Wear 328-329 (2015) 569–581

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Wear
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wear

Wheel–rail wear progression of high speed train with type S1002CN

wheel treads
Feng Gan n, Huanyun Dai, Hao Gao, Maoru Chi
Traction Power State Key Laboratory, Southwest Jiaotong University, 610031 Chengdu, China

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A calculation method for contact bandwidth and its change rate is developed. The method can be used to
Received 11 November 2014 quantify the wheel–rail contact point geometry relationship and evaluate the quality of type S1002CN
Received in revised form wheel tread after undergoing a tread reprofiling process, as well as to analyze a trend of the wheel–rail
3 April 2015
contact state and the tread wear state. Firstly, the wheel tread shapes of type S1002CN are measured
Accepted 5 April 2015
Available online 11 April 2015
with increasing train operation distance covered in one wheel tread reprofiling cycle. Secondly, wheel–
rail indexes, such as cumulative wear, equivalent conicity, contact bandwidth and its change rate, are
Keywords: calculated in order to obtain the change trend. Finally, a diagram of contact points on the wheel surface
Profilometry can be drawn over the whole tread reprofiling cycle. Based on the calculation results, the contact
Rail–wheel tribology
bandwidth and its change rate are more sensitive than the equivalent conicity, and a more compre-
Contact mechanics
hensive assessment for the worn shape of the wheel tread, the running stability of the vehicle, the
Equivalent conicity
Wheel tread wear wheel–rail contact state and the tread wear state has been established. The method has been applied to
research on the wear of wheel treads of high speed train, and the results show that the calculation and
evaluation methods are reasonable and viable.
& 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Wheel and rail profiles are designed to sustain the desired per-
formance of wheel–rail systems. This performance includes vehicle
behavior on the track, derailment safety, running stability and ride
comfort, as well as component endurance and maintenance
requirement [1]. With the maximum speeds of trains increasing,
wheel–rail contact mechanisms are becoming increasingly compli-
cated [2], and interactions of the wheels and the rails constantly
and directly intensify wheel–rail wear, causing the damage to the
wheel tread and rail to become more serious, which affects the
quality of the wheel–rail interaction, the operation stability and
safety of high speed trains [3]. The formulation of the wheel–rail
contact problem is a complex task, and it has become the subject of
several investigations that have presented different solutions for
this problem [4]. Innocenti presented a model for the evaluation of
wheel and rail profile evolution due to wear specifically developed
for complex railway networks to achieve general significant accu-
racy results [5]. Li gave a method for the simulation of severe
wheel–rail wear by non-Hertz contact combining with vehicle
dynamical simulation [6]. Zobory also took an attempt to introduce
n
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: ganfengabc@126.com (F. Gan), daihuanyun@163.com (H. Dai),
gaohao526@163.com (H. Gao), cmr2000@163.com (M. Chi).
the extended sphere of problems of wheel and rail wear prediction
[7]. Polach gave the measured shapes of profiles S1002, PF000 and
PF602 and represented their estimated wear distributions to obtain
a better wheel profile design in order to satisfy target conicity and
wide contact spreading [8]. Infrastructure maintenance and rolling
stock life-cycle costs have also become a focus of research on the
possibilities of wheel–rail wear control. Therefore, wheel–rail
interactions have attracted increasing attention from railway engi-
neers [9,10].
Most nonlinear dynamic performances of railway vehicle sys-
tems result from the nonlinear contact relationships of the wheel–
rail geometries. Owing to the discrete distribution of wheel–rail
contact points after wheel and rail wear, track deviation or other
factors, a simple and reasonable parameter is necessary to evalu-
ate the geometry relationship of the wheel–rail contact points.
Normally, equivalent conicity is regarded as a wheel–rail contact
linearization index, and it is typically used to characterize the
wheel–rail contact point geometry relationship in railway appli-
cations [11]. Standards EN14363 [12] and UIC518 [13] have defined
evaluation rules for the wheel–rail contact point geometry rela-
tionship with this parameter. In addition, the nominal equivalent
conicity has been defined as the value of equivalent conicity for a
wheelset's amplitude of 3 mm in standard UIC519 [14].
However, as a linearization index of the wheel–rail contact, the
equivalent conicity only uses the differences of the rolling contact
radius of the left and the right wheel treads under certain wheelset

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2015.04.002
0043-1648/& 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
570 F. Gan et al. / Wear 328-329 (2015) 569–581
lateral displacements. It cannot reflect the wheel–rail contact dis-
tribution of the wheel–rail contact point on the surface of the wheel
tread. For a reprofiled wheel tread, its equivalent conicity is equal to
the standard wheel tread, but because of using an economic tread
reprofiling strategy, there are some small differences in the wheel–
rail contact characteristics between the reprofiled wheel treads and
the standard wheel treads [15,16].
With the train operation distance increasing, the wear of wheel
tread surface is getting more and more serious, which directly
affects the running performance of the vehicle [17–20]. Currently
the wear state of wheel tread and vehicle performance are eval-
uated by the indexes of wheel tread profile in the wheel tread wear
tracking test, such as the wheel tread profile geometry parameters
(flange thickness Sh, flange height Sd, qR value, etc.), the cumulative
wear of wheel tread surface at nominal rolling circle, the equivalent
conicity, and the wheel–rail contact point geometry relationship
(the contact point distribution between the wheel and the rail
under different wheelset lateral displacement). According to the
measured shape of wheel tread, we can obtain the geometry
parameters of wheel tread profile and the cumulative wear of wheel
tread surface at nominal rolling circle. The wear parameters (Sh, Sd
and qR) allow predicting the influence of the wear state of wheel
profiles on the dynamic behavior of railway vehicles. For example,
the flange thickness is very important as a limit of the lateral
clearance of wheelset with respect to the track, which exerts great
influence on the vehicle stability. The flange height is also an
important parameter. Specifically, when it goes too high, the wheel
flange will be almost vertical, which implies that the transitions
(switches crossing) and the flange contacts will occur abruptly. In
that case, a quite high contact force may be generated, which
damage both vehicle and infrastructure [21]. The equivalent coni-
city can be calculated in various ways, such as simplified method,
harmonic method and UIC 519 standard method [22]. However, no
values or indexes quantize the geometry relationship of wheel–rail
contact points.
Fig. 1. Movement of a wheelset with wavelength λ and the contact band on the wheel tread and the top of rail surface after traveling some distance on a newly built railway:
(a) hunting movement of wheelset; (b) wavelength λ; (c) contact band on the right wheel tread; (d) contact band on the top of the right rail surface.
Researchers and developers constantly strive to enhance the
contact algorithms used in railway vehicle dynamics software
tools in order to increase the levels of detail and accuracy for
predicting contact conditions between wheels and rails [23]. The
existing calculation methods of wheel–rail contact point geometry
relationships rely on modules of commercial software, such as
SIMPACK, ADAMS, VAMPIRE, etc. Burgelman et al. [24] introduced
a new computer program called WEAR to calculate wheel–rail
contact stresses to predict degradation due to wear, deformation
and fatigue. In this paper, a self-developed software, Traction
Power Laboratory Wheel Rail Simulation package (shorted as
TPLWRSim) is applied to study the wheel–rail contact relationship.
In the software, the space vector mapping algorithm [19,25] is
used to find the wheel–rail contact points and the quasi-elastic
method [26–28] is used to modify the contact points.
S1002CN is a standard tread used on Chinese high speed rail-
ways, and it is widely used in the wheels of CRH3 electric multiple
units [12], whose maximum operating speed is 350 km/h. In this
paper, based on measurement data from type S1002CN wheel
treads, the wheel–rail contact relationship is calculated with
increasing train operation distance covered, and its quantized
value and evaluation index are also given from the lateral position
change of the wheel tread contact point. These are all used to
evaluate the state of the wheel–rail contact and the wear of the
wheel tread.
2. Equivalent conicity and contact bandwidth calculation
2.1. Equivalent conicity calculation
Equivalent conicity is an important parameter related to a
vehicle's running dynamics performance. A high equivalent coni-
city can lead to a risk of unstable running state of bogies. While
due to a resonance between the bogie's waving movement and an
 F. Gan et al. / Wear 328-329 (2015) 569–581 571

Fig. 2. Contact bandwidth of the wheelset lateral displacement of 3 mm.

40 10
S1002CN tread profile CHN60 rail section
30 5
Tread Y [mm]

Rail Y [mm]

0
20
-5
10
-10
0 -15
-10 -20
-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Tread X [mm] Rail X [mm]

Fig. 3. Wheel–rail model and curves of type S1002CN wheel tread and type CHN60 rail section: (a) wheel–rail geometry parameters; (b) three-dimensional wheel–rail
model in the interface of TPLWRSim software; (c) right wheel tread profile of type S1002CN; (d) section of type CHN60 right rail.

Table 1 displacement y. Then, the conicity γ can be expressed as [18,32]:

Calculation parameters of wheel–rail contact relationship.
rR − rL Δr
γ= =
Parameter type Value 2y 2y (1)
Tread type S1002CN where y is the displacement of the wheelset in the lateral direction
Rail type CHN60 of the track and Δr is the rolling radius difference.
Nominal rolling radius [mm] 460
Back-to-back distance of wheelset [mm] 1353
However, for the actual wheel tread profile, the conicity γ is not
Track gauge [mm] 1435 a constant value. It changes with the wheelset lateral displace-
Rail cant 1/40 ment y. Then, the conicity calculated using rL and rR is called the
Flange thickness Sd [mm] 33.5
equivalent conicity, and this method is called a simplified method.
Flange height Sh [mm] 28.2
Wheelset yaw angle [°] 0 Standard UIC519 defines the calculation process of the
Wheelset lateral displacement range [mm]
/þ 12 equivalent conicity as follows.
The differential equation for free wheelset running on the track
[11] can be expressed as:
eigenmode of the vehicle's body, a very low level of equivalent
conicity can also lead to a combined oscillation of vehicle body and v2
y¨ + Δr = 0
bogies [5]. er0 (2)
Equivalent conicity can be calculated using different methods.
where v is the wheelset running speed, e is the distance between
Standard EN 15302 calculates it using the hypothesis of periodic
the left and right wheels contact points and r0 is the nominal
wheelset movement [29], which is called the equivalent linearization
rolling radius.
method and has been used in SIMPACK software. SIMPACK software
The solution of formula (2) is a sine wave with wavelength λ:
also uses the hypothesis of periodic sinusoidal wheelset movement,
which is called the harmonic linearization method [30,31]. er0
λ = 2π
A cone–tread wheel can be seen as a straight-line segment with 2 tan φ (3)
a cone value around the rolling circle. When the wheelset moves
laterally on the track, the rolling radii of the left and right wheels If the wheel tread profile is not a cone, a linearization method
are rL and rR , respectively, within a certain range of wheelset lateral can be used to linearize tan φ by tan φe in the differential equation.
572 F. Gan et al. / Wear 328-329 (2015) 569–581

75 50 1.4
Contact angle Simplified method

Equivalent conicity
1.2
Contact angle [°]
60 Rolling radius difference 40 UIC519 standard
1.0

ΔR [mm]
45 30
0.8
30 20 0.6
10 0.4
15
0.2
0 0
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Wheelset lateral displacement [mm] Wheelset lateral displacement [mm]

60 Tread contact point lateral position

40

Tread X [mm]
20
0
-20 -3 7.83
-40
Sd wheel flange
-60

-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Wheelset lateral displacement [mm]

Contact bandwidth change rate

40 100 5.0
Contact bandwidth [mm]
Rail contact point lateral position Contact bandwidth
30 80 4.5
20 Contact bandwidth change rate
Rail X [mm]

10 60 4.0
0 40 3.5
-10 20 3.0
-8.5 7.83
-20
-31.3 0 2.5
-30
-40 -20 2.0
-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Wheelset lateral displacement [mm] Wheelset lateral displacement [mm]

Fig. 4. Wheel–rail contact parameters for type S1002CN wheel tread: (a) contact angle and rolling radius difference of right wheel tread; (b) equivalent conicity; (c) wheel–
rail contact point geometry relationship; (d) lateral position change of the right wheel tread contact point; (e) lateral position change of the right rail surface contact point;
(f) contact bandwidth and its change rate of the right wheel tread. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure, the reader is referred to the web version
of this article.)

Then, the parameter tan φe is called the equivalent conicity.
⎛π ⎞2
tan φe = ⎜ ⎟ 2er
0 and rail surface after the wheelset has run on the track. In order to
⎝λ⎠
It should be noted that standard UIC519 does not take the axle's
roll (rotation about an axis longitudinal to the track) into account
as the wheelset moves laterally on the track [11]. However, when
the wheelset moves laterally on the track, the left and right wheels
rolling contact radii are different, in order to make the left and
right wheels treads contact the rail surfaces at the same time, the
wheelset's axle must have a rolling angle. Thus, the following
calculation will consider the axle's roll when the wheelset moves
laterally on the track.
2.2. Contact bandwidth calculation
When a wheelset is running on a straight track with an initial
lateral displacement with respect to the track's centerline, the motion
of the wheelset is like a hunting movement with a form of periodic
reciprocation, as shown in Fig. 1(a) and (b). Hunting movement is a
self-excited oscillation of bogie and wheelset. Fig. 1(a) and (b) shows
the movement of a wheelset with a wavelength λ when it is running
on the track with a speed v.
When a vehicle travels on a track, the wheel tread and rail surface
will have various degrees of wear, which will make the contact band
visible on the contact surface, as shown in Fig. 1(c) and (d). Fig. 1(c)
and (d) demonstrate the real contact bandwidth of the wheel tread
(4)
characterize this hunting motion on straight tracks or wide curves, the
contact bandwidth can be defined as the lateral position change range
of the wheel tread contact point within a certain wheelset lateral
displacement from negative to positive. The contact bandwidth change
rate can be defined as the ratio of the contact bandwidth and the
double wheelset lateral displacement amplitude. The two calculation
formulas can be expressed as follows:
⎧ Lw = Py − P−y
⎪
⎨ Lw
⎪Vw =
⎩ 2y (5)
where y is the wheelset lateral displacement, Py and P−y are the
lateral positions of the wheel tread contact points under the
wheelset lateral displacements of y and
y respectively, Lw is the
contact bandwidth and Vw is the contact bandwidth change rate.
Equivalent conicity uses the value of the rolling radius difference
Δr, while the contact bandwidth and its change rate use the lateral
position change value of the wheel tread contact point LW along the
wheelset axial direction, as demonstrated in Fig. 2. As the wheel
tread profile is similar to a smaller taper, which is less than 1, the
change value of the contact point in the wheelset's axial direction is
 F. Gan et al. / Wear 328-329 (2015) 569–581
higher than that in the rolling radius direction, and the contact
bandwidth and its change rate are more sensitive than the
equivalent conicity under the same wheelset lateral displacement.
3. Contact bandwidth calculation for the wheel tread of type
S1002CN
The wheel–rail system has a special geometric structure. The
wheel–rail geometry structure of a general railway vehicle is
shown in Fig. 3(a), where Dw is the half-distance of the nominal
rolling circle between left and right wheels, RL , RR are the nominal
rolling circle radii of the left and right wheels, respectively, DR is
half of the rail gauge, b is the vertical distance between the rail
gauge measurement point and the top of the rail surface, and β is
the rail cant. In order to simulate the wheel–rail contact, a three-
dimensional wheel–rail model is built using TPLWRSim software,
and is shown in Fig. 3(b). All of the following results are calculated
using this software.
To demonstrate the change in the wheel–rail contact bandwidth,
the wheel–rail contacts of type S1002CN wheel tread and type
CHN60 rail are taken as examples for calculation. A profile of the
type S1002CN wheel tread is shown in Fig. 3(c), and a type CHN60
rail section is shown in Fig. 3(d). The calculation of the wheel–rail
contact relationship considers the wheel axle's roll when the
wheelset moves laterally on the track. The calculation parameters of
the wheel–rail contact relationship are shown in Table 1.
The results of the contact angle, rolling radius difference and
equivalent conicity of type S1002CN wheel tread calculated under
Fig. 5. Different wheel tread reprofiling strategies: (a) using standard tread; (b) using economical reprofiling tread.
Fig. 6. (a). The wheel tread reprofiling machine; (b) the shape of the reprofiled wheel tread; (c) the target and actual curves of the wheel tread during wheel tread
reprofiling.
573
different wheelset lateral displacement (y) values are shown in
Fig. 4(a) and (b). The contact point distributions of the wheel and
rail are shown in Fig. 4(c)–(e). The contact bandwidth and its
change rate are shown in Fig. 4(f).
Fig. 4(a) and (f) shows the change curves of the contact angle,
rolling radius difference, contact bandwidth and its change rate
with different wheelset lateral displacements. Fig. 4(b) shows the
curves of equivalent conicity using a simplified method and stan-
dard UIC519. These calculation methods have been described in
Section 2.1. Fig. 4(c) shows that the wheel–rail contact is smooth in
the range of wheelset lateral displacement from
6 mm to 6 mm.
In Fig. 4(c), the blue lines indicate the positions of the wheel–rail
contact points when the wheelset moves laterally from
3 mm to
3 mm with respect to its centerline; the green lines indicate the
positions of the wheel–rail contact points when the wheelset
moves laterally from
6 mm to
3 mm, and from 3 mm to 6 mm
with respect to its centerline; and the red lines indicate the posi-
tions of the wheel–rail contact points when the wheelset moves
laterally from
12 mm to
6 mm, and from 6 mm to12 mm with
respect to its centerline.
The flange thickness Sd of type S1002CN wheel tread is
33.5 mm, as shown in Table 1. Fig. 4(d) illustrates that the wheel–
rail gap of type S1002CN wheel tread is 7.83 mm, which means that
the wheel flange will contact the rail when the wheelset lateral
displacement is 7.83 mm. When the wheelset lateral displacement
is equal to 0 mm, the tread contact point is at 3 mm inside the
nominal rolling circle and the rail contact point is at 8.5 mm inside
the top rail surface, as can be seen in Fig. 4(d) and (e).
574 F. Gan et al. / Wear 328-329 (2015) 569–581

4. Contact bandwidth evaluation for reprofiled tread in the reprofiling process [35]. In Japan, research into an eco-
nomical reprofiling strategy for passenger and goods trains has
The wear of wheel tread surface becomes more serious, some been conducted [36,37]. At present, an economical reprofiling
wheel tread reprofiling strategy must be taken to restore the strategy is also used to reprofile wheel treads in China [12,13].
wheel tread to its design shape [12,18]. The wheel tread reprofiling The economical reprofiling strategy uses a method of changing
strategy mainly includes the length of the wheel tread reprofiling the wheel flange shape to reduce the cutting depth of the wheel
cycle and the shape of the wheel tread reprofiled. The length of material, prolong the life of the wheelset and reduce repair costs
tread reprofiling cycle is measured by the distance of train [38]. The differences between a standard tread reprofiling strategy
operation from the first time when the wheel tread need to be and an economical reprofiling strategy are shown in Fig. 5. Repair of
reprofiled to the next time. the wheel tread is carried out on a tread reprofiling lathing machine
High speed railway managements in various countries have (Fig. 6(a)). The reprofiled wheel tread is shown in Fig. 6(b), and
developed different strategies for reprofiled treads. The European comparison results between the reprofiled wheel tread and the
Committee for Standardization and the International Union of standard wheel tread for an actual wheel tread are shown in Fig. 7
Railways made specific provisions on the shape and equivalent (a). The wheel–rail contact relationships are shown in Fig. 7(b)–(f).
conicity of wheel tread during the running process of vehicles The surface of the reprofiled wheel tread is very rough due to
[11,33,34]. The European Committee for Standardization also the low accuracy of the wheel tread reprofiling machine. In the
provided a tread design method for the thin rim wheel tread used process of wheel tread reprofiling, ΔL is a reprofiling error in the

Rolling radius difference [mm]

60 90 60
Standard tread profile 75 50

Contact angle [°]

45
Tread Y [mm]

Reprofiled tread profile

60 40
30 45 30
30 20
15
15 10
0 0 0

-75 -60 -45 -30 -15 0 15 30 45 60 75 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Tread X [mm] Wheelset lateral displacement [mm]

1.2 60 Standard tread contact point lateral position

Standard tread equivalent conicity
Equivalent conicity

1.0 40 Reprofiled tread contact point lateral position

Tread X [mm]

Reprofiled tread equivalent conicity

0.8 20
0.6 0
-20
0.4
-40
0.2
-60
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Wheelset lateral displacement [mm] Wheelset lateral displacement [mm]
Contact bandwidth change rate

120 8 25 5
Contact bandwidth change rate

Contact bandwidth [mm

Contact bandwidth [mm]

100 7 20 4
80 6
15 3
60 5
10 2
40 4
20 3 5 1

0 2 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Wheelset lateral displacement [mm] Wheelset lateral displacement [mm]

Fig. 7. Comparison of wheel–rail contact parameters for standard tread and reprofiled tread: (a) reprofiled tread and standard tread; (b) contact angle and rolling radius
difference; (c) equivalent conicity of standard UIC519; (d) lateral position change of the left wheel tread contact point; (e) wheel–rail contact point geometry relationship of
standard tread; (f) wheel–rail contact point geometry relationship of reprofiled tread; (g) contact bandwidth and its change rate of left wheel tread; (h) errors and limits of
Lw and Vw of the left wheel tread.
 F. Gan et al. / Wear 328-329 (2015) 569–581 575

horizontal direction and ΔH is a reprofiling error in the vertical a wheelset lateral displacement of 3 mm is 0.17, while the
direction, which directly change the contact point distribution equivalent conicity of the reprofiled tread is 0.169.
between the wheel and rail surface (see Fig. 6(c)). When Fig. 7(e) is compared with Fig. 7(f), the contact point
In Fig. 7(a), the section of the reprofiled wheel tread around the distributions of the two type treads around the nominal rolling
nominal rolling circle is consistent with the standard wheel tread. circle are basically identical, but the lateral positions of their
On the other hand, because of the use of the economical repro- contact points have some slight differences, which can be seen
filing strategy, part of the reprofiled wheel tread flange is incon- from the area of difference marked in Fig. 7(d), which shows the
sistent with the standard wheel tread flange. In Fig. 7(b) and (c), lateral position distribution of the wheel tread contact point for
the contact angle, rolling radius difference and equivalent conicity the two types of wheel tread. As the contact bandwidth and its
of the reprofiled tread are consistent with the standard tread change rate use the lateral position information of the contact
when the wheelset lateral displacement is 5 mm, but when the point, this difference can be clearly quantified. Fig. 7(g) shows that
wheelset lateral displacement is greater than 5 mm, due to the the contact bandwidth and its change rate of the two tread types
decrease of flange thickness, the wheel–rail gap of the reprofiled also have obvious differences, especially when the wheelset lateral
tread increases. The equivalent conicity of the standard tread with displacement is 3 mm. The error curves and limit lines of Lw and

60 60
4 4
0 km 0 km
45 3 46,000 km 45 3 46,000 km

Tread Y [mm]
Tread Y [mm]

2 113,000 Km 2 113,000 Km
30 1 167,000 km 30 1 167,000 km
0 206,000 km 0 206,000 km
15 -1 15 -1
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20
0 0

-75 -60 -45 -30 -15 0 15 30 45 60 75 -75 -60 -45 -30 -15 0 15 30 45 60 75
Tread X [mm] Tread X [mm]

30 2.5 30 2.5

Cumulative wear [mm]

46,000 km 46,000 km
Cumulative wear [mm]

20 113,000 km 2.0 20 113,000 km 2.0

Tread Y [mm]
Tread Y [mm]

10 167,000 km 1.5 10 167,000 km 1.5

206,000 km 206,000 km
0 max wear 1.0 0 max wear 1.0
-10 position 0.5 -10 position 0.5
-20 -3 0.0 -20 -3 0.0

-75 -60 -45 -30 -15 0 15 30 45 60 75 -75 -60 -45 -30 -15 0 15 30 45 60 75
Tread X [mm] Tread X [mm]

0.8 Cumulative wear mean value 0.8 Cumulative wear mean value
1 1
0.64
Cumulative wear [mm]
Cumulative wear [mm]

0.7 Cumulative wear fitted curve 2 0.7 2

Cumulative wear fitted curve 0.55
0.6 3 0.6 3
0.48
0.5 4 0.5 4
0.41
0.4 0.33 5 0.4 5
6 0.30 6
0.3 7 0.3 7
0.17 0.15
0.2 8 0.2 8
0.1 0.039 0.1 0.028
0.0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Operation distance covered [10,000km] Operation distance covered [10,000km]

1.0
Cumulative wear mean value
Cumulative wear [mm]

0.8 Cumulative wear fitted curve

0.6
0.59
0.4 0.45
0.32
0.2
0.16
0.0 0.033
0 5 10 15 20
Operation distance covered [10,000km]
Fig. 8. Measured wheel tread profiles and their cumulative wears under different train operation distances: (a) measured left wheel tread profiles; (b) measured right wheel
tread profiles; (c) cumulative wear of the left wheel tread; (d) cumulative wear of the right wheel tread; (e) cumulative wear of the wheel tread of vehicle A at the nominal
rolling circle; (e) cumulative wear of the wheel tread of vehicle B at the nominal rolling circle; (g) cumulative wear of the left wheel.
576 F. Gan et al. / Wear 328-329 (2015) 569–581

Vw of the left wheel tread are shown in Fig. 7(h). The maximum steel surfaces to low adhesion due to contamination, humidity and
error of the contact bandwidth of the two types of wheel tread is applied friction modifiers. The contact pressure strongly depends on
14.6 mm, and the maximum error of the contact bandwidth the wheel and rail profile geometries, the loading and the vehicle
change rate is 1.3. The limit values of Lw and Vw can therefore be track dynamics. The relative slippage of the contacting surfaces is
set to evaluate the tread reprofiling quality, to give some feedback determined by the curve negotiation ability of the running gear as
to the reprofiled tread shape design, and can be used as a refer- well as tractive forces and speed.
ence for the next wheel tread reprofiling. The profile status is characterized by standard measures to
Therefore, the wheel–rail contact relationships of the standard quantify the wear. For wheels, flange and tread wear are quantified
and reprofiled treads have some small differences, and the contact by the flange thickness and flange height, respectively. In addition,
bandwidth and its change rate can clearly demonstrate where
the flange inclination is measured. For rails, the corresponding
these differences exist.
measures are gauge corner and top surface wear. Traditionally, sev-
The reprofiled tread can be used as a basic reference at the
eral wear indexes have been used to indicate unacceptable wear. For
beginning of the reprofiling cycle. The evaluation indexes after the
a long time, it has been difficult to predict wear in quantitative
treads are worn are analyzed in the following section.
terms. This is why such indexes are useful in comparative studies [1].
In order to better analyze the change trend of type S1002CN
wheel tread profile and its evaluation indexes relative to train
5. Contact bandwidth evaluation for the worn wheel tread
operation distance covered in one tread reprofiling cycle, the
of type S1002CN
wheel tread profiles of two vehicles have been measured under
5.1. Measured wheel tread profiles and change trend of cumulative train operation distances of 0 km, 46,000 km, 113,000 km,
wear with increasing train operation distance covered 167,000 km and 206,000 km. Tread profiles of the same wheelset
in this tread reprofiling cycle are shown in Fig. 8(a) and (b).
The existing contact conditions during wheel–rail interactions In Fig. 8(a) and (b), the wear shapes of the left and right wheel
show considerable variations, which are related to vehicle type, treads are concave, and the abrasion losses of the wheel treads
operation status, track properties and external influences. The fric- become greater with increasing train operation distance covered.
tion conditions may vary from adequate adhesion with dry and clean The range of the tread wear is roughly from
30 mm to 25 mm.
Rolling radius difference [mm]

4 1.0
0 km 0 km
Equivalent conicity

46,000 km 0.8 46,000 km

2 113,000 km 113,000 km
167,000 km 0.6 167,000 km
0 206,000 km
206,000 km
0.4
-2
0.2
-4 0.0
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Wheelset lateral displacement [mm] Wheelset lateral displacement [mm]

0.45 0.45
Equivalent conicity mean value 1 Equivalent conicity mean value 1
Equivalent conicity

0.40
Equivalent conicity

2 0.40 2
Equivalent conicity fitted curve Equivalent conicity fitted curve
0.35 0.319 0.329 3 0.35 0.316 0.328 3
4 4
0.30 0.30
0.261 0.262
0.25 0.220 0.25 0.213
0.20 0.175 0.20 0.166
0.15 0.15
0.10 0.10
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Operation distance covered [10,000km] Operation distance covered [10,000km]

0.45
Equivalent conicity mean value
Equivalent conicity

0.40
Equivalent conicity fitted curve 0.33
0.35 0.32
0.30 0.26
0.25 0.22
0.20 0.17
0.15
0.10
0 5 10 15 20
Operation distance covered [10,000km]

Fig. 9. Rolling radius difference and equivalent conicity under different train operation distances covered: (a) rolling radius difference; (b) equivalent conicity under different
wheelset lateral displacements; (c) equivalent conicity of 3 mm for vehicle A; (d) equivalent conicity of 3 mm for vehicle B; (e) equivalent conicity of 3 mm for all vehicles.
 F. Gan et al. / Wear 328-329 (2015) 569–581
In Fig. 8(c) and (d), the position of maximum tread wear is
nearly at 3 mm inside the nominal rolling circle, but the wear of
the wheel flange is not obvious in this wheel tread reprofiling
cycle. In Fig. 8(e) and (f), each vehicle has eight wheel treads. From
the cumulative wear changes of these two vehicles, the cumulative
wears of the wheel treads at the nominal rolling circles are
increasing with train operation distance covered. In addition, there
is a linear relationship between the cumulative wear and the train
operation distance covered, which can be seen in Fig. 8(g).
The expression of cumulative wear w with regard to train
operation distance covered s (units of 10,000 km) can be expres-
sed as follows:
(6)
w = 0.02917 + 0.02637 × s
In formula (6), there is a cumulative wear of 0.02917 mm at a
distance of 0 km, which is due to the measurement error of the
profilometer. The cumulative wear growth rate of the wheel tread
for each 10,000 km is 0.02637 mm. The range of train operation
distance covered s is from 0 km to 206,000 km.
From the measured wheel tread profiles, only the wear
appearance and the growth trend of the cumulative wear can be
obtained. In order to study the contact relationship between the
worn wheel tread profile and the rail surface, more results of the
wheel–rail contact relationship are required.
0 km
46,000 km
113,000 km
167,000 km
206,000 km
Fig. 10. Wheel–rail contact point geometry relationships of type S1002CN wheel tread under different train operation distances covered. (For interpretation of the references
to color in this figure, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
577
5.2. Change trend of equivalent conicity relative to train operation
distance covered
Considering the wheel axle's roll when the wheelset moves
laterally on the track, the rolling radius differences of different
wheel treads can be calculated using TPLWRSim software, and their
results are shown in Fig. 9(a). The equivalent conicity according to
standard UIC519 is also calculated, and the results are shown in
Fig. 9(b)–(e).
In Fig. 9(a), the rolling radius difference Δr increases with train
operation distance covered, and the equivalent conicity also
increases in Fig. 9(c) and (d).
According to Fig. 9(e), the expression of equivalent conicity
tan φe with regard to train operation distance covered s (units of
10,000 km) can be expressed as follows:
tan φe = 0.1708 + 0.00974 × s − 9.13748 × 10−5 × s 2 (7)
Equivalent conicity is often used as an evaluation index for
vehicle running stability. New wheelsets with smaller equivalent
conicity have better running stability. With increasing train opera-
tion distance covered, equivalent conicity constantly increases. When
the level of equivalent conicity reaches a certain degree, the opera-
tion state of the vehicle will be unstable. Therefore, the wheel tread
578 F. Gan et al. / Wear 328-329 (2015) 569–581

must be reprofiled to restore a small equivalent conicity to sustain
the stability of the vehicle.
5.3. Change trend of contact bandwidth and its change rate
TPLWRSim software can be used to calculate the wheel–rail
contact point geometry relationship under different train opera-
tion distances covered, and the results are shown in Fig. 10. The
numbers above the tread wear curve are the wheelset lateral
displacements.
In Fig. 10, the contact bandwidth increases with train operation
distance covered, when the wheelset lateral displacement is
73 mm. It is important to note that the wear curve (green line) of
the worn wheel tread in Fig. 10 is relative to the shape of the
standard wheel tread. From the shape of the wear curve around
the wheel tread's nominal rolling circle, the maximum range of
the wheelset lateral displacement in the wear pit of the tread is
76 mm. The lateral position distributions of the left and right
wheels tread contact points with different train operation dis-
tances covered are shown in Fig. 11.
In Fig. 11(a) and (b), with increasing wheelset lateral displace-
ment, the lateral position values of the worn wheel tread contact
points are monotonically changing. In order to better display the
lateral position changes of the wheel–rail contact points, three-
dimensional streamline charts about the wheelset lateral dis-
placement distributions on the left and right wheels tread surfaces
are drawn in Fig. 11(c) and (d). The color scales and numbers in
Fig. 11(c) and (d) represent the wheelset lateral displacements.
Fig. 11(c) and (d) clearly shows the changes of the wheelset
lateral displacement streamlines on the left and right wheel tread
surfaces with increasing train operation distance covered. The
contact bandwidth can be measured between the positive and
negative values of the wheelset lateral displacement streamline.
For example, the contact bandwidth of the left wheel tread in the
train operation distance covered of 50,000 km is 32.36 mm under
a wheelset lateral displacement from
6 mm to 6 mm, and the
contact bandwidth of right wheel tread in the train operation
distance covered of 150,000 km is 38.8 mm. Taking the left wheel
tread results in Fig. 11(c) as an example, the contact bandwidth
and its change rate are calculated under different wheelset lateral
displacements. The results are shown in Fig. 12.
In Fig. 12, the change trend of the contact bandwidth and its
change rate are almost the same as equivalent conicity (Fig. 9), and
when the wheelset lateral displacement is from 3 mm to 6 mm,
the contact bandwidth increases linearly with wheelset lateral
displacement.
The contact bandwidths Lw of 3 mm and 6 mm and the contact
bandwidth change rate Vw with regard to train operation distance
covered s (units of 10,000 km) in Fig. 12 (g) and (h) can be
expressed as follows:
⎧ L = 18.64212 + 1.21047 × s − 0.02502 × s 2
⎪ w3
⎪
⎨ Lw 6 = 29.37227 + 0.86463 × s − 0.01261 × s 2
⎪
⎪
⎩Vw 3 = 3.10344 + 0.20448 × s − 0.00436 × s
2
(8)
The contact bandwidths of real wheel treads are shown in
Fig. 13.
In Fig. 13(a), the measured contact bandwidth of a left wheel is
40 mm, and the lateral position change range of its contact point is
from 47 mm to 87 mm. According to formula (8), let Lw6 = 40 mm ,
the running distance covered of wheel tread be s = 160, 500 m ,
and the equivalent conicity can be estimated as 0.304 according to
formula (7). In Fig. 13(b), the measured contact bandwidth of the
other left wheel is 34 mm, and the lateral position change range of
its contact point is from 49 mm to 84 mm. According to formula

0 km 60 0 km
60
46,000 km 46,000 km
40 40 113,000 km
Tread X [mm]

113,000 km
Tread X [mm]

20 167,000 km 20 167,000 km
0 206,000 km 0 206,000 km
-3 -20 -3
-20
-40 -40
wheel flange wheel flange
-60 -60

12 10 8 6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 -12 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 -12

Wheelset lateral displacement [mm] Wheelset lateral displacement [mm]

10 9 12 -10 -9 -12
20 8 7 20 -8 -7
10 -6 -10
6 4 3 2 8 -5 -8
10 5 10
1 0 6 -4 -3 -2 -1 -6
4 0 -4
0 Contact bandwidth 2 0 -2
Tread X [mm]

Tread X [mm]

0 Contact bandwidth 0
-10 -1 -2 -10 2 1 2
-2 3
-4 -3 -4 5 4 4
-20 -5 -6 -20 6
-6 6
-8 8
-7 7
-10 10
-30 -8 -30
-12 8 12
y y
-40 -10 -9 -40 10 9
4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5
0.0 5.0x10 1.0x10 1.5x10 2.0x10 0.0 5.0x10 1.0x10 1.5x10 2.0x10
Operation mileage [km] Operation mileage [km]

Fig. 11. Lateral position and contact bandwidth streamline charts of wheel tread contact points with different train operation distances covered: (a) lateral position of the left
wheel tread contact point; (b) lateral position of the right wheel tread contact point; (c) contact bandwidth streamline chart of the left wheel tread; (d) contact bandwidth
streamline chart of the right wheel tread.
 F. Gan et al. / Wear 328-329 (2015) 569–581 579

Contact bandwidth change rate

Contact bandwidth [mm] 70 10
0 km
60 46,000 km
8
50 113,000 km
0 km 6 167,000 km
40
46,000 km 206,000 km
30 113,000 km 4
20 167,000 km
2
10 206,000 km
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Wheelset lateral displacement [mm] Wheelset lateral displacement [mm]

70 Contact bandwidth mean value (6mm) 70 Contact bandwidth mean value (6mm)

Contact bandwidth [mm]

Contact bandwidth fitted curve (6mm) Contact bandwidth fitted curve (6mm)
Contact bandwidth [mm]

1 1
60 Contact bandwidth mean value (3mm) 60 Contact bandwidth mean value (3mm)
2 2
50 Contact bandwidth fitted curve (3mm) 3 50 Contact bandwidth fitted curve (3mm) 3
38.0 41.3 42.8 4 39.6 40.8 4
40 34.1 40 36.4
30.1 5 32.6 5
28.6
30 6 30 6
29.4 32.2 33.6 7 31.5 32.4 7
20 24.3 20 28.6
8 23.5 8
10 18.6 10 18.8
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Operation distance covered [10,000km] Contact bandwidth change rate Operation distance covered [10,000km]
Contact bandwidth change rate

7 Contact bandwidth change rate mean value 7 Contact bandwidth change rate mean value
Contact bandwidth change rate fitted curve 1 Contact bandwidth change rate fitted curve 1
6 2 6 2
5.36 5.54 3 5.25 5.40 3
4.90 4 4.77 4
5 5
4.05 5 5
6 3.91 6
4 4
3.09 7 3.13 7
3 8 3 8

2 2
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Operation distance covered [10,000km] Operation distance covered [10,000km]
Contact bandwidth change rate

70 7
Contact bandwidth [mm]

Contact bandwidth mean value (6mm) Contact bandwidth change rate mean value
60 Contact bandwidth fitted curve (6mm) 6 Contact bandwidth change rate fitted curve
Contact bandwidth mean value (3mm)
50 5.5
Contact bandwidth fitted curve (3mm) 5 5.3
40 4.8
40.5 41.8
37.2 4
30 33.4 31.8 33.0 4.0
29.3 29.0
20 23.9 3 3.1
18.7
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
Operation distance covered [10,000km] Operation distance covered [10,000km]

Fig. 12. Contact bandwidth and its change rate of the left wheel tread: (a) contact bandwidth; (b) contact bandwidth change rate; (c) contact bandwidth of 3 mm and 6 mm
for vehicle A; (d) contact bandwidth of 3 mm and 6 mm for vehicle B; (e) contact bandwidth change rate of 3 mm for vehicle A; (f) contact bandwidth change rate of 3 mm
for vehicle B; (g) contact bandwidth of 3 mm and 6 mm for all vehicles; (h) contact bandwidth change rate of 3 mm for all vehicles.

(8), let Lw6 = 34 mm , the running distance covered of wheel tread tread contact point when the wheelset moves laterally from
s = 58, 500 m , and equivalent conicity can be estimated as 0.225
3 mm to 3 mm. For the worn wheel tread under a certain train
according to formula (7). operation distance covered, a large contact bandwidth indicates a
From the analysis results above, the contact relationship of the wide range of lateral movement of the wheel tread contact point,
worn wheel tread and vehicle running stability can be evaluated and it will cause instability of the vehicle due to the changing
by the index of the tread cumulative wear, equivalent conicity, wheel–rail force on the abrasive and concave surface of the wheel
contact bandwidth and its change rate from different perspectives. tread. From Fig. 14(a), it can be observed that the contact band-
The index of contact bandwidth can characterize the wheel width has a linear relationship with equivalent conicity. Therefore,
tread contact state using the lateral position change of one wheel it can use the same evaluation method as equivalent conicity. This
580
means that the new wheelset with a smaller contact bandwidth
has better running stability, and the contact bandwidth constantly
increases with train operation distance covered; when it reaches a
certain degree, the operation state of the vehicle will be unstable
and therefore the wheel tread must be reprofiled to restore a
smaller contact bandwidth in order to obtain better stability of the
vehicle.
The index of contact bandwidth change rate can characterize
the wheel tread wear state using the ratio of the contact band-
width and the lateral displacement range of the wheelset when
the wheelset moves from
3 mm to 3 mm. For the worn tread
under a certain operation distance covered, a large contact band-
width change rate will have a wide tread abrasive area in the
wheelset lateral displacement and cause faster wear on the surface
of the material, which can be seen from Fig. 14(b). When the
contact bandwidth change rate of the wheel tread is larger, the
cumulative wear of the wheel tread at the nominal rolling radius
increases rapidly.
Fig. 13. Contact bandwidths of real wheel treads: (a) measured contact bandwidth
of a left wheel; (b) measured contact bandwidth of the other left wheel.
0.40
Equivalent conicity
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
18 21 24 27 30
Contact bandwidth [mm]
Fig. 14. Relationships between different wheel–rail indexes: (a) contact bandwidth and equivalent conicity; (b) contact bandwidth change rate and cumulative wear.
F. Gan et al. / Wear 328-329 (2015) 569–581
⎧
⎪ tan φe = − 0.03951 + 0.01094 × Lw 3
⎨
⎪ w = 0.51583 − 0.35837 × V 2
⎩ w 3 + 0.06641 × V w 3 (9)
6. Conclusions
(1) The cumulative wear index uses the cumulative wears of
wheel tread surfaces at nominal rolling circles to characterize
changes in worn tread shapes, and it indicates the wear state
of wheel treads. For the wheel treads of type S1002CN, the
cumulative wear grows almost linearly with increasing train
operation distance covered. The equivalent conicity uses the
rolling radius difference values of left and right wheels under
different wheelset lateral displacements, and it is also increa-
ses with increasing train operation distance covered.
(2) The contact bandwidth can characterize the wheel tread
contact state by using the lateral position change value of one
wheel tread contact point when the wheelset moves laterally
from
3 mm to 3 mm in order to consistent with equivalent
conicity of 3 mm. For the worn wheel tread under a certain
train operation distance covered, a large contact bandwidth
indicates a wide range of contact point lateral movement, and
it will cause instability of the vehicle due to the changing
wheel–rail force on the abrasive and concave surfaces of the
wheel tread. As it is more sensitive than equivalent conicity, it
can be used to evaluate the tread reprofiling quality and give
some guidance for tread reprofiling shape design.
(3) The index of contact bandwidth change rate can characterize
the wheel tread wear state by using the ratio of the contact
bandwidth and the lateral displacement range of the wheelset
when the wheelset moves from
3 mm to 3 mm. For a worn
tread under a certain train operation distance covered, a large
contact bandwidth change rate will have a wide tread abrasion
area in the wheelset lateral displacement and cause faster
wear on the surface of the material.
(4) The significance of calculating the contact bandwidth is that
the changes of the wheel contact point in the horizontal
orientation used in the contact bandwidth have the same
trends as the vertical orientation used in equivalent conicity
under different train operation distances covered. This paper
therefore provides a simple method to judge the wheel–rail
contact state and the wear state of type S1002CN wheel tread
through the observation of contact bandwidth, and a typical
tendency is given as a reference. In addition, this paper pro-
vides an indirect method to calculate equivalent conicity using
a ruler to measure the contact bandwidth.
The contact state of the worn tread and vehicle running stability
can be evaluated using the index of tread cumulative wear, equiva-
lent conicity, contact bandwidth and its change rate from different
0.8
Cumulative wear [mm
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
33 36 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
Contact bandwidth change rate
 F. Gan et al. / Wear 328-329 (2015) 569–581
perspectives. The wheel–rail contact state over some train operation
distances covered can be estimated by the change trends of those
indexes relative to train operation distance covered. While the
equivalent conicity is a parameter describing any wheel–rail contact
geometry with regard to vehicle dynamics and stability, the pre-
sented indirect method to determine the equivalent conicity using
the relationships described here is applicable only to selected rail
profile shapes, track gauge, wheel profiles and back-to-back distance
of wheels, and also for certain vehicles and track conditions, parti-
cularly for specific distributions of track curvatures. The simple
method is currently only used for the wheel treads of type S1002CN
and the newly built Chinese high speed railway. The limits of contact
bandwidth and its change rate must be formulated with the wheel
tread wear, the wheel–rail contact condition and the vehicle stabi-
lity, and the adaptability for other types of wheel treads and railways
needs to be studied in the future.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (Grant 51475388), the National Natural Sci-
ence Foundation of China (Grant U1334206), and the projects of
China Railway Corporation (Grant 2014J004–M, Grant 2014J012-E).
References
[1] R. Enblom, Deterioration mechanisms in the wheel–rail interface with focus
on wear prediction: a literature review, Veh. Syst. Dyn. 47 (6) (2009) 661–700.
[2] X. Zhao, Z.F. Wen, H.Y. Wang, X.S. Jin, 3D transient finite element model for
high-speed wheel–rail rolling contact and its application, Chin. J. Mech. Eng.
49 (18) (2013) 1–7.
[3] X.S. Jin, J. Guo, X.B. Xiao, Z.F. Wen, Z.R. Zhou, Key scientific problems in the
study on running safety of high speed trains, Chin. J. Eng. Mech. 26 (2) (2009)
8–22.
[4] J. Pombo, J. Ambrósio, M. Silva, A new wheel–rail contact model for railway
dynamics, Veh. Syst. Dyn. 45 (2) (2007) 165–189.
[5] A. Innocenti, L. Marini, E. Meli, G. Pallini, A. Rindi, Development of a wear
model for the analysis of complex railway networks, Wear 309 (1) (2014)
174–191.
[6] Z.L. Li and J.J. Kalker, Simulation of severe wheel-rail wear, in: Proceedings of
the 6th International Conference on Computer Aided Design, Manufacture and
Operation in the Railway and Other Advanced Mass Transit Systems, 2–4
September 1998, Lisbon, Portugal, pp. 393–402.
[7] I. Zobory, Prediction of wheel/rail profile wear, Veh. Syst. Dyn. (1997) 221–259.
[8] O. Polach, Wheel profile design for target conicity and wide tread wear
spreading, Wear 271 (1) (2011) 195–202.
[9] X.S. Jin, Z.Y. Shen, Rolling contact fatigue of wheel/rail and its advanced
research progress, J. China Railw. Soc. 23 (2) (2001) 92–108.
[10] X.S. Jin, Z.S. Shen, Development of rolling contact mechanics of wheel/rail
systems, China J. Adv. Mech. 31 (1) (2001) 33–46.
[11] O. Polach, Characteristic parameters of nonlinear wheel/rail contact geometry,
Veh. Syst. Dyn. 48 (S1) (2010) 19–36.
[12] BS EN 14363, Railway Applications – Testing for the Acceptance of Running
Characteristics of Railway Vehicles – Testing of Running Behavior and Sta-
tionary Tests, 1st ed., 2005.
[13] UIC Code 518, Testing and Approval of Railway Vehicles from the Point of View
of their Dynamic Behavior–Safety–Track fatigue–Ride Quality, 3rd ed., 2005.
581
[14] UIC Code 519, Method for Determining the Equivalent Conicity, 1st ed.,
December 2004.
[15] X.Q. Dong, Y.M. Wang, L.D. Wang, H.Y. Liu, G.L. Song, Research on the repro-
filing strategy for the wheel tread of high-speed EMU, China Railw. Sci. 34 (1)
(2013) 88–94.
[16] Q.Z. Li, S.G. Sun, L. Chen, Y.C. Zhang, A.G. Wang, Z.S. Ren, Design and dynamics
verification of economical profiled wheel tread XP 55-28, J. China Railw. Soc.
35 (1) (2013) 19–24.
[17] J. Pombo, J. Ambrosio, M. Pereira, R. Lewis, R. Dwyer–Joyce, C. Ariaudo,
N. Kuka, Development of a wear prediction tool for steel railway wheels using
three alternative wear functions, Wear 271 (2011) 238–245.
[18] A. Bevan, P. Molyneux–Berry, B. Eickhoff, M. Burstow, Development and vali-
dation of a wheel wear and rolling contact fatigue damage model, Wear 307
(2013) 100–111.
[19] M. Ignesti, M. Malvezzi, L. Marini, E. Meli, A. Rindi, Development of a wear
model for the prediction of wheel and rail profile evolution in railway systems,
Wear 284 (2012) 1–17.
[20] W.M. Zhai, J.M. Gao, P.F. Liu, K.Y. Wang, Reducing rail side wear on heavy-haul
railway curves based on wheel–rail dynamic interaction, Veh. Syst. Dyn. 52
(S1) (2014) 440–454.
[21] J. Pombo, H. Desprets, R. Verardi, J. Ambrósio, M. Pereira, C. Ariaudo, N. Kuka,
Wheel wear evolution and its influence on the dynamic behaviour of railway
vehicles, in: Proceedings of the 7th EUROMECH Solid Mechanics Conference,
Lisbon, Portugal, 7–11 September 2009.
[22] F. Gan, H.Y. Dai, H. Gao, L. Wei, Calculation of equivalent conicity and wheel–
rail contact relationship of different railway vehicle treads, J. China Railw. Soc.
35 (9) (2013) 19–24.
[23] Y. Bezin, S.D. Iwnicki, M. Cavalletti, The effect of dynamic rail roll on the
wheel–rail contact conditions, Veh. Syst. Dyn. 46 (S1) (2008) 107–117.
[24] N. Burgelman, Z. Li, R. Dollevoet, A new rolling contact method applied to
conformal contact and the train–turnout interaction, Wear 321 (2014) 94–105.
[25] F. Gan, H.Y. Dai, H. Gao, Calculation method of accurate wheel–rail contact
relationship of worn wheel tread, China J. Traffic Transp. Eng. 14 (3) (2014)
43–51.
[26] M. Arnold, H. Netter, Apporoximation of contact geometry in the dynamical
simulation of wheel–rail, Math. Comput. Model. Dyn. Syst. 4 (2) (1998)
162–184.
[27] G. Schupp, C. Weidemann, L. Mauer, Modelling the contact between wheel
and rail within multibody system simulation, Veh. Syst. Dyn. 41 (5) (2004)
349–364.
[28] H. Netter, G. Schupp, W. Rulka, K. Schroeder, New aspects of contact modelling
and validation within multibody system simulation of railway vehicles, Veh.
Syst. Dyn. 29 (S1) (1998) 246–269.
[29] EN 15302, Railway Applications. Method for Determining the Equivalent
Conicity, 1st ed., February 2008.
[30] O. POLACH, Influence of wheel/rail contact geometry on the behavior of a
railway vehicle at stability limit, in: Proceedings of the ENOC-2005, Eindhoven
University of Technology, 2005, pp. 2203–2210.
[31] L. Mauer, The modular description of the wheel to rail contact within the
linear multibody formalism, in: J. Kisilowski, K. Knothe (eds.), Advanced
Railway Vehicle System Dynamics, Wydawnictwa Naukowo-Techniczne,
Warsaw, 1991, pp. 205–244.
[32] S. Iwnicki (Ed.), Handbook of Railway Vehicle Dynamics, CRC Press, Boca
Raton, FL, 2006.
[33] UIC Code 660, Measures to Ensure the Technical Compatibility of High-Speed
Trains, 2nd ed., August 2002.
[34] UIC Code 510-2, Trailing Stock: Wheels and Wheelsets. Conditions Concerning
the Use of Wheels of Various Diameters, 4th ed., May 2004.
[35] BS EN 13715, Railway Applications. Wheelsets and Bogies. Wheels. Wheels
Tread, 1st ed., March 2006.
[36] O. Miyabitaka, Research of the determination of turning allowance for wheel
tread, Foreign Locomot. Rolling Stock Technol. 1 (2009) 14–18.
[37] F. Kouyuki, Wheel tread management and its planned and economic turning,
Foreign Locomot. Rolling Stock Technol. (1995) 13–17.
[38] S. Zakharov, I. Goryacheva, V. Bogdanov, D. Pogorelov, I. Zharov, V. Yazykov,
E. Torskaya, S. Soshenkov., Problems with wheel and rail profiles selection and
optimization, Wear 265 (9) (2008) 1266–1272.