The aim of this study is to identify unfavorable combinations of wheel and rail profiles that deteriorate the dynamic performance of rolling stock and may compromise operational safety. The criteria used are equivalent conicity and the rolling radius difference function of a wheelset, which enable the comparison of contact conditions as the profile geometry and wear evolve. For a set of profile combinations, contact geometry and the above criteria were calculated by computer simulation using the RS GEO software package. The contact regions on the wheel tread and flange were determined, and transitions to two-point contact were identified. The dynamic behavior of the running gear for the same combinations was evaluated in the “Universal Mechanism” software package, with dynamic performance indicators determined in accordance with GOST 33211-2014. This made it possible to establish the relationship between changes in contact geometry and the level of dynamic loads. In addition, friction work on the wheel tread and flange was analyzed, including the effects of straight and curved track, as well as track alignment and longitudinal profile parameters, on contact conditions. The results show that variations in wheel and rail profiles and their wear significantly change the evaluation functions, alter dynamic indicators, and increase the share of friction work on the flange for unfavorable combinations. Profile combinations requiring priority monitoring during operation and after repair were identified, and recommendations are proposed for using the results when specifying permissible combinations and updating monitoring procedures.
Keywords
Rolling StockComputer SimulationSpecialized Software PackagesWagon (Rail Vehicle) Motion SimulationDynamic Performance IndicatorsContact GeometryWheel and Rail ProfilesEquivalent ConicityRolling Radius DifferenceFriction Work
References
Y. P. Boronenko, R. V. Rahimov, A. V. Tretyakov, M. V. Zimakova, and A. A. Petrov, “Method of continuous registration of dynamic processes of interaction between rolling stock and railway track,” in Advances in Dynamics of Vehicles on Roads and Tracks II: Proc. 27th Symp. Int. Assoc. Vehicle System Dynamics (IAVSD 2021), Lecture Notes in Mechanical Engineering. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 2022, pp. 450-460, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-07305-2_45.
Y. Ye, H. Li, Q. Wang, F. Li, C. Yi, X. Peng, C. Huang, and J. Zeng, “Fault diagnosis of railway wheelsets: A review,” Measurement, vol. 242, pt. E, Art. no. 116169, Jan. 2025, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2024.116169.
Y. Zhao, Z. Liu, D. Yi, X. Yu, X. Sha, L. Li, H. Sun, Z. Zhan, and W. J. Li, “A review on rail defect detection systems based on wireless sensors,” Sensors, vol. 22, no. 17, Art. no. 6409, Aug. 2022, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/s22176409.
A. Alemi, F. Corman, and G. Lodewijks, “Condition monitoring approaches for the detection of railway wheel defects,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., Part F: J. Rail and Rapid Transit, vol. 231, no. 8, pp. 961-981, Sep. 2017, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/0954409716656218.
O. Polach and D. Nicklisch, “Wheel/rail contact geometry parameters in regard to vehicle behaviour and their alteration with wear,” Wear, vols. 366-367, pp. 200-208, 2016, [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2016.03.029.
EN 15302:2008+A1:2010, Railway Applications - Method for Determining the Equivalent Conicity, 2010.
EN 14363:2016, Railway Applications - Testing and Simulation for the Acceptance of Running Characteristics of Railway Vehicles - Running Behavior and Stationary Tests, 2016.
Universal Mechanism 9: Modeling the Dynamics of Railway Vehicles - User Manual, [Online]. Available: http://www.universalmechanism.com/pages/index.php?id=3, [Accessed: Mar. 28, 2024].
A. A. Kiselev, L. S. Blazhko, A. S. Gaponenko, and A. V. Romanov, “Vliyanie geometricheskikh parametrov zheleznodorozhnogo puti na velichinu ekvivalentnoi konichnosti kolesnoi pary,” Izvestiya Peterburgskogo universiteta putei soobshcheniya, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 202-211, 2019 (in Russian).
V. T. Nirkonen, “O vliyanii konusnosti kolesnykh par na dinamiku dvizheniya podvizhnogo sostava,” Vagony i vagonnoe khozyaistvo, no. 2 (42), pp. 29-31, 2015 (in Russian).
GOST 33211-2014, Freight Wagons. Requirements to Structural Strength and Dynamic Qualities. Moscow, Russia: Standartinform, 2016 (in Russian).
A. Ya. Kogan, “Otsenka ekvivalentnoi konichnosti obodev koles vagonov s iznoshennoi poverkhnost’yu kataniya,” Vestnik VNIIZhT, vol. 77, no. 3, pp. 127-132, 2018 (in Russian).
Yu. P. Boronenko and A. M. Orlova, Kompleksnye teoretiko-eksperimental’nye issledovaniya vzaimodeistviya puti i porozhnikh vagonov. R&D (NIOKR) MPS 19.5.00, CTekh (78r-02), St. Petersburg, Russia, 2002 (in Russian).
