You are on page 1of 24

Thermal Cracks – 2010 Field Manual

Thermal Cracks – 2010 Field Manual

Thermal Cracks – 2010 Field Manual • Only one in book without magnetic particles .

the wheel will crack perpendicular to the circumferential direction – Crack will grow through fatigue from rolling stresses – Crack may propagate through rim with further heating .Thermal Cracks • Why Problematic? – Formed due to tensile stresses • Wheel Rim is manufactured with a compressive hoop stress • Heating produces expansion and more compression • But excessive heating or cyclic heating can cause surface of wheel to yield and plastically deform • This results in in substantial tensile hoop stress when the wheel cools • If the tensile hoop stress is high enough.

R2.large increase in non-unit trains .Recent Thermal Crack Activity • Nearly all L1.L3.R4 wheels on a coal train set were found with thermal cracks (2007) • Several more in 2008 and 2009 • ALSO.

Thermal Crack (WM74)Billable Investigation • Large Increase in WM74 during 2007-2009 • Shoe type and overriding/ abnormal position strongly correlated • UP Shoe Replacement Strategy throughout 08-09 UPRR Actions have remained constant – WM74 Numbers Grew .

WM74 Correlations • Although UP has had various shoes on various car series since 1998. few problems with WM74 were apparent until the 2007 timeframe. • Believed to be due to: – Recent Changes • Shoe Position on Wheel • Shoe Chemistry • Shoe Design .

2/11/08 – WM74 investigation of UCEX wheels by RSI (verified wm74) • 8/21/08-9/25/08 – WM74 investigation of CEFX wheels by RSI (verified wm74) • 1/12/09 -TILX train set – No WM74 on half of train with SHOE A – All WM74 on other half with SHOE B • • • • • 2/3/09 – WABL asked to better define WM74 2/20/09 .report in conflict with UP 2/24/09 – Greenbrier(Meridian) KC investigation (AAR/FRA/UP/Others) – Verified wm74 by cutting on lathe 3/5/09 – Progress Rail Sidney investigation (AAR/FRA/UP/Others) – WM74s verified by lathe truing 7/1/09 – WABL revamps Rule 41 to align / provide clarity in matter .AAR MID special investigation .Events Leading to Rule 41 change • 10/3/07 .

Recent Events • 12/25/09 – Derailment of the CSMLH-22 – MP589551 – Thermal Crack w/suspect shoes • 1/15/2010 – MID inspection at North Platte – 52 of 54 WM74 wheels said to be removed improperly (not thermal cracks) – Prompted another investigation (Destructive Testing at RSI) • 3/9/2010 .MID inspection at Council Bluffs – 10 WM74 wheelsets • MID – Non cracked Opinion / UP – all 10 cracked – UPRR/MID walked entire train with close inspection • MID – No thermal cracks / UP – 4 thermal cracks .

Destructive Test Overview • UPRR shipped a truckload of WM74 wheels from North Platte MID special investigation • 9 were machined for testing – 7-inch span – 1” thickness at center – Loaded until failure • 3 WM11 wheels also tested L O A D .

720 Notes 66.000 9 TTZX 865958 SW 12/04 103578 64.000 3 TTZX 866386 SW 10/06 4427 48.000 2 TTZX 858081 SW 11/03 2718 75.667 Edge Cracked 95.000 7 CRDX 9221 GK 06/00 99462 48.000 8 TTZX 866386 SW 12/04 1945 22.093 NON #3 SHPX 43244 GK 08/98 33053 103.000 Center Cracked 44.000 NON #1 SHPX 43244 GK 08/98 33053 90.all contained surface thermal cracks (highly oxidized and black indicating formation while hot) • UP removed WM74 wheels all failed at reduced loads compared to the non cracked wheels – WM74 wheels all Brittle fracture (sharp edge) – Non WM74 wheels – Ductile/tough (45° shear lips) Sample # Car Init Car # Wheel Mfg Wheel Date Serial # Breaking Load Average Load 1 TTZX 858081 SW 11/03 14908 70.750 Not Cracked .437 NON #2 SHPX 43244 GK 08/98 33053 93.000 6 MP 583257 GK 10/06 1440 71.000 4 MP 583257 GK 10/06 1530 NoTest Data 5 MP 583257 GT 09/06 71487 66.Test Results No t Cr a cke d • UP removed WM74 wheels .

#1 SW 11/03 14908 – 70k Brittle Fracture No Shear Lips .

#2 SW 11/03 2718 – 75k .

#3 SW 10/06 4427 – 48k .

??k .#4 GK 10/06 1530 .

#5 GY 09/06 71487 – 66k .

#6 GY 10/06 1440 – 70k .

#7 GK ??/90 9221 – 48k .

#8 SW 12/04 1945 – 22k Brittle Fracture – No Shear Lips .

#9 SW 12/04 3578 – 64k .

3 Samples: Not Thermal Cracked Shear Lips – Ductile Fracture – Tough/Strong #1 #1––90k 90k #2 – 93K Shelled Area Strength Good #3 – 104K .

cannot measure level of stress in the field • UPRR cannot tolerate the risks associated with thermal cracks – Much higher likelihood of failure and derailment – FRA exceptions/fines .Summary • Thermal cracks are formed when wheel stress is reversed into TENSION around the circumference – This is a rare occurrence – Easy to find by trained carmen – However.

Current Process • Time Problem – MID inspections occur days later – Morning dew is enough to rust the evidence – Hard to find which crack the wheel was pulled for • Proof Problem – Only Lathe or Destructive Testing • Training Problem – Field Manual still insufficient • UPRR process: – 1) Find crack 2) Verify with others 3) Mark ‘the one’ – 4) Verify again with Mag Particle (CYA) .

the standard UP practices for inspecting and finding thermal cracks have been upheld and all metallurgical and mechanical tests have proven UP to be correct in their assessment of thermal cracks • UP will work with MID and with WABL to further improve rule clarity • UP will continue to work with customers to home shop cars for significant quantities of repairs .Summary • UPRR believes the root cause of the thermal cracks to be due mainly to the effects of abusive shoes and overriding/abnormal shoe positions • It is believed that removal of the abusive shoes or correct shoe position will eliminate nearly all thermal crack risks • In every case investigated.