Analysis of Methodologies For Fatigue Calculation For Railway Bogie Frames PDF
Analysis of Methodologies For Fatigue Calculation For Railway Bogie Frames PDF
Analysis of Methodologies For Fatigue Calculation For Railway Bogie Frames PDF
Abstract
The paper is focused on a critical analysis of the railway bogie frame fatigue strength
assessment procedure, with special attention paid to welded joints. Different welded joints
fatigue analysis techniques were critically analyzed including also the two different approaches
(endurance limit and Goodman diagram) for calculation methodologies proposed in the
European standard EN 13749. The aim of the analysis is to understand those which appeared
more suitable for bogie frame analysis, taking account of accuracy and applicability. The
selected criteria, making use of a purposely developed post-processor for a commercial Finite
Element program (ANSYS) were critically compared for reliability and safety. In the paper
fatigue analysis is investigated, paying attention on the techniques to adopt for the application of
the Finite Element Methods.
Introduction
As a consequence of the standardization process developing in Europe, on April 2005 the new
European standard EN 13749 was issued by the European standardization body CEN. The aim
of the norm is to define the complete design process of railway bogies. It includes design
procedures, assessment methods, verification and manufacturing quality requirements.
The EN13749 norm codifies static and fatigue load assumptions, as well as calculations and
test methods to verify the static and fatigue resistance of the bogie frames. In particular for
fatigue calculation an important number of load cases is defined in the norm according with the
mission profile of the bogie frame (categories of bogies) and the different typologies of forces
acting on the bogie frame.
With the improving of new numerical calculation codes (Finite Element Method) the fatigue
integrity evaluation has reached high levels especially for the accuracy and for the details of the
simulation.
Even the reached improvement some important points remain open and are not yet defined in
the norm. The items which will require research work are mainly two. The first one is the method
to use for the FEM simulation and the fatigue assessment in the welded joints. The second item
is the definition of a standard calculation methodology for the evaluation of the fatigue strength
in case of multi-axial stresses (typical for railway applications).
As direct consequence of the above open points the same bogie design can be analyzed for
fatigue integrity making use of alternative methods/methodologies potentially giving different
results.
Since 2006 the Engineering Department of Trenitalia, the Italian state-owned operator, and the
Mechanical Engineering Department of Pisa University are developing a common research
project in the field of bogie frames fatigue behaviour. The main aim of this project is to
contribute to the set-up of a validated methodology applicable for fatigue integrity evaluation of
railway frames through the use of Finite Element simulations.
Concerning Fatigue Strength analysis techniques the main approaches selected and cross-
checked are the following:
Nominal stress method
Hot spot stress method
Effective Notch Stress method
For each of the previous methods investigations about the building of the model for FEM
analysis were carried out in order to optimize the fatigue calculation of structural components
consistent with railway applications. Particular attention was focused on the schematization of
the welded joint and the geometric details in relation with the adopted mesh and element types
(shell or brick elements). In this case the aim of the research is oriented to define the more
appropriate correlation between FEM schematization and utilized method of analysis.
Regarding the methodologies applicable for fatigue integrity the most important characteristics,
advantages or disadvantages connected to the use of the two different approaches proposed in
the ERRI B12 RP60 report for fatigue calculations (Goodman diagram and Cumulative damage)
has been investigated.
For this goal different post-processors compatible with the FEM software Ansys (used within
Trenitalia Engineering Department) has been developed in order to apply the methodologies for
fatigue calculation. Three different methodologies have been selected for the implementation of
post-processors: the first one according with ERRI B12 RP60 and two others between those
analyzed in the first part of the project.
In the final step of the project (within may 2007) the final validation of the calculation model will
be carried out through on bench tests. Some structural components and specific samples will be
tested in appropriate test rigs (capable of generating multi-axial stress states) in order to
determine the fatigue limit of the critic parts (welded joints for example) and to measure the
stresses in some main location.
The comparison between the results numerically and experimentally achieved will be used to
validate del calculation model.
Among these, the weld joint geometry is generally the most important, as weld joint cross
shape usually includes quite abrupt shape variations, with very small root radius values. The
theoretical stress concentration factor (Kt= max/nom) due to geometric effects typically
assumes values ranging from 1.5 up to 5 [6-7]. On the contrary, the stress concentration
Weld technology
Component
geometry
Stress concentrations
Material properties
variation
Residual stresses
External loading
Fig. 2 Factors affecting welded structures fatigue strength
factors produced by material elastic properties (in particular, Poissons ratio, ) variation in
different joint regions (i.e. Base Material (BM), Heat Affected Zone (HAZ) and Fusion Zone
(FZ)) are rather small, usually not exceeding 1.1-1.2.
A specific problem with welds is that geometric notch root radius are usually very small
(typically, less than a few tenth of millimetre). Therefore, elastic maximum stress cannot be
employed to predict fatigue life, but it must be replaced by a effective value, accounting for
notch sensitivity.
Actual Kt values for welded joints can, in principle, be efficiently evaluated by Finite Element
(FEM) models. However, uncertainties in actual joint geometry (which, moreover, usually varies
along the weld) can make this evaluation rather difficulty and specific analysis procedures were
developed.
Material fatigue strength variation within the joint should, in principle jointly act with stress
variation to determine the actual fatigue failure initiation site. In practice, however, the former
effect is overridden by the latter and fatigue failure is usually observed to occur in one of the
highest stress concentration position, i.e. the weld root or the weld toe.
Residual stresses in welded structures can reach quite high values, depending on structure
geometry and static indeterminacy degree and on the welding technology (type of welding,
welding sequence, etc.). The determination of actual residual stress level, either by means of
measurement or through the use of computer (i.e. FEM) simulation of the welding process is a
quite complex matter, whose results are often affected by very high uncertainty and variability.
The typical effect (Fig. 3) of residual stresses (res) on fatigue behaviour of structures is that of
superimposing to stresses due to external loading (ext), increasing the cycle mean stress (m).
An increase of m is usually accompanied by a reduction of fatigue life and this is also the case
for welded structures, at least in the presence of rather small residual stresses (e.g. in
structures subjected to Post Weld Heat Treatment (PWHT)).
res ext
= ext
m = 0
(b)
(a)
ext
t t
eff
= ext
m = res
ext
res
(c)
t
Fig. 3 Residual stress effects on fatigue cycle: (a) residual stress, (b) fatigue cycle due to
external loading, (c) effective fatigue cycle.
However, if the maximum stress in cycle exceeds material yield strength (which is usually the
case for rather high residual stresses, as in structures not subjected to PWHT) it is substantially
upper limited to such value and, as a consequence, the cycle mean stress become rather
independent from external cycle mean stress always attaining the minimum value, typical of
very high stress values [6].
The effects of residual stresses are usually not directly accounted for in fatigue life evaluation.
Structures are usually classified into different categories, typically expected to be affected by
high or low residual stresses, each with specific allowable stress limits.
The presence of crack like defects, rather common in welded joints can highly reduce fatigue
strength, actually reducing to zero or near zero values the number of cycles required for
initiation. Defects are usually dealt with in regulations trough acceptability limits, under which
their effect on fatigue life can be considered negligible [1].
a specific fatigue strength curve is required for each combination of the above parameters and,
as a consequence, a lot of different fatigue curves are required and this cannot ensure to find
the suitable one for a specific application case. In the following, the application of the nominal
stress method will be based on the EUROCODE strength curves [1].
The hot spot method, firstly developed for offshore platforms structural analysis, is based on
recognizing that the stress distribution near a welded joint has two main contributions (Fig. 4):
a linear through the thickness distribution, equilibrating external loads (geometric
stress), whose maximum value at the weld toe is called hot spot stress (HS);
a non-linear distribution, having zero force and moment resultant, representing local
perturbation due to weld notch geometry (peak stress)
The basic idea of the HSS method is that the maximum actual stress acting at the weld toe will
be proportional to the hot spot stress, by a factor which will only depend on the weld local
geometry (and not on the global joint geometry). Therefore, a fatigue strength curve is required
for each weld geometry only (e.g. butt or fillet welds), so greatly simplifying and rationalizing the
analysis. The main shortcoming of the method can be recognized in the theoretical and practical
difficulties connected with the hot spot stress evaluation. Indeed, the stress field calculated
via any FEM model will necessarily show both the linear stress contribution and an
approximated estimate of the non linear contribution. So, in order to determine the linear
contribution only, special extrapolation techniques (for which are necessary particular mesh
construction criteria) are required. Another shortcoming of the HSS method is the weld toe
failure only is considered, excluding the possibility of a failure at the weld root.
The Effective Notch Stress method is based on the evaluation of an estimate of the actual
maximum stress acting in the joint, at the weld root or toe (Fig. 4)
Fig. 4 Stress contributions in welded joints, with Hot Spot Stress and Effective Notch
Stress indication
Fig. 5 Example of FEM mesh with effective notch root radii for ENS evaluation
In this case, the fatigue strength curve can be unique for the given welding technology. The
main shortcoming of the ENS method is the complexity of the analysis and difficulties in
applying to situations where the effective notch radius is comparable with actual steel sheet
thickness (the method is qualified for welded sheets whose thickness exceeds 5-6 mm). As
regards the effects of multi-axiality, empirical relationships are usually employed with the
nominal stress method, while the maximum principal stress criterion is the most widely
employed together with the HSS and the ENS methods.
The ERRI B12/RP60 code for fatigue analysis of railway bogies indicates two alternative fatigue
analysis techniques:
Cumulative Damage Method (CDM)
Goodman Diagram Method (GDM)
These techniques are ideally based on the experimental determination of representative
stresses acting in the structure, by strain gauges. The measurement can, however, be easilly
substituted by a FEM simulation, so transforming the experimental method in a numerical one,
which can be employed at least in the design stage.
The CDM is essentially aimed at an approximate evaluation of the nominal stress. The strain
gauge is located at some distance from the weld toe (30% of the sheet thickness, usually 8-10
mm for railway bogies), so avoiding local stress concentrations due to weld geometry and
allowing an approximated estimate of the nominal stress to be obtained. The multi-axiality
criterion is essentially the maximum principal stress one, while fatigue strength curves (similar to
those reported in [1]) are given for a series of weld geometries, typically encountered in bogies.
On the contrary, the GDM is aimed at an approximate evaluation of the HSS. This is obtained
by locating the strain gauge quite closer to the weld joint, as compared to the CDM. In this case
also, the maximum principal stress criterion is employed to account for multi-axiality. Specific
Goodmans diagrams are given for different weld technology (e.g. butt or angle welds).
(b) (c)
Fig. 6 FEM analysis (brick elements) of fillet welds: a) joint geometry; (b) FEM model,
including schematic weld representation; (c) FEM model without weld representation
(a) (b)
Fig. 7 FEM analysis (shell elements) of a tubular welded joint, typically employed for HSS
evaluation
Displacement
Displacement
field
field
Fig. 8 Typical FEM model for ENS evaluation, based on a sub structuring technique