journal article·2020-01-02

Prediction of RCF clustered cracks dimensions using an ACFM sensor and influence of crack length and vertical angle

J. Shen, L. Zhou, H. Rowshandel, G.L. Nicholson, C.L. Davis

Publisher page

Abstract

Rolling contact fatigue (RCF) cracks are the predominant reason for rail grinding maintenance and replacement on all types of railway system, as they can potentially cause rail break if not removed. To avoid excessive material removal, accurate crack sizing is required. Alternating current field measurement has been used as an electromagnetic method for RCF crack sizing, incorporating with modelling results for single RCF cracks with large vertical angles (>30°). No study using this knowledge to size shallow angled crack clusters has yet been reported. A novel method, the pocket length compensation method, is proposed to determine the length and depth of RCF cracks with shallow vertical angles. For shallow crack clusters, vertical angle predictions are close to the measured values with a deviation of less than 13.6%. Errors in crack pocket length prediction are greatly reduced when the pocket length compensation was included. The predicted vertical depth using the approach developed for clustered angled cracks is accurate with errors <8.3%, which compares to errors of up to 60% if the single RCF crack approach is used and errors of up to 21.4% if a non-compensated prediction for crack clusters is used.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Non-Destructive Testing Techniques · Ultrasonics and Acoustic Wave Propagation · Structural Health Monitoring Techniques

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Advanced Manufacturing and Materials Centre, WMG, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

Birmingham Centre for Railway Research and Education, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

Funding

University of Warwick · Chinese Scholarship Council

References (23)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1177/2041301710JRRT41410.1177/2041301710JRRT414 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2003.06.00110.1016/j.ndteint.2003.06.001 ↗
3. 10.1046/j.1460-2695.2003.00657.x10.1046/j.1460-2695.2003.00657.x ↗
4. 10.1243/09544097JRRT24210.1243/09544097JRRT242 ↗
5. 10.1046/j.1460-2695.2003.00693.x10.1046/j.1460-2695.2003.00693.x ↗
6. Magel EE · 2011
7. 10.1179/1743281212Y.000000004110.1179/1743281212Y.0000000041 ↗
8. 10.1007/s13344-013-0024-x10.1007/s13344-013-0024-x ↗
9. 10.1109/TII.2017.272880410.1109/TII.2017.2728804 ↗
10. 10.1243/09544097JRRT20910.1243/09544097JRRT209 ↗
11. Howitt M · Insight · 2002 · 44 · 379
12. 10.1784/insi.47.6.354.6644610.1784/insi.47.6.354.66446 ↗
13. Railtrack. Permanent way special instruction No. 4, Issue 2; 2002.
14. Rowshandel H. The development of an autonomous robotic inspection system to detect and characterise rolling contact fatigue cracks in railway track [PhD thesis]. University of Birmingham; 2014.
15. 10.1088/0957-0233/26/11/11560410.1088/0957-0233/26/11/115604 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2018.04.00710.1016/j.ndteint.2018.04.007 ↗
17. Shen J. Responses of alternating current field measurement (ACFM) to rolling contact fatigue (RCF) cracks in railway rails. PhD thesis, University of Warwick, 2017.
18. Comsol Multiphysics® v.5.0. COMSOL AB, Stockholm, Sweden. 2015
19. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2011.04.00310.1016/j.ndteint.2011.04.003 ↗
20. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2011.11.01010.1016/j.ndteint.2011.11.010 ↗
21. 10.1784/insi.2011.53.7.36810.1784/insi.2011.53.7.368 ↗
22. 10.1177/095440971348677810.1177/0954409713486778 ↗
23. 10.1016/j.ndteint.2018.04.00710.1016/j.ndteint.2018.04.007 ↗