by the tangential traction). The leading edge of the contact patch is at +1 and the trailing edge is at -1 on the x-axis. It can be seen that the maximum tensile longitudinal stress occurs at the leading edge of the contact patch. Maximum compressive longitudinal surface stress occurs at the trailing edge of the contact patch. The shear stress varies elliptically over the contact area. Thus, a piece of material at the surface of a wheel sees a reversal in longitudinal stress, superimposed on a changing shear stress, as it comes into contact, passes through and then leaves the contact patch.
Tension
x xz
0.5
x /p 0
0 -3 -2 Trail -1 0 1 2 3
-0.5
Lead
xz /q 0
-1 Compression -1.5
x/a
Figure 7. Surface Stress Distributions under Sliding Line Contact ( = 0.4)
Below the surface, the stress distributions are more complicated. The maximum principal shear stress tends to occur below the surface when the ratio of tangential traction to contact pressure is low. Its depth below the surface depends on this ratio. A piece of material below the surface of the wheel will generally experience compressive direct principal stresses and rotating principal shear stresses as the wheel rotates. Sliding between two surfaces (which is the case in Figure 7) happens when the ratio of tangential to normal force reaches the coefficient of friction. It is an extreme condition that does not usually occur in wheel/rail contact. For typical creepages slip occurs over the trailing part of the contact patch, while the wheel and the rail stick over the leading part of the contact patch. The distribution of tangential traction over the contact patch is modified from