Total Friction Management Benefits. Transit Module

Transcription

1 Total Friction Management Benefits Transit Module

2 Goals and Objectives Why are there benefits to TFM? What is the value of TFM? Where has TFM been explored? 2

3 Why Control Friction? Uncontrolled friction at the wheel/rail interface results in or contributes to: } Curve noise } Excessive wheel and rail wear } Corrugations and rolling contact fatigue (RCF) } Wheel flats, SPADS (lubricant on the rail head) } Higher fuel/energy consumption } Potential safety issues: wheel climb derailment, high lateral forces (L/V) 3

4 TOR Friction Control and Gauge Face Lubrication Fundamental differences in the technologies involved, frictional targets, objectives and benefits. The two technologies are complementary when implemented effectively. 4

5 Flange/Gauge Face Lubrication Rail/Wheel Wear is the primary issue Gauge face lubrication widely implemented in the world Impacts: } Flange Noise } Rail / Wheel Wear (Gage Face, Flange) } Derailment Potential (Wheel Climb) } Rolling Contact Fatigue Development } Fuel Efficiency µ= High Rail Rail

6 Top of Rail (TOR) Friction Control Impacts: } Squeal Noise } Flange Noise (indirect) } Corrugations } Hunting } RCF Development } Rail / Wheel Wear (TOR, Tread) } Lateral Forces } Fuel Efficiency } Derailment Potential (L/V, rail rollover) µ= High Rail TOR: µ= Low Rail Coefficient of friction level does not impact braking and traction Portec Rail Products, Inc. 2010

7 Corrugations

8 Corrugation formation: common threads Traction, Friction, etc. Initial Profile Perturbation + Damage Mechanism (Wear) Wavelength Fixing Mechanism Corrugations Profile Change Under saturated lateral or longitudinal creepage, negative friction characteristic can result in self-sustained roll slip oscillations Roll slip oscillations precede and can initiate the development of corrugations Kelsan Europe Technical Conference 8

9 Influence of Friction Levels on Corrugation: Theory Reduced absolute friction levels on the rail head (without compromising traction / braking) expected to reduce wear component of corrugation mechanism Positive friction characteristics of interfacial layer Reduction of roll-slip oscillations associated with wavelength fixing / initiation component of corrugation mechanism 9

10 10

11 TRANSIT CORRUGATION CASE STUDIES

12 Case Study 1: European Commuter Rail System Baseline corrugation one month after grinding 12

13 Case Study 1: European Commuter Rail Results 0.5 Rail Grinding and Baseline Rail Grinding and friction modifier 0.4 Amplitude (mm) Nov-03 4-Mar Jun Sep Dec-04 8-Apr Jul-05 Measurement Date Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 4: 200 m from start of curve start, Zone 5: 430 m from start of curve 13

14 Case Study 1: European Commuter Rail with Friction Modifier after Eight Months 14

15 Summary of Corrugation Results with KELTRACK 1.40 Review of Corrugation Results with KELTRACK Trackside Transit Application Corrugation Amplitude Growth Rate (mm/year) Heathrow Express Metro Bilbao- Aiboa Metro Bilbao- Algorta European Metro European Metro European Metro European European Commuter Rail Commuter Rail Japanese Metro Japanese Metro Baseline KELTRACK 15

16 HPF Program on MTRC TKL (100% underground) Noise ( noisy saloon ) mitigation through reduced corrugation growth Extended grinding interval from 3-4 months to 6-9 months TKL Train TKL 18.8% TRAIN LCF Coverage 18.8% 31.2% LCF Effective Coverage HPF Coverage 15.6% HPF Coverage - (31.2 % Effective) 1 AXLES AXLES AXLES AXLES AXLES AXLES AXLES AXLES MOTOR MOTOR TRAILER MOTOR MOTOR TRAILER MOTOR MOTOR DENOTES LCF APPLICATION POSITION DENOTES HPF APPLICATION POSITION 16

17 Wheel/Rail Interface Noise

18 Noise Railway noise types and frequency ranges Curve noise types and frequency ranges Squeal noise generation physical mechanism and effects of KELTRACK KELTRACK noise mitigation examples / data 18

19 Spectral range for different noise types Noise type Frequency range, Hz Rolling Rumble (including corrugations) Flat spots (speed dependent) Ground Vibrations Top of rail squeal Flanging noise

20 Curve noise control with TOR friction modifiers Top of rail wheel squeal noise High pitched, tonal squeal (predominantly Hz) Prevalent noise mechanism in problem curves, usually < 300m radius Related to both negative friction characteristics of Third Body at tread / top of rail interface and absolute friction level Ø Stick-slip oscillations Flanging noise Typically a buzzing OR hissing sound, characterized by broadband high frequency components (>5000 Hz) Affected by: A. Lateral forces: related to friction on the top of the low rail B. Flanging forces: related to friction on top of low and high rails C. Friction at the flange / gauge face interface 20 8 th Course on Vehicle / Track Interaction

21 TRANSIT NOISE CASE STUDIES

22 Case Study: Sacramento RTD Typical articulated LRVs 115 lb imbedded and worn rail 25m radius curve, length 76 m Significant noise complaints from local residents. Prior to installation of trackside unit, noise controlled by manual application of friction modifier 22

23 Average sound pressure versus frequency Sacramento RTD 90.0 Average Sound Pressure, db Frequency, Hz Baseline FM Manual FM Trackside 23

24 Case Study: PAT Washington Junction installation Site details: Curve 1: 113 m radius, 125m length Tangent 48 m Curve 2: 113 m radius, 31 m length Initially 0.3% downgrade, then 4.1% downgrade in curves 115lb RE rail 24

25 Untreated Track 25

26 KELTRACK Treated Track

27 Curve Noise Reduction with Friction Modifier on Different Systems Baseline Friction modifier LAeq, dba Tram 1A Tram 1B Tram 2 Metro 3 Metro 4 Freight 5 Freight 6 27

28 Rail Wear 28

29 Rail Wear Types Wear Types } Adhesion } Oxidative } Surface Fatigue } Abrasion } Corrosion } Rolling Contact Fatigue } Plastic Flow 29

30 Adhesive wear rail gauge face/wheel flange interface Archard Wear Law applies to rail gauge face / wheel flange wear } Volume of wear is proportional to wear coefficient, which is also proportional to CoF V = k Ns H k proportional to COF N V = volume of wear N = normal load s = sliding distance (i.e. creepage) H = hardness k = wear coefficient s 30

31 Gauge Face Wear 31

32 Oxidative wear top of rail / wheel tread interface High stress, low frequency top-of-rail/wheel-tread contact Reaction of surface iron with oxygen Brittle oxide layer Relative motion separates layer from surface and generates wear particles Wear particles consist of compressed iron oxide and other particles 32

33 Dry Wheel / Rail Interface Relative Motion (Accumulating Creepage) Body 1 (Wheel) Transition 3 RD Body Interface Transition (not to scale) Rolling Direction adh slip Relative Wheel/Rail Motion (Creepage) Accommodated by: Brittle High Hardness Wear Particles (Fe 3 O 4 ) Body 2 (Rail) DRY Wheel / Rail 1. Rolling 2. Elasticity 3. Breaking 4. Void Collapse Friction Force 1 4 Creepage July 7 th -10 th,

34 KELTRACK Treated Wheel / Rail Interface Reduced wear particle generation Relative Motion (Accumulating Creepage) Body 1 (Wheel) Transition 3 RD Body Interface Transition (not to scale) Pliable Soft FM Particles Brittle High Hardness Wear Particles (Fe 3 O 4 ) Body 2 (Rail) KELTRACK creates a composite deformation mechanism Pliable FM particles provide an elastic shear displacement accommodation mechanism that negates/arrests brittle particle breaking and void collapse Friction Force DRY Wheel / Rail KELTRACK Conditioned Creepage 34

35 TRANSIT RAIL WEAR CASE STUDIES 35

36 Rail Wear: Case Study # Annual MGT (local regional, long distance and freight) Rail size: 60 UNI Curve Length: m Curve Radius: m Baseline assessment captured higher gage corner wear rates in Summer compared to Spring Seasonal effects accounted for in rail wear analysis No traffic changes were confirmed for the trial period 36

37 Summer Comparison: KELTRACK high rail gage corner wear rates are significantly lower than baseline 37

38 Rail Wear: Case Study #2 Rolling Stock } Siemens Transportation System SD400 double-ended articulated six axle LRV } One to two car configurations } 10 minute non-peak and 5 minute peak headways } Annual tonnage is approximately 11.6 MGT 38

39 Case Study #2: Test Site A Curve radius: 91 meters Curve length: 122 meters Gradient: 2% to 3% downhill Track gage: 1,594 mm 115 lb RE rail Strap guard on both high and low rails 39

40 Test Site A: Reduced High Rail Wear Rates Ave. Wear Per MGT [m Head Wear (W1) Gauge Wear (W2) Gauge Corner Wear (W3) Baseline Average Wear Rate [MGT/Year] KELTRACK Average Wear Rate [MGT/Year] 40

41 Case Study 2: Test Site B Curve 1 radius: 25 meters Curve 2 radius: 119 meter 115lb RE rail Strap guard on both low and high rails Trackside Applicator Location Direction of Traffic 41

42 Test Site B: Reduced Low Rail Wear Rates Ave. Wear Per MGT [m Head Wear (W1) Gauge Wear (W2) Gauge Corner Wear (W3) Baseline Average Wear Rate [MGT/Year] KELTRACK Average Wear Rate [MGT/Year] 42

43 Test Site B: Reduced High Rail Wear Rates Ave. Wear Per MGT [m Head Wear (W1) Gauge Wear (W2) Gauge Corner Wear (W3) Baseline Average Wear Rate [MGT/Year] KELTRACK Average Wear Rate [MGT/Year] 43

44 Wheel Wear Mitigation with Flange Lubrication and Tread Friction Control

45 Solid Stick Systems - Theory and Applications Overview: Wheel wear rates Case Studies High speed Metro system

46 Wheel Flange Wear Rates Typical Wheel Flange Wear Rates 0.14 Flange Wear Rates (M=Metro, F=Freight, H=High Speed Trains) Wear Rate (mm/kkm) Control LCF Solid Stick 0.00 M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 F1 F2 F3 M7 M8 M9 H1 H2 High Speed Metros Freight Test Vehicles

47 Wheel Tread Wear Rates Tread wear results for an Asian metro system Average Tread Wear Rates, Baseline vs. HPF Tread Wear (mm/kkm) Side A Side B Baseline HPF

48 Case Study Case Study High Speed (KTX)

49 KTX System Information Commissioned 2004 Services: Between Seoul and Busan Between Seoul and Mokpo For both services, combination of both high speed and conventional track High Speed and Conventional Lines for each Service

50 KTX System Information High Speed Sections: Gwangmyeong to Daejeon Junction (133.1 km) Daejeon to East Daegu (133.3 km)

51 KTX System Information Trains travel bi-directionally Track and Rail Information All trains used on both services No trains are specifically used on the conventional or high speed lines Max. speed on high speed lines: 300 km/hr Max. speed on conventional lines: 140 km/hr

52 KTX Train sets Alstom design Similar to TGVs at Eurostar Up to 300 km/hr

53 KTX Train sets LOCOMOTIVE POWERED COACH CAR 1 CAR 2 CAR 3 CAR 4 CAR 5 CAR 6 CAR LB LB MB TB CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR 14 CAR 15 CAR 16 CAR 17 CAR 18 CAR 19 CAR Train sets bogies (6 powered, 17 trailer) per train 3 bogie designs Locomotive bogie (LB) Motorized bogie (MB) Trailer bogie (TB) TB MB LB LB POWERED COACH LOCOMOTIVE

54 LCF Bracket and Applicator Designs Trailer Bogie Bracket Kelsan design but manufactured in Korea Similar to Eurostar design

55 LCF Bracket and Applicator Designs Locomotive Bogie Bracket Alstom design

56 LCF Bracket and Applicator Designs Motorized Bogie Bracket Alstom design Axle box mounted

57 LCF Configuration CAR 1 CAR 2 CAR 3 CAR 4 CAR 5 CAR 6 CAR CAR 8 CAR 9 CAR 10 CAR 11 CAR 12 CAR CAR 14 CAR 15 CAR 16 CAR 17 CAR 18 CAR 19 CAR DENOTES LCF APPLICATION LOCATION DENOTES OIL APPLICATION LOCATION EKR Configuration 30% wheel coverage 2 configurations developed with input from Kelsan Eukorail (EKR) configuration - 10 trains Korean Railroad Research Institute (KRRI) configuration - 36 trains

58 Wheel Monitoring Test Trains Monitored Korail selected 4 trains for monitoring On board oil spray system on Train #32 was taken offline All other trains in fleet operates on both oil and LCF

59 Trial Results Overall Wear Rates Flange (Sd) Tread (Sh) Gradient (qr) Flange (W) Wear Rate (mm/kkm) Very low flange wear rate W measurement more conservative than Sd Tread wear rate not high but almost twice that of flange wear

60 Trial Results Flange Wear Rate (W) Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Flange Wear W (mm/kkm) KTX 3 KTX 6 KTX 13 KTX 32 Flange wear (W) rate over the 3 periods

61 Case Study Case Study Metro System (Suburban)

62 Case Study Metro (Suburban) Kuala Lumpur Airport Express with moderate curvature Commissioning tests indicated excessive flange wear and projected wheel life of 170,000 km (4.5 months operation)!

63 Case Study Metro (Suburban) Short term action: Manual greasing of tightest curves increased projected wheel life to 290,000 km. High labour costs. Misapplication of grease to railhead causing skid flats. Decision to implement train mounted solid sticks on fleet as a permanent solution.

64 Flange Wear Case Study (Suburban) DENOTES LCF APPLICATION POSITION DENOTES ADDITIONAL LCF APPLICATOR POSITION Fleet was initially outfitted at 30% coverage with manual lubrication stopped

65 Case Study Metro (Suburban) Wheel Life (kkm) Control Manual Greasing LCF - 30% LCF - 45% Wheel flange life extended by 10x at 30% coverage. Wheel flange life extended further at 45% coverage. Increased train availability. Reduction in rail wear extending life of track. Environmental cleanliness, both track and train. Net savings >US$ 2,000,000 in wheel related costs.

66 LCF Film Transfer Mechanism The solid stick lubricant is applied directly to the wheel flange of a rail vehicle The LCF material transfers to the wheel flange and in turn to the gauge face of the rail A thin film is left behind on the gauge face of the rail that provides superior lubrication to the wheel/rail interface throughout the railway system. Film Transfer to Rail Film Transfer to Other Wheels

67 Rail Wear Reduction also Achieved with LCF Implementation Bombardier, Ankara Turkey Rail Wear Study: Excessive rail gauge corner wear 9 months after the transit system opened. No track lubrication other than hand application of grease to mainline switches and some yard check rails. Initial reduction of wear rates with hand application of liquid LCF. Initiated on-board LCF stick application (25% wheel coverage) and detailed Miniprof rail wear measurements.

68 Rail Wear Reduction also Achieved with LCF Implementation Bombardier, Ankara Turkey % increase in Rail Gauge Life 0.3 Side Rail Wear rate, mm / month Unlubricated Kelsan LCF Curve locations

69 Rolling Contact Fatigue 69

70 RCF Development: Shakedown Increased Mat l Strength Reduced Stress (e.g. wheel/rail profiles) Reduced Traction Coefficient (e.g. reduced friction) 70

71 Wheel / Rail Test Stand Results*: Reduced Wear and RCF New 60E1 FM Applied / 250 Cycles Dry Rail * Collaborative project with voestalpine Schienen GmbH, published at CM2006 (Brisbane) 71

72 Lateral Forces 72

73 Saturated Creepage Conditions Under saturated creepage conditions, low rail and high rail lateral forces primarily related to the coefficient of friction on the low rail Wheelbase, 2L V Curve Radius, R α Angle of Attack, α Low rail lateral force = Low rail CoF x Vertical force High rail lateral force = Low rail CoF x Vertical force + some contribution from longitudinal forces 73

74 Lateral Force Reductions in Sharp Curves Direction of Travel Direction of Travel AoA Flange Force Contact Patch Track Spreading Forces Lateral Longitudinal Spin Creepage Creepage Creepage Friction Forces (Lateral Creepage from AoA) Reduced TOR friction Anti-Steering Moment (Longitudinal Creepage from mismatched rolling radii) September 12 th -14 th, th Course on Vehicle / Track Interaction

75 Impacts of High Lateral Loads Wheel Climb Derailments Both GF Lubrication and TOR Friction Control have a beneficial impact. Lateral/Vertical Force Flange Angle (Degrees)

76 Impacts of High Lateral Loads Fastener Fatigue / Clip Breakage Transit example: 76

77 Clip Breakage Dramatically Reduced Number of Broken Clips recorded (normalized to traffic frequency) Phase 1 Installation Baseline peak clip breakage breakage Baseline avg. clip breakage Grinding Terminal 4 - CTA Change in service: Class 332 to 360 Phase 2 Installation Phase 1 Mods Phase 2 Mods Grinding 8225 points - CTA 0 18-Mar Jan Nov Sep Jul May Mar Jan Nov Sep Jul May Mar Jan Nov Sep-06 1-Aug-06 Date 77

78 Lateral Force Reduction with KELTRACK 30% Frequency 20% 10% 0% L/V Ratio Baseline KELTRACK 0.2sec KELTRACK 0.3sec 78

79 Case Studies (Trackside Application of ALLEVIATE ) 79 79

80 What is ALLEVIATE? Water-based suspension of dry solids, no oil or grease components (environmentally benign) 80 80

81 Traction Enhancement Capacity 0.6 Coefficient of Friction Dry Disk ALLEVIATE against wet leaf sample Wet leaf sample only Cycles GM/GN2643 Guidance on Wheel/Rail Low Adhesion Simulation 81

82 GO Transit Union Station 0.6 Coefficient of Friction 0.5 COF avg = COF avg = Coefficient of Friction COF avg = COF avg = Initial conditions (wet leaves on rail) After initial brake test (no ALLEVIATE ) After ALLEVIATE applied to rails After brake test with ALLEVIATE applied Before dry braking 1 Before dry braking 2 After 4 train passes After Gel applied 82 82

83 GO Transit Service Braking Test (40MPH) Braking Distance [ft] Baseline (Dry) ALLEVIATE Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial

84 Summary of Friction Management Benefits on Transit Systems For curve noise at > 80 db (LAeq), 5 to 10 db reduction } New York, New Jersey, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Reduced corrugation growth rate } Extends grinding interval by at least double } In some cases, corrugations never return } Japan, Spain, Hong Kong, Italy, UK, Canada 30% reduction in vertical rail wear and 50% reduction in gauge face wear in sharp radius curves (PAT, RFI) Extend wheel life by 1.5 to 20X Increased traction Others } Vibration } Acoustic roughness 84