Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
BEST PRACTICES
FOR HEAVY HAUL
RAILWAY OPERATIONS:
WHEEL AND RAIL
INTERFACE ISSUES
Click Here to View Table of Contents
G UIDELINES T O
B EST P RACTICES
F OR H EAVY H AUL
R AILWAY O PERATIONS :
W HEEL AND R AIL
I NTERFACE I SSUES
Co p y r i g h t 2 0 0 1 I n t e r n a t i o n a l H e a v y H a u l A s s o c i a t i o n
All rights reserved.
Reproduction or translation of any part of this work
without the permission of the copyright owner is unlawful.
R e q u e s t s f o r p e r m i s s i o n o r fu r t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n should be
addressed to:
International Heavy Haul Association
2808 Forest Hills Court
Virginia Beach, Virginia 23454 USA
L i b r ar y o f C o n g r e s s C o n t r o l N o .: 2 0 0 1 1 3 1 9 0 1
Australia:
Public Railways of Australia,
Brian G. Bock, Chairman IHHA
Private Railways of Australia,
Michael Darby, Director
Brazil:
Companhia Vale Do Rio Doce (CVRD),
Ronaldo Costa, Director
Canada:
Railway Association of Canada,
Michael Roney, Director
China:
China Railway Society,
Qian Lixin, Director
Russia:
The All-Russian Railway Research Institute
Alexander L. Lisitsyn, Director
Sweden/Norway:
Nordic Heavy Haul Association,
Thomas Nordmark, Director
Republic of South Africa:
Spoornet,
Harry Tournay, Director
Union Internationale des Chamis (UIC):
World Division,
V. C. Sharma, Associate Director
United States of America:
Association of American Railroads,
Roy A. Allen, Director
IHHA Chief Executive Officer
W. Scott Lovelace,
o ix
FOREWORD
o iii x
o iv x
PREFACE
This handbook summarizes examples of the application of best
practices on a cost/effective basis. Findings from the research are
presented in a format for railroad operating officers to decide how to
apply them to their own individual operations.
It is clear that the wheel-rail interface is the key to the heavy haul
problem. At the interface, there must be low friction to permit
moving heavy loads with little resistance. However, there must be
enough friction to provide tractive effort, braking effort, and steering
of the train. The materials must be strong enough to resist the
vertical forces introduced by very heavy loads and the dynamic
response at the wheel-rail interface introduced by vertical
accelerations of the car induced by track and wheel irregularities.
However, neither the wear rate nor the failure rate should be so great
that cost-effective heavy haul operations are threatened.
The discussion of cost/benefit analysis in Part 5 and the case
studies presented in Part 4 indicate the variety of options available to
railroad management as it seeks to achieve optimized heavy haul
operations that are cost effective. These case studies exemplify that
the process involves a systems study in which there must be
simultaneous study of the car, the wheel, the rail, and the track. The
case studies include one case of a mine-to-port railroad operating
over a dedicated line with dedicated cars and locomotives, one case
of a heavy haul railroad with heavy haul operations being only a small
fraction of total traffic on the line, and one case of the transition of a
railroad from mixed traffic to a dedicated heavy haul operation. A
matrix of best practices is presented for railroads with a wide range of
external variables in terms of axle load, track curvature, and annual
tonnage.
The solutions chosen from the options given must also be
designed to be specific to the operating conditions of the railroad. A
dedicated rail line carrying only dedicated cars and locomotives can
consider options that are not appropriate for a heavy haul operation
that moves on a line that carries other kinds of trains
These case studies and the matrix of best practices show that
there is no one perfect solution that applies to all circumstances.
Solutions applicable to the case of the dedicated mine-to-port line
with dedicated locomotives and cars are different from those to a
railroad with mixed traffic. The matrix of options solutions
emphasizes the variety of approaches that should be examined before
arriving at an optimum decision for a particular property.
o vx
o vi x
Dr. Harris served from 1970 to 1985 as Vice President, Research and
Test Department of the Association of American Railroads. He
served as the first Chair of IHHA.
Prof. Dr. Willem Ebershn (former Chair Railroad Engineering,
University of Pretoria, South Africa)Director, Engineering Services,
AMTRAK, USA
Mr. Tournay has been associated with the design and development of
improved rolling stock and locomotives of Spoornet. He has
designed rolling stock internationally and has particular expertise in
wheel/rail interface issues.
Dr. Prof. Sergey Zakharov, Head of the Division of Tribology,
at the All-Russian Railway Research Institute. Russia
o vii x
Acknowledgements
The TRC recognizes the importance of the 16 conferences and
technical sessions sponsored by organizations represented by the
Board of Directors of IHHA. Without the rich technical literature
created by the authors of the outstanding technical papers presented,
it would have been impossible to prepare and publish these
guidelines. Recognition of each authors work is given at the
beginning of their respective chapters.
The TRC appreciates and recognizes the contributions made by
BHP of Australia, Canadian Pacific Railroad of Canada, and CVRD
of Brazil for their distribution and willingness to share data from
their experience in the case studies presented in Part 4. The authors
of the case studies are recognized in the text.
In addition to the support provided by the IHHA Board and the
reviews of the International Review Panel, the TRC wishes to
acknowledge the outstanding help of Dr. Alexander Lisitsyn, General
Director, Member of the Board, Ministry of Railways, Russian
Federation. He and his staff at the All-Russian Railway Research
Institute sponsored a very effective and special Technical Session in
June 1999, on wheel/rail interface issues and heavy haul best
practices.
The TRC recognizes the early contributions of Wardina
Oghanna in the organization of the guidelines and his services in
helping to bring together the successful meeting in Moscow. Dr.
Oghanna worked on the interpretation of this conference as a basis
for many aspects of the guidelines.
The TRC also wishes to recognize and express its appreciation
to the China Railway Society and to the China Academy of Railway
Sciences for their continued support of IHHA goals in hosting two
conferences in China, which have produced technical papers upon
which portions of these guidelines are based.
The TRC further wishes to note the special contributions made
by Michael Roney, General Manager Engineering Services and
Systems, Canadian Pacific Railroad, who met often with the TRC and
wrote parts of the handbook, as noted in the chapters.
The TRC especially appreciates the leadership of Scott Lovelace,
Chief Executive Officer of IHHA for accomplishing this difficult
mission.
o viii x
o ix x
Special Note:
References for each part are not combined at the end of the
handbook. Instead, they are listed at the end of each respective
chapter. TRC recognizes that some readers may skip around to
different chapters, reading only certain parts pertinent to them.
Therefore, the TRC thought it would be easier for each part to have
its own list of references. The TRC will welcome any suggestions for
improving the method of presentation in the next edition of the
guidelines.
o xx
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART 1: INTRODUCTION AND DISCUSSION OF
GUIDELINES TO BEST PRACTICES
1.1 Discussion of Guidelines............................................. 1-1
1.2 A Systems Approach................................................... 1-1
1.3 Discussion of the Wheel and Rail Interface ................ 1-1
1.4 Example of Cost Benefit Analysis ............................... 1-9
1.5 Discussion of Part 2 on Vehicle/Track Interactions .... 1-9
1.6 Discussion of Part 3 on Wheel/Rail Interfaces.......... 1-10
1.7 Discussion of Part 4 on Four Case Studies .............. 1-10
1.8 Discussion of Part 5 on Optimizing Heavy Haul
Maintenance Practices ............................................. 1-11
PART 2: SUPPORT TECHNOLOGIES VEHICLE TRACK
INTERACTION
2.1 Vehicle Track Interaction............................................. 2-1
2.2 Railway Wheelset and Track ...................................... 2-2
2.2.1 Vertical Forces between Wheel and Rail .......... 2-5
2.2.2 Lateral Forces between Wheel and Rail ........... 2-6
2.3 Generic Railway Vehicle Suspensions ..................... 2-11
2.3.1 Vertical Suspension......................................... 2-11
2.3.2 Inter-Wheelset and Lateral Suspension .......... 2-18
2.4 Practical Heavy Haul Vehicle Suspensions .............. 2-27
2.4.1 Heavy Haul Wagon Bogies.............................. 2-27
2.4.2 Locomotive Bogies .......................................... 2-40
2.5 Rail and Wheel Profile Design .................................. 2-41
2.5.1 Basic Considerations....................................... 2-42
2.5.2 Wheel and Rail Profiles Divided into Functional
Sections ............................................................ 2-45
2.5.3 Rail and Wheel Management .......................... 2-56
2.6 Tracking Accuracy and Tolerances........................... 2-60
2.6.1 Geometric Inaccuracies in Wheelset and Track
Geometry......................................................... 2-61
2.6.2 Geometric Inaccuracies of the Wheelset and
Suspension...................................................... 2-63
References ....................................................................... 2-69
Appendix .......................................................................... 2-70
o xi x
o xii x
o xiii x
o xiv x
o xv x
o xvi x
o xvii x
o 1-1 x
o 1-2 x
CONTACT
PATCH
CENTRALLY PLACED
sZ
sY
sX
sY
sX
sZ
sz 1400 Mpa
sX sY 800 Mpa
Yield Stress is 600 800
Mpa
and why some railroads have trouble with prevailing axle loads,
are that these ideal-contact conditions, described above, are
not always achieved, because of the following:
Wheel
Skid
IntermediateFrequency
Impacts
RAIL JOINT
Dynamic
Load
Static Load
o 1-4 x
Figure 1.2
o 1-5 x
CONTACT
PATCH
FLANGE CONTACT
SHELLING
sZ
sY
HEAD CHECKING
sX
sY
sX
sZ
Figure 1.3
o 1-6 x
Figure 1.4: Intense convex contact between the rail crown and
wheel, which can result in material flow on the field side,
shelling of the rail crown and/or wheel tread. This is
exacerbated if contact is made toward the outer edges of the
rail and wheel where there is no material to support the
element under the contact patch. The favorable state of stress
is upset and material flow occurs.
CENTRALLY PLACED
dX
CONVEX SHAPE
dZ
Figure 1.4
o 1-7 x
dY
CONTACT
PATCH
CONTACT
PATCH 19.5
sZ
sX
sY
sX
Figure 1.5
o 1-8 x
sY
sZ
CONTACT
19.5
PATCH
sZ
sY
sX
sX
sY
sZ
Figure 1.6
o 1-9 x
o 1-10 x
when track is laid out and freight cars and locomotives are
purchased. The contribution of the suspension systems and
other design features of the cars and the subgrade, ballast, ties,
and tie fasteners to the operations of the vehicle/track system
are discussion in Part 2 and options are described that can help
in optimizing the vehicle/track system.
o 1-12 x
o 1-13 x
o 2-1 x
ro
2l
2b
o 2-2 x
Gauge
Rail
Pad
Rail
Chair
o 2-4 x
Rc
cL Wheelset
cL Track
o 2-5 x
on the journal bearings and in turn the load across the contact
patch.
2.2.2. Lateral Forces between Wheel and Rail
In this section a variety of forces that act in the horizontal
plane are described. The emphasis is on creep and flange
forces.
2.2.2.1 Creep Forces
The most efficient means of vehicle or wheelset guidance is by
means of creep forces. Creep forces are the forces that are
generated by the rolling of the railway wheelset, as a di-cone,
on the track as Figures 2.3 and 2.4 show. Under these
conditions, creep is produced as a result of a combination of
adhesion and micro-slip across the rail/wheel contact interface.
A more rigorous explanation is given in Part 3 and Reference
3. These creep forces are only generated when the wheelset
deviates from a pure rolling position defined by its kinematic
motion and must be reacted by forces generated at the journal
bearings. Longitudinal and lateral creep forces are explained in
more detail in the next two subsections.
2.2.2.1.1 Longitudinal Creepage
Consider a wheelset deflected laterally from a pure rolling
position by a distance y. This is referred to as the Initial State
in Figures 2.5 and 2.6. On straight track (Figure 2.5), the pure
rolling position is the centerline of the track. On curved track
(Figure 2.6), the pure rolling position is a position towards the
outside of the curve from the centerline where the radius
differential between the wheels allows the wheelset to
kinematically roll through the curve. On rolling forward with a
velocity, v, the deflected wheelset will want to roll to a
Preferred State as indicated by the chain-dotted outline of
the wheelset shown in both figures.
If the wheelset is constrained to remain in a similar attitude
to the track, as it was in the Initial State, creepage takes place
as the wheels roll. In the case illustrated, the outer wheels of
larger diameter slip back relative to the forward velocity of the
wheelset with the smaller diameter wheels slipping forward.
Slip forces, Fs are generated on the wheelset, which react
o 2-6 x
FS
FJ
FJ
FS
Initial State
cL Track
o 2-7 x
FS
FJ
FJ
FS
y
Initial Final State
cL Track
Pure Rolling
Position
Shelling
Flow of
Flash-butt
Weld
o 2-8 x
FS
FL
Final State
FS
V
Preferred Final State
Initial State
cL Track
o 2-9 x
Forces
Material Flows
Lateral Creep
Lateral Creep
Flange
Force
High Contact
Stresses
Flange &
Rail Wear
o 2-12 x
o 2-13 x
Primary Springs
o 2-14 x
o 2-15 x
Centre Pivot
o 2-16 x
Coil springs
and Damper
Side frame
o 2-18 x
o 2-19 x
Shear stiffness
8
0
Bending stiffness
o 2-20 x
o 2-21 x
y
C11 r
0
r0l
Rc
a
Rc
C11 y
r0
2l
a
2C22 R
cL Track
C11
C11 y
r0
y
r0
a
2C22 R
c
2a
Rc
o 2-22 x
35
2l = 1507 mm
2a = 1830 mm
r = 457 mm
28
Conicity = 0.05
21
14
Conicity = 0.2
0
200
1200
700
2200
1700
Rc = 500m
72
Rc = 1000m
54
36
Rc = 500m
18
Rc = 1000m
0
1250
1750
2250
2750
3250
3750
4250
4750
o 2-23 x
Flat
Flong
Flong
P1
2l
V
P2
Flong
Flong
2a
Flat
o 2-24 x
o 2-25 x
Decreasing
FLATERAL
Centre
Plate
Increasing
FLATERAL
Centre of Curve
o 2-26 x
o 2-27 x
Primary Suspension
Secondary Suspension
Figure 2.24: Self-Steering Three-piece Bogie
o 2-28 x
Bolster
Wedge
Wedge
spring
Window of
side frame
o 2-29 x
Bolster
Wedge
Window of
side frame
Wedge
spring
Friction
Wedge
Rise
Wedge Wear
Limit
Height of
Friction Wedge
Above Truck Bolster
a<b
New or Restored
Condition
Worn Condition
o 2-30 x
Wedge
Wedge Rotation
Wedge
Bolster
Wedge
o 2-31 x
Bearing Adaptor
Primary
Rocker Seat
Side
Frame
Spring
Plank
Secondary
Rocker Seat
Rocker
o 2-33 x
o 2-34 x
o 2-35 x
Side Bearers
Centre Pivot
o 2-36 x
o 2-37 x
o 2-38 x
independent of the shear constraint provided by the threepiece bogie frame. This inter-axle shear stiffness is obtained by
diagonally linking the journal boxes by means of cross-anchors.
o 2-39 x
o 2-40 x
o 2-41 x
that works best for them today and which, from experience,
results in optimal performance. Designers are thereby
developing a logical design approach with their present
knowledge.
2.5.1 Basic Considerations
Before embarking on the design of rail and wheel profiles,
designers must address the following basic considerations:
1. Contact is not spread over the whole rail and wheel surface:
This rather obvious statement is often ignored. The
nature of rail and wheel profiles precludes contact
over the whole profile. This contact is limited to the
regions highlighted in Figure 2.40. This implies that
the shape of both rail and wheel will change. The
question is by how much, to what shape, to what
allowable limits and at what rate.
2. Contact is not evenly distributed over the regions shown in
Figure 2.40: The incidence of contact over the rail and
wheel profile on straight track is the highest on the
center of the tread as Figure 2.41 shows. It is more
sharply defined if pure conical wheel profiles are used
on rails with high profile curvatures and less so with
profiled wheel treads on flatter rails. The contact band
is also more sharply defined when the track gauge is
more consistent. Two-point contact between wheel
tread and rail crown on straight track is to be avoided
as it produces high- conicity contact and the danger of
vehicle instability.
o 2-42 x
Conical Wheel on
Sharp Crown Radius
Profiled
Wheel
o 2-43 x
Leading Wheelset
Trailing Wheelset
o 2-44 x
RegionC
Region A
Reg
io
nB
o 2-45 x
o 2-46 x
o 2-47 x
Conformal Contact
o 2-48 x
o 2-49 x
o 2-51 x
o 2-52 x
Typical Conformal
Geometry in Flange
Fillet to be matched
to the Rail
R10
R 40
R 70
Specific
Pressure
Decreases
Spin
Material
Flows
Relative
Slip
Increases
o 2-53 x
o 2-54 x
o 2-55 x
o 2-56 x
o 2-57 x
o 2-58 x
o 2-59 x
Field side
Low Leg
o 2-61 x
cL Wheels
Do + t
Do - t
Taping
Line
Taping
Line
cL Rails
2t=2y
Mis-orientation
Profile Rotation
o 2-62 x
cL Wheels
cL Track
Gauge Clearance = max
Figure 2.64: Non-Symmetric Rail Profiles
(1)
o 2-63 x
o 2-64 x
Side Frame + t
Side Frame - t
The Side Frame Lengths
can Vary and the Adaptors
can be Machined Wrong
cL Adaptor
o 2-65 x
Bolster on
spring tray
o 2-66 x
Bolster on
spring tray
o 2-67 x
cL Bearing
cL Bearing
cL Taping line
Taping line
Taping line
lL
=
=
=
cL Bearing
o 2-68 x
REFERENCES
1. Office for Research and Experiments of the
International Union of Railways, Question B 55,
Prevention of derailment of goods wagons on distorted
track, Report No. 8 (Final Report), Conditions for
negotiating track twist, Utrecht, April 1983.
2. Nadal M. J.: Locomotive a Vapeur, Collection encyclopedie
scientifique, biblioteque de mecanique appliquee et genie, Vol. 186
(Paris), 1908.
3. Tournay, H.M.: Rail/wheel interaction from a track
and vehicle design perspective, Proceedings of International
Heavy Haul Associations Conference on Wheel/Rail Interaction,
Moscow, Russia, 14-17 June 1999.
4. Smith, R.E. and Kalousek, J.: A design methodology
for wheel and rail profiles on steered railway vehicles,
Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Contact
Mechanics and Wear of Rail-Wheel Systems, Cambridge, UK,
July 1990, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1990.
5. Tournay, H.M. and Giani, J.L.: Rail/wheel interaction:
Multi disciplinary practices developed in South Africa,
Conference on Railway Engineering, October 1995,
Melbourne, Australia.
6. Weinstock, H.: Wheel climb derailment criteria for
evaluation of rail vehicle safety, Paper No. 84-WA/RT1, 1984 ASME Winter Annual Meeting, Phoenix, Az,
November 1984.
o 2-69 x
APPENDIX
The derivation of conicity:
A profiled wheel tread may be approximated by a circular arc
or a serious of circular arcs running tangentially into one
another. Rail profiles may be described in a similar fashion. For
the sake of simplicity, consider wheel and rail profiles
comprising singular arcs as shown in Figure A-1.
cL
Yr
Wheelset
Track
Yr
ro
ro
Po
Po
Rr
o
Yw
R=0
Yw
Xr
Xw
D2 = d o =
Or
gr
Or
Ow
Rw
Xr
Xw
gw-gr
2
o
Ow
D2 = do
gw
Figure A-1.
o 2-70 x
(d 0 + y ) 1 (d 0 y )
R = RW 1
(RW RR )
(RW RR )
Since =
R
:
2y
RW 0
(RW RR )
(1)
o 2-71 x
Gr =
W
(R W R R )
Wheelset
Track
cL
Fn
Fn
Fl
Fl
Figure A-2a
cL
Wheelset
Track
Deflection of wheelset
from cL of track = y
G
Fn1
Fl1
F n2
Fl2
Rw
Rr
D1 = (d o + y)
Figure A-2b
o 2-72 x
D2 = (d o-y)
NOMENCLATURE
C11
C 22
y = Lateral displacement
= Angle of yaw or angle of attack
= Rail angle
= Wheel cone angle or effective conicity
o 2-73 x
Wheel/Rail Dynamics
Rail Contact Mechanics
Wheel/Rail Materials
Friction Management
Wheel/rail Damage Modes
o 3-1 x
II
III
Distribution of erlative
slippage on contact
patches
Distribution of
friction vectors
The "third
body"
properties
Wheel/Rail Wear
o 3-2 x
the attack of the wheel on the rail. Though the angle of attack
is not the only dynamic parameter responsible for slippage, it is
the most significant one, especially for large angles of attack.
Forces and moments acting from rails on a wheelset: These are the
results of the integration of the normal and tangential stresses
on the contact patches.
Distribution of slippage on the contact patches: The measure of
slippage within the wheel/rail contact patch is known as the
relative slippage or creepage. The relative slippage is a nondimensional value, which for the wheel tread contact is
calculated as the ratio of the velocity of relative movement of
the surfaces to the linear velocity of the surface. The relative
velocity depends on wheel and rail profiles, the angle of attack,
and such dynamic parameters as the position of a wheelset and
its instantaneous axle of rotation. Vector of the relative
slippage may be represented by three components.3,5
Distribution of friction vectors resulted from unit normal load: The
value of the friction vector at any point of the contact patch is
equal to the rolling/sliding coefficient of friction both on the
rolling and gauge side of the railhead surfaces. The direction of
this vector coincides with surface slippage.
Shape and the distribution of the normal and tangential stresses on
the contact patches: This block provides for calculation of the
shape of the contact patches on the rolling and side surfaces of
the railhead, their mutual location, and the distribution of
contact stresses on the contact patches. Contact stresses
depend on the dynamics of vehicle/track interaction,
wheel/rail profiles and materials properties.
The third body properties: third body refers to material layers
which change their property from the initial properties of the
material to new properties because of the process of friction.
The third body layer property has considerable influence on
wear modes and wear rate. In turn, the wear process influences
the third body properties to a great extent.
Wheel flange and railhead profiles: Wheel and rail profiles
highly influence contact stresses and slippage.
o 3-3 x
Pmax
3 FE 2
2 3 Re (1 2 ) 2
2
(3.1)
o 3-5 x
o 3-6 x
R egi onC
R eg ion A
Reg
io
n
B
o 3-7 x
o 3-8 x
o 3-9 x
o 3-10 x
o 3-11 x
Direction of
rolling
Adhesion
Microslip
Traction Distribution
Adhesion
Microslip
Adhesion
Microslip
Adhesion
Microslip
Slip
Figure 3.8: Relationship between traction and creep [3.5]
(a) longitudinal traction forces over the contact patch
(b) creep force creepage curve
o 3-12 x
shear stress, and shear strain.13 In this model, the shear stress
initially increases as the creapage increases. As the shear stress
reaches its critical value, the initial slope of creep curve
changes. Depending on the properties of the interacting layer,
which can be controlled using friction modifiers, shear stress
may increase, decrease or not change with increase of creepage
(see Section 3.4.2).
0.5
z
po
(Normal
stress)
x/po and /p
y
0.5
1.5
1.0
x/a
0.300
95 0
0.2 .29
0
0.
28
3
0 .2
67
0.2
51
0. 2
36
1 (Maximum
po shear stress)
x/po
-1.0
0.173
1.0
1.5
2.0
z
a
Resistance to Wear
Resistance to Fatigue
Minimization of Noise
o 3-17 x
o 3-18 x
USA,
Canada,
Brazil
Australia
0.720.720.82
0.82
Mn
0.800.801.10
1.25
Si
0.100.150.60
0.58
S
0.037
0.025
max
max
P
0.035
0.025
max
max
Cr
0.25
0.50
V
0.03
max
Ni
0.25
max
Mo
0.10
max
*standard is being changed
South
Africa
(S-60)*
0.650.80
0.801.30
0.300.90
0.03
max
0.03
max
0.701.30
China
Russia
GOST R
51685
(T1)
0.720.80
0.701.05
0.500.80
0.035
max
0.035
max
0.710.82
0.751.05
0.250.45
0.45
max
0.035
max
0.040.06
0.030.07
o 3-19 x
Sweden
BV50&
UIC60
0.600.82
0.801.30
0.300.90
0.025
max
0.025
max
0.801.3
C
Mn
Si
S
P
North
America,
Brazil
(Class C)
Australia
South
Africa
0.670.77
0.600.85
0.15
max
0.050
max
0.050
max
0.670.77
0.601.00
0.15
max
0.035
max
0.04
max
0.670.77
0.600.85
0.15
max
0.050
max
0.050
max
China
0.550.65
0.500.80
0.170.37
<0.040
<0.035
Russia
(freight
cars)
Sweden
(Ore
line)
0.550.65
0.500.90
0.220.45
0.045
max
0.035
max
0.670.72
0.730.85
0.20-0.40
0.020
max
0.025
max
3.3.2 Microstructure
Rails: Pearlitic steels continue to be used for heavy haul railway
track. Rails are available in either an as-rolled or a heat-treated
condition. High strength heat-treated rails are widely used for
heavy haul. The heat-treated rails are made from rail steel that
contain carbon in an amount close to the eutectoid
composition, which leads to a microstructure of pearlite. The
fine pearltic structure is promoted by the addition of alloying
elements, such as chromium, molybdenum, and vanadium, or
by accelerated cooling.
It has been shown that the optimal structure of high
strength heat-treated rails is fine lamellae of ferrite and iron
carbide called fine pearlite.
Heat treatment can be done off- or in-line during rail
production. In an off-line process the as-rolled rail is cooled to
a room temperature and its head is then reheated by various
methods, such as by an induction method, followed by
accelerated cooling of the railhead. This heat treatment process
forms fine-grained austenite in the railhead depth while the
railhead is hot. The process of austenization is controlled to
assure dissolution of the carbides and the development of finegrained austenite. It is necessary to cool rail rapidly to produce
ultra fine perlite. All processes for surface hardening of rail
require controlled heating and rapid cooling.
o 3-20 x
South
Africa
China
Russia
GOSTR
51685
Yield
Strength,
MPa (min)
Tensile
Strength
MPa (min)
Elongation
% (min)
758
640
805
794
640
1172
1080
1175
1176
1080
10
10
Brinell
Hardness
at the
surface
340-390
340
340390
331-388
320360
Property
o 3-23 x
Sweden
o 3-24 x
Wheels:
o 3-32 x
53,45
EVALUATION
OF THE
COEFFICIENT
OF FRICTION.
about 0.6
0.45 to 0.6
0.35 to 0.45
0.30 to 0.35
0.25 to 0.30
0.20 to 0.25
0.15 to 0.20
< 0.15
WEAR RATE
Railhead gauge
side wear rate,
mm/mgt
<0.66,R300m
0.05,R=300-500
0.04,R>500 m
0.025,R1000 m
Locomotive wheel
flange wear rate,
4
mm/10 km
o 3-34 x
o 3-35 x
Keep center plate, side bearings, and supports of threepiece bogie of freight cars in good condition, when using
high rail lubrication.
o 3-36 x
o 3-37 x
o 3-40 x
o 3-41 x
o 3-42 x
. PRESSURE
p , MPa
3000
2500
p=120
=120
2000
1500
1000
p=40
=40
500
0 ,02
0 ,04
0 ,06
R E L A T IV E S L IP P A G E
0 ,08
0 ,1
Top of rail and wheel tread wear:25;62 Normally, the top of rail is
subject to high contact stress (about 1300-1700 MPa,
depending on the axle load) and relatively low (less than 0.010.015) levels of relative slippage (if there is no slip of the
locomotive or car wheels as a result of low adhesion between
wheel and rail or excessive tractive or braking effort.) In this
case, the parameter p is about 20 and the mild wear mode of
oxidative origin is predominant. The wear particles are mixed
with various environmental contaminants that compose a third
body layer on the top of rail. The rail wear rate is determined
by the frequency of removal of this layer from the surface and
the composition of the layer. Abrasive particles cased by sand
from locomotives or from other sources increase the wear rate
two to three times.
Over time, if not ground, rail crown causes the wheel tread
to become hollow due to wear (Figure 3.16). The hollow shape
forms when tread wear is high, and the wheel forms a false
flange at the ends of tread area:
Wheel hollowing:63
o 3-44 x
Railhead gauge face64 and wheel flange wear: This wear takes
place mainly when a truck or bogie is negotiating a curve,
though it may occur for a short time on tangent track,
especially if cars are hunting. In sharp curves under dry
conditions, conventional three-piece truck negotiation lead to
the catastrophic wear mode of high intensity, resulting in a
large amount of wear particles deposited on the track (Figure
3.17) and quick change of the railhead profile (Figure 3.18).
o 3-45 x
For mild and severe wear modes, wear rate (I) may be
considered as a liner function of tangential force (T) on the
Hertzian contact area (A) and relative slippage as:37
(3.2)
I=T/ A
(3.3)
conditions which varied from 1.3 to 3.3 times and from 1.4 to
1.9 times under lubricated (contaminated) operating
conditions. Low railhead height wear rate varied from 0.3 to
1.1 and from 0.9 to 1.1 correspondingly for dry and lubricated
(contaminated) operating conditions. Rail wear on tangent
track to a great extent is a function of the static axle load.
It should be noted that increases in wear associated with
higher axle load may or may not be economically significant ,
depending on a range of prevailing factors, including rail and
wheel maintenance procedure, rail/wheel profiles, rail and
wheel material types, bogie characteristics, and lubrication
practices.
Influence of track gauge clearance: Track gauge clearance
(clearance between wheel flanges of a wheel and a railhead
measured at determined level) increases wheel flange wear
considerably when it is less than a certain value depending on
the particular railway and operating conditions. 71, 72
Influence of wheel and rail material hardness. Hardness still
remains the most useful practical single property to
characterize material characteristics for wear studies. The most
common methods of increasing the hardness of pearlitic steels
are by increasing carbon content and by refining the
microstructure.
The influence of wheel and rail hardness is highly
dependent on the wear mode. Laboratory tests under nonlubricated conditions have shown that at a given contact
pressure and relative lateral slippage characteristic for the gauge
zone of the railhead and wheel, an increase in hardness from
HRC 30 to 50 resulted in not more than an increase of two in
the wear resistance. In the severe and the catastrophic wear
modes, the same increase of hardness resulted in up to several
times the reduction in wear rate. In the catastrophic and heavy
wear mode, the same change in hardness may result in
reduction of the wear rate up to two orders of magnitude.3
Field tests67 show that under an axle load of about 300 kN
in a 350 m curve, under non-lubricated conditions, a variation
of rail initial hardness from HB 280 to HB 380 decreases the
rail gage face wear and head height loss rate up to several
o 3-48 x
times. The field test results on the effects of rail hardness were
also reported in Reference 70.
Influence of the difference in wheel/rail hardness. Field simulated
tests64 confirmed by laboratory study3 in the range of rail to
wheel hardness ratio (HR/Hw) from 0.7 to 1.6, show that there
is no optimal rail to wheel hardness ratio providing for minimal
total wear of both wheels and rail. The wear rate of each asset
is inversely proportional to its hardness by the relation n=4-6,
that is
I
(HR/Hw)n
(3.4)
460
440
After 50 MGT
420
400
380
360
340
320
300
Base Hardness
280
260
240
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
o 3-51 x
o 3-53 x
(3.5)
The higher the shell index, the greater is the shell defect
rate.
Shells may turn to transverse fractures initiated at hard
brittle oxide inclusion strings. Therefore, transverse defects can
be expected to decrease with the increasing use of clean steels.
Mechanical factors can also contribute to the development
of shells and transverse defects. These are normal, lateral, or
traction loads and residual stresses.
Grinding is the most generally used method to eliminate
surface defects, including spalls. The use of grinding to reduce
transverse defects is less clear. Tests on FAST have shown that
grinding to promote two point contact on high rail significantly
reduced the number of shells, but most shells turned into
transverse defects. However, many railways use rail grinding as
a means to reduce transverse defects.
The detection of small transverse cracks developed from
shells is difficult as the horizontal component of shell can
mask the vertical transverse crack during ultrasonic inspection.
Influence of axle load: Laboratory and field simulated tests
and application of linear fracture mechanics, have shown that
an increase of the axle load results in a reduction of the time
before the appearance of the first fatigue cracks and in a
reduction of the depth of longitudinal cracks and in the critical
size of the transverse cracks which may lead to cracking of a
rail.66 For instance, an increase of axle load from 210 to 270
kN resulted in the depth of the contact fatigue defect growth
from 3 to 7 mm up to from 6 to 9.5 mm for the same time of
test operations.
o 3-54 x
o 3-55 x
o 3-56 x
77
o 3-58 x
o 3-59 x
o 3-60 x
o 3-62 x
o 3-63 x
77
77
77
o 3-66 x
o 3-70 x
o 3-72 x
o 3-74 x
o 3-75 x
Acknowledgements
Appreciation is expressed to Evgeny Shur, Head of
Laboratory, All-Russian Railway Research Instate, Stephen
Marich, Marich Consulting Services, Australia, Harry
Tourney, Assistant General Manager, Spoornet, South Africa,
Robert Harder, Associate Professor of Engineering, George
Fox University, USA, James Lundgren, Assistant Vice
President, Danial Stone, Chief Metallurgist and Kevin Sawley,
Principal Investigator, TTCI, USA, for their assistance and
valuable comments.
o 3-76 x
REFERENCES
3.1 J.Kalousec, E.Magel. Optimizing the wheel.rail system. Railway
Track & Structure. January 1997.
3.2 B.Bock. Which "Horse" for your "Course." Proceedings of IHHA
'99 STS-Conference on Wheel/Rail Interface.Moscow,1999,V.1,p.1727
3.3 S.M.Zakharov, I.A.Zharov,I.Komarovsky. Tribological Aspects of
Rail/Wheel Interface. IHHA99 STS-Conference on Wheel/Rail
Interface, Moscow, 1999, V 1, p. 221-228.
3.4 J.J.Kalker Three Dimensional Elastic Bodies in Rolling Contact.
Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1990
3.5 H.Tourney. Rail/Wheel Interaction from a Track and Vehicle
Design Perspective. Proceedings of IHHA99 STS-Conference on
Wheel/Rail Interface, Moscow, 1999, V 1,p.41-57.
3.6 K.L. Johnson. Contact Mechanics. Cambridge University Press, 1985.
P.427
3.7 B. Paul, J.Hashemi. User's Manual for Program CONTACT.
Technical Report No 4,FRA/ORD-78/27/PB286097,NTIS,
Springfield,VA,Sept.1977
3.8 R.Harder. Creep Force-Creepage and Frictional Work Behavior in
Non-Hertzian Counterformal Rail/Wheel Contacts. Proceedings of
IHHA '99 STS-Conference on Wheel/Rail Interface.
Moscow,1999,V.1,p207-214.
3.9 R.Harder, L.Lemmy L.Meekisho, J.Jones, V.Rhoades. Generalized
Approximation of Wheel-Rail Creep Forces and Contact Patch
Frictional Work Using Neural Network Simulation. Proccedings of
the 2nd Mini Conference on Contact Mechanics and Wear of
Rail/Wheel Systems.,Edited by Prof I. Zobory, Budapest, July, 1996
3.10 I.G.Goryacheva et.al. Simulation of Wheel/Rail Contact and Wear in
Curved Track. Proceedings of IHHA '99 STS-Conference on
Wheel/Rail Interface. Moscow,1999,V.1,p.215-228.
3.11 I.Goryacheva. Contact Mechanics in Tribology. Kluver Academic
Publishers,1998.
3.12 Y.M.Luzhnov. Proceedings of the International Conference
Eurotrib-81,Warsow, p.315-325.
3.13 K.Hou,J.Kalousec and E.Magel. Rheological Model of Solid Layer in
Rolling Contact. Wear,V.211,1997, p.134-140.
3.14 Z.Shen, W.Zhang,X.Jin, J.Zeng, L.Zhang. Advances in Wheel/Rail
Contact Mechanics. Proceedings of IHHA '99 STS-Conference on
Wheel/Rail Interface. Moscow,1999,V.1, p.187-200.
o 3-77 x
o 3-78 x
o 3-79 x
o 3-80 x
o 3-81 x
o 3-82 x
o 3-83 x
APPENDIX A
RAIL DEFECTS AND CODING
Type of Defect
Transverse Fissure
Compound Fissure
CPR Coding
(Contractor
Designation)
TDT(CO)
TDT(L)
TDT(M)
TDT(S)
TDD(CO)
TDD(L)
TDD(M)
TDDD(S)
DFS(CO)
DFS(L)
DFS(M)
DFS(S)
DFC(CO)
DFC(L)
DFC(M)
DFC(S)
DFW or
TDW(CO)
DEW or TDW(L)
BR
DWF(CO)
DWF(L),DWF(M)
DWF(S)
DWP(CO)
DWP(L),DWP(M)
DWP(M)
Russian Railways
Coding [3.77]*
20.1-2
21.1-2
21.1-2
Not observed
Not observed
79.1-2
26.3
EBF
27.1-2
BHO (outside of
joint)
BHJ (in joint area)
53.2
VSH
VSJ
HSH
HSJ
HWO
53.1
30B.1-2
30G.1-2
52.1-2
o 3-84 x
HWJ
Split Web
SWO
55
SWJ
Broken Base
PBO
60.1-2; 62.1-2
PBJ
PRO
Piped Rail
50.1-2
PRJ
o 3-85 x
APPENDIX B
WHEEL DEFECTS AND CODING
Wheel Defect
AAR Why
Made
Defect
98
Code
Russian
Railways
Coding
Thin flange
41-60
14
Vertical flange
41-62
15
High flange
41-64
Hollow tread
10,11
Thin rim
41-73
17
Wheel out-of
round
41-67
41-69
41-74
32
Shattered rim
41-71
26,27
Shelled thread
41-75
22-1,222,22-3
Thread buildup
41-76
21
41-78
20
Thermal
cracks
extending into
plate
Thermal
cracks
o 3-86 x
Defect Cause
4.1(a) Introduction
The operating conditions at BHP Iron Ore, in North West
Australia, are amongst the most severe in the world. Under the
current action of 37.5 tons nominal axle loads and with over 90
million gross tons of annual traffic over a primarily single line
track, the appropriate management of resources, including
wheels (and rails), is critical to achieving the operational
objectives. The line is a dedicated mine to port operation with
capture locomotive and car fleets.
Railroad operations at BHP Iron Ore (BHPIO) began in
1969. The initial railroad was designed to carry about 8 million
gross tons (mgt) of iron ore per year at nominal axle loads of
30 tons. However, within 10 years the haulage rate had
increased to over 40 million tons per year, and currently is
close to 100 mgt per year. Such a rapid expansion led to
unprecedented and major technical problems on the railroad,
including very severe wheel and rail wear, which threatened to
curtail production and hence profitability. These conditions
were ideal motivators for management to invest in both short
and longer term development activities, and accept and
implement technical changes exhibiting the potential for more
cost efficient practices.
BHPIO's operation consists of two mine to port single
track iron ore lines. The Mount Newman line is a 426 km
route with long passing loops. For the most part, the line is
tangent with light curvature. However, moderate (minimum
radius 528 meters) curves are surmounted in the route through
the Chichester range. The line is generally 68 kg/m CWR with
o 4-1 x
4.2(a) Wheels
The major modes of wheel deterioration experienced at
BHPIO are:
flange wear,
tread wear and hollowing,
surface cracking and spalling,
subsurface cracking (shelling),
thermal cracking, and
o 4-2 x
o 4-3 x
o 4-4 x
bhpio new
Conformal
Conformal
bhpio new
Two Point
Two Point
o 4-6 x
4.5(a) Lubrication
Early on lubrication of the wheel flange and rail gauge face was
found to result in a marked reduction in wear and also in fuel
consumption. However, in 1986, the results of a detailed
cost/benefit analysis showed that with the implementation of
the modified profiles and the improved material characteristics,
lubrication could no longer be justified, on the basis of several
cost factors, including:
o 4-7 x
o 4-8 x
4.9(a) Summary
Every railroad operator looks for the ultimate life from wheels
and rails. However not all owners or operators of freight
wagons have control over the maintenance of both the wheels
and rails, even within private rail systems. This is partly due to
the traditional structures that railroads operate under, the lack
of understanding by the track maintainers and wheel
maintainers of each others needs, and the incentives to
independently reduce their operating costs.
The optimization of wheel and rail life can be obtained
only when there is a coming together of the two disciplines, to
operate under a set of rules with the primary common aim of
achieving what is best for both.
At BHP Iron Ore, the management and control of both
wheels and rails for the benefit of the overall system, has been
able to increase the wheel life from 340,000 km to over 2
million kilometres, while still increasing axle loads and
eliminating lubrication. This has been possible by the
development and application of a wide range of strategies.
Further increases in the wheel life up to 2.5-3.0 million
kilometres, are believed to be possible by controlling the wheel
machining cycle, within the current limits, and the amount of
metal that is removed during each cycle. As BHPIO's diligent
efforts illustrate, combining science, engineering, management
and supervisory control appropriately can create a world class
heavy haul railway exceeding in productivity and cost
effectiveness. The best practices of the BHPIO operation are
summarized in tabular form, Table 4.1(a).
o 4-9 x
TRAFFIC
DENSITY
o 4-10 x
TYPE
Premium
100 mgt
WHEELS
TYPE
Micro-alloy
Premium
Multi-wear
970 mm
(895 mm
condemning
limit)
S-plate
365+ HB
PROFILE
modified
narrow
flange
CROSSTIES
WEIGHT
68 kg/m
BOGIES
3-piece
constant
contact SB
Bogie
tolerances:
see Part 2,
Section 2.4.
Plastic
center plate
liners
lubricated
FASTENERS
Concrete
monobloc
Elastic
PROFILES &
MTCE
WHEEL/RAIL
curve:
conformal
tangent:
modest 2point
LUBRICATION
WHEEL/RAIL
locomotive
wheels only
no rail
lubrication
BALLAST
Crushed
Rock
WEAR
LIMITS
wheels:
condemn
@ 880
mm
NOTES
*Frequent, mileage based preventative
maintenance teardowns
*Maintenance of tight tolerances and
proactive maintenance programs
*Continuing research and monitoring
program
*Automated capture of key component
wear information
*Full component tracking throughout
life cycle
*World class system performance
evaluation and corrective action
protocols
o 4-12 x
o 4-13 x
long (9-ft.) hardwood ties in curves. The 36-cm (14-in.) tieplate was changed out for a 41 cm. (16 in.) plate eccentric to
the field to resist overturning.
A research study on rail grinding, prompted by success in
the Australian Pilbara with profiling to asymmetrically reshape
rail, found that the rate of regrowth of corrugations could be
reduced by 40% by preferential grinding of the field side of the
low rail. This provided some relief from contact with the sharp
reverse curvature of hollowed wheel treads when gauge
widened. On the high rail, it was found that grinding down the
high rail gauge corner preferentially reduced the rate of
occurrence of shelling. Both actions were made easier by
initially grinding the rail to a 200 mm (8 in.) head radius.
Grinding cycles were also progressively tightened down to 16
million gross tonnes (18 mgt) between grinds, with the goal of
providing better control of rail shape and surface cracking with
a single pass, if possible. This action, in conjunction with the
phasing in of metallurgically cleaner, harder rail steels, was
successful at eliminating corrugations as a reason to change out
rail.
On the wheel side, CPR began testing different wheel
profiles in the late-70s, with the theory that a worn wheel
profile when machined onto a new wheel, would not exhibit
the wearing-in that foreshortens the life of the AAR 1 in 20
coned profile used at the time. Professor Heumann of
Germany had introduced this worn wheel profile into
Europe in 1934, suggesting that a profile that provides a single
point of contact in curving would offer better performance
than the usual two-point scenario. This idea was appreciated
by engineers at the Canadian National Railway, who in early
1970s introduced a wide-flange Heumann profile for
locomotives in mountain service. When their tests found that
wear life (primarily limited by flange wear) was doubled over
the conventional thinner flange AAR 1:20, the CN wide
flange Heumann profile (Profile A) was adopted as their
standard. The AAR followed the CN progress closely and
based on a different sample of wheels and rails developed a
similar worn wheel profile, presented as the interchange
standard AAR1B profile in 1986.
o 4-14 x
o 4-16 x
o 4-17 x
The new rail wear limits moved the average percent head
loss from 25% of the head to 35-40%. They were based upon
finite element analysis of the rail and were designed to ensure
that internal rail stresses did not exceed 2/3 of yield at depths
in the rail head where catastrophic defect types like vertical
split heads were seen to initiate.
It was found that the new extended wear limits did not
increase the risk of failure, but that rail would wear rapidly
beyond these limits. If they were significantly exceeded, rail
fracture could and did occur.
The key element in controlling risk of extending wear
limits was knowing the wear condition of rail accurately, and
being able to project the right time to change out the rail.
Optical rail measurement technology proved to be the answer.
CPR started with LITESLICE optical rail measurement on
their Track Evaluation Car in 1992, and converted to the more
accurate laser-based LASERAIL measurement system in 1994.
CPR now measured rail wear three times per year and
developed computer programs that projected the observed
wear up to five years into the future. This also permitted
centralized planning of rail programs with the computer
projections being the prime input to rail planning.
o 4-20 x
o 4-23 x
(blank)
o 4-24 x
o 4-25 x
% not scrapped
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
1500
1440
1380
1320
1260
1200
1140
1080
960
1020
900
840
780
720
660
600
540
480
420
360
300
240
180
60
120
4.2.2(c) History
4.2.2.1(c) During 1986
In 1986, CVRD/EFC contacted wagons, brake equipments
and brake shoes manufacturers to discuss about the problem
was happening. The representatives decided to form a
technical group to collect data to a further analysis of the
problem.
Results: There was no success with this group and also
there were no recommendations.
o 4-26 x
o 4-27 x
% not scrapped
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
1500
1440
1380
1320
1260
1200
1140
1080
960
1020
900
840
780
720
660
600
540
480
420
360
300
240
180
60
120
o 4-28 x
o 4-29 x
% not scrapped
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
1500
1440
1380
1320
1260
1200
1140
1080
960
1020
900
840
780
720
660
600
540
480
420
360
300
240
180
60
120
4.3(c) Improvements
By the end of 1993, with results considered insufficient, it was
decided to separate the focus in two: The first focus was to
build a wheel management model in order to obtain the best
cost effectiveness from the wheels and processes involved and
the second was to look for a solution or attenuation to increase
the period the wheels could run without defects. The second
focus drove, necessarily, to an involvement of rail part.
o 4-30 x
Truing
period - [Month]
10
11
12
3,0
4,5
5,0
1,0
1,2
1,0
4,0
5,7
6,0
Variables
6,0
6,0
6,5
1,0
1,5
1,0
7,0
7,5
7,5
km accumulated
Cost with truing - [R$]
Cost with wheel replacement - [R$]
Total cost - [R$]
Unit cost - [R$/1000 km]
km accumulated
Cost with truing - [R$]
Cost with wheel replacement - [R$]
Total cost - [R$]
Unit cost - [R$/1000 km]
km accumulated
Cost with truing - [R$]
Cost with wheel replacement - [R$]
Total cost - [R$]
Unit cost - [R$/1000 km]
km accumulated
Cost with truing - [R$]
Cost with wheel replacement - [R$]
Total cost - [R$]
Unit cost - [R$/1000 km]
km accumulated
Cost with truing - [R$]
Cost with wheel replacement - [R$]
Total cost - [R$]
Unit cost - [R$/1000 km]
km accumulated
Cost with truing - [R$]
Cost with wheel replacement - [R$]
Total cost - [R$]
Unit cost - [R$/1000 km]
km accumulated
Cost with truing - [R$]
Cost with wheel replacement - [R$]
Total cost - [R$]
Unit cost - [R$/1000 km]
km accumulated
Cost with truing - [R$]
Cost with wheel replacement - [R$]
Total cost - [R$]
Unit cost - [R$/1000 km]
km accumulated
Cost with truing - [R$]
Cost with wheel replacement - [R$]
Total cost - [R$]
Unit cost - [R$/1000 km]
o 4-31 x
After a certain time the results were not the expected, then
checking the data base it was noticed that the right amount of
wheels planned to be machined was being achieved but not the
right ones, it means that it was good on the quantitative aspect
but bad on the qualitative one. Then internal procedures had
to be changed and results were achieved.
With a reasonable percentage of wheels with defects, it
was possible to maximize other two important and dependent
variables: period to machine the wheels and depth of material
removed.
From Figure 4.5(c) to Figure 4.11(c) can be noticed the
numbers obtained for certain parameters that were considered
important during the development and implementation of this
management model.
Figure 4.5(c), shows the evolution of surface defects on
the wheels.
Set/98
Mai/98
Jan/98
Set/97
Mai/97
Set/96
Jan/97
Mai/96
Set/95
Jan/96
Mai/95
Set/94
Jan/95
Mai/94
Set/93
Jan/94
Set/92
Jan/93
Mai/93
Mai/92
Set/91
Jan/92
Mai/91
Set/90
Jan/91
Jan/90
Mai/90
Set/89
% Defects
Month
T3
E1
E2
E3
TOTAL
9
6
3
T3
E1
Month
E2
E3
Set/98
TOTAL
o 4-32 x
Nov/98
Jul/98
Mai/98
Mar/98
Jan/98
Set/97
Nov/97
Jul/97
Mai/97
Jan/97
Mar/97
Nov/96
Jul/96
Set/96
Mai/96
Jan/96
Mar/96
Nov/95
Jul/95
Set/95
Mai/95
Jan/95
Mar/95
Set/94
Nov/94
Jul/94
Mai/94
Mar/94
0
Jan/94
% Defect
12
PER94
Percentage
PER98
Period - [Month]
DEPTH94
Percentage
DEPTH98
Depth - [mm]
o 4-33 x
% not scrapped
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
1500
1440
1380
1320
1260
1200
1140
1080
960
1020
900
840
780
720
660
600
540
480
420
360
300
240
180
60
120
Quantity
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Year
Jul/00
Jan/00
Jul/99
Jan/99
Jul/98
Jan/98
Jul/97
Jan/97
Jul/96
Jan/96
Jul/95
Jan/95
Jul/94
Jul/93
Jan/94
Jan/93
Quantity
Month
4.4(c) Rails
During Carajs Railway construction, it was used
approximately 120,000 metric ton of rails from four different
manufacturers.
o 4-34 x
4.4.1(c) History
4.4.1.1 (c) 1987
CSN rails started showing internal defects from manufacturing
process and also external superficial defects.
4.4.1.3(c) 1988
NKK and NSC rails, type NHH, started showing significant
superficial defects, leading CVRD/EFC to start changing
them.
4.4.1.4(c) 1990
CVRD/EFC started re-profiling process to remove superficial
defects and also adopted the use of ultrasonic inspection to
identify internal rails defects in order the improve rail life and
reduce operational risks. The estimated life of CSN rails was
450 MGT but the defects appeared when they accumulated
only 200 MGT.
Voest Alpine rails started showing superficial defects.
Twenty-thousand metric ton of Japanese rails, type DHH,
with different mechanical and metallurgical characteristics
from the previous one, were acquired and installed but the
same kind of defect seen before happened again.
4.4.1.5(c) 1991
CVRD/EFC began rail grinding process and thus it was
possible to reach 800 MGT for the rail life.
o 4-35 x
4.4.1.7(c) 1997
CVRD/EFC installed 5,600 metric ton of Sydney Steel
Corporation rails without any heat treatment. Performance has
been good.
4.4.1.7. 1998
CVRD/EFC started installing Huta Katowice rails.
4.5.1. Introduction
The results and conclusions of several investigations
conducted on Carajs Railway formed the cornerstone of
subsequent engineering analyses on the benefits and cost
tradeoffs essential to business decisions based on the
economic consequences of moving to a heavier axle load.
During many years of research in North America on the
impact of heavier axle loads on train operations, vehicles and
track structure, many sound technical approaches have been
developed to optimize the investigations focused on 32.5- and
35-metric ton axle loads. TTCI has studied their effect on track
o 4-36 x
o 4-37 x
o 4-38 x
o 4-39 x
o 4-40 x
o 4-41 x
Direction of longitudinal
creep forces applied to
rail by wheels
Flakes/Cracks
Ratchetting
Strain Deformation
Rail Material
Microstructure Laminates
o 4-42 x
o 4-43 x
10.0
20.0
5.0
0.0
15.0
10.0
-5.0
-10.0
5.0
0.0
-5.0
-15.0
-20.0
-10.0
-15.0
-25.0
-30.0
-20.0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
Time (sec.)
o 4-44 x
o 4-45 x
o 4-46 x
o 4-47 x
o 4-48 x
o 4-49 x
Contact Location
on New Rail
CVRD Rail
Worn
CVRD Rail
Theoretical
136-14
136-14
o 4-50 x
o 4-51 x
a
Km 10.0 Siding, Tangent
TTC Recommended Low Rail and Tangent Profile
b
Km 427 No Grind Test on CSN Rail, Low Rail
TTC Recommended Low Rail and Tangent Profile
c
Km 146.465 after rail planing, Low Rail
TTC Recommended Low Rail and Tangent Profile
o 4-52 x
o 4-53 x
o 4-54 x
4.9(c) Conclusions
For its Carajs Railway, CVRD has undertaken a multi-faceted
systems approach to wheel and rail life optimization under
heavy haul traffic. To lower maintenance costs and assume
reliability it was necessary to solve serious wheel and rail
degradation under 30.5-metric ton axle loads before the
productivity increases achievable through the introduction of
higher axle loads could be undertaken.
Specifically, the application of research and analyses has
been able to develop solutions for optimizing wheel and rail
life by managing the dynamic performance of the ore car fleet.
Recommended practice for Carajs operations have been
shown to achieve a pragmatic balance between wear and
fatigue of the rolling contact elements.
Rapid development of wheel shelling tread defects has
been eliminated in a test wagon. Frame brace design trucks
with roller side bearings and primary shear pads have shown
no tread defects after 320,000 kilometers, around two-fold
increase in service between re-profiling as compared to the
standard three-piece truck (160,000 - 170,000 km between reprofiling).
Another important point is that the good results with warp
resistance trucks encouraged CVRD/EFC to evaluate the
performance of this design in a sample of 24 wagons and,
again, the good results led CVRD/EFC to decide for the
o 4-55 x
Types of Trucks
Item
Unit
Re-profiling
period
Material
removed
Wheels
average life *
Percentage of
defects
10 x
km
mm
10 x
km
%
Standard
160~170
Frame
Braced
300
Swing
Motion
260
4,0~5,0
5,0
5,0
1,250
2,200
1,900
<1
<1
<1
o 4-56 x
REFERENCES
1.
o 4-57 x
2.
3.
4.
5.
o 4-58 x
4.1(d) Introduction
The concepts embodying the primary components of the track
and vehicle systems characteristic of heavy haul operations has
been introduced with the case studies presented for the
BHPIO, CPR and CVRD examples. The demands on the
components comprising the wheel and rail system are highly
dependent upon the total environment the transport demand
places on them. This includes not only topography, climate,
native soil conditions, but also traffic levels, axle loads, train
lengths, track gauge, annual tonnages, vehicle design and
similar factors.
The objective of these reference tables is to present in
concise form, reference charts that may be used to gain a "firstcut" or preliminary concept of what might constitute an
appropriate starting point for a reliable and economical heavy
haul operation. As illustrated in the case studies, there are
many opportunities to address refinements and adjustments to
the base cases. In most instances the operation will grow from
the starting point in response to specific conditions and
modifications and will evolve into a more specific system
"tuned" to the unique features of the environment, traffic
conditions and maintenance options. Consequently, much
greater productivity may be achieved from the fine tuning of
system operations beyond these base case recommendations.
As illustrated in the BHP Iron Ore case study, much can be
achieved by continually observing, measuring and
incrementally improving a particular system and its
performance characteristics.
In light of the wide spectrum of conditions and
environments likely to impact any specific heavy haul
operation, the authors have chosen to present the general
guidelines by referencing axle loads, terrain and traffic density.
o 4-59 x
o 4-60 x
o 4-61 x
o 4-62 x
o 4-63 x
BHN 388; Rc 42
Premium = "premium" rail chemistry and/or hardening
(micro-alloy, fine grained, pearlitic):
BHN = 341-388; Rc 36.5
Standard = standard carbon rail chemistry:
BHN > 300-340; Rc 32
All HH applications require CWR for economic maintenance.
3. CROSSTIES:
Monoblock concrete: AREA (AREMA) specifications
or equivalent
Premium = Treated hardwood or approved softwood:
approximate dimensions (W x D x L) of 0.12 x 0.16 x
(1.7-1.8) ratio of track gauge
4. FASTENERS:
Premium: elastic: spring clips or equivalent providing
resilient vertical clasping force and longitudinal
constraint. (Many proprietary designs are available.)
Nominal wood spikes: "nails" driven into wooden
crossties as in traditional cut or "dog" spike. A more
robust wood tie fastening may be achieved with "lag" or
coach screws or threaded drive spikes.
Pads should be designed with appropriate stiffness and
damping properties for traffic loads.
5. BALLAST:
Crushed rock: angularity, gradation, abrasion resistance
and cementing characteristics should be carefully chosen
for "high" end performance.
6. WHEELS:
Premium = heat treated (HT) (e.g. the AAR Class "C" rim
quenched wheel represents a nominal standard, having a
curved plate design to be compatible with rail profile
selected). An in-depth discussion of rail and wheel profile
matching is found in Part 2. The AAR 1B or an equivalent
simulated "worn" profile can be used as a starting point for
RE rail sections; the UIC standard should be used with
UIC sections as the initial selection. For the heavier axle
o 4-64 x
8. PROFILE MAINTENANCE
Part 5 suggests monitoring protocols
Wheel: hollow, roundness corrugation, flange wear
tolerances chosen for compatibility with service
demands
Rail: refer to Part 5, Section 5.8 for optimizing system
(wheel/rail)
9. LUBRICATION:
Managed appropriate lubrication application methods and
lubricants. Special circumstances may dictate no
lubrication (e.g. sand). Part 5, Section 5.7 addresses
lubrication.
10. SWITCH & CROSSING WORK:
Mainline 1:20. Moveable frogs, undercut switch points as
minimum specification for heavy services.
11. SPEED: operating speeds of HH are in the speed range
up to 80 kph (40-50 mph). Higher speeds or mixed traffic
operations may dictate variances from table
recommendations.
12. WEAR LIMITS: refer to Part 5, Section 5.8
13. FLAW DETECTION: refer to Part 5, Section 5.8
14. CONDITION MONITORING:
Wayside systems to track performance trends of
individual vehicles is recommended particularly at
higher tonnages with axle loads.
o 4-65 x
o 4-66 x
>50 MGT
TYPE
Premium
in
tangent
Super
premium
in curves
WEIGHT
136 RE
or
UIC 60
WHEELS
TYPE
PROFILE
Prem HT
curve plate
AAR Class C
1000mm or
equivalent
BALLAST
M/L
SWITCH &
CROSSING
WORK
GEOMETRY
INSPECTION
FLAW
INSPECTION
350 mm
select
crushed
rock
+ 200 mm
sub-ballast
300 mm
shoulders
Premium
rail
tangential,
movable or
closing
point frog
~ 3-6 month
intervals with
rail profile
monitoring
~3 month
intervals
RAIL
specifically
designed
(See
Section 2.5)
CROSSTIES
PREM:
WOOD or
CONCRETE
MONOBLOC
Nominal
spacing
490 mm wood
600 mm
concrete
BOGIES
Improved
Standard 3piece or selfsteering
FASTENERS
ELASTIC
with
elastomeric
pads
limit hollow
wear to 2 mm
LUBRICATION
WHEEL/RAIL
Curves: Gauge face
<0.25-0.30
Rail head <0.350.40
<0.10-0.15 L-R
Tangent: rail head
>0.35
WEAR
LIMITS
Measure
frequently to
ensure
economic
optimum
30-49
MGT
TYPE
FASTENERS
BALLAST
M/L SWITCH
&
CROSSING
WORK
GEOMETRY
INSPECTION
FLAW
INSPECTION
ELASTIC with
elastomeric
pads
350 mm
select
crushed
rock
+ 200 mm
sub-ballast
300 mm
shoulders
Premium
rail
Tangential,
spring point
premium
frog
~ 4-6 months
with profile
monitoring
~4 month
intervals
RAIL
TYPE
Premium
in
tangent
Super
premium
in curves
WEIGHT
136 RE
or
UIC 60
WHEELS
PROFILE
Prem HT
curve plate
AAR Class C
1000mm or
equivalent
specifically
designed
(see Part 2,
Section 2.5)
CROSSTIES
PREM: WOOD
or CONCRETE
MONOBLOC
Nominal spacing
490 mm wood
600 mm
concrete
BOGIES
Improved
Standard 3piece or selfsteering
limit hollow
wear to 2 mm
LUBRICATION
WHEEL/RAIL
WEAR
LIMITS
Measure
frequently to
ensure
economic
optimum
20-29
MGT
BALLAST
M/L SWITCH
&
CROSSING
WORK
GEOMETRY
INSPECTION
350 mm
select
crushed
rock
+ 200 mm
sub-ballast
300 mm
shoulders
Premium
rail
Tangential,
spring point
premium
frog
~ 6 months
with profile
monitoring
RAIL
TYPE
Premium
in
tangent
Super
premium
in curves
WEIGHT
136 RE
or
UIC 60
WHEELS
TYPE
PROFILE
Prem HT
curve plate
AAR Class C
1000mm or
equivalent
specifically
designed
(see Part 2,
Section 2.5)
CROSSTIES
FASTENERS
PREM: WOOD
or CONCRETE
MONOBLOC
Nominal Spacing
490mm wood
600 mm
concrete
BOGIES
Improved
Standard 3piece or selfsteering
ELASTIC
curves
Elastic or
spikes
tangent
limit hollow
wear to 2 mm
LUBRICATION
WHEEL/RAIL
Curves: Gauge face
<0.25-0.30
Rail head <0.350.40
<0.10-0.15 L-R
Tangent: rail head
>0.35
FLAW
INSPECTION
~6 month
intervals
WEAR
LIMITS
Measure
frequently to
ensure
economic
optimum
TYPE
Standard
tangent
>50 MGT
premium
in curves
WEIGHT
136 RE
or
UIC 60
WHEELS
TYPE
PROFILE
Prem HT
curve plate
AAR Class C
900mm
BALLAST
M/L
SWITCH &
CROSSING
WORK
GEOMETRY
INSPECTION
FLAW
INSPECTION
300 mm
select
crushed
rock
+ 200 mm
sub-ballast
300 mm
shoulders
Premium
rail
Tangential,
spring point
premium
frog
~ 3-6 months
with profile
monitoring
~3 month
intervals
RAIL
specifically
designed
(see Part 2,
Section 2.5)
CROSSTIES
PREM: WOOD
or CONCRETE
MONOBLOC
Nominal Spacing
500mm wood
600 mm
concrete
BOGIES
Improved
Standard 3piece or selfsteering
FASTENERS
ELASTIC
curves
Elastic or
spikes
tangent
limit hollow
wear to 2 mm
LUBRICATION
WHEEL/RAIL
Curves: Gauge face
<0.25-0.30
Rail head <0.350.40
<0.10-0.15 L-R
Tangent: rail head
>0.35
WEAR
LIMITS
Measure
frequently to
ensure
economic
optimum
RAIL
TYPE
Standard
tangent
30-49 MGT
premium
in curves
WEIGHT
136 RE
or
UIC 60
WHEELS
TYPE
PROFILE
Prem HT
curve plate
AAR Class C
900mm
AAR 1B or
equivalent
CROSSTIES
PREM: WOOD
or CONCRETE
MONOBLOC
Nominal Spacing
500mm wood
600 mm
concrete
BOGIES
Improved
Standard 3piece or selfsteering
FASTENERS
ELASTIC
curves
Elastic or
spikes
tangent
BALLAST
300 mm
select
crushed
rock
+ 200 mm
sub-ballast
300 mm
shoulders
M/L
SWITCH &
CROSSING
WORK
Premium
rail
Fixed point
premium
frog
limit hollow
wear to 3 mm
GEOMETRY
INSPECTION
FLAW
INSPECTION
~ 4-6 months
with profile
monitoring
~4 month
intervals
LUBRICATION
WHEEL/RAIL
Curves: Gauge face
<0.25-0.30
Rail head <0.350.40
<0.10-0.15 L-R
Tangent: rail head
>0.35
WEAR
LIMITS
Measure
frequently to
ensure
economic
optimum
RAIL
TYPE
Standard
tangent
20-29 MGT
premium
in curves
WEIGHT
136 RE
or
UIC 60
WHEELS
TYPE
PROFILE
Prem HT
curve plate
AAR Class C
900mm
AAR 1B or
equivalent
CROSSTIES
PREM: WOOD
or CONCRETE
MONOBLOC
Nominal Spacing
500mm wood
600 mm
concrete
BOGIES
Improved
Standard 3piece or selfsteering
FASTENERS
ELASTIC
curves
Elastic or
spikes
tangent
BALLAST
250 mm
select
crushed
rock
+ 100 mm
sub-ballast
300 mm
shoulders
M/L
SWITCH &
CROSSING
WORK
Premium
rail
Fixed point
premium
frog
limit hollow
wear to 3 mm
GEOMETRY
INSPECTION
~ 6 months
with profile
monitoring
LUBRICATION
WHEEL/RAIL
Curves: Gauge face
<0.25-0.30
Rail head <0.350.40
<0.10-0.15 L-R
Tangent: rail head
>0.35
FLAW
INSPECTION
~6 month
intervals
WEAR
LIMITS
Measure
frequently to
ensure
economic
optimum
TYPE
Standard
tangent
>50 MGT
premium
in curves
WEIGHT
132 RE
or
UIC 60
WHEELS
TYPE
PROFILE
Prem HT
curve plate
AAR Class C
900mm
BALLAST
M/L
SWITCH &
CROSSING
WORK
GEOMETRY
INSPECTION
FLAW
INSPECTION
300 mm
select
crushed
rock
+ 100 mm
sub-ballast
300 mm
shoulders
Tangential
Fixed point
frog
~ 3-6 months
with profile
monitoring
~4 month
intervals
RAIL
AAR 1B or
equivalent
CROSSTIES
PREM: WOOD
or CONCRETE
MONOBLOC
Nominal Spacing
500mm wood
600 mm
concrete
BOGIES
Improved
Standard 3piece or selfsteering
FASTENERS
ELASTIC
curves
Elastic or
spikes
tangent
LUBRICATION
WHEEL/RAIL
Curves: Gauge face
<0.25-0.30
Rail head <0.350.40
<0.10-0.15 L-R
Tangent: rail head
>0.35
WEAR
LIMITS
Measure
frequently to
ensure
economic
optimum
30-49 MGT
RAIL
TYPE
Standard
WEIGHT
132 RE
or
UIC 60
WHEELS
TYPE
PROFILE
Prem HT
curve plate
AAR Class C
900mm
AAR 1B or
equivalent
CROSSTIES
PREM: WOOD
or CONCRETE
MONOBLOC
Nominal Spacing
500mm wood
600 mm
concrete
BOGIES
Improved
Standard 3piece or selfsteering
FASTENERS
ELASTIC
curves
Elastic or
spikes
tangent
BALLAST
250 mm
select
crushed
rock
M/L
SWITCH &
CROSSING
WORK
GEOMETRY
INSPECTION
FLAW
INSPECTION
Fixed point
frog
~ 4-6 months
with profile
monitoring
~4 month
intervals
300 mm
shoulders
LUBRICATION
WHEEL/RAIL
Curves: Gauge face
<0.25-0.30
Rail head <0.350.40
<0.10-0.15 L-R
Tangent: rail head
>0.35
WEAR
LIMITS
Measure
frequently to
ensure
economic
optimum
20-29 MGT
RAIL
TYPE
Standard
WEIGHT
132 RE
or
UIC 60
WHEELS
TYPE
PROFILE
Prem HT
curve plate
AAR Class C
900mm
AAR 1B or
equivalent
CROSSTIES
PREM: WOOD
or CONCRETE
MONOBLOC
NOMINAL:
500mm wood
600 mm
concrete spacing
BOGIES
Improved
Standard 3piece or selfsteering
FASTENERS
ELASTIC
curves
Elastic or
spikes
tangent
BALLAST
250 mm
select
crushed
rock
M/L
SWITCH &
CROSSING
WORK
GEOMETRY
INSPECTION
Fixed point
frog
~ 6 months
with profile
monitoring
FLAW
INSPECTION
~6 month
intervals
250 mm
shoulders
LUBRICATION
WHEEL/RAIL
Curves: Gauge face
<0.25-0.30
Rail head <0.350.40
<0.10-0.15 L-R
Tangent: rail head
>0.35
WEAR
LIMITS
Measure
frequently to
ensure
economic
optimum
>50 MGT
RAIL
TYPE
Standard
WEIGHT
115 RE
or
UIC 54
WHEELS
TYPE
PROFILE
Prem HT
curve plate
AAR Class C
830mm
AAR 1B or
equivalent
CROSSTIES
PREM: WOOD
or CONCRETE
MONOBLOC
NOMINAL:
spacing 500mm
wood 600 mm
concrete
BOGIES
Improved
Standard 3piece
FASTENERS
ELASTIC
curves
Elastic or
spikes
tangent
BALLAST
250 mm
select
crushed
rock
M/L
SWITCH &
CROSSING
WORK
GEOMETRY
INSPECTION
FLAW
INSPECTION
Tangential,
Fixed point
frog
~ 6-8 months
with profile
monitoring
~6 month
intervals
300 mm
shoulders
limit hollow
wear to 3 mm
LUBRICATION
WHEEL/RAIL
Curves: Gauge face
<0.25-0.30
Rail head <0.350.40
<0.10-0.15 L-R
Tangent: rail head
>0.35
WEAR
LIMITS
Measure
frequently to
ensure
economic
optimum
30-49 MGT
RAIL
TYPE
Standard
WEIGHT
115 RE
or
UIC 54
WHEELS
TYPE
PROFILE
Prem HT
curve plate
AAR Class C
830mm
AAR 1B or
equivalent
CROSSTIES
WOOD or
CONCRETE
MONOBLOC
NOMINAL:
spacing 500mm
wood 600 mm
concrete
BOGIES
Improved
Standard 3piece
FASTENERS
ELASTIC
curves
Elastic or
spikes
tangent
BALLAST
250 mm
select
crushed
rock
M/L
SWITCH &
CROSSING
WORK
GEOMETRY
INSPECTION
Fixed point
frog
~ 8-10
months
with profile
monitoring
300 mm
shoulders
limit hollow
wear to 3 mm
LUBRICATION
WHEEL/RAIL
Curves: Gauge face
<0.25-0.30
Rail head <0.350.40
<0.10-0.15 L-R
Tangent: rail head
>0.35
FLAW
INSPECTION
~8 month
intervals
WEAR
LIMITS
Measure
frequently to
ensure
economic
optimum
20-29 MGT
RAIL
TYPE
Standard
WEIGHT
115 RE
or
UIC 54
WHEELS
TYPE
PROFILE
Prem HT
curve plate
AAR Class C
830mm
AAR 1B or
equivalent
CROSSTIES
WOOD or
CONCRETE
MONOBLOC
NOMINAL:
spacing 500 mm
wood 600 mm
concrete
BOGIES
Improved
Standard 3piece
FASTENERS
ELASTIC
curves
Elastic or
spikes
tangent
BALLAST
250 mm
select
crushed
rock
M/L
SWITCH &
CROSSING
WORK
GEOMETRY
INSPECTION
Fixed point
frog
~ 8-10
months
with profile
monitoring
250 mm
shoulders
limit hollow
wear to 3 mm
LUBRICATION
WHEEL/RAIL
Curves: Gauge face
<0.25-0.30
Rail head <0.350.40
<0.10-0.15 L-R
Tangent: rail head
>0.35
FLAW
INSPECTION
~8-10
month
intervals
WEAR
LIMITS
Measure
frequently to
ensure
economic
optimum
>50 MGT
RAIL
TYPE
Premium
WEIGHT
136 RE
or
UIC 60
WHEELS
TYPE
PROFILE
Prem HT
curve plate
AAR Class C
1000mm
specifically
designed
CROSSTIES
PREM: WOOD
or CONCRETE
MONOBLOC
NOMINAL:
spacing 500 mm
wood 600 mm
concrete
BOGIES
Improved
Suspension
standard 3piece
FASTENERS
ELASTIC
or dog
spike
BALLAST
350 mm
select
crushed
rock
+200 mm
sub-ballast
250 mm
shoulders
M/L
SWITCH &
CROSSING
WORK
GEOMETRY
INSPECTION
FLAW
INSPECTION
Premium
rail
tangential,
movable
point frog
~ 3-6 months
with profile
monitoring
~3 month
intervals
limit hollow
wear to 3 mm
LUBRICATION
WHEEL/RAIL
Curves: Gauge face
<0.25-0.30
Rail head <0.350.40
<0.10-0.15 L-R
Tangent: rail head
>0.35
WEAR
LIMITS
Measure
frequently to
ensure
economic
optimum
30-49 MGT
TYPE
Premium
WEIGHT
136 RE
or
UIC 60
WHEELS
TYPE
PROFILE
Prem HT
curve plate
AAR Class C
1000mm
BALLAST
M/L
SWITCH &
CROSSING
WORK
GEOMETRY
INSPECTION
FLAW
INSPECTION
350 mm
select
crushed
rock
+200 mm
sub-ballast
250 mm
shoulders
Premium
rail
tangential,
spring point
premium
frog
~ 4-6 months
with profile
monitoring
~4 month
intervals
RAIL
specifically
designed
CROSSTIES
PREM: WOOD
or CONCRETE
MONOBLOC
NOMINAL:
spacing 500 mm
wood 600 mm
concrete
BOGIES
Improved
Suspension
standard 3piece
FASTENERS
ELASTIC
or dog
spike
limit hollow
wear to 3 mm
LUBRICATION
WHEEL/RAIL
Curves: Gauge face
<0.25-0.30
Rail head <0.350.40
<0.10-0.15 L-R
Tangent: rail head
>0.35
WEAR
LIMITS
Measure
frequently to
ensure
economic
optimum
20-29 MGT
TYPE
Premium
WEIGHT
136 RE
or
UIC 60
WHEELS
TYPE
PROFILE
Prem HT
curve plate
AAR Class C
1000mm
BALLAST
M/L
SWITCH &
CROSSING
WORK
GEOMETRY
INSPECTION
350 mm
select
crushed
rock
+200 mm
sub-ballast
250 mm
shoulders
Premium
rail
spring point
premium
frog
~ 6 months
with profile
monitoring
RAIL
specifically
designed
CROSSTIES
PREM: WOOD
or CONCRETE
MONOBLOC
NOMINAL:
spacing 500 mm
wood 600 mm
concrete
BOGIES
Standard 3piece or
Improved
Suspension
standard 3piece
FASTENERS
ELASTIC
or dog
spike
limit hollow
wear to 3 mm
LUBRICATION
WHEEL/RAIL
Curves: Gauge face
<0.25-0.30
Rail head <0.350.40
<0.10-0.15 L-R
Tangent: rail head
>0.35
FLAW
INSPECTION
~6 month
intervals
WEAR
LIMITS
Measure
frequently to
ensure
economic
optimum
>50 MGT
TYPE
Standard
in
tangent
Premium
in curves
WEIGHT
136 RE
or
UIC 60
WHEELS
TYPE
PROFILE
Prem HT
curve plate
AAR Class C
1000mm
BALLAST
M/L
SWITCH &
CROSSING
WORK
GEOMETRY
INSPECTION
FLAW
INSPECTION
300 mm
select
crushed
rock
+200 mm
sub-ballast
250 mm
shoulders
Premium
rail
tangential,
spring point
premium
frog
~ 4-6 months
with profile
monitoring
~4 month
intervals
RAIL
specifically
designed
CROSSTIES
WOOD or
CONCRETE
MONOBLOC
NOMINAL:
spacing 500 mm
wood 600 mm
concrete
BOGIES
Standard 3piece or
Improved
Suspension
standard 3piece
FASTENERS
ELASTIC
or dog
spike
limit hollow
wear to 3 mm
LUBRICATION
WHEEL/RAIL
Curves: Gauge face
<0.25-0.30
Rail head <0.350.40
<0.10-0.15 L-R
Tangent: rail head
>0.35
WEAR
LIMITS
Measure
frequently to
ensure
economic
optimum
30-49 MGT
TYPE
Standard
in
tangent
Premium
in curves
WEIGHT
132 RE
or
UIC 60
WHEELS
TYPE
PROFILE
Prem HT
curve plate
AAR Class C
900mm
BALLAST
M/L
SWITCH &
CROSSING
WORK
GEOMETRY
INSPECTION
300 mm
select
crushed
rock
+200 mm
sub-ballast
250 mm
shoulders
Premium
rail
Fixed point
premium
frog
~ 6-8 months
with profile
monitoring
RAIL
AAR 1B or
equivalent
CROSSTIES
WOOD or
CONCRETE
MONOBLOC
NOMINAL:
spacing 500 mm
wood 600 mm
concrete
BOGIES
Standard 3piece or
Improved
Suspension
standard 3piece
FASTENERS
ELASTIC
or dog
spike
limit hollow
wear to 3 mm
LUBRICATION
WHEEL/RAIL
Curves: Gauge face
<0.25-0.30
Rail head <0.350.40
<0.10-0.15 L-R
Tangent: rail head
>0.35
FLAW
INSPECTION
~4-6
month
intervals
WEAR
LIMITS
Measure
frequently to
ensure
economic
optimum
20-29 MGT
TYPE
Standard
WEIGHT
132 RE
or
UIC 60
WHEELS
TYPE
PROFILE
Prem HT
curve plate
AAR Class C
900mm
BALLAST
M/L
SWITCH &
CROSSING
WORK
GEOMETRY
INSPECTION
FLAW
INSPECTION
250 mm
select
crushed
rock
+100 mm
sub-ballast
250 mm
shoulders
Premium
rail
Fixed point
premium
frog
~ 6-8 months
with profile
monitoring
~6 month
intervals
RAIL
AAR 1B or
equivalent
CROSSTIES
WOOD or
CONCRETE
MONOBLOC
NOMINAL:
spacing 500 mm
wood 600 mm
concrete
BOGIES
Standard 3piece or
Improved
Suspension
standard 3piece
FASTENERS
ELASTIC
or dog
spike
limit hollow
wear to 3 mm
LUBRICATION
WHEEL/RAIL
WEAR
LIMITS
Lubrication as
required where
appropriate on curves
Measure
frequently to
ensure
economic
optimum
>50 MGT
TYPE
Standard
in
tangent
Premium
in curves
WEIGHT
115 RE
or
UIC 54
WHEELS
TYPE
PROFILE
Prem HT
curve plate
AAR Class C
900mm
BALLAST
M/L
SWITCH &
CROSSING
WORK
GEOMETRY
INSPECTION
300 mm
select
crushed
rock
+100 mm
sub-ballast
250 mm
shoulders
Tangential
Fixed point
frog
~ 6-8 months
with profile
monitoring
RAIL
AAR 1B or
equivalent
CROSSTIES
WOOD or
CONCRETE
MONOBLOC
NOMINAL:
spacing 500 mm
wood 600 mm
concrete
BOGIES
Standard 3piece or
Improved
Suspension
standard 3piece
FASTENERS
ELASTIC
or dog
spike
limit hollow
wear to 4 mm
Periodic manual
monitoring
FLAW
INSPECTION
~4-6
month
intervals
LUBRICATION
WHEEL/RAIL
WEAR
LIMITS
Lubrication as
required where
appropriate on curves
Measure
frequently to
ensure
economic
optimum
30-49 MGT
RAIL
TYPE
Standard
WEIGHT
115 RE
or
UIC 54
WHEELS
TYPE
PROFILE
Prem HT
curve plate
AAR 1B or
AAR Class C
equivalent
900mm or
equivalent
CROSSTIES
WOOD or
CONCRETE
MONOBLOC
NOMINAL:
spacing 500 mm
wood 600 mm
concrete
BOGIES
Standard 3piece
FASTENERS
ELASTIC
or dog
spike
BALLAST
250 mm
select
crushed
rock
M/L
SWITCH &
CROSSING
WORK
GEOMETRY
INSPECTION
FLAW
INSPECTION
Fixed point
frog
~ 6-8 months
with profile
monitoring
~6 month
intervals
250 mm
shoulders
LUBRICATION
WHEEL/RAIL
Lubrication as
required where
appropriate on curves
WEAR
LIMITS
Measure
frequently to
ensure
economic
optimum
20-29 MGT
RAIL
TYPE
Standard
WEIGHT
115 RE
or
UIC 54
WHEELS
TYPE
PROFILE
Prem HT
curve plate
AAR 1B or
AAR Class C
equivalent
900mm or
equivalent
CROSSTIES
WOOD or
CONCRETE
MONOBLOC
NOMINAL:
spacing 520 mm
wood 630 mm
concrete
BOGIES
Standard 3piece
FASTENERS
ELASTIC
or dog
spike
BALLAST
250 mm
select
crushed
rock
M/L
SWITCH &
CROSSING
WORK
GEOMETRY
INSPECTION
FLAW
INSPECTION
Fixed point
frog
~ 6-8 months
with profile
monitoring
~6 month
intervals
250 mm
shoulders
LUBRICATION
WHEEL/RAIL
Lubrication as
required where
appropriate on curves
WEAR
LIMITS
Measure
frequently to
ensure
economic
optimum
>50 MGT
RAIL
TYPE
Standard
WEIGHT
115 RE
or
UIC 54
WHEELS
TYPE
PROFILE
Prem HT
curve plate
AAR 1B or
AAR Class C
equivalent
830mm or
equivalent
CROSSTIES
WOOD at
610mm
CONCRETE
MONOBLOC
at 680 mm
BOGIES
Standard 3piece
FASTENERS
ELASTIC
or dog
spike
BALLAST
250 mm
select
crushed
rock
M/L
SWITCH &
CROSSING
WORK
GEOMETRY
INSPECTION
FLAW
INSPECTION
Fixed point
frog
~ 6-8 months
with profile
monitoring
~6 month
intervals
250 mm
shoulders
LUBRICATION
WHEEL/RAIL
Lubrication as
required where
appropriate on curves
WEAR
LIMITS
Measure
frequently to
ensure
economic
optimum
30-49 MGT
RAIL
TYPE
Standard
WEIGHT
115 RE
or
UIC 54
WHEELS
TYPE
PROFILE
Prem HT
curve plate
AAR Class C
830mm
AAR 1B or
equivalent
CROSSTIES
WOOD at
610mm
CONCRETE
MONOBLOC
at 680 mm
BOGIES
Standard 3piece
FASTENERS
ELASTIC
or dog
spike
BALLAST
250 mm
select
crushed
rock
M/L
SWITCH &
CROSSING
WORK
GEOMETRY
INSPECTION
Fixed point
frog
~ 8-10
months
with profile
monitoring
250 mm
shoulders
LUBRICATION
WHEEL/RAIL
Lubrication as
required where
appropriate on curves
FLAW
INSPECTION
~8 month
intervals
WEAR
LIMITS
Measure
frequently to
ensure
economic
optimum
20-29 MGT
RAIL
TYPE
WEIGHT
Standard
115 RE
UIC 54
WHEELS
TYPE
Prem HT
curve plate
AAR Class
C 830mm
PROFILE
AAR 1 B
CROSSTIES
WOOD at
610 mm
Monobloc
CONCRETE
at 680 mm
BOGIES
Standard 3piece
FASTENERS
Dog spike or
ELASTIC
BALLAST
250 mm
depth with
250 mm
shoulders
M/L
SWITCH &
CROSSING
WORK
GEOMETRY
INSPECTION
fixed point
frog
once per
year
RAIL
Establish good
profile to start and
then periodic
maintenance with
manual
measurements and
inspection
LUBRICATION
WHEEL/RAIL
lubrication as required
where appropriate on
curves
FLAW
INSPECTION
once per
year
WEAR
LIMITS
5.1
o 5-2 x
o 5-3 x
o 5-4 x
end objective and the role of each of the elements. This will
undoubtedly require some education of track managers
through senior engineering managers of such aspects as role of
rail and wheel profile designs, fatigue mechanisms, and wear
rates.
5.2
5.2.1
21%
17%
13%
12%
4%
3%
3%
Worn Rail
Head and Web Seperation (inside joint)
Mismatched Rail-head Contour
2%
1%
1%
1%
o 5-6 x
o 5-7 x
o 5-8 x
o 5-9 x
o 5-10 x
o 5-11 x
o 5-12 x
4.83 K
b
I C 1.38 T 6.46
(1)
Where:
K
o 5-14 x
o 5-15 x
( 1)
(2)
= Shape parameter
= Location parameter
= Scale parameter
o 5-16 x
R(T ) = e
(3)
=1 e
(4)
1 F (T ) = e
1
=e
1 F (T )
ln
T
1
=
1 F (T )
1
= ln (T ) ln ( )
ln ln
F
T
1
(
)
(5)
( 1)
(6)
o 5-17 x
o 5-18 x
Tonnage
(mgt)
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
5
8
4
8
4
6
5
9
8
0.25
0.65
0.85
1.25
1.45
1.75
2.00
2.45
2.85
5
13
17
25
29
35
40
49
57
Tonnage (mgt)
Y = ln ln
1 F ( MGT )
x = ln (Tonnage)
o 5-19 x
Constant
-8.50235
0.088236
0.991049
No. of Observations 9
Degrees of Freedom 7
X Coefficient(s)
1.207463
0.043373
= 8.502351 (Constant)
ln
= 7.041499
= 1143.099
From Table 5.2 the values of the Weibull parameters were
obtained:
= 1143.1
= 1.207
=0
Using the Weibull parameters obtained above the
following typical calculations are now possible:
Reliability at certain life
T
R (T ) = e
2 000 0
R (2 000) = e
1143.1
R (2 000) = 0.14 = 14%
1.207
o 5-20 x
( 1)
(1.207 1)
1.207 1500 0
1143.1 1143.1
= 0.00111 failures / defects per MGT per km
(1500) =
4.5
= 90%
5.0
T
= 1 e
1.207
2280 0
= 1 e
1143.1
o 5-21 x
o 5-22 x
Advantages are:
Less sophisticated equipment means lower capital
cost.
Disadvantages are:
Higher productivity.
In some territories, signal systems will not allow railbound equipment to back up, leaving a long walk if
immediate verification is required.
Disadvantages are:
o 5-23 x
o 5-24 x
o 5-25 x
beams descend the web, and cannot radiate out from that path,
there are zones in the rail foot hat are not tested by the
ultrasonic method.
The passage of the ultrasonic energy is not as clean as one
would like. In particular, there is a disturbed zone of about 10
mm at the interface between the probe and the rail. The
passage from one medium to the other is assured by a film of
water that acts as a couplant. Nevertheless, the first several
millimetres of the entry into the rail cannot be exploited.
Other parasite effects occur also. Thus the first stage in the
recovery of the test information is to filter the returning energy
to remove the misleading effects. The second stage is to set
adjustable gates to select the areas in the rail that are of
interest.
At this point, the energy reflected can be visualized on a
cathode ray oscilloscope, an illustration referred to a an A-scan.
Defects will be recognizable from a set shape of the
oscilloscope trace. They are said to have a signature.
In principle, this information suffices to locate potential
defects. In practice, the traces are lively and require great
attention for interpretation, and there are simultaneously
several channels of information for each rail. The problem is
now one of information technology to assure the recognition
of potential defects among the mass of tested data that will
flow through the system. For example, some 10 information
points are generated every few millimetres along the rails, while
travelling at 15 25 km/hr. Another visual aid may be a
pictogram. Known as a B-scan, this is a picture of a rail
section, with diode lights or computer graphics given a "quick
glance view of suspicious echoes. An audio tone signal can
give a supplementary indication.
All of the above indications are usually presented to the
operator in real time, but are usually stored on a multi-channel
line recorder for later consultation in cases of controversial
findings.
o 5-26 x
o 5-27 x
o 5-28 x
head-web fillet area. Flaws larger than 65% of the head area
are therefore characteristically undersized. This can be
counteracted to some degree by the addition of 70 degree
probes on field and gauge side, but the lateral separation of
such probes is constrained by the possibility of taking air
when encountering a severely worn rail gauge corner.
o 5-29 x
o 5-30 x
o 5-31 x
o 5-32 x
Defect Type
Defective welds
Plant Welds (Head)
Category
II
5-10%
65%
55%
11-20%
21-40%
85%
90%
75%
85%
41-80%
98%
95%
81-100%
10-20%
99%
65%
99%
55%
21-40%
85%
75%
41-80%
95%
85%
81-100%
3-5%
6-10%
11-20%
98%
65%
75%
85%
95%
65%
75%
21-40%
90%
85%
41-80%
95%
95%
81-100%
99%
99%
12-25 mm
75%
65%
25-50 mm
95%
90%
more than 50 mm
99%
95%
5-10%
75%
65%
11-20%
80%
70%
21-40%
85%
80%
41-80%
95%
90%
81-100%
99%
95%
12-25 mm
75%
65%
25-50 mm
90%
85%
more than 50 mm
99%
95%
50-100 mm long
80%
70%
100 mm - 1 m
95%
95%
more than 1 m
99%
99%
50-100 mm
95%
99%
mm any
Any size with non vertical orientation,
evidence of bulged web or progression into weld.
Web Defects in
Joint Area *
eg. bolt hole crack
head and web separation
85%
85%
90%
95%
75%
12-25 mm
75%
65%
25-50 mm
75%
65%
85%
50-100 mm
90%
more than 100
99%
99%
mm more than halfway through the web.
* defects must have progressed
o 5-33 x
o 5-34 x
detector car would pass over the defect identified with the
asterisk at the time when it would cover 23% of the railhead.
According to AREA specs in Table 5.3, it would have a 90%
chance of detecting and marking this defect for removal. If the
defect were missed and the flaw detector care were to again
pass over the site at 13 million gross ton (15 mgt), the flaw
would now cover 55% of the railhead and should be detected
with 98% probability. The net probability of detecting this
particular defect before it reaches the 60% size is therefore
calculated as 0.90 + 0.10 (.98) = 0.998. Of course, this makes
the perhaps gross assumption that there is no particular
recurring condition that is preventing detection.
Using this same methodology, one can calculate the net
effect of different test intervals on the probability that one of
these defects will reach the 60% level before being detected
and marked for removal. Using the AREA Minimum
Performance Guideline as an assessment of the typical
detection performance of the test car, the results shown in
Table 5.4 are obtained for the year.
Table 5.4: Effect of Test Interval on Expected Number of
Undetected Defects in a Hypothetical 20 km Line with
Transverse Defect Growth Rates as Measured in the FAST
Heavy Tonnage Loop
Test Interval
Expected No. of Defects that
will reach the 60% Level
Undetected
36 mgt (40 mgt)
11
0.700
0.234
4 mgt (5 mgt)
0.004
o 5-35 x
40 mgt
20 mgt
10 mgt
5 mgt
o 5-36 x
o 5-37 x
o 5-38 x
o 5-39 x
o 5-40 x
o 5-41 x
annual
Hazardous
Materials
Hazardous
Materials
2/yr.
< 50 kg/m
Service/detected
ratio > 0.2
3/yr.
o 5-43 x
o 5-44 x
o 5-45 x
o 5-46 x
optical
encoders
l
magnetic
wheel
profile
o 5-47 x
o 5-48 x
o 5-49 x
o 5-50 x
o 5-51 x
o 5-52 x
o 5-53 x
o 5-54 x
o 5-55 x
o 5-56 x
o 5-57 x
o 5-58 x
o 5-59 x
o 5-60 x
o 5-61 x
Figure 5.26: Removal of field side metal from curve low leg
reduces eccentric loading of rail
o 5-62 x
o 5-63 x
o 5-64 x
o 5-65 x
o 5-66 x
o 5-67 x
o 5-68 x
o 5-69 x
o 5-70 x
If Desired to:
Far Field
Near Field
Center
Near gauge
Mid gauge
o 5-71 x
o 5-72 x
o 5-73 x
o 5-74 x
o 5-76 x
o 5-77 x
o 5-78 x
HIGH RAIL
OLD
NEW
H4
H4
H4
H3
H2
TT
H3
H2
H2
H1
TT
TT
LOW RAIL
CURVATURE GAUGE
3.5
3.5
3.5
<3.5
<1.5
o 5-79 x
> 25 mm
< 13 mm
< 13 mm
< 13 mm
All
NEW
L3
L2
L1
TT
TT
o 5-80 x
o 5-82 x
o 5-83 x
o 5-84 x
(a)
(b)
o 5-85 x
rail life. The L10 will be applied to all low rails of mild and
sharp curves, rather than the three profiles currently used.
Figure 5.40: A Comparison of the New L10 and Previous NRCL2 Rail Templates
o 5-86 x
o 5-87 x
Grinding Patterns
Implementation of the optimal metal removal rate requires
accurate knowledge of the metal removal for each grinding
pattern at various grinding speeds. Todays high production
equipment regularly grind track in the preventive mode at
speeds ranging from 9.6 to 22.4 kph (6 to 14 mph). Data
collected is utilized in a table for each pattern giving the
maximum grinding speed to ensure the optimal metal removal
rate. These maximum grinding speeds are carried out on all
grinding territories.
These patterns were fine-tuned when created to match the
existing rail condition to the new NRC BAR Gauge profiles.
As grinding machine configurations changed over the years,
the patterns were automatically mapped to the new equipment
configurations, introducing minor variations from the original
pattern at each iteration. The typical rail shape also changed
over time due to changing traffic, loads and wheel profiles.
The two factors combined to result in patterns which often
exhibited ridges at various locations on the rail surface, and
were not well suited to meeting the rail profiles desired.
A redesign of the grinding patterns is necessary to improve
the efficiency of the preventive grinding strategy. Rail and
profile specific patterns concentrate the metal removal where it
is needed most to address profile and rail surface conditions
without wasted metal removal on areas of the rail which dont
need it. Improved patterns also reduce crack growth rates
through closer conformance to the desired profile and better
geometric smoothness.
5.4.1.8
o 5-88 x
o 5-89 x
Corrective Grinding
Grinding frequency
Sharp curves
Mild curves
Tangent track
Grinding speed
Grinding passes
3 to 9
Characteristics
usually out-of-face
5.4.1.9
o 5-90 x
o 5-91 x
o 5-92 x
o 5-93 x
o 5-94 x
o 5-95 x
o 5-96 x
o 5-97 x
There are gaps in the rail surface that are not being
ground. This indicates some grinding wheels are not
working.
There are sharp ridges left after grinding. This indicates
that some stones are not working or grinding angle
positions are not correct.
Some grinding facets have grinding marks diagonal to the
rail or in line with the rails longitudinal axis. This
indicates that an inoperative stone is being dragged or that
it is not positioned laterally and is grinding outside of its
inside diameter.
There are extensive black marks on the rail. This indicates
overheating of the rail. Consistent brown or black marks
may indicate excessive downward pressure on the motor.
The rail surface finish consistently shows deeper scratch
marks that are still in evidence on the contact band within
1 2 weeks of the grind.
The rail surface shows evidence of gauges due to a
grinding carriage miss-adjustment, causing contact of the
corner of the grinding stone with the rail.
o 5-99 x
5.4.2.1
o 5-100 x
o 5-101 x
o 5-102 x
o 5-103 x
o 5-104 x
For example,
if the reliability,
then,
o 5-105 x
o 5-106 x
o 5-107 x
= 863 mm (new)
Minimum diameter
= 812 mm (min)
= 25.5 mm
= 915 mm (new)
Minimum diameter
= 870 mm (min)
= 22.5 mm
typical rail grinding standards which call for grinding when the
low rail becomes too flat. TTCIs survey of 6,500 wheels
found that 6% had more than 3mm of wheel tread hollowing.
They also predicted that wheel with 3 or more mm (> 0.12 in.)
of wheel hollowing had a large effect on train resistance and
hence fuel consumption, and imparted higher forces in tangent
and low curvature track, and truing at this point was a net
positive cost. A large cost of damage to special track work is
also speculated due to the high stress impacts of the wheels
false flange. Inclusion of wheel hollowing as a wheel
maintenance standard is being pursued by TTCI through the
AAR.
o 5-111 x
o 5-112 x
o 5-113 x
o 5-114 x
o 5-115 x
o 5-116 x
o 5-117 x
o 5-118 x
(a)
(b)
Tread Width
Vertical
Flange Height
3/8
(c)
Flange
Thickness
(e)
(d)
Rim
Thickness
(f)
Figure 5.58: Wheel Wear Parameters
o 5-119 x
with the tread and then subtracting the outside flange, see
Figure 5.58(e).
The WheelScan also computes the rim thickness by
locating the most extreme point on the digital rim data. Using
the vertical component of the wheels centerline, it computes
the rim thickness, see Figure 5.58(f).
5.6.2
o 5-120 x
o 5-121 x
o 5-122 x
o 5-123 x
5.6.2.4
o 5-124 x
o 5-125 x
o 5-126 x
o 5-127 x
5.7.4
o 5-128 x
o 5-129 x
5.7.5
o 5-130 x
o 5-131 x
o 5-132 x
o 5-133 x
o 5-134 x
o 5-135 x
o 5-137 x
o 5-138 x
o 5-139 x
Locomotive bogie wheel base; the longer the wheel base the
more likely that the wheel of the locomotive will contact the
rail.
Speed of the train; as the speed of the train increases, the
dynamic forces created by the train also increase, which
adversely affects the lubrication distribution.
Angle of attack between the wheel flange and rail; the
angle of attack determines the forces acting on the grease film
applied on the rail. The more acute the angle, the higher the
lateral forces.
Miss-aligned and skew bogies; tests indicate that significant
additional train resistance is generated by trucks with
misaligned bogies and axles, mainly on tangent track. It was
reported that a misalignment of 4 mrad could double the
rolling resistance of a truck on tangent track. Canadian Pacific
reported an average misalignment of 1 mrad on all bogies
(trucks). Thus bogie conditions should be considered.
Braking of the train; the application of brakes on the train
causes the wheels to heat up and the grease is burnt off where
severe braking takes place. In areas where this happens the
distance between wayside lubricators should be reduced.
5.7.9
o 5-140 x
11E
7E1
7E3
28
21
21
Distance between
Outer Wheels of Truck (m)
4.4
4.4
4.06
o 5-141 x
Figure 5.70
o 5-142 x
Figure 5.71
o 5-143 x
o 5-144 x
o 5-145 x
o 5-146 x
Adjust lubrication
Adjust cant
Re-gauge
Transpose rail
o 5-147 x
o 5-148 x
o 5-149 x
Figure 5.74: Maximum von Mises Stress for all Load Cases vs.
Total/Combined Railhead Wear for 115 lb/yd RE Rail
exclusion are plotted against the former rail wear limits used by
CPR and BC Rail.
o 5-151 x
Figure 5.76: Rail Management Decision Zones for 68 kg/m (136 lb. RE)
o 5-152 x
o 5-153 x
o 5-154 x
o 5-155 x
o 5-156 x
o 5-157 x
5.8.1.5 Transposition
Rail transposition can be an economical practice in some lines.
The range of situations where it is beneficial is becoming
increasingly restricted with effective lubrication and use of
steerable bogies. On the other hand, modern rail profiling has
reduced past problems with poor profiles for rails moved from
high to low leg positions and vice versa, as well as the contact
fatigue problems attending redirection of the plastic flow. A
stress analysis on transposed rail (Igwemezie, 1993) showed
that it is beneficial to transpose only if the gauge face wear is
considerably greater than the vertical wear. Referring again to
Table 5.13, this should not be the case except for very sharp
curves.
Figure 5.81 shows the results of the stress analysis for 115
RE (57 kg/m) rail. In Figure 5.81, the von Mises stress
increases from 156 MPa (23 ksi) when the rail is new to 345
MPa (50 ksi) with 22 mm of total wear, comprised of 11 mm
vertical wear and 11 mm gauge face wear. If the rail were to be
set down to the low rail position at point B, i.e. with 7 mm of
vertical wear and 7 mm of gauge face wear, the rail in the low
rail position would jump up to position D and continue along
to point E. This would represent a stress level in the zone of
influence of 283 MPa (41 ksi). In the low rail position, the rail
would reach the 345 MPa (50 ksi) stress threshold after an
additional 6 mm of vertical wear. The total wear on the rail if
it were left to run to maximum wear limits in its original
position is therefore 22 mm, which is greater than the 20 mm
total wear for the transposed rail.
o 5-158 x
Figure 5.81: Maximum von Mises Stress vs. Total Wear for
Transposed 57 kg/m (115 lb/yd) Rail
o 5-159 x
o 5-160 x
o 5-161 x
o 5-162 x
o 5-163 x
Wheel profiles
Impact limits
2. Track
Rail gauge
o 5-164 x
Rail hardness
Rail profiles
o 5-165 x
Acknowledgements
Most of the content of this chapter is based on course notes
(Rail/Wheel Interaction and Metallurgy) presented as part of the
Chair in the Railway Engineering Program at the University of
Pretoria. Additional inputs were also received from Peter Sroba and
Eric Magel, Canadian Centre for Surface Transportation Technology,
Johan Marais, Principal Engineer, Spoornet, Michael D. Tomas,
Senior Technologist, Spoornet, Daniel L. Magnus, KLD Labs
Incorporated, Robin Clark, Sperry Rail Incorporated, John Stanford,
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, Leon Zaayman, Product
Specialist, Plasserail, South Africa, and a number of IHHA and
related publications.
1.
References
Railroad Safety Statistics, Annual Report 1999, US
Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad
Administration, August 2000.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
o 5-166 x
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
o 5-167 x
18.
H. Hne Rectification of Rail Profiles on the SishenSaldanha Iron-Ore Export Line with the Rail Planing
Machine, International Heavy Haul Association, Special
Technical Session, Moscow Russia, July 1999.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
o 5-168 x
30.
31.
o 5-169 x
GLOSSARY
Association of American Railroads (AAR) An industry
association whose responsibilities include safety standards
(including design standards and approval), maintenance,
operations, service and repair standards, and car service rules.
AAR Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices
(MSRP) Publication containing the technical specifications
Acceleration Rate of change of speed miles per hour (change)
per second or miles per hour per minute.
Adhesion Coefficient of friction between wheel and rail for
acceleration and retardation. When this force is exceeded,
wheel slipping or sliding takes place.
Adhesion Coefficient The percent of the total weight on the
driving wheels of a locomotive that is available for traction. It is
largely dependent on the condition of the rail, and can vary from
a low of 10% (.10) on wet rail to a high of 40% (.40) on dry
sanded rail. Average coefficient of adhesion is about 0.25.
Adhesion Limited Speed A speed at which adhesion (friction)
between wheel and rail limits the acceleration possible from the
available locomotive tractive effort horsepower. Attempting
greater acceleration causes the locomotive wheels to slip.
Adhesion (of Drivers) A measure of the ability of locomotive
driving wheels to accept rotational force without slipping on rails,
usually expressed as a percent of the total weight on the drivers.
Alignment The position of track in the horizontal plane
expressed as tangent or curve.
Alloy Steel Steel with added silicon, manganese, nickel, or
other elements to give greater strength, or to impart other
desirable properties for a particular use.
o G-1 x
o G-2 x
o G-3 x
o G-4 x
o G-5 x
o G-6 x
o G-7 x
o G-8 x
o G-9 x
o G-10 x
o G-11 x
o G-12 x
o G-13 x
o G-14 x
o G-15 x
o G-16 x
o G-17 x
o G-18 x
o G-19 x
o G-20 x
o G-21 x
Spike Any device that fastens a rail, tie plate, switch stand or
other object to a tie.
Spike, Cut A spike consisting of steel nail-like device. The cut
spike has a square shank and a chisel end with the point
perpendicular to the wood fibers, thereby reducing splitting of the
tie during driving of the spike. The head of the spike hooks over
the rail base. In North America, the cut spike is the most
common type of spike in use.
Spike, Drive A spike consisting of round nail-like device with
fluted (thread-like) sides. The drive spike is driven into predrilled holes and used to fasten a variety of items to the track,
such as guard logs, spacing straps, etc. Also called drive lag.
Spike, Screw A spike with a round shank and threads.
Spring A general term referring to a large group of mechanical
devices making use of the elastic properties of materials to
cushion loads or control motion.
Spring Frog A frog without fillers between the frog point and
one wing rail, and with springs holding the wing rail up against
the frog point. Main track traffic travels on the side of the frog
with the uninterrupted surface for the passage of wheels. The
diverging traffic opens the sprung wing rail when each wheel
passes. Spring frogs are right and left-hand depending on which
track requires the unbroken path.
Spring Group Any combination of standardized coil springs
used in each truck side frame, and selected to match car
capacities and obtain desired vertical suspension characteristics.
Cars are often stenciled to show the number of specific springs
of various designations, e.g., 5 D5 outer 3 D5 inner, that make
up the spring group standard to the car.
Spring Nest Two or more coil springs of different diameters,
one fitting inside the other and acting in combination. Truck
springs are commonly made up of standardized outer and inner
coils, nested and arranged in various spring groups.
o G-22 x
Spring Plank A steel plate fitting under each end of the truck
bolster on older trucks to provide a bearing surface for the spring
group.
Spring Seat A cup-shaped piece of cast steel, or cast wrought
iron, on which the bottom of a spring rest. Also called "spring
plate." They are further distinguished by the name of the spring
for which they serve such as bolster spring seat, equalizer spring
seat.
Spring Switch A switch in which the switch rails are connected
to a spring mechanism allowing trains to make a trailing
movement with the switch set in the improper position, thereby
forcing the switch rails back to the original position after the
passage of each wheel. Also called Vaughn Spring Switch,
invented by D.F. Vaughn of the West Jersey and Seashore
Railroad, circa 1880.
Standard Gauge The standard distance between rails of North
American railroads, being 4 feet 8.5 inches measured between
the inside faces of the rail heads.
Stress A term used in engineering to denote force per unit of
area in structural members, expressed commonly in units of
pounds per square inch, (psi). Stresses are classified by the
type of reaction they produce in the fibers of the material they
affect. Tensile stress tends to pull apart, compressive stress
tends to press together, and sheer stress tends to slide parallel
adjacent surfaces against each other in opposite directions.
Stress Relief Commonly used as a synonym for post weld heat
treatment.
Stress Relieving Heating to a suitable temperature, holding
long enough to reduce residual stresses, and the cooling slowly
enough to minimize the development of new residual stresses.
Surface (1) The geometrical condition of the track at the rail
tread over a given distance. Surface is best described as the
smoothness of the track over distances. (2) See Profile.
o G-23 x
o G-24 x
o G-25 x
o G-26 x
o G-27 x
o G-28 x
o G-29 x
o G-30 x
o G-31 x
o G-32 x