Evaluation of wheel profile measurements by means of the contact-point function for the wheel

Abstract

This study examines the accuracy of a wayside train wheel profile measurement system. This was accomplished by an evaluation of the contact-point function for the wheel–rail interface. The wheel profile measurement system in question generates data about the wheel profiles of passing trains. These data are used for improving the wheel maintenance procedures for the rolling stock operator. Recent work shows that there are differences between the data from the two different units in the system, but how this influences further use of the data, e.g. in wheel–rail contact analysis, has not been investigated so far. Accordingly, this article shows how two key wheel measures (the wheel flange thickness and the wheel profile) impact on the contact-point function and which of these measures has the largest impact on the contact-point function. The data used in this study were generated by two different measurement units for the same wheel and with the same wheel status. The results show that the different units produce different results and that these differences are more prominent when a difference in the flange thickness is detected, with a resulting shift of the front side of the flange and of the tread. With no difference in the flange thickness, i.e. no shift of the front side of the flange and of the tread, a difference was still detected in the contact conditions. Furthermore, this investigation shows that the shape of the tread has a greater impact on the contact-point conditions compared to a change in the flange thickness of up to 2.5 mm. This difference in the tread shape could have originated in measurement noise or different wheel measurement positions. The results of the study also show the importance of managing the measurement quality before using the data, for example for maintenance decisions.

Keywords

Rail wheel interaction railway technology railway wheel simulation wheel–rail contact wheel–rail interaction wheel–rail profiles worn wheel–rail contact

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Söderholm

Norrbin

. Risk-based dependability approach to maintenance performance measurement. J Qual Maint Eng 2013; 19: 1–6.

Lewis

Olofsson

. Wheel-rail interface handbook, Cambridge: Elsevier, 2009.

Nielsen

JCO

Johansson

. Out-of-round railway wheels: a literature survey. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 2000; 214: 79–79.

Asplund

Famurewa

Rantatalo

. Condition monitoring and e-maintenance solution of railway wheels. J Qual Maint Eng 2014; 20: 216–232.

Nielsen

Ch 8: out-of-round railway wheels. In: Lewis

Olofsson

(eds). Wheel-rail interface handbook, Cambridge UK: Woodhead Publishing Limited, 2009; 245–279.

Fröhling

Ekberg

Kabo

. Developing hollow wear limits based on field experience and numerical simulations. In: Proceedings 7th international conference on contact mechanics and wear of rail/wheel systems Brisbane, QLD, Australia, 24–27 September 2016, pp.227–233.

Fröhling

. Analysis of asymmetric wheel profile wear and its consequences. Veh Syst Dyn 2006; 44: 590–600.

Asplund

Gustafsson

Nordmark

et al.

Reliability and measurement accuracy of a condition monitoring system in an extreme climate: a case study of automatic laser scanning of wheel profiles. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 2014; 228: 695–704.

Alemi

Corman

Lodewijks

. Condition monitoring approaches for the detection of railway wheel defects. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit. Epub ahead of print 8 May 2016. DOI: 10.1177/0954409716656218.

10.

Al-Refaie

Bata

. Evaluating measurement and process capabilities by GR&R with four quality measures. Measurement 2010; 43: 842–851.

11.

Asplund

Lin

Rantatalo

. Assessment of the data quality of wayside wheel profile measurements. Int J COMADEM 2016; 9: 119–24.

12.

Lin

Asplund

Parida

. Reliability analysis for degradation of locomotive wheels using parametric Bayesian approach. Qual Reliab Eng Int 2013; 30: 657–667.

13.

Lin

Asplund

. Comparison study of heavy haul locomotive wheels’ running surfaces wearing. Eksploatacja i Niezawodność (Maint Reliab) 2014; 16: 276–287.

14.

Lin

Asplund

Parida

. Bayesian parametric analysis for reliability study of locomotive wheels. In: Reliability and maintainability symposium (RAMS), 2013 proceedings-annual Orlando, USA, 28–31 January 2013; 1–6. New York: IEEE.

15.

Palo

Galar

Nordmark

et al.

Condition monitoring at the wheel/rail interface for decision-making support. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 2014; 228: 705–715.

16.

Asplund

Lin

. Evaluating the measurement capability of a wheel profile measurement system by using GR&R. J Int Meas Confed 2016; 92: 19–27.

17.

Brickle B, Morgan R, Smith E, et al. Identification of existing and new technologies for wheelset condition monitoring. RSSB Report for Task T607. London, UK: Rail Safety and Standards Board, TTCI (UK) Ltd, 2008.

18.

Charles

Goodall

Dixon

. Model-based condition monitoring at the wheel–rail interface. Veh Syst Dyn 2008; 46: 415–430.

19.

CEN, EN 15313. Railway applications – in-service wheelset operation requirements – in-service and off-vehicle wheelset maintenance. Brussels: European Committee for Standardization, 2010.

20.

UIC, 510-2. Trailing stock: wheels and wheelsets. Conditions concerning the use of wheels of various diameters. Paris, France: International Union of Railways, 2004.

21.

Asplund M, Rantatalo M, Johnsson R, et al. Combating curve squeal noise. In: World Congress of railway research, 29 May 2016 to 2 June 2016, Milan, Italy World Congress of railway research, pp.1–7.

22.

Lichtberger B. Track compendium: formation, permanent way, maintenance, economics. Hamburg, Germany: Eurailpress, 2005.

23.

Trafikverket. Track structure – track quality – requirement during construction and maintenance (Banöverbyggnad-Spårläge-krav vid nybyggnad och underhåll. TDOK 2013:0347. Borlänge, Sweden: The Swedish Transport Administration, 2015, pp.1–44.

24.

Fröhling

. Wheel/rail interface management in heavy haul railway operations – applying science and technology. Veh Syst Dyn 2007; 45: 649–677.

25.

Smith

. The wheel–rail interface – some recent accidents. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct 2003; 26: 901–901.

26.

CEN, EN 13674-1:2011. Railway applications – track – rail – part 1: Vignole railway rails 46 kg/m and above. Brussels: European Committee for Standardization.

27.

Barke

Chiu

. Structural health monitoring in the railway industry: a review. Struct Health Monit 2005; 4: 81–94.

28.

Fröhling

Hettasch

. Wheel-rail interface management: a rolling stock perspective. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 2010; 224: 491–497.

29.

Persson I. GENSYS user’s manual, 2016.

30.

LKAB Internal LKAB (MTAB) drawing of wheel profiles WP4 with no: 11128, contact person in LKAB Robert Pallari: robert.pallari@lkab.com.

31.

Andrade

Stow

. Statistical modelling of wear and damage trajectories of railway wheelsets. Qual Reliab Eng Int 2016; 32: 2909–2923.

32.

Polach O. Influence of wheel/rail contact geometry on the behaviour of a railway vehicle at stability limit. In: Proceedings of the ENOC-2005, 2005, pp.7–12. The Netherlands: Eindhoven University of Technology.

Evaluation of wheel profile measurements by means of the contact-point function for the wheel–rail interface

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References