SIST-TP CEN/TR 17469:2020

SLOVENSKI STANDARD
SIST-TP CEN/TR 17469:2020
01-junij-2020
Železniške naprave - Metoda načrtovanja osi
Railway applications - Axle design method
Bahnanwendungen - Konstruktionsverfahren von Radsatzwellen
Applications ferroviaires - Méthode de conception des essieux
Ta slovenski standard je istoveten z: CEN/TR 17469:2020
ICS:
45.040 Materiali in deli za železniško Materials and components
tehniko for railway engineering
SIST-TP CEN/TR 17469:2020 en,fr,de
2003-01.Slovenski inštitut za standardizacijo. Razmnoževanje celote ali delov tega standarda ni dovoljeno.

---------------------- Page: 1 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 17469:2020

---------------------- Page: 2 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 17469:2020


CEN/TR 17469
TECHNICAL REPORT

RAPPORT TECHNIQUE

March 2020
TECHNISCHER BERICHT
ICS 45.040
English Version

Railway applications - Axle design method
Applications ferroviaires - Méthode de conception des Bahnanwendungen - Konstruktionsverfahren von
essieux Radsatzwellen


This Technical Report was approved by CEN on 24 February 2020. It has been drawn up by the Technical Committee CEN/TC
256.

CEN members are the national standards bodies of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia,
Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway,
Poland, Portugal, Republic of North Macedonia, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and
United Kingdom.





EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZATION
COMITÉ EUROPÉEN DE NORMALISATION

EUROPÄISCHES KOMITEE FÜR NORMUNG

CEN-CENELEC Management Centre: Rue de la Science 23, B-1040 Brussels
© 2020 CEN All rights of exploitation in any form and by any means reserved Ref. No. CEN/TR 17469:2020 E
worldwide for CEN national Members.

---------------------- Page: 3 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 17469:2020
CEN/TR 17469:2020 (E)
Contents Page
European foreword . 4
Introduction . 5
1 Scope . 9
2 Normative references . 9
3 Terms, definitions, symbols and abbreviations . 9
3.1 Terms and definitions . 9
3.2 Symbols and abbreviations . 9
4 Loads . 11
4.1 Reliability analysis based on the Stress Strength Interference Analysis method . 11
4.2 Fatigue load analysis method . 13
4.2.1 General . 13
4.2.2 Load signals processing and Fatigue-Equivalent-Load . 13
4.2.3 Method to generate the distribution of in-service load severities . 19
4.3 Fatigue reliability assessment of a railway passenger coach axle . 23
4.3.1 Load measurements . 23
4.3.2 Load spectra classification and generation and distribution of load severity. 27
4.3.3 Estimation of the probability of a crack initiation . 31
5 Modelling . 33
5.1 General . 33
5.2 Stress concentration factors . 33
5.3 Length of the transition . 36
5.4 Numerical modelling of axles . 38
5.4.1 Development of numerical models and validation . 38
5.4.2 Analysis of mounted components . 42
5.4.3 Modelling recommendations . 43
5.5 Axle calculation method . 44
6 Fatigue limits . 45
6.1 Testing method principals . 45
6.1.1 F1 tests . 45
6.1.2 F4 tests . 46
6.1.3 Fatigue limit estimation . 46
6.2 Test plan . 47
6.3 Axle body fatigue limit results . 51
6.3.1 F1 standard surface – transitions and groves (EA4T axles) . 51
6.3.2 F1 Blasted surface – transitions (EA4T axles) . 52
6.3.3 F1 Standard surface – transitions (EA1N axles) . 53
6.3.4 F1 Corroded surfaces – transitions of unpainted axles . 54
6.4 Axle press-fit seat fatigue limits (F4) . 55
6.4.1 Diameter ratio = 1,12 (EA4T axles) . 55
6.4.2 Diameter ratio = 1,08 (EA4T) . 56
7 Safety factors. 57
7.1 Aims and problem statement. 57
7.2 Probabilistic fatigue assessment . 60
7.2.1 Failure probability under constant amplitude stress . 60
2

---------------------- Page: 4 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 17469:2020
CEN/TR 17469:2020 (E)
7.2.2 Fatigue damage under VA loading . 60
7.2.3 Bignonnet method . 61
7.3 Input data for probabilistic fatigue assessment of railway axles . 62
7.3.1 Definitions of reference S-N diagrams . 62
7.3.2 Miner Index at failure. 63
7.3.3 Target reliability and failure rate for railway axles . 66
7.4 Probabilistic fatigue damage calculations for railway axles . 66
7.4.1 Format for the calculations . 66
7.4.2 Montecarlo simulations . 67
7.4.3 Stress spectra . 67
7.5 Results . 68
7.5.1 General . 68
7.5.2 Safety factor and reliability under constant amplitude stress . 69
7.5.3 Safety factor for damage calculations . 70
8 Conclusions of Euraxles Project . 71
9 Recommendations of CEN TC256/SC2/WG11 . 75
Annex A (informative) Application example of the axle calculation method . 76
A.1 General . 76
A.2 General descriptions . 76
A.3 Load distribution . 77
A.4 Results according to EN 13103-1 . 78
A.5 Design of EURAXLES method . 80
A.6 Comparison of results . 82
Bibliography . 83

3

---------------------- Page: 5 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 17469:2020
CEN/TR 17469:2020 (E)
European foreword
This document (CEN/TR 17469:2020) has been prepared by Technical Committee CEN/TC 256 “Railway
applications”, the secretariat of which is held by DIN.
Attention is drawn to the possibility that some of the elements of this document may be the subject of
patent rights. CEN shall not be held responsible for identifying any or all such patent rights.
4

---------------------- Page: 6 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 17469:2020
CEN/TR 17469:2020 (E)
Introduction
The first railway accident due to the fatigue failure of an axle occurred on 1842, May 8th, in France, near
Meudon, on the Versailles-Paris line.
In those days, the fatigue phenomenon was unknown. This failure initiated numerous studies including
German Engineer August WOHLER works on wheelset failures at the end of XIX century.
In the middle of XX century, M. KAMMERER, an engineer working for French railways, established the
bases for the calculation of wheelset axles.
At international level, the report ORE B136 RP11 « Calculation of fret wagon and passenger coaches’
wheelset axles » was edited in April 1979, using in particular the French approach.
This document allowed editing on 1994, July 1st of UIC leaflet 515-3 «Railway rolling stock – Bogie –
Running gears – Axle calculation method».
The first edition of the European Standards about design of axles occurs on April 2001 (EN 13103 for
non-powered axles for powered axles).
The ongoing European standardization has allowed the merging of EN 13103 in only one standard
(EN 13103-1 Railway applications – Wheelsets and bogies – Part 1: Design method for axles with external
journals) and the creation of a new Technical Specification about internal journal (CEN/TS 13103-2
Railway applications – Wheelsets and bogies – Part 2: Design method for axles with internal journals).
All these documents, including M. KAMMERER’s work up to EN 13103-1 and CEN/TS 13103-2, use the
beam theory calculation method. The stresses taken into account are then the nominal stresses. The
fatigue limit is determined from full scale tests in which nominal stresses are taken into account.
Concentration factors are defined from tests to consider the local geometry and to increase the nominal
stress locally. The method is quite simple, with no need of sophisticated calculations or dedicated
software.
On another hand, in the middle of XX century, the need in mechanics to have a tool to calculate
complicated parts lead to the development of the finite element method.
Along with the theoretical study of this method, the use of new mathematical objects and the growth of
calculation capacities of computers, the finite element method raised to a large and common use in
design.
The stresses then calculated are local stresses, and not anymore nominal stresses, and the fatigue limit
to be applied with this methodology are based on local stresses.
In the Euraxles project, the objective was to propose the use of a new assessment method based on load
measurements, finite element method, experimental fatigue limit and new safety concept for the design
of axles in particular for axle designs requiring more complex geometries. This design procedure is
different from today’s proven methods given by the EN standards and not in a status to substitute them.
Nevertheless, it was considered interesting to gather the Euraxles project results inside this Technical
Report. The content should be considered as partial and only for informative uses at this stage. For
example, the reliability of the input data, the variability of parameters, boundary conditions and the
confidence in the partial results should be assessed at full extent.
Where relevant, CEN TC256/SC2/WG11 comments and responses to preliminary enquiry inside the
community were inserted for additional use for the reader, as Observations of CEN/TC 256/SC 2/WG 11.
Besides, a general recommendation of use has been drafted by WG11 members in chapter 9.
This new method is described in this Technical Report in order to allow the possibility for wheelset
designers to apply it and to collect return of experience for further improvement.
5

---------------------- Page: 7 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 17469:2020
CEN/TR 17469:2020 (E)
Work Program summary
Clause 4 deals with the definition of a new fatigue design method which enables to assess the in-service
reliability of axles with regards to fatigue failure. The proposed approach, based on the “Stress Strength
Interference Analysis” (SSIA) and the “Fatigue-Equivalent-Load” (FEL) methods, aims at estimating the
probability of axles’ fatigue failure by characterizing the variability of in-service loads and the scatter of
the axles fatigue strength.
First of all, the main lines of the SSIA method are recalled. This method aims at evaluating the in-service
reliability of components for their design or their homologation. In the second part, the fatigue load
analysis method that is proposed for railway axles is described. It starts with a post-processing of an axle
load measurement: from a time signal of forces applied to both wheels fitted on the axle, fatigue cycles of
bending moment applied to the axle are identified and transformed into a cyclic equivalent load, Meq,
which is a measurement of the severity of the initial variable load. Then, virtual but realistic load spectra
are generated, thanks to a classification operation followed by a random draw of elementary load data
that considers the operation and maintenance conditions of the axle. All the spectra are then analysed
with the FEL method in order to build the distribution of in-service load severities. This distribution gives
a picture of the stress to which the axles are submitted. In the third and last part, the methods are applied
to real data of SNCF. Sensitivity analyses are performed in order to quantify the effect on Meq of variations
of parameters and to verify the convergence and robustness of the process. Finally, results obtained for
a passenger coach are given. The comparison between the distribution of load severities and the
normative load, defined as according to standards EN 13103-1, shows that, for the studied axle, the
normative load is very conservative. Finally, using the axles fatigue limits identified on full-scale tests, a
Stress Strength Interference Analysis is performed to calculate the probability of failure of the axle.

Figure 1 — Flowchart for load analysis and reliability assessment
6

---------------------- Page: 8 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 17469:2020
CEN/TR 17469:2020 (E)
Clause 5 concerns the mechanical modelling of an axle and defines a procedure to obtain local stresses
from the applied loads.
The characteristics of the finite element models to be applied to railway axles are analysed in terms of
element definition, convergence analysis, boundary conditions. A parametric analysis was performed to
assess the applicability of the models. The numerical models generated were validated through the
comparison with experimental results coming from full scale fatigue tests. Finally, a methodology to
design axles using modelling tools as a complement to current European norms is proposed looking for
a compromise between the computational effort and the results obtained.

Figure 2 — Flowchart for modelling
The main scope of Clause 6 is to provide the fatigue limits for standard steel grades considering also the
effect of surface conditions that may be different from the normal newly machined axles, like surface
corrosion that can appear during the service or surface blasting as a method to improve paint adhesion.
The areas of the axles considered were the free body transitions or groves and the wheel seats where at
high bending rates relative micro slips take place generating the so called fretting fatigue phenomena.
The paper provides in the conclusions a comparison with the fatigue limits that are today included in the
European Standards.
Another aspect that is treated in this work is the stress concentration effect that takes place along the
transitions where the body fatigue limit is verified. These parameters were measured by strain gauges
during each test and used inside the Euraxle project to validate their estimation through FE model
calculation.
7

---------------------- Page: 9 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 17469:2020
CEN/TR 17469:2020 (E)

Figure 3 — Full-scale and small-scale fatigue tests
8

---------------------- Page: 10 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 17469:2020
CEN/TR 17469:2020 (E)
1 Scope
This document presents the stage of knowledge resulting from the Euraxles project about the design of
the axle, and further steps to be taken.
It is the support:
- to define the loads to be taken into account;
- to describe the stress calculation method using finite elements and the validation processes associated;
- to specify the maximum permissible stresses to be assumed in calculations and the safety factors to be
used.
This technical report is applicable for:
- wheelset Axles defined in EN 13261 as “pure wheelset”;
- other axle designs such as those encountered in particular rolling stocks e.g. with independent wheels,
variable gauges, urban rail…
This document has not for aim to replace EN 13103-1 and CEN/TS 13103-2 but to present a
complementary method to the existing ones.
2 Normative references
There are no normative references in this document.
3 Terms, definitions, symbols and abbreviations
3.1 Terms and definitions
No terms and definitions are listed in this document.
ISO and IEC maintain terminological databases for use in standardization at the following addresses:
— IEC Electropedia: available at http://www.electropedia.org/
— ISO Online browsing platform: available at https://www.iso.org/obp/ui
3.2 Symbols and abbreviations
FEL fatigue equivalent load method
SSIA Stress Strength Interference Analysis
KMR Consequent Miner Rule
FEM Finite Element Method
Nomenclature is given in Table 1.
9

---------------------- Page: 11 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 17469:2020
CEN/TR 17469:2020 (E)
Table 1 — Nomenclature
Y (t), Y (t) lateral force applied to both wheels
1 2
Q (t), Q (t) vertical force applied to both wheels
1 2
P1, P2 Vertical loads applied on the journals
C Minimum transition length
min
F Fatigue load
F Fatigue equivalent load
eq
F Severe representative load that can be defined for test and simulation validation
n
x, y, z Longitudinal, axial, vertical direction of wheelset reference axis
Bending moment applied to the y-section of the axle in the x direction (train
M (y)
x
circulation direction)
M Bending moment applied to the most critical section of the axle in the x direction
x
Equivalent bending moment applied to the most critical section of the axle in the
M
x,eq
x direction
M Normative bending moment
x,EN
MR Resultant bending moment
P Probability
P Probability of failure
f
P Probability of having a more severe load than F
n n
E Young modulus
K Stress correction factor
Kt Stress concentration factor
K Fatigue stress concentration factor
f
K Stress concentration factor based on strain measurements
t,s
D Total fatigue damage
d Partial damage generated by the ith class of a load spectrum
i
n Occurrence of the ith class of a load spectrum
i
N Number of cycles for a crack initiation for the ith class of a load spectrum
i
CV Coefficient of variation for the X variable
X
m Slope of the S-N diagram when using a one single slope curve
k Slope of the S-N diagram for S > S
D
k’ Slope of the S-N diagram for S < S
D
N number of cycle for the knee of the S-N diagram
D
S Stress load
S stress amplitude for the knee of the S-N diagram
D
K total mileage of an axle
ref
10

---------------------- Page: 12 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 17469:2020
CEN/TR 17469:2020 (E)
σ Allowable fatigue stress
f
σ Calculated dynamic stress
d
σ Von Mises stress
VM
σ Hydrostatic stress
h
τ Shear stress
σ Principal stress
1
ε Principal strain
1
σn Nominal stress
D/d Diameter ratio (diameter of wheel seat divided diameter of nearby body)
D Outer diameter of hub
N
d Diameter of the axle shaft
Maximum value of the radius of the transition r
r
max

F1 Full scale axle body fatigue limit
F4 Full scale axle seat fatigue limit
4 Loads
4.1 Reliability analysis based on the Stress Strength Interference Analysis method
Fatigue is known to be a damage phenomenon which is very dispersive. The sources of variability are
linked to the material properties that depend on its composition but also on the manufacturing process,
the geometry of the structure, loads, usages, environment, etc. To ensure safety, margins applied to the
specified loads and the prescribed fatigue limits, associated to a stress calculation method were defined
in standards EN 13103-1 [21] for the design and validation of railway axles. They were established in the
past decades, based on experience of railway experts and experimental and modelling works. Today, they
enable to guaranty a high level of safety for the European railway sector, as feedback from operation
shows. But, to gain competitiveness, it can be very useful to measure the available margins in order to
ensure that when a new design or a new technology is introduced, the level of safety is maintained.
For that reason, it would be beneficial to switch little by little from conservative approaches towards
reliability approaches. Maximalist approaches ensure safe designs by defining safety factors that make
the load specifications more severe and underestimate the allowable fatigue limits. The consequence is
that optimized solutions can’t be found. Moreover, when a significant change occurs in the system, it is
difficult to evaluate its impact on reliability. In reliable approaches, the aim is to have a “just necessary”
design associated to a target probability of failure. For safety critical components, the probability of
−5 −8
failure during the lifetime generally vary from 10 to 10 . In the example given in [4] on an automotive
engine part, the target probability is 10-6. For railway safety applications, if one considers that the
−6 −7
number of accidents due to mechanical failures is rather small, a target between 10 and 10 sounds
reasonable.
−6 −7
Observations of CEN/TC 256/SC 2/WG 11: The target value quoted (10 to 10 ) is a failure rate per
−9
axle during its whole life. It is approximately in line with the 10 failure rate per operational hour defined
in the CSM (EU regulation 402/2013) for technical systems for which a functional failure with immediate
disastrous consequences is assumed.
11

---------------------- Page: 13 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 17469:2020
CEN/TR 17469:2020 (E)
Reliability approaches have been developed for many years in various industries. The methods always
consist in characterizing the variabilities of the system to be designed and in calculating its probability of
failure by propagating the uncertainties in a deterministic modelling, as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4 — Reliability approaches
The SSIA (Stress Strength Interference Analysis) is one of the reliability methods. It is widely used in
industries, due to its simplicity. Within this approach, only two global parameters are used to characterize
the variability of the problem: the load severity - referred to as STRESS - and the component strength -
referred to as STRENGTH. These two parameters are chosen so as to be comparable (for instance, local
stresses vs fatigue limits). Once the distributions of the Stress and the Strength are identified and
modelled, a probability of failure can be easily calculated, by means of analytical expressions or numerical
resolutions, as explained for example in [1][2][3][4]. The SSIA is therefore often used in the validation
process of a new component. But it is even more powerful in the design process: from a pre-defined target
probability of failure Pf, for a given distribution of Stress, the Strength distribution (mean value and
scatter) can be specified. Let’s notice that there is not a unique solution to this problem, as shown in
Figure 5.



a) SSIA for the validation process b) SSIA for the design process
Figure 5 — SSIA approach
To apply the SSIA approach, it is necessary to characterize both distributions. The distribution of Strength
can be identified thanks to laboratory fatigue tests. To have a good estimation of its distribution and not
only its mean value, a sufficient number of tests is necessary. In the Euraxles project, new tests were
performed for steel grades EA1N and EA4T. They are described in [17] and in Clause 4 of the report. For
the Stress distribution, measurements of loads shall be carried out in various operating conditions in
order to capture the variability of the behaviour of the component, as described in 4.2.3. Using
complementary information on the variability of usages from an axle to another, a distribution of in-
12

---------------------- Page: 14 ----------------------
SIST-TP CEN/TR 17469:2020
CEN/TR 17469:2020 (E)
service load severity S can be generated. Accordingly, a representative and severe load can be defined as
a specification to be used in the
...