Mec Fratura Roda Trem Temperatura

Engineering Fracture Mechanics 72 (2005) 163–194
www.elsevier.com/locate/engfracmech
Fracture mechanics in railway applications––an overview

a,*
Uwe Zerbst adler b, Hartmut Hintze
, Katrin M€ b
a
GKSS Research Centre, Institute of Materials Research, Max-Planck-Str., Geesthacht D-21502, Germany
b
DB Systemtechnik, Am S€udtor, Brandenburg-Kirchm€oser D-14774, Germany
Received 11 August 2003; received in revised form 20 October 2003; accepted 4 November 2003
Abstract
This paper gives a general introduction to fracture mechanics application to railway components as well as to the
papers within this special issue. It is preluded by a brief discussion of various fracture control concepts such as safe-life,
fail-safe and damage tolerance. Following this, an introduction to the most important damage tolerance issues of safety
relevant railway components such as axles, wheels and rails is provided.
2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Railway axles; Railway wheels; Rails; Damage tolerance; Fatigue crack extension; Fracture mechanics
1. Introduction
Since its early days the development of railway systems has been an important driving force for tech-
nological progress. From the 1840s onward a dense railroad network was spread all over Europe, America
and other parts of the world. Within a few decades railway became the predominant traffic system carrying
a steadily increasing volume of goods and number of passengers. This rapid development was accompanied
by substantial developments in many areas such as steel production, engine construction, civil engineering,
communication, etc. The stunning progress had, however, also its price. The new railway components were
subjected to loads, which in magnitude as well as in characteristics were completely unknown by that time.
Breaking railway axles, wheels and rails as well as exploding pressure vessels caused accidents with
disastrous consequences for life and property. An early example is shown in Fig. 1 [1]. It was those acci-
dents, which promoted the birth of the new research fields of materials testing and fatigue. In 1848 James
and Galton [2] published results of tests on large iron bars subjected to alternating loads as these were
known from railway axles. They did show that the failure loads were lowered by up to two thirds as
compared to static loading in such cases. A few years later August Wohler started his well-known test series
the results of which were published between 1858 and 1871 (see e.g. [3]). The development of the S–N curve
based fatigue design triggered by these early activities was highly important not only for railway appli-
cations but for engineering in general.
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +49-4152-872-611; fax: +49-4152-872-534.
E-mail address: uwe.zerbst@gkss.de (U. Zerbst).
0013-7944/$ - see front matter 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engfracmech.2003.11.010
164 U. Zerbst et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 72 (2005) 163–194
Nomenclature
a crack depth
a0 initial crack depth (NDI detection limit) for a damage tolerance analysis
c surface crack length of a semi-elliptical surface crack
c0 initial crack length for a damage tolerance analysis
C; n; p; q fit parameters in the NASGRO equation (Eq. (2))
E Young’s modulus
J J -integral
K stress intensity factor (K factor)
KJc fracture resistance of the material formally written in terms of K
Kmax maximum K factor within a load cycle
Kmin minimum K factor within a load cycle
Kop opening stress intensity factor, above which the crack is open
KI mode I stress intensity factor
KII mode II stress intensity factor
KIII mode III stress intensity factor
n0 cyclic strain hardening exponent
N number of applied fatigue cycles
p; q Hertzian pressure
PJ fatigue damage parameter based on the cyclic J -integral DJeff (Eq. (1))
R stress ratio ð¼ Kmin =Kmax Þ
Y geometry function of the stress intensity factor
DK stress intensity factor range (¼ Kmax –Kmin )
DK0 threshold stress intensity factor range
DKeff effective stress intensity factor range (¼ Kmax –Kop Þ
DJeff cyclic J -integral (Eq. (1))
Dr stress range (¼ rmax –rmin )
DrFL fatigue limit (S–N curve concept)
e strain
ecl closure strain, below which the crack is closed
emax maximum strain within a load cycle
r stress
rb bending stress component
rcl closure stress, below which the crack is closed
rm membrane stress component
rmax maximum stress within a load cycle
rmin minimum stress within a load cycle
The problems of the early days of railway technology were overcome long ago. However, increasing
demands for high-speed services and higher axle loads at the turn of the 21st century account for quite
new challenges with respect of material and technology as well as safety issues. It is the aim of this paper
to give a brief overview on crack problems in modern railway systems which can and have to be solved
by fracture mechanics analyses and on various concepts of potential fracture mechanics application in
railway systems.
U. Zerbst et al. / Engineering Fracture Mechanics 72 (2005) 163–194 165
Fig. 1. Derailment in Austria in 1875 due to a broken wheel [1].
2. Fracture control concepts
2.1. Safe-life concepts
2.1.1. The endurance limit concept

Railway components are usually designed for infinite life based on the endurance limit or fatigue limit of
the material first introduced by W€ohler. While this philosophy is in general sufficient, a comparatively small
number of failures occur in practice, a fact that––besides other reasons––is due to limitations and uncer-
tainties of the concept such as
• The number of loading cycles (revolutions) railway components such as axles and wheels experience over
their service time, which is usually a multiple of the 106 –107 cycles realised in a common S–N test. For a
duty of 400,000 km per year, which is typical of high speed railway systems, the number of load cycles of
axles and wheels is about 2 · 108 [6] which refers to the range of so-called giga-cycle fatigue [4,5].
• Complex loading conditions, which are much more stochastic in nature than the hypothetical loads used
in the design rules or even realised in accompanied component testing.
• Deviations from the assumption of component surfaces free of flaws. E.g. Gravier et al. [7] report on
ballast impacts to railway axles which may occur on high speed tracks in particular in snowy seasons,
in tunnels and after track renewal. Such events are seldom but when they occur the consequence can
be sharp angle notches of up to 2 mm in depth. In addition, protective coatings are locally destroyed
this way promoting corrosion damage.
In order to compensate for these uncertainties usually generous safety factors are applied.
2.1.2. Fracture mechanics based fatigue threshold

For understanding the phenomena of fatigue limits it is important to understand, that the initiation
phase of a fatigue crack is in reality a microstructural crack extension phase the growth rate of which is
decreasing with increasing crack size until the crack is arrested at a microstructural barrier such as mis-
oriented slip systems due to grain boundaries, second phases, twin boundaries, etc. Therefore, the fatigue
Fig. 2. Fatigue limit as a function of crack size (Kitagawa diagram).
limit is associated not only with a certain stress level but also with a certain crack length which corresponds
to the distance the crack can growth until it is arrested [8]. For cracks larger than this distance, in Fig. 2
designated by P , the fracture mechanics based fatigue threshold provides a second fatigue limit. Note, that
this limit, too, is caused by the arrest of an originally smaller, extending crack. Both, the endurance limit
and the fatigue threshold can, therefore, be regarded as different states of the fatigue limit controlled by
crack arrest at structural barriers. Note, that overload events may cause the crack to overcome such a
barrier. As the consequence there is a transition from one fatigue limit state to the other and finally to
extended crack growth up to the failure of the component.
Note, that short crack fracture mechanics analyses can be applied to the determination of crack initi-
ation S–N curves. In principle the initial crack size from the manufacturing process can be adjusted such
that the simulated number of load cycles up to a crack extension of 0.5 or 1 mm is identical to that obtained
in the S–N curve. Alternatively, if the initial crack size is known, S–N curves can be predicted not only for
specimens but also for component geometries. The advantage of a fracture mechanics based S–N curve is
that parameters such as the component geometry and the loading type can be treated individually simply by
applying the equations used in the fracture mechanics approach. An example of a short crack fracture
mechanics application to initiation S–N curves is the PJ -parameter [9], which may be interpreted as a
normalized stress amplitude (the ordinate axis in the S–N curve)
2
DJeff ðrmax rcl Þ 1:02 ðrmax rcl Þ
PJ ¼ ¼ 1:24 þ p ffiffiffiffi ðrmax rcl Þ ðemax ecl Þ ð1Þ
a E n0 E
In Eq. (1) E is Young’s modulus, DJeff is the effective range of the short crack J -integral and the terms rmax
and rcl and emax and ecl mark the upper (max) stresses and strains due to the applied load and the crack
closure (cl) stresses and strains, respectively. The symbol n0 designates the cyclic strain hardening exponent.
According to [10] in the aerospace sector the option of replacing the conventional S–N curve approach
by small crack fracture mechanics was recently accepted by NASA for low risk parts. In that special case
semi-circular surface cracks of a depth of about 0.13 mm have been assumed as initial flaws.
2.2. Fail-safe concepts
While safe-life concepts do not allow for any fracture up to the end of service life the fail-safe concepts
allow for local or limited fracture as long as global or catastrophic failure of the overall structure is ex-
cluded. Fail-safe concepts are redundant design (multiple load path), design for crack arrest and design for
leak-before-break. The latter will not be discussed here since its application is limited to pressurised
components.
2.2.1. Redundant design

The key task of a redundant design philosophy is the detection of local damage or partial fracture of one
or more sub-structures. This can be realised in different ways, e.g., by in situ monitoring of the service
operation or by regular inspections. The essential requirement is that the partial failure will be detected
before it can cause significant damage to the whole structure. Frequently, the residual lifetime of the still
intact member will be very limited. In such a case the component must be repaired or retired as soon as
possible. If a limited continued service time is required from a service point of view it has to be guaranteed
that it will not exceed the residual lifetime of the predamaged component, which has to be established by
fracture mechanics analysis.
2.2.2. Design for crack arrest

Another fail-safe concept is design for crack arrest. An extending crack may arrest if the actual crack
driving force decreases with the extending crack, or if the crack advances into a region of increased
crack resistance. As a rule, the decrease in crack driving force is due to certain design features such as crack
stoppers or stress shielding. Thermal or residual stress fields may have a similar effect. If a structure is
cyclically loaded a crack may continue to extend even at load levels below crack arrest, which means that
the structure is safe only for a limited time. During that time span intervention from outside is necessary to
stop the crack before it reaches a new critical size. A fracture mechanics based prediction of crack extension
after the arrest incident is necessary for establishing the residual lifetime.
2.3. Damage tolerance concepts
Within the frame of the damage tolerance concept the possibility of fatigue crack extension is basically
accepted. The aim is to prevent the crack to grow to its critical size during the lifetime of the component.
Different philosophies such as periodic inspections, overload tests or periodic removal of cracks can be
realised within a damage tolerance concept.
2.3.1. Classical damage tolerance concept (periodic inspections)

Periodic non-destructive inspection (NDI) in combination with fracture mechanics analyses forms the
classical damage tolerance concept. Only a brief description of this concept will be given here since a de-
tailed elaboration including a worked example is provided in one of the subsequent papers within this issue
[11]. Classical damage tolerance covers five worksteps:
2.3.1.1. Step (1) Establishment of an initial crack shape and size for the further analysis. Within a damage
tolerance concept the initial crack size, a0 , is not identical to the size of a real flaw, e.g., from the manu-
facturing process but is a fictitious size, which usually refers to the detection limit of the NDI technique.
The basic idea is that the largest crack that could escape detection is presupposed as existent. Note, that
under industrial conditions the NDI detection limit is a statistical quantity rather than a fixed value, i.e., it
refers to that crack size which will be detected with a sufficiently high probability. This is dependent on a
number of factors such as the applied NDI method (visual inspection, ultrasonic testing, magnetic particle
inspection, etc.), the degree of automation, the skill of the operator with respect to the test method and with
respect to the component, redundancy (e.g. two or four eyes testing), the accessibility of the potential defect
site, and the material the component is made of. The initial crack shape (semi-elliptical or semi-circular
surface crack, corner crack, through crack, etc.) is based on experience from experiments or failure
analyses. Note, that the initial crack size as well as the initial crack shape will be of significant influence on
the residual lifetime determined at the subsequent analysis step.
There are few cases where the initial crack is not defined by the NDI capabilities. One example is the
mentioned 2 mm deep sharp angle notches introduced into railway axles by ballast impacts. Since ballast
impacts could happen just after an inspection they have to be handled as not detected and, therefore, the
initial crack depth should be assumed to be not smaller than 2 mm in that case.
2.3.1.2. Step (2) Simulation of sub-critical crack extension. The initial crack can extend due to various
mechanisms such as fatigue, stress corrosion cracking, high temperature creep, or combinations of these
mechanisms. This kind of crack growth is designated as sub-critical since it will not lead to immediate
failure until a critical length of the crack is reached. For railway applications the common mechanism is
fatigue but a possible contribution of corrosion to damage should always be kept in mind. For semi-circular
or semi-elliptical surface cracks, crack extension has to be calculated simultaneously in the thickness
direction and along the surface.
In fatigue, crack extension is expressed as a function of an effective stress intensity range, DKeff , and the
crack extension rate, da=dN , whereby da denotes an infinitesimal crack extension due to an infinitesimal
number of loading cycles, dN . There exist numerous equations for describing the da=dN –DKeff relationship,
which cannot be listed here. An advanced approach is the so-called NASGRO expression (also called
Forman–Newman–de Koning equation) jointly introduced by NASA and ESA [12], which is now common
in aerospace applications
p
DK0
1
da DKeff
¼ C½DKeff
n q ð2Þ
dN Kmax
1
KJ c
n
This equation describes all sections of the da=dN –DKeff diagram (Fig. 3). The term C½DKeff
is fitted to the
data in the so-called Paris range (range 2) where the curve in the double logarithmic plot constitutes a
Range Range Range

(1) (2) (3)
Log da/dN
Paris range
Fatigue threshold
Fracture
Log da/dN
∆Ko Log ∆Keff = Log (Kmax-Kop)
Fig. 3. Fatigue crack extension characteristics based on DKeff .

straight line. Note, that an upper bound to many empirical curves for steel is provided by reference values
to the fit parameters [13]

11 da m pffiffiffiffi
C ¼ 1:6475 10 for in and K in MPa m and
dN cycle
n¼3
The possibility to use reference values for certain material classes such as steels is due to the fact, that
factors such as the mean stress r in a load cycle, the stress ratio R ð¼ rmin =rmax ¼ Kmin =Kmax Þ and the
environment are of minor influence on the curve in range (2). The same is true with respect to the
microstructure of the material. Note, however, that the thresholdpvalue DK0 shows a strong R-dependence.
A conservative threshold value is given in [13] as DK0 ¼ 2 MPa m for steels.
p q
The second and third terms of Eq. (2), ½1 ðDK0 =DKeff Þ
and ½1 ðKmax =KJ c Þ
, are used for describing
range (1) and range (3) of the overall curve in Fig. 3 with DK0 being the fatigue threshold, Kmax the
maximum stress intensity factor in a load cycle, Kmat the crack resistance against fracture and p and q
empirical constants from curve fitting.
The crack closure concept, the effective stress intensity range DKeff is based on as well as the determi-
nation of this parameter is described in detail in [11]. Note, that the application of Eq. (2) is restricted to so-
called ‘‘long cracks’’. For many practical applications ‘‘long cracks’’ refer to cracks larger than about 2 mm.
In practical application, features such as ‘‘short cracks’’, real load spectra rather than constant amplitude
loading, and mixed mode loading of the crack as well as superimposed corrosion often have to be ac-
counted for. In particular variable amplitude loading and mixed mode are common in many railway
applications. Whereas the effect of corrosive environments by now can be addressed only by the individual
determination of da=dN –DKeff curves within the respective media, rules are available for determining the
effective stress intensity range, DKeff , for variable amplitude and mixed mode loading.
2.3.1.3. Step (3) Determination of the critical crack size for component failure. The sub-critical crack
extension is terminated by the failure of the component. This may occur as brittle fracture or as unstable
ductile fracture. Critical states may, however, also be defined by other events such as stable ductile crack
initiation or the break-through of a surface crack through the wall. In many cases the crack extension of
relatively large cracks is so rapid that there is not much difference in residual lifetime if it is––slightly
conservatively––based on an event such as the break-through of a surface crack through the wall, e.g., of a
hollow axle instead of final fracture. Whether this is the case or not has, however, to be ensured as the case
arises. In the proposal in [11] generally the recently developed European flaw assessment procedure SIN-
TAP [14] is used to specify the fracture event in railway components.
2.3.1.4. Step (4) Determination of the residual lifetime of the component. The residual lifetime is that time or
number of loading cycles which a crack needs for extending from the initial crack size, a0 , (step 1) up to the
allowable crack size, ac , established in step (3). As already mentioned, besides all the factors, which affect
the crack extension rate (step 2) the residual lifetime strongly depends on the choice of the initial crack size
and shape (step 1). This is also a crucial point for the final step, the establishment of an inspection plan.
2.3.1.5. Step (5) Establishment of inspection intervals or formulation of demands for non-destructive testing.
The constitution of an inspection plan is the aim of a damage tolerance analysis. From the requirement that
a potential defect must be detected before it reaches its critical size it follows immediately that the time
interval between two inspections has to be smaller than the residual lifetime. Sometimes inspection intervals
are chosen to be smaller than half this time span. The idea is to have a second chance for detecting the crack
prior to failure if it is missed in the first inspection. It is, however, also obvious that frequently even two or
more inspections cannot guarantee the crack being detected since this would require a 100% probability of
1.0
Probability of detection
0.8
0.6
Nondestructive testing procedures

0.4
Magnetic particle inspection
Eddy current
0.2 Ultrasonic testing (high angle scan)
Ultrasonic testing (far end scan)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Crack depth, mm
Fig. 4. Probability of crack detection in a railway axle as a function of the crack size and various methods of non-destructive inspection
[15].
detection. In reality the probability of detection (POD) depends not only on the NDI technique but also on
the actual crack size, as illustrated by the example in Fig. 4.
POD-crack size curves can be used to establish inspection intervals on a statistical basis. The probability
of detection is increasing from inspection to inspection since the crack becomes larger during the time in-
between. In addition, each new inspection increases the cumulative probability of all inspections that the
crack will be found in time. The cumulative probability can easily be determined when the crack size versus
time or cycle dependency (step 2) and the POD-crack size curve for the NDI method are known.
Establishing inspection intervals is essentially a statistical task acting as a link between fracture
mechanics analysis, non-destructive testing and the constraints of industrial practice. It is important to
realise that the cumulative probability of detection depends on both
• the initial crack size which refers to a statistical NDI detection limit under industrial conditions, and
• the inspection interval, i.e., the time span between two inspections.
Therefore, if an operator wants to save expenses by extending inspection intervals he has to improve his
NDI technique having in mind, that this requirement refers to the largest crack that could escape detection
and not to the smallest crack which can be found. Conversely, if the inspection interval is fixed due to
constraints from operation, the relation between crack extension, critical crack size and the given inspection
interval can be used to formulate commitments on minimum requirements for NDI.
Finally it has to be noticed that classical damage tolerance can only be applied if the critical crack size is
large enough to be reliably detected by NDI and if the time span between its potential detection and failure
is large enough to establish a maintainable inspection plan under the constraints of industrial application. If
these conditions are not given alternative versions of damage tolerance such as overload tests or periodic
removal of cracks can be realised.
2.3.2. Overload testing

Periodic overload or proof testing is an alternative damage tolerance concept. A structure is subjected to
overloading as compared to the service conditions. Since this is done in a special proof test facility potential
failure happens in a controlled manner. If the component survives the test, then it is assumed to be safe
under the more moderate design load. The problem of this concept is that the proof test by itself may create
or enforce some damage, e.g., limited crack extension which can cause the load carrying capacity to be
decreased well below the proof test load and even the design load at a later time. To prevent this is the aim
of the accompanied fracture mechanics analysis. A critical crack size is determined according to the
overload, which refers to the maximum crack size that just does not cause fracture during the proof test.
With that value as a potentially existing or initial crack size, a0 , after the overload test the further analysis is
performed as in the case of classical damage tolerance. Fatigue crack extension and failure are determined
as described above for the applied service load. The residual lifetime is, however, not used for establishing
an inspection plan but for determining the time span after which the next overload test has to be carried
out. If the component passes this new test it can be operated for an identical time interval until the next test,
etc. The concept of overload testing is in particular useful in cases where non-destructive testing is not
reliable because of small critical cracks or other factors.
2.3.3. Periodic removal of the crack

Periodic removal of the crack is also an alternative assessment philosophy in cases where the critical
crack size is potentially smaller than realistic detection limits of common NDI techniques. A special
problem is the determination of a representative initial crack size and shape from the manufacturing
process. This information has to be provided experimentally. Since the initial crack size will usually
show a certain scatter band, statistical processing will be necessary in many cases. As in damage tol-
erance, the extension of the initial crack will be simulated until the crack reaches its critical size. The
residual lifetime then defines the time span between the periodic removal of the crack, e.g., by grinding.
The fracture mechanics analysis has to be performed on the basis of elastic–plastic crack tip parameters
such as the J -integral or the CTOD since small cracks are outside the range of applicability of linear
elastic fracture mechanics. An important engineering application could be removal of surface cracks of
railway rails.
2.4. Durability design versus damage tolerance?
Note, that durability design based on the S–N concept and damage tolerance are not in a relation of
competition. In contrast, they form two complementary safety levels with a common aim. Durability design
can be regarded as a basic safety level. There are, however, a few cases where the concept is not sufficient to
prevent the development and extension of fatigue cracks. The aim of damage tolerance as a second safety
level is to hinder those cracks to reach a critical size, which would cause fracture. In common damage
tolerance concepts fracture mechanics is used to establish inspection intervals or to provide non-destructive
testing with information on the crack that has to be detected with high probability.
3. Typical application fields of fracture mechanics concepts in railway technology
3.1. Overview
The following discussion will be restricted to axles, wheels and rails, i.e., railway components the integrity
of which is of highest importance for railway safety. It should be mentioned that beside these components
fatigue problems also occur in bogies, mostly along the welds, in the coupling systems and in components of
the rolling stock such as windows etc. Axles, wheels and rails are safety critical railway components. Usually,
no fail-safe design philosophy is applicable to them.
3.2. Railway axles
3.2.1. Fatigue and fracture of axles

Traditionally, railway axles are designed for infinite life based on the endurance limit of the material.
While this philosophy is in general sufficient a small number of axle failures occur in practice. E.g., Benyon
and Watson [15] report on one to two failures per year on the UK railway network. Smith [6] specifies this
number to 1.6 axles per year over the last 25 years, out of a population of 180,000 axles. In Fig. 5 the
number of locomotive axle failures and replacements of axles of the Japanese railway system are reported
for a time span between 1955 and 1970 [16]. Ultrasonic testing (UT) was introduced in Japan in 1957. Since
1970 the number of axle failures was further reduced by a number of measures and it seems to play not
much a role today, at least in the high-speed railway service [17]. The rejection of 6800 axles due to flaws in
Russia in 1993 is reported in [18]. For a total number of about 2,000,000–2,500,000 axles this referred to an
amount of 0.3%. In order to remove small potential cracks the wheel seats of the axles are ground at regular
intervals in the French high-speed system [17].
Frequently, fatigue cracks initiate in the press fitted parts of the axles by fretting fatigue. Typical sites for
this are the wheel seat and the gear site (Fig. 6). Note, that the initial crack extension rate is very small.
Relative number of replacement, %

Relative number of axle failure, %
15 Failure 15
1957: Introduction of Replacement
ultrasonic testing
1963: Introduction
of angle
10 ultrasonic 10
testing
5 5
0 0
1955 1960 1965 1970
Year
Fig. 5. Number of axle failures in Japan between 1955 and 1970 and counter measures [16].
Fig. 6. Typical positions of crack initiation at a railway axle.

Fig. 7. Typical pattern of fatigue crack extension in a hollow railway axle.
Hirakawa et al. [16] found that it typically took 4 · 108 cycles of rotation or 1.5 · 106 km until the crack
grew to a detectable size. After the fatigue crack has reached a certain size it grows faster but still slow
enough to allow the application of a damage tolerance concept. Besides the press seats fatigue initiation
may take place at other locations such as the transition region between the two principal diameters with the
transition radius being important. But also fracture in the central area of the axles is reported [6]. For a
damage tolerance concept, an example of which is presented in detail in [11] within this issue, the crack
initiation phase does, however, usually not play a role as discussed in Section 2.3.1. Further work on
damage tolerance on axles is reported in [15,17,19–24]. Also within the present issue, Beretta et al. [25]
provide a discussion on the propagation of short cracks in axles with the aim to substantiate a durability
design concept based on the different levels of the fatigue limit mentioned in Section 2.1.
Traditionally, railway axles are designed as solid shafts. However, for high-speed systems it has become
common to make them as hollow shafts in order to safe weight. A typical development of a surface crack is
shown in Fig. 7. Starting as a semi-elliptical or semi-circular surface defect the crack grows into the wall
thereby flattening, i.e., the a=c ratio is decreasing. Usually the axle will not fail immediately when the
surface crack breaks through the wall but the crack will further extend until it reaches its critical depth.
Note, however, that the time from breaking through to global fracture is usually so limited that the exact
knowledge of the final crack size is not particularly important for determining the residual lifetime.
3.2.2. Non-destructive testing of axles

Aside from visual inspection, railway axles have been tested by non-destructive techniques since the
1950s. The methods applied are ultrasonic testing and magnetic particle inspection. Benyon and Watson
[15] report also on measurements with eddy current (see Fig. 4 above). The various railway companies
pursue different concepts with respect of their NDI practice. Japanese Shinkansen axles are inspected for
cracks every 30,000 km regularly, every 450,000 km within the bogie inspection and every 900,000 km in a
general inspection. During the regular inspections the axles remain mounted on the bogie. Ultrasonic
testing is carried out by the normal beam technique for solid axles and by the angle beam technique for
hollow axles. During the bogie and general inspections the axles are dismounted from the bogie and the
Fig. 8. Set-up for automated testing of axles used at DB (Deutsche Bahn).
wheels are removed from the wheel seats. All axles are inspected by the magnetic particle technique.
Exceptions are the gear seats of the driving axles and the break disk seats of the trailing axles, which are
kept fixed and inspected by the near end-low angle beam ultrasonic technique [17].
In the UK, railway axles are subject to ultrasonic inspection after every 200 days of service [6], which
refers to about 240,000 km [15] and to the more sensitive magnetic particle inspection every 800 days [6]. A
special problem is that the regular inspection interval is such that inspections have to be carried out partway
between wheelset overhaul intervals [15]. Since NDI has usually to be done in the train operators’ work-
shops this is time consuming and increases the expenses due to loss of vehicle availability. Smith [6] makes
another point when he refers to the problem that dismantling needed to examine the axles can produce
scratching damage, which subsequently can promote fatigue initiation. At DB (Deutsche Bahn), magnetic
particle inspection is used supplementary when a potential flaw is indicated by ultrasonic testing.
Note, that the non-destructive inspection of axles and other railway components is mainly based on
operators’ experience and oriented at the capability of the test system available. Although it is carried out at
regular intervals, which vary from one vehicle type to another factors such as track quality usually are not
explicitly taken into account. At that background the fracture mechanics approach within the frame of a
damage tolerance concept can provide a physical basis for necessary inspection intervals. In the case of
railway axles fatigue cracks usually grow to a considerable size before fracture. With respect to NDI the
consequence is that it is much more important to find relatively large cracks with sufficient reliability than
to find very small defects. The key parameter is the probability of detection such as shown in Fig. 4. Besides
application of different methods––magnetic particle inspection in addition to ultrasonic testing––this can be
improved by automation of the NDI. A test set-up for automated testing of solid shafts, as it is used at DB,
is shown in Fig. 8 [26,27]. It is based on ultrasonic phased array technique.
3.3. Railway wheels
3.3.1. Fatigue and fracture of wheels

Fatigue crack growth in wheels may lead to the loss of a part of the wheel (spalling) or to radial crack
extension with the consequence of the release of the press fitting between wheel and axle (Fig. 9). The result
can be damage of rails and sleepers or vehicle components or even derailment. With respect of fatigue crack
initiation it has to be distinguished between wheels of block-braked vehicles and wheels of disk-braked
vehicles.
Fig. 9. Examples of radial cracks in wheels of freight cars [49].
3.3.1.1. Initiation of surface cracks in wheels of block-braked vehicles. The initiation of surface cracks in such
wheels is due to cyclic thermal loads, which arise during breaking. The braked wheel tread is subjected to
periodic heating due to friction with the break-shoe and cooling due to rail chilling. An example for such
thermal loading is given in Fig. 10 [28]. Note, that the heating occurs non-uniformly along the circum-
ference of the wheel concentrating in so-called hot spots. At such points the temperature increase can be in
the order up to 540 C [28]. Temperatures even larger than 840 C are reported in [29]. The subsequent rail
contact is characterised by rapid cooling due to high heat transfer. Since the cooling-down is also non-
uniform, large thermal stresses in the wheel rim will be the consequence. Moyar and Stone [30] showed by a
simplified thermo-elastic analysis that the tensile stresses due to this processes can reach peak values as high
as 465 MPa.
High surface tensile stresses, which may cause fatigue initiation at microscopic notches by themselves are
not the only effect of brake heating. Heating episodes followed by rapid cooling can lead to local trans-
formation of the pearlitic to a martensite microstructure, a transformation which is associated with local
thermal expansion of 0.5%. In this way microscopical residual stresses are generated, which in combination
with the subsequent wheel/rail contact may cause surface spalling [31]. The finale result is a network of
small surface cracks, which are mostly being removed by wearing. One or more surface cracks may,
however, extend by fatigue. The effect of martensite transformation is typical of so-called stop braking,
i.e., the braking episode is discontinued [29].
Finally, an effect of brake heating is the generation of residual stress fields in the wheel rim. An example
is shown in Fig. 11 [32] for a freight wagon. Fatigue cracks originate predominantly at sites of high tensile
residual stresses, which are at the chamfer, at the tread and at the clamping rim. There are, however, also
reported cases where cracks were observed at other locations such as the wheel flange or minor grooves
from labelling (Fig. 12).
Fig. 10. Periodic heating and cooling of the tread of a block-braked wheel [28].
Fig. 11. Residual stress field in a block-braked wheel rim (numbers in MPa) [32].
Sometimes these cracks grow some millimetres into the wheel material before they deviate to the surface.
The consequence is loss of a piece of the tread. They may, however, also propagate in radial direction, this
way damaging the whole wheel section which, in an extreme case, may cause the catastrophic failure of the
wheel.
3.3.1.2. Initiation of surface and sub-surface cracks in wheels of disk-braked vehicles. In the case of disk-
braked wheels surface cracks may develop due to high traction forces. This is, however, a phenomenon
largely restricted to high speed operating. In the contact zone plastic deformation is developing combined
with the generation of residual stresses and some strain hardening. At high load levels no elastic shake-
down occurs. Instead, each new load cycle increases the plasticity and eventually the accumulated defor-
mation exceeds the ductility of the material, a phenomenon which is called ratcheting [33].
Fig. 12. Typical positions of crack initiation at a block-braked wheel [49].
Subsurface cracks are initiated below the tread at certain material imperfections such as non-metallic
inclusions or as shear cracking of the pearlitic microstructure. Mutton et al. [34] by carrying out an
ultrasonic inspection program found the majority of initial defects located between 3 and 5 mm below the
running surface and between 75 and 105 mm from the back face of the wheel rim, see also Fig. 13. Note,
that this coincides with the region of the largest shear stress from an elastic analysis [33], The initiation of
sub-surface cracks requires very high load levels, e.g., introduced by impact loads due to track irregularities
or rail joints [35].
All forms of metal failure associated with repeated contact stress cycles are usually called rolling contact
fatigue (RCF). In the case of surface-induced cracks this may be manifested on the wheel tread as a network
Fig. 13. Typical depth locations of sub-surface cracks in a disk-braked wheel [34].
of parallel cracks around the entire wheel circumference, the so-called ‘‘fish-bone’’ cracks. When these
cracks grow, flanks of material spall from the surface this way generating a shelling structure of the surface
[31]. Only few cracks will grow to larger size.
Both, surface and sub-surface-induced cracks will first propagate parallel, or in an inclined angle to the
wheel surface. At a certain point they may, however, branch towards the surface [34] and/or in radial
direction [36]. The second alternative includes the danger of catastrophic failure. Sub-surface-induced
failures are potentially more dangerous than surface-induced because of a larger crack extension before
spalling.
A lot of work has been done on rolling contact fatigue (RCF), which mainly refers to the crack initiation
phase as the dominant time interval for durability design and a number of papers on this subject are also
included in the present issue. The application of fracture mechanics to RCF of wheels is faced with a
number of problems additional to a common damage tolerance assessment. Ekberg [37] provides a list of
such problems. Among them are the following items:
• The loading causes a multiaxial stress state with the principal stress directions in a fixed material point
rotating during the load cycle.
• The stress components are out-of-phase.
• Due to large confining stresses under the contact, patch cracks propagate mainly in a mode II/mode III
state.
• As typical for mixed mode crack propagation friction between the opposite crack faces plays a major
role in crack extension which is difficult to quantify.
• Crack extension occurs under predominantly compressive loading whereas the predictive methods based
on the Paris law have been developed and validated mainly for tensile loading.
• Occasional overloads may accelerate crack extension. Note, that not all of the models available for
describing the variable amplitude load effect are able to handle this phenomenon in an appropriate
way. For a more detailed discussion see [11] in this issue.
• It was already mentioned that the load amplitudes needed for the initiation of crack extension are
high. Because of this, larger plasticity effects at the crack tip cannot be disregarded which means that
the application of the common stress intensity factor concept might be questionable.
Note, that this kind of additional problems are typical of high-speed disk-braked vehicles. They are not
so important for block-braked vehicles as described above. Here, the residual stress fields due to the thermal
loading play a major role in early phases of crack extension as has been mentioned above. In wheels with
tyres the problems are even more complicated because of additional residual stresses due to the shrinking
process. A point just to be mentioned is that the general assumption of an isotropic material state within the
wheel rim might be questionable due to the forging process during manufacturing as Ekberg and Sot-
kovszki have demonstrated in [33]. With respect of fatigue crack growth there seems always to be an
influence of lubricants such as water [38]. In a rotating wheel the crack is opened just before the contact
load reaches the crack mouth. The crack is filled with the fluid existing in the environment by capillary
action. When the contact load moves further the fluid is trapped inside the crack because of crack mouth
closure. It is not quite clear what is the effect behind the lubricant. One possible explanation is a ‘‘hydraulic
pressure mechanism’’, i.e., the fluid hinders the crack to be closed over its complete length. Another point
may be that the crack with fluid lubricated crack faces can propagate more easily in mode II because of
reduced crack face friction [78].
A number of studies have been carried out on fracture mechanics application to block-braked as well as
disk-braked wheels. Due to the complexity of the problem, most of them used numerical algorithms based
on finite elements or boundary elements. A brief overview is given in [39]. Martin Meizoso et al. [40–42]
presented an algorithm for life prediction of wheels incorporating the elastic–plastic determination of
residual stress fields induced by block-braking and superimposed alternating rolling contact stresses. They
simulated fatigue crack extension taking into account mixed mode loading conditions. For the effect of
mixed mode on the residual lifetime see Fig. 14 [41]. Gimenez and Sobejano [43], modelling fatigue crack
extension of surface cracks originating from the tread and the chamfer, found the fracture toughness to be
of minor influence on the residual lifetime which was, however, strongly affected by the fatigue threshold
value and the residual stress profile. Lunden [44,45] combined analytical and numerical methods assuming
Hertzian contact pressure with and without friction. He considered the residual stresses in a 3D model for
crack initiation but handled crack propagation by a simplified 2D model which he mainly based on mode II
loading. Guagliano et al. [46] (see also [47]) developed stress intensity factor solutions for internal penny
shaped cracks modelling the wheel and the rail as two deformable cylinders with perpendicular axes.
Akama et al. [48] developed comparable mode I and mode II solutions for inclined surface cracks under
Hertzian contact stress modelling the friction between the crack surfaces and the effect of fluid trapped
inside the crack. Recently Kuna et al. [50] (see also [51]) determined residual lifetimes by a hybrid approach
of analytical and numerical stress intensity factor solutions. In addition to surface cracks at the tread and
embedded flaws in the rim they also investigated cracks at other positions such as the wheel disk.
A pragmatic way to fracture mechanics based safety design is followed by the UIC leaflet 812-3 and
according to this by the European draft standard prEN 13262 from 1998 [52]. Empirical evidence from
wheels broken in service showed that fracture occurred onlypin wheels having fracture toughness less than a
certain value which, e.g., for steel grade R7 was 70 MPa m (Table 1). As a consequence, a minimum
Fig. 14. Effect of mixed mode loading on the residual lifetime of a wheel [41].
Table 1
Required minimum fracture toughness for railway wheels according to UIC 813-3 [52] and pREN 13262
p
Steel grade Required fracture toughness, MPa m
Minimum value out of 6 tests Average value out of 6 tests
R6 80 100
R7 70 80
R8 50 60
toughness of that value has to be guaranteed by the producer and is checked by random sampling. The
determination of fracture toughness is done on C(T) specimens with a thickness of 30 mm and is mainly
based on the test standard ASTM E399 [53]. In cases where the material behaves in a ductile manner the
tests are, nevertheless, analysed as being brittle using a KQ value instead of KIc . Other factors such as the
residual stresses are required to not exceed a certain magnitude. The latter is guaranteed by regular non-
destructive inspections. Diener et al. [55] annotated rightly that the use of KQ even for rather ductile
materials may yield misleading results and proposed to use elastic–plastic fracture parameters such as the J -
integral. Matusek et al. [56] provided a Charpy-toughness correlation for estimating the fracture toughness
and pointed to the statistical nature of fracture toughness in the ductile-to-brittle transition range of ferritc
materials. As an alternative they were thinking about the application of failure probability–toughness
relations of the ‘‘master curve’’ type as provided by the ASTM E 1921 Standard [57]. Note, that a similar
approach is realised in [11] within this issue.
3.3.2. Non-destructive testing of wheels

In many aspects non-destructive inspection of wheels is comparable to the inspection of axles as dis-
cussed above. It is performed in the train operators’ depots usually combined with axle testing. At DB
wheel inspection is done manually or by using automatic test devices with more than 50 ultrasonic sensors
in multiprobe arrangement for inspecting the wheel rim as well as the wheel disk (Fig. 15) [26,99,100].
A special aspect of NDI of wheels is checking for residual stresses which, as outlined above, play a major
role in damage in particular in block-braked wheels (see, e.g., [54,101,102]).
3.4. Rails
3.4.1. Fatigue and fracture of rails

Fatigue and fracture of rails is a rather complex issue. It has to be distinguished between rails in straight
and curved track sections, rails of tracks which are operated in one or in both directions, rail butt welds,
Fig. 15. Set-up for automated testing of wheels used at DB (Deutsche Bahn).
σ
σ
Fig. 16. Primary loading configuration of a rail [58].
switches, etc. Various aspects such as highly complex variable loading, secondary stresses and seasonal
changes of the environmental conditions have to be taken into account.
3.4.1.1. Loading of rails. Rails are subjected to primary and secondary loading components. Fig. 16 shows a
typical primary loading configuration [58]. The loading by the wheel is applied to the rail as bending
stresses, rb , axial stresses, rm , and Hertzian pressure, p, from rolling contact.
• The bending stresses arise from the static axle load which is usually between 8 and 22.5 tonnes [59] (for
heavy haul in Australia up to 40 tonnes [94]) and its dynamic magnification by a moving train.
The overall magnitude also depends on the up and down motion of the sleepers, i.e., on the quality of the
grounding of the track. Usually, quite different types of vehicles with different axle loads are operated on
one track. A contribution to the bending stresses comes also from the weight of the rails itself. Defects in
the running surface of the rails such as joints, dips and twists and irregularities in the wheel such as flats
and out-of-roundness may play a role as well.
• Axial stresses arise from structural irregularities of the track and from the acceleration and deceleration
of the train during train start and stop.
• The loading due to rolling contact is similar to what has been discussed for wheels in 3.3.1.2 and plays a
major role in the early crack extension phase.
Note, that there is additional loading in lateral direction especially in curved track sections and at
switches and crossovers. These forces are also dynamically magnified with increasing speed. For trains
equipped with tilting technology local track irregularities in particular in small-radius curves seem to play a
major role with respect of lateral load increase in track and boggy as well [60]. Note that the main load case
for rails in switches is lateral bending.
The primary loads are superimposed by secondary loads, which, by their nature, are thermal and
residual stresses. A rail track is installed at a certain ambient temperature, e.g. in springtime or autumn.
Because built-in rails cannot elongate and shrink with increasing and decreasing temperatures, seasonal
differences in the temperature will produce axial thermal stresses. These are tensile stresses at lower and
compressive stresses at higher temperatures. Due to Boudnitski and Edel [61] most European rail failures
occur at temperatures at or slightly above 0 C. At this temperature high tensile thermal stresses are
combined with relatively low toughness values of the rail materials. Johnson [38] has shown that lubricants
such as water are also necessary for rolling contact crack propagation in rails. The effect is similar to that
described for inclined surface cracks in wheels (see Section 3.3.1.2).
Residual stresses in rails are introduced by different mechanisms. Primarily they stem from the manu-
facturing process, namely from heat treatment and roller straightening [62,63].
Maximum axial tensile residual stresses of about 200 MPa have been measured in the vertical centre line
of the rail below the running surface and in the rail foot whereas the other regions of the rail section are
characterised by compressive residual stresses. The residual stresses due to the manufacturing process can
be minimised within certain limits by optimising manufacturing technology. There are differences in the
residual stress distributions of naturally hard and head-hardened rails (see, e.g., [69]). Note, that the
residual stress state at the ends of the rail bar stocks deviates from that at the central sections which is due
to differences in the straightening process which has to be realised by other methods than by roller
straightening [77].
In service, the wheel–rail contact causes local yielding in a thin layer in the running surface. Microh-
ardness measurements showed that the rail head is work hardened to a depth of about 2.5 mm [64]. By this
mechanism the residual stresses are redistributed as illustrated in Fig. 17 [65]. The peak tensile stresses close
to the running surface are significantly lowered and even replaced by compressive residual stresses at the
surface itself. A number of investigations have been carried out to determine residual stress profiles in rails
using various methods such as finite element simulation [62,63], Moire interferometry [66], saw cut [66–68],
Ultrasonic testing [69], neutron scattering [69] and others. An example is shown in Fig. 18 [69].
A special case of residual stresses is welding residual stresses at rail joints. Note, that the residual stress
profiles from the manufacturing processes mentioned above will be totally altered within and close to the
weld. Note, that welding residual stresses reach peak values up to yield strength if, as in the case of rails, no
post-weld heat treatment is carried out. A more detailed discussion of this topic will be provided by a paper
of Skyttebol and Josefson within this issue [76].
3.4.1.2. Crack types and crack extension in rails. Since the loading conditions at the tread of a wheel and at
the running surface of a rail have a number of features in common the appearance of cracks will also be
similar. Cracks may be induced at or below the surface. Surface cracks are initiated due to high traction
forces at high speed rails and they will propagate under the influence of a lubricant in an inclined angle in
the direction of the motion of the applied load for rails operated in one direction. Transverse branching
may then lead to the complete fracture of the rail. Sub-surface cracks are reported to initiate beneath the
Fig. 17. Redistribution of the residual stresses from the manufacturing process during service [65].
Fig. 18. Residual stress field in a rail head [69].
gauge corner 10–15 mm below the running surface and 6–10 mm from the gauge face [70]. They seem to
propagate towards the rail surface and to behave like original surface cracks after penetration [37].
The terminology for rail flaws used in this paper follows the catalogue used at DB [71] (see also [103]).
Important flaw types are (Fig. 19):
• Shellings. These are induced as sub-surface cracks which, when extending, spall flanks of material from
the gauge corner. Sometimes, extended shellings are misleading designated as spallings. Shelling occurs
preferentially at the outer rail of curved tracks and in older rails.
• Squats. These are small surface cracks which also lead to the detachment of small material fragments. As
a consequence squats are combined with pits which appear as dark spots at the rail surface. In contrast
to the shellings, squats occur predominantly in straight track sections.
• Head checks. These are groups of fine surface cracks at the gauge corner with a distance of 0.5–7 mm
from each other. They are initiated due to cold working of the rail surface. Head-hardened rails, as a
rule, show a smaller distance between the head check cracks. Head checks occur preferentially at the out-
er rail of curved sections of tracks operated in one direction but they are occasionally also reported at
straight track sections alternating at both rails. The danger of head checks is that due to multiple cracks
a complete rail fragment may break out as it happened in the Hatfield accident in October 2000 [72]. The
coalescence of head checks may also lead to spallings at the rail surface.
• Transverse cracks. Flaws such as shellings, squats, head checks and others may develop into transverse
cracks which when propagating cause complete fracture of the rail. Usually their origin is in the rail head
from where they extend into the rail web. A typical type is the embedded ‘‘kidney’’ shaped or ‘‘detail’’
crack. This kind of cracks occurs in all track sections but preferentially in older rails.
• Transverse cracks originating from weld joints. These are comparable to transverse cracks in general.
However, they have their origin in flaws from the welding process such as pores, inclusions, misalign-
ment, etc. Usually they will be initiated in regions of high tensile residual stresses. These will be in the
rail head or in the rail foot but there exist also cases of tensile residual stresses in the web and compres-
sive residual stresses in the head and foot.
A flaw type so far not included in the catalogue cited above is transverse cracks in rails of switches. These
originate from surface cracks, however, not at the rail head but at the corner of the rail foot perpendicular
to the main principal stress arising from transverse bending. Initial points are corrosion pits or grinded
flanges.
Fig. 19. Typical rail defects [71,103].
Note, that cracks close to or at the surface are a rather new problem connected with high speed oper-
ating. In former times rails experienced enough wear to permanently remove the surface layer containing
Fig. 19 (continued)
the new emerging cracks. In order to fulfil the increasing demands for higher axial and dynamic loads
modern rail steels tend to exhibit much higher resistance to wearing with the disadvantage that the surface
layer removed is not any more large enough to prevent small cracks from extending into the rail (with
respect to the development of rail steels see [73]). Besides different steel grades lubricants are of major
influence on the competitive relation between wear and crack initiation and growth [79,80]. Donzella et al.
in [81] in the present issue demonstrate that lubrication is slowing down crack nucleation but accelerating
Fig. 20. Typical development of a rail crack (schematically) [74].
the subsequent crack growth. Additionally, tests in dry environment showed earlier crack branching than
tests in the presence of a lubricant.
A typical development of a rail crack is illustrated schematically in Fig. 20 [74]. Originating from a small
surface or sub-surface crack, a dark spot is developing at the surface accompanied by crack growth in an
inclined angle below the surface. At a certain point this crack branches into a horizontal and a transverse
crack. The transverse crack will extend down into the rail and finally cause its fracture. Detailed investi-
gations on head checks showed that only shallow sub-surface cracking with a depth of penetration of 5 mm
or less occurred as long as the crack size visible at the rail surface did not exceed 20 mm. Beyond that value
any relation between the visible crack length and the depth of penetration got lost. Some cracks branched
and grew down into the rail head whereas others continued to grow just below the surface [75].
Meißner and Hug [104] report on statistical issues on rail defects of the German railway system.
According to this study 23% of the failures and detected flaws refer to switches and 34% of breakage occurs
in welds. That shows that for both, switches and welds, special attention should be paid in practical
application of fracture mechanics.
3.4.1.3. Application of fracture mechanics. Assessment of embedded ‘‘kidney’’ shaped or ‘‘detail’’ cracks has
been performed for 20 years [82,83]. In continuation of earlier work [84] Jeong et al. recently performed
finite element analyses taking into account thermal and residual stresses. The critical crack size as well as
the residual lifetime depend strongly on the ambient temperature due to prevented axial shrinking and
other factors discussed above. The influence of the ambient temperature at which the rails were built-in on
the fatigue behaviour of rails was investigated by Edel [85] for a straight front surface crack in the rail head.
Modelling of shallow surface cracks is a very complex issue due to factors such as mixed mode loading
under rolling contact fatigue conditions, crack face friction, fluid entrapment, multiaxial loading and
others. An up-to-date review on this issue is given by Ringsberg [86]. Very short cracks can be modelled
only by elastic–plastic fracture mechanics and/or damage mechanics [86]. But also with respect to longer
cracks a number of problems remain. One of these is that the loading conditions of a rail are non-pro-
portional and out-of-phase. The stationary stress state resulting from the thermal and residual stresses is
superimposed by transient stresses at the consecutive passage of the wheels of a train. As a consequence the
crack tip of a head check or squat experiences a moderate initial mode I cycle followed by a mode II shear
cycle when the wheel passes over the crack tip region and, at the end of the cycle, additional mode III
loading. Such a sequence is illustrated in Fig. 21 [87]. Note, that the mode I loading is too small to be
Fig. 21. Mixed mode loading sequence a rail is subjected to during wheel pass over [87].
responsible for any crack propagation. In contrast, the mode II stress intensity factor shows a significant
magnitude, therefore controlling the fatigue process at this stage.
It was already mentioned that lubrication plays an important role in mixed mode crack extension.
Bogdanski and Brown [88] (also [95]) give an overview on previous investigations on the role of entrapped
liquid media on crack tip loading and crack growth. Combining a 3D analysis of semi-elliptical inclined
cracks with linear elastic fracture mechanics and mixed mode fatigue crack extension data the authors
performed investigations on spalling as well as on crack branching. They considered the fluid as incom-
pressible during the rolling contact cycle with the consequence that significant stresses and strains were
generated near the crack tip. As an important result they found the mode I crack driving force to be
sensitive to the volume of the fluid trapped in the crack. While the fluid entrapment mechanism promotes
mixed mode shear by reducing the crack face friction, as described above, under certain circumstances, i.e.,
by an optimum combination of factors such as residual stresses, crack inclination and others the crack will
branch downwards and continue to grow mainly in mode I. Note, that high levels of KI will also be
promoted by the fluid entrapment mechanism. It was already mentioned that squats and similar defects, in
a first phase, grow in an inclined angle of about 10 or 15 to the surface. When they branch they will,
however, not grow exactly vertically but at an angle of about 55 to the rail surface [89] (see also [90]).
A hitherto only unsatisfactorily solved question is when a crack will branch. Wong et al. [89] (see also
[91]), performing experiments on cruciform specimens, found the combination of two factors controlling
whether a crack branches or not: the mode I effective stress intensity range which takes into account the
crack closure effect on fatigue and the degree of overlap in out-of-phase mixed mode loading, the definition
of which is given in Fig. 22. It was already mentioned that a dry environment, i.e., no lubrication, seems
to promote early crack branching [81].
The influence of variable amplitude loading on fatigue crack extension was investigated by Josefson et al.
[92] who compared experiments on four-point bend specimens subjected to a Gurney block load scheme
with predictions using a strip yield model proposed by Newman and implemented in the program FA-
STRAN II [93]. As the result they found good agreement between the measurements and predictions. In
addition the authors preformed a statistical analysis which showed, that, for technical applications, the
uncertainties in the initial crack size and in the load levels were of greater influence on the uncertainty in
Fig. 22. Definition of the degree of overlap in out-of-phase mixed mode loading.
Table 2
Required minimum fracture toughness for rails according to pREN 13674-1 [97]
p
Steel grade Required fracture toughness, MPa m
Minimum value out of (min) 5 tests Average value out of (min) 5 tests
200 and 220 30 35
260 and 260 Mn 26 29
320 Cr 24 26
350 HT 30 32
350 LHT 26 29
fatigue life than the fluctuation level of the load. Note, that the fatigue crack growth analysis applied to the
railway axle in [11] did also use FASTRAN II.
The instructions for determining the fracture resistance and fatigue crack extension of rail steels are
comparable to those mentioned above for wheels. They are conventionally based on ASTM E 399 [53] and
ASTM E 647 [96], however, released with respect of using KQ values. At present a European standard for
railway application is in preparation [97] which in its main parts follows the conventional philosophy.
Required minimum values of fracture resistance are given in Tables 1 and 2. A compendium of material
data for rail steels is presented in [98]. Wong et al. [91], in a recent publication, propose reference da=dN –
DKeff curves for mode I and mode II loading.
3.4.2. Non-destructive testing of rails

In contrast to the NDI of axles and wheels the testing of rails has to be done at the track. Besides visual
inspection, NDI on rails uses conventionally the ultrasonic technique with the equipment being installed at
inspection cars. While this is still the predominant method for rail inspection it has some disadvantages
such as the need for direct contact of the probe to the rail head, the need of a coupling fluid such as water
and a maximum operation speed which is lower than the line speed [105]. That is the reason why NDI
usually has to be carried out outside the commercial traffic periods. Krull at al. [106] add further aspects to
this list that are important in particular for defects such as head checks which occur at the gauge corner and
grow within an inclined angle to the surface. It is almost impossible to introduce ultrasonic waves at the rail
surface such that they map the head check crack tips in an appropriate manner.
This is the reason why alternative techniques such as the eddy current method are being increasingly
introduced in application (e.g., [105–108]). One of the advantages of eddy current is that it works as a non-
Fig. 23. Set-up for eddy current testing of wheels on the track [105].
contact system (Fig. 23, [105]) which can even be mounted on the bogie of a standard railway car or coach
this way allowing inspection at standard speed on the line [105].
Note, however, that ultrasonic inspection is not only used for crack detection but also for the mea-
surement of residual stresses in rails [106].
A special and up to now not satisfactorily solved problem poses the inspection of rail butt welds and
switches which are, as mentioned above, in particular subjected to breakage.
At all railway companies the inspection plan for rails is different with respect to the traffic speed and
other aspects with respect to the freight transported. E.g., at DB the inspection interval varies between 24
months for a maximum speed below 80 km/h and 4 months for a maximum speed greater than 230 km/h
Fig. 24. Number of railway axle failures in Japan between 1963 and 1993 and counter measures [109].
[104]. Beside the detection of defects its removal by grinding plays a major role in rail maintenance. The
effect of such a measure is illustrated in Fig. 24 [109]. Note, however, that both, the interval between
subsequent grindings and the depth up to which the material has to be removed is also a major economical
problem for the railway societies [110]. Here in the future, fracture mechanics application should allow to
find an optimum.
4. Summary
Following a brief discussion of various fracture control concepts such as safe-life, fail-safe and damage
tolerance, an introduction to the most important areas of fracture mechanics application to railway
components is provided. The topics addressed include safety relevant railway components such as axles,
wheels and rails. Besides specific topics of fatigue damage, a literature survey on fracture mechanics
analyses of these structures is given.
For railway axles problems of damage tolerance are discussed in the context of users experience and
maintenance issues. With respect to railway wheels it is distinguished between block-braked and disk-
braked wheels and between surface induced and sub-surface induced cracks. Problems such as the residual
stress fields generated by thermal stresses during the braking process, special aspects of rolling contact
fatigue (out-of-phase loading, mixed mode crack extension, the role of a lubricant, crack branching) are
addressed. As part of the discussion of the loading situation of rails it is distinguished between primary and
secondary loads. Primary loads are the axle loads and their dynamic magnification, lateral loads in curved
sections, at switches etc. Secondary loads are thermal stresses arising from prevented elongation dependent
on the environmental temperature and residual stresses arising from the manufacturing processes (roller
straightening, butt welding) and their modifications due to in-service loading. Finally, a discussion of
fatigue crack extension and non-destructive inspection is provided for the various crack types in rails such
as squats, head checks, transverse cracks and cracks at butt welds.
References
[1] Stockert LRv. Eisenbahnunf€alle. Ein Beitrag zur Eisenbahnbetriebslehre. Leipzig 1913;vol. 2 [Fig. 84].
[2] James, Gallon. Appendix B5. In: Report of the Commission to Inquire into the Use of Iron to Railway Structures, London; 1848.
Cited in [6].
[3] W€ €
ohler A. Uber die Festigkeitsversuche mit Eisen und Stahl. Z Bauwesen 1870;20:73–106 [An account in English was published
in Engineering 1871;11:199–200].
[4] Bathias C, Miller KJ, Stanzl-Tschegg S, editors. Special issue on gigacycle fatigue. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 1999;22(7).
[5] Stanzl-Tschegg S, Mayer H, editors. International Conference on Fatigue in the Very High Cycle Regime, Proceedings, Wien,
Austria; 2001.
[6] Smith A. Fatigue of railway axles: a classic problem revisited. In: Proceedings of 13th European Conference on Fracture (ECF),
San Sebastian, Spain; 2000. p. 173–81.
[7] Gravier N, Viet J-J, Leluan A. Predicting the life of railway vehicle axles. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Wheelset
Congress, Quigdao, China; 1998. p. 133–46.
[8] Miller KJ, O’Donnell WJ. The fatigue limit and its elimination. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 1999;22:545–57.
[9] Vormwald M, Seeger T. The consequences of short crack closure under fatigue crack growth under variable amplitude loading.
Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 1991;14:205–25.
[10] Farahmad B, Bockrath G, Glasso J. Fatigue and Fracture Mechanics of High Risk Parts. New York: Chapman Hall,
International Thomson Publications; 1997. p. 202.
[11] Zerbst U, Vormwald M, Andersch C, Madler K. The development of a damage tolerance concept for railway components and its
demonstration for a railway axle. Engng Fract Mech, this issue.
[12] NASGRO. Fatigue Crack Growth Computor Program, NASGRO, version 3, NASA, L.B. Johnson Space Centre, Houston,
Texas. JSC-22267B; 2000.
[13] BS 7910. Guide on methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in metallic structures. British Standard Institution; 1999.
[14] SINTAP. Structural Integrity Assessment Procedure. Final Revision. EU-Project BE 95-1462. Brite Euram Programme, 1999.
European Commission, Brussels.
[15] Benyon JA, Watson AS. The use of Monte-Carlo analysis to increase axle inspection interval. In Proceedings of the 13th
International Wheelset Congress, Rome, Italy; 2001.
[16] Hirakawa K, Toyama K, Kubota M. The analysis and prevention of failure in railway axles. Int J Fatigue 1998;20:135–
44.
[17] Ishizuka H. Probability of improvement in routine inspection work of Shinkansen vehicle axles. Quaterly Report of the RTRI
1999;40(2):70–3.
[18] Hirakawa K, Masanobu K. On the fatigue design method for high speed railway axles. In: Proceedings of the 12th International
Wheelset Congress, Quigdao, China; 1998. p. 477–82.
[19] Gravier N, Viet J-J, Leluan A. Predicting the life of railway vehicle axles. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Wheelset
Congress, Quigdao, China;, 1998. p. 133–46.
[20] Akama M, Ishizuka H. Reliability of Shinkiansen vehicle axle using probabilistic fracture mechanics. Q Rep RTRI
1994;35:4235–94.
[21] Akama M. Bayesian analysis for the results of fatigue test using full-scale models to obtain the accurate failure probabilitiers of
the Shinkansen vehicle axle. Reliab Engng Syst Safety 2002;75:321–32.
[22] Allery MBP. Investigation of broken axle from the derailment at Stafford, 8/3/96. British Rail Research; 1996. RR-STR-96-041.
[23] De Freitas M, Francßois D. Analysis of fatigue crack growth in rotary neding. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 1995;18(2):
171–8.
[24] Weixing H. Calculation and analysis of expanding fatigue cracks on axle. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Wheelset
Congress, Sydney, Australia; 1992. p. 201–6.
[25] Beretta S, Ghidini A, Lombardo F. Fracture mechanics and scale effects in the fatigue of railway axles. Engng Fract Mech, this
issue.
[26] W€ ustenberg H, Erhard A, Hauser T, Hintze H, Sch€ uBler M. Recent advances in ultrasonic inspection of railway axles and
wheels. NDTnet 2001;6(2).
[27] Hansen W, Hintze H. Ultrasonic testing of railway axles with phased array technique. NDTnet 2002;7(10).
[28] Orringer O, Geay DE. Thermal cracking in railroad vehicle wheels subjected to high performance stop braking. Theor Appl
Fract Mech 1995;23:55–65.
[29] Mombrei W, W€ achter K, Otlinger P. Zum Mechanismus der Bruchausbildung bei klotzgebremsten Monobloc-R€adern.
Schienenfahrzeuge 1/1988; 1988. p. 43–5.
[30] Moyar GJ, Stone DH. An analysis of the thermal contributions to railway wheel shelling. Wear 1991;144:117–38.
[31] Magel E, Kalousek J. Martensite and contact fatigue initiated wheel defects. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Wheelset
Congress, Quigdao, China; 1989. p. 100–11.
[32] Diener M, M€ uller R, Kunnes. Bruchmechanische und metallkundliche Untersuchungen an G€ uterwagenr€adern. ZEV*DET Glas
Ann 1992;116:179–91.
[33] Eckberg A, Sotkovszki P. Anisotropy and rolling contact fatigue of railway wheels. Int J Fatigue 2001;23:29–43.
[34] Mutton PJ, Epp CJ, Dudek J. Rolling contact fatigue in railway wheels under high axle loads. Wear 1991;144:139–52.
[35] Ekberg A, Bjarnehed H, Lunden R. A fatigue life model with application to wheel/rail damage. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater
Struct 1995;18:1189–99.
[36] Galliera G et al. Fatigue behaviour of railway wheels affected by sub-surface defects in the tread. Control methods and
manifesting process. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Wheelset Congress, Paris; 1995. p. 69–76.
[37] Ekberg A. Rolling contact fatigue of railway wheels––Towards tread life prediction through numerical modelling considering
material imperfections, probabilistic loading and operational data. PhD thesis, Calmers University of Technology; 2000.
[38] Johnson KL. The strength of surfaces in rolling contact. Proc Inst Mech Engng 1989;203:151–63.
[39] Li YC. Analysis of fatigue phenomena in railway rails and wheels. In: Carpeinteri A, editor. Handbook of fatigue crack
propagation in metallic structures. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1994. p. 1497–537.
[40] Martin Meizoso A, Gil Sevillano J. Life prediction of thermally cracked railway wheels: growth estimation of cracks with
arbitrary shape. Theor Appl Fract Mech 1988;9:123–39.
[41] Martin Meizoso A, Martinez Esnaola JM, Fuentes Perez M. Approximate crack growth estimate of railway wheel influenced by
normal and shear action. Theor Appl Fract Mech 1991;15:179–90.
[42] Martin Meizoso A, Martinez Mesnaola J, Gimenez JG. Life prediction of thermally cracked railway wheels: crack growth under
mixed mode stress fields. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Wheelset Congress, Sydney; 1992. p. 169–73.
[43] Gimenez JG, Sobejano H. Theoretical approach to the crack growth and fracture of wheels. In: Proceedings of the 11th
International Wheelset Congress, Paris; 1995. p. 15–9.
[44] Lunden R. Contact region fatigue of railway wheels under combined mechanical rolling pressure and thermal brake loading.
Wear 1990;144(199):157–70.
[45] Lunden R. Cracks in railway wheels under rolling contact load. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Wheelset Congress,
Sydney; 1992. p. 163–7.
[46] Guagliano M, Sangirardi M, Vergani L. A hybrid approach for sub-surface crack analyses in railway wheels under rolling
contact loads. In: ASTM STP 1417; 2002.
[47] Guagliano M, Vergani L. Experimental and numerical analysis of sub-surface cracks in railway wheels. Engng Fract Mech, this
issue.
[48] Akama M, Mori T. Boundary element analysis of surface initiated rolling contact fatigue cracks in wheel/rail contact systems.
Wear 2002;253:35–41.
[49] Edel K-O. Querrisse im Radkranz klotzgebremster G€ uterwagenvollr€ader. Report, University (FH), Brandenburg, Germany;
1995.
[50] Kuna M, Springmann M, M€adler K, H€ ubner P, Pusch G. Anwendung bruchmechanischer Bewertungskonzepte bei der
Entwicklung von Eisenbahnr€adern aus bainitischem Gusseisen. Konstr Gießen 2002;27:27–32.
[51] Kuna M, Springmann M, M€adler K, H€ ubner P, Pusch G. Fracture mechanics based design of a railway wheel made of
austempered ductile iron. Engng Fract Mech, this issue.
[52] UIC Leaflet 512-3. Technical specification for the supply of solid wheels in rolled non-alloy steel for tractive and trailing stock;
also prEN 13262, Draft 1998.
[53] ASTM E 399-90. Standard test method for plane-strain fracture toughness of metallic materials. Philadelphia: American Society
for Testing and Materials; 1997.
[54] Schneider E, Herzer R. Ultrasonic evaluation of stresses in the rims of railroad wheels. NDTnet 1998;3(6).
[55] Diener M, M€ uller R, Ghindini A, Scepi M. Study on fracture toughness of R7T UIC 812.3 steel solid wheels applying traditional
and innovative fracture mechanics parameters. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Wheelset Congress, Sydney; 1992.
p. 265–76.
[56] Matusek P, Holzmann M, Dlouhy I, Vlach B. New approach to the fracture behaviour evaluation of rim-sprayed solid wheel
rims. In: Proceedings of the 12th International Wheelset Congress, Quigdao, China; 1998. p. 424–37.
[57] ASTM E 1921-97. Standard test method for determination of reference temperature, TO , for ferritic steels in the transition range.
Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials; 1997.
[58] Nishida S. Morphologic study of the Shinkhansen rail based on fracture mechanics. In: Nisitani, editor. Computational and
experimental fracture mechanics, developments in Japan. Series: topics in engineering, vol. 16. Southampton, Boston:
Computational Mechanics Publication; 1994. p. 379–407.
[59] Siegmann J. Die Belastung der Schiene aus dem Betrieb. In: Proceedings of Internationales Symposium Schienenfehler,
Brandenburg, Germany; 2000 [chapter 9].
[60] Gasemyr H, Normann J. Beurteilung des Einflusses der Gleisqualit€at in Gleisb€ ogen mit kleinen Radien auf die Beanspruchung
an Radsatzwellen der Drehgestelle f€ ur Neigez€uge am Beispiel eines durchgef€ uhrten Messprogramms in Norwegen. ZEVrail
Glasers Annalen, 126, 2002, Tagungsband SFT, Graz. p. 244–57.
[61] Boudnitski G, Edel K-O. Spannungsintensit€atsfactoren in Schienen. In: Proceedings of Internationales Symposium
Schienenfehler, Brandenburg, Germany; 2000 [chapter 11].
[62] Schleinzer G, Fischer FD. Residual stresses in new rails. Mater Sci Engng 2000;A288:280–3.
[63] Schleinzer G, Fischer FD. Residual stress formation during the roller straightening of railway rails. Int J Mech Sci 2001;43:2281–
95.
[64] Orringer O, Morris JM, Jeong DY. Detail fracture growth in rails: Test results. Theor Appl Fract Mech 1986;5:63–95.
[65] Jericho E, WeiBe M. Beitrag der Eigenspannungen zum Gebrauchsverhalten von Schienen. In: Proceedings of Internationales
Symposium Schienenfehler, Brandenburg, Germany; 2000 [chapter 10].
[66] Wang YY, Chiang FP. Experimental study of three-dimensional residual stresses in rails by Moire interferometry and dissecting
methods. Opt Lasers Engng 1997;27:89–100.
[67] Igwemezie JO, Kennedy SL, Gore NR. Residual stresses and catastrophic rail failure. In: International Heavy Haul Railway
Conference, Beijing; 1993. p. 256–63.
[68] Magiera J, Orkisz J, Karmowski W. Reconstruction of residual stresses in railroad rails from measurements made on vertical and
oblique slices. Wear 1996;191:78–89.
[69] Cannon DF, Pradier H. Rail rolling contact fatigue. Research by the European Rail Research Institute. Wear 1996;191:1–13.
[70] Clayton P. Tribological aspects of wheel/rail contact: A review of recent experimental research. In: Proceedings of the 4th
International Conference of Contact Mechanics and Wear of Rail/Wheel Systems, Vancouver; 1994.
[71] Deutsche Bahn. Katalog der wichtigsten Schienenfehler in Gleisen und Weichen. Draft Version; 2000.
[72] Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Hatfield derailment investigation. Interim recommendations of the investigation board;
2002. Available from: www.hse.gov.uk/railways/hatfield/ investigationsb1.pdf.
[73] Muders L, Rotth€auser N. Anspr€ uche an moderne Schienenwerkstoffe. Proceedings of Internationales Symposium Schienenfeh-
ler, Brandenburg, Germany; 2000 [chapter 8].
[74] Ishida M, Abe N. Experimental study on rolling contact fatigue from the aspect of residual stress. Wear 1996;191:65–71.
[75] Alien R. Rail defect management: British practice. In: Proceedings of Internationales Symposium Schienenfehler, Brandenburg;
2000 [chapter 14].
[76] Skyttebol A, Josefson L, Ringsberg JW. Fatigue crack growth in a welded rail under the influence of residual stresses. Engng
Fract Mech, this issue.
[77] Edel K-O, Boudnitzki G, Schur EA. Literaturanalyse zum Thema ‘‘Bruchmechanik und Eisenbahnschienen’’. Report FH
Brandenburg; 1997.
[78] Bower AF. The influence of crack face friction and trapped fluid in surface initiated rolling contact fatigue cracks. ASME J
Tribol 1988;110:704–11.
[79] Fletcher DI, Benyon JH. The effect of contact load reduction on the fatigue life of perlitic rail steel in lubricated rolling–sliding
contact. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 2000;23:639–50.
[80] Muster H, Schmedders H, Wick K, Pradier H. Rail rolling contact fatigue. The performance of naturally hard and head-
hardened rails in track. Wear 1996;191:54–64.
[81] Donzella G, Faccoli M, Ghidini A, Mazz u A, Roberti R. The competitive role of wear and RCF in a rail steel. Engng Fract
Mech, this issue.
[82] Orringer O, Morris JM, Steele RK. Applied research on rail fatigue and fracture in the United States. Theor Appl Fract Mech
1984;1:23–49.
[83] Broek D. The practical use of fracture mechanics. Dortrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer Academic Press; 1988.
[84] Jeong DY, Tang YH, Orringer O. Damage tolerance analysis of detail fracture in rail. Theor Appl Fract Mech 1997;28:109–
15.
[85] Edel K-O. Bruchmechanische Analysen und Bewertungen f€ ur Risse in Eisenbahnschienen. In: Proceedings of Internationales
Symposium Schienenfehler, Brandenburg; 2000 [chapter 13].
[86] Ringsberg JW. Shear mode growth of surface-breaking cracks. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Contact
Mechanics and Wear of Rail/Wheel systems (CM 2003), G€ oteburg, Sweden; 2003. p. 29–38.
[87] Bogdanski S, Olzak M, Stupnitzki. Numerical stress analysis of rail rolling contact fatigue cracks. J Wear 1996;191:14–24.
[88] Bogdanski S, Brown MW. Modelling the three-dimensional behaviour of shallow rolling contact fatigue cracks in rails. Wear
2002;253:17–25.
[89] Wong SL, Bold PE, Brown MW, Alien RJ. A branch criterion for shallow angled rolling fatigue cracks in rails. Wear
1996;191:45–53.
[90] Hellier AK, McGirr MB, Coderoy DJH. A finite element and fatigue threshold study of shelling in heavy haul rails. Wear
1991;144:289–306.
[91] Wong SL, Bold PE, Brown MW, Alien RJ. Fatigue crack growth rates under sequential mixed-mode I and II loading cycles.
Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 2000;23:667–74.
[92] Josefson BL, Svensson T, Ringsberg JW, Gustafsson T, de Mare J. Fatigue life and crack closure in specimens subjected to
variable amplitude loads under plane strain conditions. Engng Fract Mech 2000;66:587–600.
[93] Newman JC Jr. FASTRAN-II––a fatigue crack growth structural analysis program. NASA Technical Memorandum 104159,
NASA Langley Research Centre, Hampton, VA; 1992.
[94] Mutton PJ, Epp KJ, Alvarez E, Lynch M. A review of wheel–rail interaction and component performance under high axle load
conditions. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Contact Mechanics and Wear of Rail/Wheel systems (CM
2003), G€oteburg, Sweden; 2003.
[95] Olzak M, Piechna J. Numerical analysis of the liquid influence on propagation of a ‘‘squat’’-type fatigue crack in rail raceway.
Engng Fract Mech.
[96] ASTM E 647-99. Standard test method for measurement of fatigue crack growth rates. Philadelphia: American Society for
Testing and Materials; 1999.
[97] prEN 13647-1. Railway applications––track. Standard draft submitted to CEN, 2001.
[98] Toth L. Fracture properties of rail steels and their practical use. In: Proceedings of Internationales Symposium Schienenfehler,
Brandenburg, Germany; 2000 [chapter 11].
[99] Rockstroh B, Kappes W, Walte F, Montnacher J, Seitz R, Hintze H, Ettlich R. Automatisierte Ultraschallpr€ ufung an
Rads€atzen. Der Eisenbahningenieur, in preparation.
[100] Walte F, Kappes W, Rockstroh B, Daht R. Modifizierte Radpr€ ufsysteme f€ur neue Eisenbahnr€ader und Rads€atze f€ ur
Schienenfahrzeuge. In: Proceedings ZfP in Anwendung und Forschung, Berlin; 2001. Available from: www.ndt.net/article/
dgzfp01/papers/v22/v22.htm.
[101] Gori M, Certo M, Pateli G, Aruta L. Ultrasonic assessment of residual stresses in the rim of railway solid wheels. NDTnet
1998;3(7).
[102] Gordon J, Benjamin Perlman A. Estimation of residual stresses in railroad commuter car wheels following manufacture. In:
Proceedings of the International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exihibition, Anaheim, CA, ASME RTD, vol. 15; 1998.
Available from: www.fra.dot.gov/rdv/volpe/ pubs/techppr/whlqnch.pdf.
[103] Heyer R. The new UIC catalogue of rail defects. Eisenbahningenieur 2001;52:102–9.
[104] Meißner K, Hug H. Detektion und Behandlung von Schienenfehlern in Gleisen und Weichen der DB Netz AG. In: Proceedings
of Internationales Symposium Schienenfehler, Brandenburg, Germany; 2000 [chapter 4].
[105] Oukhellou L, Aknin P, Perrin J-P. Dedictated sensor and classifier of rail head defects. Contr Engng Practice 1999;7:57–61.
[106] Krull R, Hintze H, Thomas H-M. Moderne Methoden der zerst€ orungsfreien Pr€ufung im Oberbau. In: Proceedings of
Internationales Symposium Schienenfehler, Brandenburg; 2000 [chapter 3].
[107] Garnham JE, Benyon JH. The early detection of rolling–sliding contact fatigue cracks. Wear 1991;44:103–16.
[108] Thomas H-M, Pohl R. Bewertung von Oberfl€achensch€adigungen an Schienen mittels Wirbelstromverfahren. In: Proceedings ZfP
in Anwendung und Forschung, Berlin; 2001, Available from: www.ndt.net/article/dgzfp01/papers/v52/v52.htm.
[109] Kondo K, Yoroizaka K, Sato Y. Cause, increase, diagnosis, countermeasures and elimination of Shinkhansen shelling. Wear
1996;191:199–203.
[110] Sch€och W. Schienenschleifen zur Vermeidung von Oberfl€achenschaden. In: Proceedings of Internationales Symposium
Schienenfehler, Brandenburg, Germany; 2000 [chapter 5].

Mec Fratura Roda Trem Temperatura

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mec Fratura Roda Trem Temperatura

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Engineering Fracture Mechanics 72 (2005) 163–194

Fracture mechanics in railway applications––an overview

Fig. 1. Derailment in Austria in 1875 due to a broken wheel [1].

2. Fracture control concepts

2.1. Safe-life concepts

2.1.1. The endurance limit concept

2.1.2. Fracture mechanics based fatigue threshold

Fig. 2. Fatigue limit as a function of crack size (Kitagawa diagram).

2.2. Fail-safe concepts

2.2.1. Redundant design

2.2.2. Design for crack arrest

2.3. Damage tolerance concepts

2.3.1. Classical damage tolerance concept (periodic inspections)

Range Range Range

∆Ko Log ∆Keff = Log (Kmax-Kop)

Fig. 3. Fatigue crack extension characteristics based on DKeff .

Nondestructive testing procedures

2.3.2. Overload testing

2.3.3. Periodic removal of the crack

2.4. Durability design versus damage tolerance?

3. Typical application ﬁelds of fracture mechanics concepts in railway technology

3.2. Railway axles

3.2.1. Fatigue and fracture of axles

Relative number of replacement, %

Fig. 6. Typical positions of crack initiation at a railway axle.

Fig. 7. Typical pattern of fatigue crack extension in a hollow railway axle.

3.2.2. Non-destructive testing of axles

Fig. 8. Set-up for automated testing of axles used at DB (Deutsche Bahn).

3.3. Railway wheels

3.3.1. Fatigue and fracture of wheels

Fig. 9. Examples of radial cracks in wheels of freight cars [49].

Fig. 12. Typical positions of crack initiation at a block-braked wheel [49].

3.3.2. Non-destructive testing of wheels

3.4.1. Fatigue and fracture of rails

Fig. 16. Primary loading conﬁguration of a rail [58].

Fig. 18. Residual stress ﬁeld in a rail head [69].

Fig. 19. Typical rail defects [71,103].

Fig. 20. Typical development of a rail crack (schematically) [74].

3.4.2. Non-destructive testing of rails

You might also like