Certification of Designing and Calculations of Railway Vehicles Elements with Using the

Numerical Methods
1

Marek Sitarz , Katarzyna Chruzik

1,2

Department of Railway Engineering Silesian University of Technology , Katowice, Polska

Abstract
Advantages arising from standardisation and certification in economic activity and in particular in
manufacture are plain. It is difficult to imagine large -scale production without any standards. This is
also true in case of construction, both in the design and prototype testing stage. Manufacture of rail
elements in common European market necessitates unification of design processes, numerical
methods and software. These demands are related to minimisation of design time and costs and, first
of all, safety of people and cargo.
Introduction
Certification of design process is closely related to standardisation of railway transport in European
Union. Standardisation means introducing standards used in a given process in this case, rail
transport. On one hand, it leads to u nification, and on the other, minimum acceptable levels are set.
Unification of different elements of design stages and production should result in allowing for
comparison of effects (results) of different processes, e.g. those achieved during numerical an alyses.
This is a huge challenge due to progressing globalisation, in particular globalisation of rail transport. In
order to unify, it is necessary to adopt some common reference level and this is what we call a
standard, related to elements being inves tigated.
Advantages arising from standardisation and certification in economic activity and in particular in
manufacture are plain. It is difficult to imagine large -scale production without any standards. This is
also true in case of construction, both i n the design and prototype testing stage. The number of
manufacturers present at European market brings about the need for creation of unified numerical
design methods.
Keeping in mind that 25 years ago the experimental tests of rail vehicles constituted c. 95 percent and
numerical tests c. 5 % of total testing, and anticipating that in 10 years simulation and strength testing
using numerical methods will probably constitute 90% of total testing, the need for certification of
numerical methods becomes obvio us. The several issues here are certification of software and R&D
centres.
Accuracy of testing and numerical methods
Since numerical methods are more and more widely used in strength calculations for railway
wheelsets (BONATRANS, LUCCHINI, KLW WHEELCO, G RIFFIN, VALDUNES) and since results of
these calculations are the bases for different technical and economical decisions, the credibility of
these methods is a very important issue. In particular, the errors and accuracy of these methods and
how to get the m down to acceptable levels are a big question.
The sources of errors in computer computations are diverse, for instance database set -up or
programming and software. These kinds of errors are relatively easy to find and remove. However,
errors resulting fr om badly defined procedures in the setup of computation model, the so -called
discretisation errors, cannot be entirely removed. Complex research has been carried out, with the
view of working out methods of evaluating discretisation errors, ways of pointi ng them out and limiting
them [3].
While realising FEM possibilities and usefulness, it must be noted that using this method must be very
carefully considered. It is an approximate method. The results are not related to real -life devices, but
to their models. That is why there exists a significant difference between real -life problem and results
of calculations based on the model (Fig.1). It is clear that in this last stage of modelling the software
used is crucial to end results. The authors of presented w ork have analysed the railway wheelset
wheels strength using three different computer programs (ANSYS, NASTRAN, COSMOS), with
identical input data (geometry, material, boundary conditions, finite elements definition). During
analysis presented in [10] a co mparison of types and kind of mesh used in modelling prototype wheel
has been done. The results have proved that there is a difference in calculation of displacements and

reduced stresses in different numerical models of the wheel. This difference could b e as high as 50
per cent of the final results value, when different software was used.
The comparison of these three programs will in future make possible the selection of most appropriate
program for discussed types of calculations.
The finite element me thod is an approximate method. If we assume that the program is free of hidden
errors and that computations are done correctly, then there remains a question of discretisation errors.
These are specific to the method and cannot be entirely removed. During computer analyses
additional errors due to rounding of numbers also arise, depending on processor type.

Fig. 1. Graduation different stages and simplifications on the way from reality to calculation results
Discretisation error depends mostly on th e number of node parameters, used to describe the model
[3]. Number of these parameters, denoted by N and called number of degrees of freedom (LSS),
depends on the number of elements (LE), and if the surface under consideration is limited, then the
error value will depend on the size of greatest element h max, number of nodes (LW) and number of
degrees of freedom in the node (LSSW). Both LW and LSSW depend on interpolating functions, e.g.
with polynomials the degree of polynomial p is crucial. It can be sta ted that N=f(h,p). Since
discretisation error should approach zero with N approaching infinity, then with N=f(h,p) this may take
place in two cases:
lim e = 0 przy hmax 0
(1)
or
lim e = 0 przy pmax .
(2)
In practice, N is increased not to infinity, but to a finite big number.
In mechanics, the functions describing data fields should be determined (e.g. stress, displacement). In
FEM the parameters values are determined for a single node, and on that basis the appropriate
functions within the element surface are determined. Therefore FEM calculation results relate to
functions. Hence, function calculations errors are important in FEM method. Error measures must be
determined here.
Let us consider function of a single variable. I f u(x) is a precise descriptor and u h(x) is an approximate
descriptor, then the error is related to different function values and may be defined as the difference
u(x)-uh(x) or the distance between those two functions:
e = u u h = max u(x ) u h (x )
x (a, h)
(3)
This type of error measure is called submetric and is the simplest of all measures usually more
complex measures are used.
In mechanics different data fields are considered, namely displacements, deformations and stress. If
the components of these fields ar e denoted as u, e, , respectively, then the measure in relation to
several fields may be defined as:
1

2
u = uTu d ,

2
e = eT e d ,

2
= T d

(4)

This error measure is rather inconvenient to use. It is easier to interpret relative error:
ew =

U Uh
U

which may be also expressed as a percentage error:

e w,p = e w 100

(5)

(6)

Most often the energy error described via stress is calculated [ 3].
In our case the basis for error assessment will be a comparison of test results with numerical analysis
results.
Nowadays issues related to accuracy of results obtained by numerical investigation and their precise
defining are based on:
analysis of the phenomenon by experimental and numerical methods
comparison of experimental and numerical analysis results
analysis of differences between results of experimental and numerical analysis
drawing conclusions from the above analyses and modification of computation systems.
Analysis of possible divergencies arising during numerical tests
The multiplicity of dif ferent combinations of numerical analysis for an identical constructional element
does not at present make possible comparison of test results. Standardisation of the vehicle elements
design processes, including rail vehicle elements such as wheelsets nece ssitates definition of
demands set on the design process itself, and afterwards its certification from the standpoints of the
model, software package and human factors. Certification should therefore include research centres
designing vehicle elements. Get ting the design process (including numerical calculations) to proceed
in accordance with previously set precise standards should make possible comparison of results
attained in different R&D centres. Until now, there has been no unequivocal definition of f actors
influencing the results of the models generated by different software package. Figure 2 shows possible
combinations of selecting some factors influencing analyses results (wheelset serves as example
here). Each different method of numerical analysis leads to establishing a model, in solving which
different results are obtained, even if the identical boundary conditions are input (e.g. points of
applications of forces and supports characterising given effect).
In addition, since the phenomena charact erising loads due to production and operation of
constructional elements are not precisely defined by the standards, it is absolutely impossible to
compare results of present -day analyses.

Fig.2. Combinations of factors influencing numerical analysis re sults

Initial analysis of possible divergences of the results and rail vehicle element model set -up have been
conducted for a monoblock wheel. Results started with analysis of the wheel disc model shown in
Figure 3.

a) physical model

b) FEM model

Fig. 3. Modelled wheel disc

The case in question was initial angular displacement of the nodes in direction conforming with T
angle of cylindrical co -ordinate system Fig. 3b.
On the basis of analytical calculatio ns the maximum stresses have been determined. The parameters
of the disc were: thickness h=0.02 m, inner radius contour r1=0.019 m and inner radius contour
r2=0.036 m :
r max =

2 r12

(7)

r22 r12
where - twist angle of inner contour
=

r1

(8)

for rotational displacement of disc inner surface = 0,0001 [m]

r max = 110,5 MPa
(9)
The investigation resulted in determining percentage error of numerical analysis e, which depends on
the size and distribution of elements as well as on the type of element used Fig..4:
100
e= a
(10)
n
where:
a disc stress determined by analytical calculations
n disc stress determined by numerical analysis.
Fig. 5a shows graphically calculation error for the second load case and corresponding calculations
time Fig. 5b.

3 x 5 x 20
3 x 10 x 20
6 x 10 x 20
6 x 20 x 20

6 x 40 x 20
6 x 20 x 40
10 x 40 x 20
10 x 40 x 40
Fig. 4. Method of modelling distribution of wheel model elements together with distribution variants

a)

b)

Fig. 5. Results of comparison of analytical calculation results and numerical analysis results third
case

Analysis of the wheel disc model shows that the minimum number of elements along the disc cross section should be equal to 6. In order to prove that the proposed mesh density is correct, three
different densities were examined: 2,6, and 12 elements per disc cross -section Fig.2. PN920/185_s
wheel was used in the analysis.
The analysis has shown that with the rough mesh (2 elements) the difference of results related to
model mesh (6 elements) was equal at most to 20 MPa. Doubling mesh density did not affect results
greatly (max 7 Mpa discrepancy). However, calculation time was 9 times greater than in case of model
mesh. The results are set out in Table 1 and Figs. 7 -9.
a)

b)

c)

Fig. 6. Discrete models of wheels: a) rough mesh 2 elements, b) model mesh 6 elements, c) fine
mesh 12 elements in disc

Type of load
Max. axle load
22 500 kg/axle
Assembly
interferential fit
0,21 mm
Centrifugal forces
160 km/h
Loads due to
braking
2700 s, 30 kW

2 elements in disc
Stress red.
Analysis
[MPa]
time [s]

Wheel PN920/185_s 920

6 elements in disc
12 elements in disc
Stress red.
Analysis
Stress red.
Analysis
[MPa]
time [s]
[MPa]]
time [s]

207

15

227

450

234

5 400

216

15

225

375

228

7 200

10

15

11

330

11

5 400

419

12

410

10 500

408

28 800

Table 1. Analysis of the mesh density impact on calculation time and accuracy
Diagrams in Figs. 10 and 11 show comparison of results in respect to calculation time and accuracy.
These investigations have made possible generation of most advantageous mesh in respect to
calculations time and accuracy.
During analysis described in [10], a comparison was made for different types of mesh. It has proved
differences in calculation results for displacem ents, deformations and reduced stresses for different
numeric models of the wheel Fig.12,13.

a)

b)

c)

Fig. 7. Analysis of the mesh density impact of calculation time and accuracy carriage loaded with
maximum load: a) rough mesh 2 elements, b) model mesh 6 elements, c) fine mesh 12
elements in disc
a)

b)

c)

Fig. 8. Impact of mesh density on calculation time and accuracy assembly interferential fit: a) rough
mesh 2 elements, b) model mesh 6 elements, c) fine mesh 12 elements in disc
a)

b)

c)

Fig. 9. Impact of mesh density on calculation time and accuracy temperatures due to braking
process: a) rough mesh 2 elements, b) model mesh 6 elements, c) fine mesh 12 elements in
disc

Fig. 10. Impact of mesh densi ty on calculations accuracy

Fig. 11. Impact of mesh density on calculations time

Fig. 12. Comparison of results for different models automatically generated mesh

a)

b)

Fig. 13. Comparison of results for different models: strain gauge No.1, b ) strain gauge No.2
The application of different models in accordance with production and operation discrepancies
resulted in results divergence reaching 50 per cent. Similar comparison run for the model proposed by
the authors has reduced these diverg ences down to 0.2% [10].
Selected examples of mistakes committed during railway wheelset design process
Design of railway wheelsets using numerical methods must be considered not only by taking into
account the software technicalities, but first of all pr actical knowledge and know -how of designers. At
present big companies manufacturing railway wheelsets use different programs (ANSYS, NASTRAN,
COSMOS etc.) with different features [6,810]. The differences are in particular noticeable in case of
strength calculation of wheels determining thermal and fatigue stresses.
It may be noted that strength issues related to railway wheelsets cover a wide range of problems. It
must be emphasised that the recent ten years are characterised by accelerated research int o the
railway wheelset issues in the different phases of its service. The resultant progress is due to
implementing of numerical computational methods, which are used in the strength analyses more
often.

The advancement in the computers computational sp eed and the elaboration of complex software
based on finite element method (FEM) and devoted to the railway industry demands, results in running
calculations and simulations, which have not been previously possible.
There are many issues, which so far hav e been only experimentally/analytically investigated. The use
of numerical methods limits or wholly eliminates the need for some tests or calculations.
The investigation time is therefore decreased, the complex test stands can be replaced with suitable
software; hence, financial advantages are gained.
On the basis of the above analysis related to state -of-the-art in the railway wheelsets subject matter,
we may conclude that computation by numerical methods might play significant role in each of the
above issues.
It is certain that numerical calculations should be the starting point in the design, assembly and service
stress analysis and in particular thermal analysis of a material.
However, the numerical methods are saddled with errors due to the imperf ect transformation of the
real model into the virtual model. Still, if the investigation methods are used jointly, i.e. experimental
tests are backed by numerical analysis, the results obtained may be close to reality.
Basing on the references, the prese nt state-of-the-art of the numerical calculations of the railway
wheelset wheels can be summarised as follows:
lack of universally accepted computational algorithm of railway wheels,
inadequate experimental confirmation of the correctness of computationa l procedures
used at present,
absence of comparison of numerical calculations of railway wheels done with the help of
different software,
discrepancies in set boundary conditions,
absence of precise algorithm for creating FEM model for railway wheels (ty pe,
distribution and size of elements),
complexity of stress calculation method, when the stress is due to assembly -time
interference,
lack of UIC certification for calculations of thermal stress due to braking.
The computer software used by leading R&D c entres has been compared Table 2.

Parameter
1.

2.

3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

10.
11.
12.
13.

Facility of data preparation

creation of mesh
input of material data

time-consumption

dependence on temperature
setting boundary conditions in displacements
setting loads
Rime consumption of:
data preparation
computation
results visualisation
File import
Contact issues
Static issues
Dynamic issues
Nonstationa ry heat flow
Thermal stresses for a given temperature field
Thermal stress issues due to braking
time consumption
Facility of accounting for assembly stresses
(interference)
Facility of accounting for centrifug al forces
Simple wear analysis
Superposition of stresses and displacements

Method
NASTRAN

ANSYS

COSMOS

+/-

+/-

+/-

+/-

+/-

+/-

+/-

+/-

+/-

+/-

+/-

+/-

+/-

+/-

+/-

+/-

+/-

+/-

where: + is present, - is not present, +/- is present in a limited degree

Table 2. Comparison of software used in strain analysis of railway wheelsets

Creation of calculation algorithm for railway wheels can be divided into two phases:
definition of correct numerical model of a railway wheel,
working out of numerical analysis algorithms of different loads present during operation
and their experimental verifi cation.
Assembly loads and service loads of the railway wheelset wheel have bee n determined and shown in
Fig.14. These are static, dynamic and thermal loads. The static loads are due to interferential fit during
the assembly and to carriage weight. The dynamic loads are related to the vehicle run over the track
and centrifugal forces resulting from run speed. The thermal loads occur in the wheel during braking.
The numerical analysis has been conducted for ER7 material, which is used for railway wheels i n
Europe. The material properties have been selected in accordance with UIC Report 169.1 and our
own research.

Fig. 14. Loading of railway wheelset wheel

The UIC reports quoted above are only recommendations for design process. The unequivocal
definition of numerical and load models causes great discrepancy in results, up to 50 per cent (if
quadrilateral and hex meshes are used) [10]. Additionally, some divergences occur during numerical
analysis conducted with different software packages. A good instance may be analysis of loads during
braking (brake shoe applied to wheel). In order to check the correctness of algorithm used to calculate
temperature field, the comparison of numerical calculations with experimental test results has been
run. The tests were conducted according to UIC 510 -5 braking cycle see Fig.15. Numerical thermal
analysis has been done in accordance with UIC Report [ 4], wheel with maximum wear of rolling profile.
The thermal flux has been determined for different braking stages accordin g to Eq. 11.
30 000 0,7
HX =
[W/m 2 ]
(11)
d
During simulated braking cycles of 2700 s duration each, cooling has been applied (14400 s) after
each braking. The nodes temperatures have been noted after every cycle (nodes corresponded to
thermocouples positions) Fig.16. The result of the analysis was to determine average temperature in
separate nodes for several braking cycles.

Fig. 15. Braking cycle according to UIC 510 -5

Fig. 16. Node corresponding to temperature analysis location marked in yellow

In order to enhance visualisation of results they are shown i n the form of a diagram Fig.17.
Temperatyre analysis resulting from the long-lasting appyling of the brakes of the railway wheel
700

600

Temperature [C]

500

400

300
Experimental research
Software 1
Software 2

200

Software 3
100

0
0

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Cycles

Fig. 17. Node temperatures (nodes correspond to thermocouples positions)

Comparison of braking cycles test results shown here and numerical analysis results leads to following
conclusions:
- the least difference in temperatures has been obtained in Package 1 (up to 5 per cent);
- the difference for Packages 1 and 2 has been as great as 22 per cent.
Explanation of existing differences ca lls for separate work and co -operation with software -producing
companies. Railway wheelset is the least modified element in the whole of railway history. However,
during last years some very intensive research has been conducted, targeted on increasing rel iability
and durability of the wheelset, including fatigue durability [1,2].
Practice shows that not every variable load results in utter destruction of element. A good instance
here is a railway wheel, which transmits variable loads for many years. The factors affecting
generation of fatigue scrap are stress variability and, in addition, the highest value of the variable
stress max, which must not exceed a limit value called fatigue strength. For ER7 wheels this value
has been set at 290Mpa for rough surfaces and 360 Mpa for machined surfaces, according to ERRI
research [5]. The fatigue strength depends on type of material used and lots of other factors, some of
which are listed below:

constructional factors such as shape and dimensions of the eleme nt

processing factors such as upper layer condition, type of mechanical working and
quenching and tempering of the surface
operating factors, such as load courses, frequency of load changes, operating
temperatures, no -load intervals and the like.
Assuming similar material, processing and operational conditions of the railway wheels, the impact of
constructional parameters on fatigue strength of the wheels can be investigated. Before advance of
numerical methods, the fatigue strength could be invest igated experimentally only, and results
obtained were usually shown as a graph of number of cycles vs. stress Wohler curves. Today, the
experiments can be swapped for or at least supplemented by numerical analysis of the fatigue.
Recommendations of r ailway wheels fatigue numerical analysis can be found in ERRI Report B 169.1
[5]. According to the calculations algorithm given there, the discrete model of the wheel is loaded with
forces representing three types of track: straight track (P), curve () and crossover (R) Fig.18.

a)

b)

c)

Fig 18. Wheel fatigue analysis loading diagrams: a) straight track, b) curve and c) cr ossover
Since the selection of critical node is not unequivocally defined by ERRI and since the loads due to
pressing wheel onto axle are not taken account of, three calculation variants were und ertaken during
research Fig.19, Table 3.

Fig. 19.. Railway wheel fatigue analysis conducted by the authors

The initial fatigue analysis of ten different wheel designs was aimed at finding critical node on the
basis of maximum principal stresses (and they conformed with program results of x,y, and z stress
components maximum values) with operational loads and assembly fit load being superpositioned.
The calculation phase related to fatigue stress dealt also with superposition of these loads. For most
designs (7 wheel types), this type of analysis generated concentrated stress in the wheel hub and,

consequently, very low fatigue stresses values. This was due to very slight differences in the values of
stress matrices for different wheel load diagrams (the maximum stress was generated by load due to
assembly f it Table 3a). The second fatigue analysis, taking into account the change in selecting the
node with maximum effort on the basis of equivalent stresses (reduced in accordance with von Misses
hypothesis) did not eliminate this singularity Table 3b.
Only third analysis, where the node was selected on the basis of principal stresses due solely to type
of track (straight, curve, crossover), and then fatigue analysis was conducted taking into account the
assembly fit loads and loads due to motion has led to generation of satisfactory model Table 3 c.
Wheel
No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
*

dyn1 [
MPa]
6
9
9
22
5
3
214
287
446
10

New wheel 920* a)

New wheel 920 * b)
Worn wheel 920 * c)
dyn 2
dyn 3 [ dyn max dyn1 [ dyn 2
dyn 3 [ dyn max dyn1 [ dyn 2
dyn 3 [ dyn max
[MPa]
15
23
24
6
14
10
88
4
16
26

MPa]
5
8
7
8
4
3
158
131
204
8

[MPa]
15
23
24
22
14
10
214
287
446
26

MPa]
404
412
7
7
394
5
51
40
29
17

[MPa]
10
11
18
16
12
335
335
222
336
40

MPa]
153
168
8
8
144
111
109
37
97
16

[MPa]
404
412
18
16
394
335
335
222
468
40

MPa]
405
412
51
8
383
377
227
287
20
282

[MPa]
10
11
249
301
9
22
89
4
211
19

MPa]
154
168
109
109
140
178
164
131
468
132

[MPa]
405
412
249
301
383
377
227
287
468
282

- for wheel design No. 10, the diameter is 957 mm

Table 3. Comparison of results of several algorithms of wheel fatigue analysis

Using chosen method of fatigue analysis (Fig.18, Table 3c), taking into account loads due to assembly
fit and wheel operation (straight track, curve, crossover) and selecting the node on the basis of loads
due to vehicle motion (principal stresses), a comp arison of impact of constructional parameters of the
wheel (disc, hub and under -the-hub shapes) on fatigue stresses of new and worn wheels was made
Table 4.
New wheel 920

dyn1

dyn 2

dyn 3

dyn max

dyn1

dyn 2

dyn 3

dyn max

[MPa]

[MPa]

[MPa]

[MPa]

[MPa]

[MPa]

[MPa]

[MPa]

97
10
28
6
324
30
10
10
10
30

181
137
144
142
122
191
167
164
161
213

249
353
312
320
324
403
400
437
433
472

Worn wheel 854

Design No. 7
227
89
164
227
249
Design No. 3
51
249
109
249
353
Design No. 10
282
19
132
282
312
Design No. 8
287
4
131
287
320
Design No. 4
8
301
109
301
9
Design No. 6
377
22
178
377
403
Design No. 5
383
9
140
383
400
Design No. 1
405
10
154
405
437
Design No. 2
412
11
168
412
433
Design No. 9
468
20
211
468
472
*
- for wheel design No. 10, the diameter is 957 mm
Table 4. Wheel fatigue analysis

A more precise railway wheel fatigue analysis using numerical methods has been presented in [7].
Conclusions and final remarks

Superimposition of possible differences arising from wheel FEM model generation. loa ds
model and software used makes impossible the comparison of results of numerical
investigations of wheels conducted by different R&D centres
Two given examples of FEM strength analysis of railway wheelsets wheels show that
significant differences in ca lculation results may occur in design practice, which might
affect safety of people and cargoes
The computer simulations in rail transport are becoming widespread. Hence it seems
necessary to specify the rules for certification of software and research cen tres using this

software. Some activity aimed at defining these rules is currently undertaken in

Department of Railway Engineering of Silesian University of Technology, in the
framework of European grant EURNEX.
The recommendations on fatigue strength of the railway wheels applied today do not
unequivocally determine the calculations procedures (methodology), and this might
cause calculations error as great as 70%
Railway wheels fatigue strength is influenced not only by external (operational) loads, bu t
also by assembly loads (axle -wheel joint fit), and therefore they should be taken into
account in numerical calculations.

References
[1].
[2].
[3].
[4].
[5].
[6].
[7].
[8].
[9].
[10].

Cocheteux F., Lament Y., Viet J.J.: Towards wheels calculation and validation in multiaxial
fatigue. W: 14 th Internati onal Wheelset Congress, 17 21 Padziernik 2004, CD
Okagata Y., Yamamoto M., Yamamura Y., Hirakawa K.: the fatigue design method of high speed railway wheel. W: 14 th International Wheelset Congress, 17 21 Padziernik 2004,
CD
Rakowski G., Kacprzyk Z.: Metoda elementw skoczonych w mechanice konstrukcji.
Warszawa: Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Warszawskiej, 1993
Raport ERRI B 169. Termische grenzen der raden und bremsklotze. MTEL P 98005 Utrecht
1987
Raport ERRI B169.1. Entwurf zum UIC -merkblatt. 1998
Sitarz M., Bizon K, Churzik K.: Numerical Experimental Strength Analysis of Wheels of
Railway Wheelsets. W: 14 th International Wheelset Congress, 17 21 Padziernik 2004, CD
Sitarz M., Chruzik K., John A.: Analiza numeryczna wytrzymaoci zmczeniowej k
kolejowych. W: XVII Konferencja Midzynarodowa Pojazdy Szynowe 2006, 13 -15 wrzenia
2006, w druku.
Sitarz M., Chruzik K.: Durability of railway wheelsets a systematic approach. Rozdzia w
Monografii Railway Wheelsets, Wydawnictwo Politechniki lskiej Nr 59, Gliwice 2003, s.7 -21
Sitarz M., Sadkowski A., Bizo K., Chruzik K.: Design and investigation of railway wheelsets.
Rozdzia w Monografii Railway Wheelsets, Wydawnictwo Polit echniki lskiej Nr 59, Gliwice
2003, s. 21-61
Sitarz M., Sadkowski A., Chruzik K.: Metody Numeryczne w projektowaniu k kolejowych
zestaww koowych. Monografia, Wydawnictwo Politechniki lskiej Nr 60, Gliwice 2003,
s.128