Wheel flats can create high-magnitude impact forces at the wheel/rail interface, these can induce high levels of local stress leading to fatigue damage, and failure of various vehicle and track components. With demands for increased load and speed levels, the issue of a strategy for effective maintenance and in-time replacement of defective wheel-flat-containing wheels has become an important concern for heavy haul operators. A comprehensive coupled vehicle/track model is generally used to predict the impact forces and the resulting component stresses in the presence of multiple flats. This paper considers the dynamic impact responses due to the presence of multiple flats. The characteristics of the bounce, pitch, and roll motions of the bogie due to a flat on a single wheel are investigated. The effect of multiple flats on the peak acceleration of a wheel is investigated for different sizes and relative positions of the flats, i.e. in-phase and out-of-phase conditions. This paper further presents the development of a smart wheelset for the detection of wheel flats for two different load conditions; it is based on a derived relationship between the peak wheel acceleration, vehicle speed and flat size.
Ishida M and Ban T. Modeling of the wheel flats for track dynamics. In: The 30th convegno nazionale AIAS, Cagliari, Italy, 12–15 September 2001.
2.
ZhaiWMCaiCBWangQC. Dynamic effects of vehicles on tracks in the case of raising train speed. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail Rapid Transit2001; 215: 125–135.
3.
ZhaiWCaiZ. Dynamic interaction between a lumped mass vehicle and a discretely supported continuous rail track. Comput Struct1997; 63: 987–997.
4.
NewtonSGClarkRA. An investigation into the dynamic effects on the track of wheel flats on railway vehicles. J Mech Engng Sci1979; 21: 287–297.
5.
BaezaLRodaANielsenJCO. Railway vehicle/track interaction analysis using a modal sub-structuring approach. J Sound Vib2006; 293: 112–124.
6.
DukkipatiRVDongR. Impact loads due to wheel flats and shells. J Veh Syst Dyn1999; 31: 1–22.
7.
JohanssonANielsenJCO. Out of round railway wheels, wheel-rail contact forces and track response derived from the field tests and numerical simulation. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail Rapid Transit2003; 217: 135–146.
Cai Z. Modeling of rail track dynamics and wheel-rail interaction. PhD Thesis, Queen’s University, Canada, 1992.
10.
UzzalRUAAhmedWRakhejaS. Analysis of pitch plane railway vehicle-track interactions due to single and multiple wheel flats. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail Rapid Transit2009; 223: 375–390.
11.
SunYQDhanasekarMRoachD. A three-dimensional model for the lateral and vertical dynamics of wagon-track system. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail Rapid Transit2003; 217: 31–45.
12.
ZhuJJAhmedWRakhejaSHuYS. Impact load due to railway wheels with multiple flats predicted using an adaptive contact model. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail Rapid Transit2009; 223: 391–403.
13.
JohanssonAAnderssonC. Out-of-round railway wheels–a study of wheel polygonalization through simulation of three-dimensional wheel–rail interaction and wear. Veh Syst Dyn2005; 43: 539–559.
14.
HouKKalousekJDongR. A dynamic model for an asymmetrical vehicle/track system. J Sound Vib2003; 267: 591–604.
15.
Lonsdale C, Dedmon S and Pilch J. Effects of increased gross rail load on 36-inch diameter freight car wheels. In: Lonsdale C (ed.) Proceedings of the technical conference of the railway wheel manufacture's engineering committee, Chicago, IL, 25–28 September 2001, pp.12–18. Chicago, IL: Railway Wheel Manufacturer's Engineering Committee.
16.
TajaddiniAKalaySF. Time to revise wheel-removal rules? Association of American Railroads regulations. Railway Age1995; 196: 93–98.
17.
SunYQDhanasekarM. A dynamic model for the vertical interaction of the rail track and wagon system. Int J Solids Struct2002; 39: 1337–1359.
18.
Transport Canada. Railway freight car inspection and safety rules. Report TC O-06-1, October 1994. Canada: Transport Canada.
19.
Reilly K. Railway wheelsets. Report, 2003. London, UK: Rail Safety and Standards Board.
20.
Peter H, Joe N and Tom S. Precision train inspection methods – North American adoption of global technology. Report, 2005. Schenectady, NY: General Electric Company.
21.
KenderianSDjordjevicBBCernigliaDGarciaG. Dynamic railroad inspection using the laser-air hybrid ultrasonic technique. Insight2006; 48: 336–341.
22.
Anastasopoulos A, Bollas K, Papasalouros D and Kourousis D. Acoustic emission on-line inspection of rail wheels. Journal of Acoustic Emission 2010; 28: 215.
23.
Svet FA. Technique for the detection of flat wheels on railroad cars by acoustical measuring means. Patent 4129276, USA, 1978.
24.
BelottiVCrennaFMicheliniRCRossiGB. Wheel-flat diagnostic tool via wavelet transform. Mech Syst Signal Process2006; 20: 1953–1966.
25.
Yue J, Qiu Z and Chen B. Application of wavelet transform to defect detection of wheel flats of railway wheels. In: Yuan B and Tang X (eds) Proceedings of the sixth international conference on signal processing, Beijing, China, 26–30 August 2002, pp.29--32. Beijing: IEEE.
26.
ThompsonDWuTX. The effect of non-linearity on wheel/rail impact. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail Rapid Transit2003; 218: 1–15.
27.
Dahlberg T. Dynamic interaction between train and non-linear railway track model. In: Grundmann H and Schueller GI (eds) Proceedings of EURODYN, Munich, Germany, 2–5 September 2002, pp.1155–1160. Munich, Germany: Swets & Zeitlinger.
28.
MallikAKChandraSSinghAB. Steady-state response of an elastically supported infinite beam to a moving load. J Sound Vib2006; 291: 1148–1169.
29.
UzzalRUAAhmedWBhatRB. Dynamic response of a beam subjected to moving load and moving mass supported by Pasternak foundation. J Shock Vib2012; 19: 205–220.
30.
YongCCYangZ. Dynamic responses of a beam on a Pasternak foundation and under a moving load. J Chongqing Univ2008; 7: 311–316.
31.
UzzalRUAAhmedAKWBhatRB. Modeling, validation, and analysis of a three-dimensional railway vehicle-track system model with linear and nonlinear track properties in the presence of wheel flats. J Veh Syst Dyn2013; 51(11): 1695–1721.
