The influence of the initial surface roughness on the wheel–rail contact has been a concern for railway systems especially since the introduction of rail grinding and wheel reprofiling as maintenance strategies. Currently, there are no universally accepted procedures for surface finishing of rails and wheels, so there is a need to keep studying the role of surface topography in reducing the maintenance costs and improving the wheel–rail system's performance. This work studies the evolution of roughness of wheel samples during twin-disc tests performed to simulate wheel–rail contact up to 2.2 × 105 cycles under two different lubrication conditions. The results showed that under dry conditions the surfaces with larger kurtosis at the beginning of the tests had a better response to rolling contact fatigue. Under lubricated conditions, however, the effect of the initial roughness was less significant.
BraghimF, BruniS, LewisR.Railway wheel wear. In: LewisR, OlofssonU, editors. Wheel–rail interface handbook. Cambridge, UK
: Woodhead Publishing; 2009. p. 172–209.
5.
WickensA.Fundamentals of rail vehicle dynamics. 1st edLondon: CRC Press; 2003.
6.
BraghinF, LewisR, Dwyer-JoyceRS, . A mathematical model to predict railway wheel profile evolution due to wear. Wear. 2006;261(11–12):1253–1264. doi:10.1016/j.wear.2006.03.025
7.
EnblomR. On simulation of uniform wear and profile evolution in the wheel-rail contact. Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), 2006.
8.
EadieDTÃ, SantoroM.Top-of-rail friction control for curve noise mitigation and corrugation rate reduction. J Sound Vib2006;293:747–757. doi:10.1016/j.jsv.2005.12.007
9.
WosniackiGG, ZanninPHT.Framework to manage railway noise exposure in Brazil based on field measurements and strategic noise mapping at the local level. Sci Total Environ2021;757:143721. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143721
10.
KapoorA, FranklinFJ, WongSK, . Surface roughness and plastic flow in rail wheel contact. Wear. 2002;253(1–2):257–264. doi:10.1016/S0043-1648(02)00111-4
11.
HardyA.E.J, JonesR.K.K.2004. Rail and wheel roughness - implications for noise mapping based on the Calculation of Railway Noise procedure, Defra EPG 1/2/57.
12.
LewisSR, LewisR, EvansG, . Assessment of railway curve lubricant performance using a twin-disc tester. Wear. 2014;314(1–2):205–212. doi:10.1016/j.wear.2013.11.033
13.
RezendeAB, FonsecaST, FernandesFM, . Wear behavior of bainitic and pearlitic microstructures from microalloyed railway wheel steel. Wear. 2020;456–457(June):203377. doi:10.1016/j.wear.2020.203377
14.
Buckley-JohnstoneL.E, TrummerG, Voltrp, etal. Assessing the impact of small amounts of water and iron oxides on adhesion in the wheel/rail interface using High Pressure Torsion testing. Tribology International. 2019;135:55–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.triboint.2019.02.024.
15.
WhiteBen, LewisRoger.Simulation and understanding the wet-rail phenomenon using twin disc testing. Tribology International. 2019;136:475–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.triboint.2019.03.067.
16.
ZhuYi, OlofssonUlf, SöderbergAnders.Adhesion modeling in the wheel–rail contact under dry and lubricated conditions using measured 3D surfaces. Tribology International. 2013;61:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.triboint.2012.11.022.
ZhuYi.2011. Adhesion in the Wheel-Rail Contact under Contaminated Conditions.Royal Institute of Technology ISBN 978-91-7501-181-3.
19.
ChenH, BanT, IshidaM, etal. Adhesion between rail/wheel under water lubricated contact. Wear. 2002;253(1-2):75–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1648(02)00085-6.
20.
SkipperW.A, NadimiS, ChaliseyA.Particle characterisation of rail sands for understanding tribological behaviour. Wear. 2019;432-433; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2019.202960.
21.
ZapataD, JaramilloJ, ToroA.Rolling contact and adhesive wear of bainitic and pearlitic steels in low load regime. Wear. 2011;271:393–399. doi:10.1016/j.wear.2010.10.009.
22.
AENOR. AENOR, Norma UNE – EN 13674, Railway applications – Track – Rail – Part 1: Vignole railway rails 46 kg/m and above.
23.
AENOR. Norma UNE – EN 13362 Railway applications – Wheelsets and bogies – Wheels – Product requirements.
24.
PetropoulosD, DašićP, VodolazskayaN, . Is the ‘Rk’ group of roughness parameters suitable to describe turned surfaces. International Scientific Conference, 2003, no. 20-21, p. 486–491.
25.
SedlačekM, PodgornikB, VižintinJ.Correlation between standard roughness parameters skewness and kurtosis and tribological behaviour of contact surfaces. Tribol Int2012;48:102–112. doi:10.1016/j.triboint.2011.11.008
26.
GhoshA, SadeghiF.A novel approach to model effects of surface roughness parameters on wear. Wear. 2015;338–339:73–94. doi:10.1016/j.wear.2015.04.022
27.
TayebiN, PolycarpouAA.Modeling the effect of skewness and kurtosis on the static friction coefficient of rough surfaces. Tribol. Int. 2004;37(6):491–505. doi:10.1016/j.triboint.2003.11.010
SedlačekM, PodgornikB, VižintinJ.Influence of surface preparation on roughness parameters, friction and wear. Wear. 2009;266(3–4):482–487. doi:10.1016/j.wear.2008.04.017
30.
ChilamakuriSK, BhushanB.Contact analysis of non-Gaussian random surfaces. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part J J. Eng Tribol.1998;212(1):19–32. doi:10.1243/1350650981541868
31.
GreenwoodJA, WilliamsonJP.The contact of nominally-flat surfaces. Proc R Soc.1966;295:300–319.
Nguyen-SchäferH.Rotordynamics of automotive turbochargers: linear and nonlinear rotordynamics-bearing design-rotor balancing. Heidelberg: Springer; 2012.
35.
GruberP, BrucknerD, HellmichC, . Biomimetics – materials, structures and processes, biological and medical physics, biomedical engineering. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2011.
36.
Maya-JohnsonS, Felipe SantaJ, ToroA.Dry and lubricated wear of rail steel under rolling contact fatigue - wear mechanisms and crack growth. Wear. 2017;380–381:240–250. doi:10.1016/j.wear.2017.03.025
