24

Paper 4

ADHESION AS A STATISTICAL PROBLEM

By S . Johnsson*

INTRODUCTION The assumption should be made at this point that the

THEADHESION THEORY presented here is based on a fact
proved experimentally and therein lies its strength. If a
number of adhesion tests are performed with a locomotive
in one way or another, all these tests will not yield the
same result. What is then meant by adhesion under such
conditions ? One way of answering this question is to take
the mean value of the results obtained and define this as
the adhesion of the locomotive. But this would immediately
lead to practical difficulties. If an attempt were made
under actual conditions to utilize the adhesion defined in
this manner, it would soon be found that the locomotive
slipped in about 50 per cent of the cases. And this is not
what is normally meant by adhesion. It is obvious that a
slightly lower value will have to be chosen, but what
value? Now that this question has been put, statistical con-
siderations have come into the picture either consciously
or subconsciously. What this paper deals with is nothing
more than a brief and simplified mathematical treatment
and evaluation of the above-mentioned experimental
facts concerning the dispersion in the adhesion values.
Furthermore an investigation will be made to see to what
extent theory and practical conditions coincide. Finally,
different types of locomotive will be compared with
regard to their adhesion. Special attention will be paid
to the possibilities of improving the adhesion through the
adoption of certain fundamental design features.
THE FRICTION OF A WHEEL S E T
A suitable starting-point is to choose the simplest and
most fundamental element existing which makes adhesion
possible and this is the wheel set. This is basically similar
for all modern locomotives. With regard to adhesion
locomotives differ from one another in the way in which
their axles are driven and in the method adopted for
coupling them together-or not coupling them together.
The M S . of this paper was first received at the Institution on 20th
M a y 1963 and in its revised form, as accepted by the Council for
publication, on 1st August 1963.
* A S E A (Allmanna Svetiska Elektriska Aktiebolaget), Vaster&,
Sweden.
Proc Instn Mrch Eiigrs 1963-64
word adhesion in the following will only be used for the
locomotive as a whole.
The term friction will be used instead for a wheel set.
This describes basically the same physical phenomena
as the term adhesion, but it will be found useful in the
following to be able to differentiate in a simple manner
between the conditions prevailing with a wheel set and
those prevailing with a locomotive.
Fig. 4.1 shows a wheel set with the axle load F. For the
sake of clarity it has been drawn slightly raised above the
rails. It is now assumed that the torque on the wheel set
is gradually increased, which means that the tangential
force gradually increases.
When a certain maximum value of T called T,,,, is
attained, the wheel set starts to slip. The way in which
this slipping phencmenon develops has been only slightly
investigated, and it is therefore necessary at present to
limit our study to the simple assumption that it is possible
to differentiate between a state of slipping and a state of
non-slipping in a friction test of the type described here.
This limitation constitutes a weakness in the theory,
T
IF
Fig. 4.1. Mean value and dispersion of the friction coefficient
for an axle. (The ultimate, sliding, friction coefficient
is given by p = T,,,,,/F)
Vol 178 Pr 3E

Downloaded from pcp.sagepub.com at UQ Library on June 4, 2016

 ADHESION AS A STATISTICAL PROBLEM 25

since it means, for example, that it is impossible to treat

the phenomenon statistically after the slipping has com-
menced. This in its turn implies that the motor charac-
teristics or the slip brakes cannot be incorporated as a
natural element.
This must not be construed as meaning that it will be
m i
I
impossible to improve the theory in the future. But if it
is desired to study in detail what happens after the slipping
1
has already occurred, it is also necessary to know the P P I \ P
relation between the tangential force T and the creep of
the wheel. This relation can only be obtained, however, Fig. 4.2. The ultimate (sliding) friction coeficient as a
after further experiments of a very complicated nature. random variable
If a number n of friction tests are now made with a
wheel set, n values We are now in the position to define the term ‘risk of
11.1, PZYP.3, * - - Pn slipping’ for an axle. The risk of slipping R is equivalent
to the probability that the stochastic variable for the
of the ultimate (or sliding) friction coefficient will be
obtained. There is every probability that these values are friction, called U , will be less than, or at the most, equal
not all identical particularly if the tests are made at dif- to an arbitrary friction value p. This is written as
ferent places along the rail. Indeed the probability is so R=P(U<p) . . . (2) .
great that the inevitable dispersion in a number of meas- where P is defined as ‘the probability that’. But this
ured friction values in the following will be made to form probability is equal to the integral of the frequency
the basic principle for the continued statistical argument. function +
between the limits --co and the arbitrary
Thus it is assumed that this dispersion will always exist, value p, i.e.
even if the experimental conditions are ideal and the
measuring methods can be made with still greater precision. &>dP = 1 - W ) - * (3)
From the measured series of p values it is possible to
form, however, a mean value*
p = &”
n
1
where @(k) = -=
d27r Sk
-m
e - o . 5 +dx
~ (normal distribution
function)

and a standard deviation
u =
n-1
T H E FRICTION p O F A N A X L E A S A
S T O C H A S T I C VARIABLE
Consequently, even if it is impossible to describe friction
as a discrete value, we can nevertheless advance the theory
by making an assumption concerning the mode of dis-
tribution of these values.
The simplest assumption that can be made mathematic-
ally is that the friction values are normally distributed.
This means that the p values are grouped in such a way
that they can be described by a frequency curve of the
well-known bell-shaped form (cf. Fig. 4.2).
This frequency function of the p values is called
4(p) and gives the proportion as a percentage of the
entire population (i.e. all the p values), to be found in a
narrow strip with the limits p and p+dp. Mathematically,
the curve is defined as an exponential function
which is normalized, meaning that the total area below
the curve is equal to unity.
* All sums in this paper are taken from I to n.
Proc Instn Mech Engrs 1963-64
and
From this it is apparent that a certain value of the
friction p is always associated with a certain risk of
slipping R. Under practical operating conditions we can
try to use a large value of p, but we must then take into
account a greater risk of slipping. Instead, we can be
more cautious and use a small value of p, when the risk of
slipping will be correspondingly less.
The risk of slipping can be geometrically illustrated in
a very simple manner. For a certain value of p this risk
is the area below the frequency curve between -a and
this value (the shaded area in Fig. 4.2).
VERIFICATION OF T H E NORMAL
DISTRIBUTION BY PRACTICAL TESTS
If the above assumption concerning a normal distribution
is to be maintained, its existence must be proved experi-
mentally. But only very few experimental investigations
about slipping of a single axle are available. The papers
on this subject are usually confined to the treatment of the
adhesion coefficient of the locomotive as a whole.
A small number of investigations of this nature are to
be found, however, and the results from two of these will
be presented here. Fig. 4.3 shows the dispersion (the
frequency curve) of the friction values for a single axle
obtained from the investigations by Andrews (~)t. By
t References are given in Appendix 4.1.
Vol178 Pt 3 E

3
Downloaded from pcp.sagepub.com at UQ Library on June 4, 2016
26 S . JOHNSSON

Numbrr of tests on a Swedish Dg 2 locomotive (2), which is a symmetrical

coupling-rod locomotive. It is consequently a rather
simple matter to recalculate the adhesion values for the
entire locomotive and find the friction values for one of
its axles. It is found that for one single axle p = 0.42 and
n = 0.037.

1I:
0.40 0.50
0.60
p = coefficient of ultimate friction for a single wheel-pair.
F = 0.3728, u = 0.065, ELz= 8.283, giving P 5 0.30 for 7 of
freedom.
Fig. 4.3. Histogram showing the ultimate friction in dry
weather according to Andrews. Total number of
tests: 193
means of statistical confidence criteria it can be easily
established that there are no significant deviations between
a normal distribution and the experimentally measured
distribution.
A histogram obtained from another investigation is
shown in Fig. 4.4. It is true that this covers only a few
tests, but in this case also the distribution is practically
normal. These values were obtained from adhesion tests
40
1 I A
N U M E R I C A L V A L U E S OF ii A N D u
A summary of the experimentally measured values of the
mean value p and the dispersion a of a single axle is
presented in Table 4.1. These values have been determined
from the results published in the previously mentioned
papers (I) (2) and apply to dry and sunny weather. As
far as the first series in Table 4.1 is concerned, it should
be pointed out that it is not directly a question here of
the friction in the longitudinal direction of the track, but
of the friction values across the rail, obtained by measuring
the lateral forces on a Swedish Bo-bo locomotive of type
Ra (3).
P
It can be asserted that on the whole the agreement
between the various measurements is surprisingly good
and that p = 0.40 and a = 0.050 appear to be good
average values.
On the basis of the measurement of Andrews (I) in
combination with those of Curtius and Kniffler (4) the
author has endeavoured to plot curves of the mean value
and standard deviation of the friction (Fig. 4.5) as a
function of the train speed. It should be observed that
these curves apply to a single axle and thus they cannot
be applied directly to a locomotive. They must not be
considered in any way as being definitive, but only as an
attempt to summarize a certain experimental basis for
the statistical adhesion theory propounded here. Both the
mean value and the standard deviation of the friction
thus seem to decrease with the speed, but in such a way
that the quotient alp will be approximately constant. An
approximate value of alp = 0.1 is obtained both for dry
and sunny weather; this value is also fairly independent of
1 the speed.

N A T U R E OF T H E D I S P E R S I O N I N F
Another problem, which must be solved before a consistent
statistical adhesion theory can be deduced, is the way in

Table 4.1. Mean value p and dispersion a for an axle

froin four different tests. Dry rail

Tests
-P a Number km/h
of tests

aw
'\0.50 ASEA/SJ . 0.43 0045 44 60-80
d BRl . . I 0.39-041 1 0.050 I - I 0-16
.
1
. 0.37
1 I
adhesion f o r the BR2 0.065 193 0
locomotive Dg 2
ASEA/SJ . 0.42 ~ 0.037
26
5-10
Fig. 4.4. Histogram showing the ultimate friction according
to a Swedish investigation. Total number of tests: 26 SJ = Swedish State Railways.
Proc Instn Mech Engrs 1963-64 Vo1178 Pr 3 E

Downloaded from pcp.sagepub.com at UQ Library on June 4, 2016

 ADHESION AS A STATISTICAL PROBLEM
lOa km/h
d I Standord deviation
OP’r
Qo3
Q for the upmr I-curve
0.02
OO O 50 100 kmlh
Fig. 4.5. Mean value and dispersion of friction plotted
against speed of train
which the dispersion varies. A somewhat simplified
reasoning will be used in order to clarify this point.
Consider a locomotive with mechanically uncoupled
axles standing still on the rails (cf. Fig. 4.6). Let the torque
of one of the wheel pairs be increased gradually until
this wheel pair slips. The ultimate friction coefficient of
the wheel pair for this single test can then be calculated
by dividing the tangential force by the actual axle load.
Now let the procedure be repeated with the same axle or
with any of the other axles while the locomotive is station-
ary on the same place. Two limiting cases can occur.
Each of the measured values of p will differ from the
others. This means that it is impossible to predict, from
a measurement on one axle, the ultimate friction value
to be expected in the next measurement on this same
axle or on any of the others. This kind of friction will
then vary very rapidly along the rail, as is shown by the
upper curve (a) in Fig. 4.6, and it will consequently be
termed ‘rapid variation’. This kind of variation may be
summarized in the statement that each axle has its
own random variable of ultimate friction. It is assumed,
however, in the following, for the sake of simplicity,
that each variable will have the same mean value p and
the same standard deviation U.
Pror Instn M e r h Erigrs 1953-64
Downloaded from pcp.sagepub.com at UQ Library on June 4, 2016
27
t50
I
I
Distance along the rail
Fig. 4.6. (a) Rapid and (b) slow variation of the ultimate
friction for a locomotive with mechanically uncoupled axles
All measured values coincide. Only if the locomotive
is moved along the track a distance which is great when
150 compared with the length of the locomotive, will tests,
when repeated, give a substantially different value. This
value is, however, the same for all axles. The second
kind of friction, therefore, varies slowly along the track,
as shown in curve (b), and will be termed ‘slow variation’.
This is equivalent to saying that all axles have the same
random variable with a mean value p and a standard
deviation U.
It is impossible to know a priori which of these two
types of friction exist under practical conditions, but this
must be established by measurement. Furthermore, both
may occur simultaneously in some mixed form.
The question of slow or rapid adhesion is of great
importance to the adhesion of a locomotive and also to
the comparison of the adhesion characteristics of different
types of locomotive, as will be soon shown. I n the follow-
ing, therefore, a study will also be made to see if practical
tests point in one or other direction.
T H E A D H E S I O N OF A LOCOMOTIVE
The investigations performed up to now have applied
to the friction conditions for a single axle, and it has
been established that the friction in this case can be
described approximately as a normally distributed stochas-
tic variable with a mean value p and a dispersion U.
Reasonable numerical values of p and u have also been
given.
What is of interest from a practical point of view,
however, is not the friction of a single axle, but the friction
Vol 178 Pt 3E
28
of the locomotive as a whole, i.e. the adhesion of the
locomotive.
What then is meant by the adhesion of a locomotive ? If
all its axles are mechanically coupled, the question is
easy to answer since in such a case either all or none of
the axles will slip, and there can be no doubt about this,
provided that slipping can indeed be distinguished from
non-slipping according to the assumption made at the
beginning of this paper.
There may be some greater doubt concerning a loco-
motive with free, i.e. non-mechanically coupled, axles.
In this case, one, more than one, or all axles may slip. In
order to cover all cases that occur in practice, irrespective
of the axle configuration of the locomotive, the following
definition will now be introduced. The adhesion limit of a
locomotive is attained when at least one of its axles starts to
slip. This definition is theoretically reasonable, can be
applied directly in practice, and is very suitable for statis-
tical investigations.
The basic formula for the adhesion a of a locomotive
may now be written
2 l - V
u = - .
ZF, . . .
where T , = tractive effort at the periphery of the tjth
driven wheel set
F , = static axle load of the lith driven axle.
The summation is to be performed for all (= n) driven
axles.
According to the definition of adhesion, given above,
equation (4) is to be applied at such instants, when at
least one of the axles slips (i.e. when at least one of the
values of T , is equal to Tvn,ax, cf. Fig. 4.1).
Equation (4) is nothing new. It is the generally accepted
definition, carefully worded, of the adhesion of a locomotive.
THE P U R E STATISTICAL INFLUENCE ON
T H E ADHESION O F A LOCOMOTIVE
All axles free
A locomotive axle is said to be free when it has no mecha-
nical coupling (in the form of gears, coupling rods, etc.)
with the other axles. It is further assumed that the axle
is driven by its own motor.
Let us suppose that a locomotive has n driven wheel
pairs and let us consider the vth one. Let the torque
imparted by the motor to this wheel pair correspond to a
tangential force T,. The tangential force required to
cause the axle to slip is U,F,, where U , is the random
variable of ultimate friction and F, the axle load. Thus in
accordance with equation (2) the risk of slipping for the
vth axle becomes
R, = P(U,Fv Tv) <
If the comparatively rapid dynamic variations in the
axle load (when the locomotive is running) are neglected
and also the axle load transfer due to tractive effort (2) ( 5 )
(in order to bring out the pure statistical influence on the
adhesion of a locomotive), F,, may be regarded as the static
axle load F,.
Proc Instn Mech Engrs 1963-64
Downloaded from pcp.sagepub.com at UQ Library on June 4, 2016
S. JOHNSSON
The above may be rewritten in the form
- \
Supposing that all static axle loads of the locomotives are
equal and likewise all motor torques (tangential forces T,,)
we obtain from equation (4)
L'T, nT, T ,
u=-=-=-
ZF, nF, Fo
so that R, = P (U, a) <
With reference to equation (3) this can immediately be
written as
with
R, = l - @ ( k v )
p-u
k,, = -
U
}. . . . (5)
This is the slip risk for the vth axle. If the variation of p
is slow, i.e. all axles have the same random variable, the
axles will always slip simultaneously under the conditions
given (same static axle load, no transfer, some motor
torque). This means that for slow variation the risk of
(4) slipping of the whole locomotive will also be given by
equation (5).
If, on the other hand, the variation is rapid, i.e. all
axles have different random variables U,,the following
reasoning applies. The risk of slipping for the vth axles is
still 1- @(kv)as above. The probability of the vth axle's
not slipping is consequently @(ky). The probability of
none of the n axles slipping is therefore equal to the pro-
ducts of the n functions @. The probability that at least
one of the axles will slip (which is the measure of the adhe-
sion of the locomotive as a whole in accordance with the
previous definition) is therefore
R = 1- @(k,)x @(k,) x . * * x @(k,)
Under the given conditions all values of k are equal, so
that we finally obtain
R = 1-@"(k)
k=-
p--or
CJ
} . . . . (6)
It should be noted that the deduction of equation ( 6 )
presupposes the axles to be independent of each other in
such a way that the slipping of one axle does not influence
the probability that any of the other axles will slip. This,
strictly speaking, is not true of any locomotive having
single-axle drive and electric transmission. In practice,
however, the error resulting from this assumption appears
to be insignificant for electric locomotives. On the other
hand, in diesel-electric locomotives with constant-output
control, the torque transmitted to other axles when one
axle slips may be considerable.
Fig. 4.7 summarizes graphically equations (5) and (6),
i.e. the risk of slipping R (per cent) as a function of the
adhesion a for a locomotive with different numbers n of
free axles, provided that the load transfer is disregarded
and that the torque is the same for all traction motors.
The diagram is drawn on normal distribution paper, which
Vol 178 P t 3E
 ADHESION AS A STATISTICAL PROBLEM 29

R
99.99

99

90

50

I0
5

I
0.5

0.1

Fig. 4.7. Risk of slipping plotted against adhesion for free axles

means that a normally distributed variable will be repro-
duced as a straight line. The numerical values p = 0-40
and u = 0.05 have been used for the computation (dry
weather).
It can be seen from Fig. 4.8 how the adhesion is associ-
ated with the risk of slipping. An attempt can be made to
use a high value of the adhesion, but then a high risk of
slipping must be reckoned on. On the other hand, one
Proc Instn Mech Engrs 1963-64
can be cautious and select a very low adhesion, but then
the risk of slipping will be unnecessarily low. When the
adhesion of various locomotives is compared it is reasonable
to proceed from one and the same risk R. Which value
to be selected is indeed to a certain extent arbitrary. A
value of R = 5 per cent has been selected here, which
means that of 20 attempts at starting one will fail.
The line for n = 1 in Fig. 4.7 is not only valid for one
Val 178 Pr 3E

Downloaded from pcp.sagepub.com at UQ Library on June 4, 2016

30 S. JOHNSSON

9999 ~~~

Change in a x l e loads due l o

t ruc t ive e f f o r t disregarded

99

90

50

10
5

I
0.5

o.1

0.0l
0.35 0.30 a 0.25
Fig. 4.8. Risk of slipping plotted against adlzesion f o r coupled axles

axle but also (equation (5)) for a locomotive with an arbitrary

number of free axles, provided the friction variation is . . l 2 3 4 5 6
slow. The adhesion value, corresponding to a risk of
12
. ..
bercentage 0,317 0.302
95
0.295
93
0.287 0.283 0.281
89 88.5
slipping of 5 per cent, is seen to be 0.317.

Downloaded from pcp.sagepub.com at UQ Library on June 4, 2016

 ADHESION AS A STATISTICAL PROBLEM 31

either all axles slip or none. Further, it is impossible, or Summary

at least very difficult, to decide in what way the torque is
distributed between the axles. It is certain, however, that
the total torque exerted in the n axles corresponds to
ZT,.In the same way, it is possible to state that the total
tangential force at the wheel rims that is necessary to
cause all axles to slip is ZF,U,,, provided that each axle
has its own random variable U , of ultimate friction (case
of rapid variation).
With reference to equation (2), the adhesion for the
whole locomotive may therefore be written
R = P (ZF,,U, ZT,) < equivalent so far as adhesion is concerned.
We now assume that all axles have the same static axle
load F,,. Further, the axle load transfer due to the tractive
effort, is disregarded in order to bring out clearly the
purely statistical influence on the adhesion.
Taking account of equation (4) we can transform the
above expression to
R=P
(f,- Z U ,'< a)
Now, as U , is normally distributed with mean value p
and standard deviation u, the sum (l/n)ZU,, according to
the well-known addition theorem of elementary statistics,
must also be normally distributed with mean value p
and standard deviation a / z / n .
From this we get, with the aid of equations (l), (2), and
(31,
R = 1 - @(k)
when k = p-z/n -a } . . . . (7)
cr ,
This equation is valid for the supposition of rapid varia-
tion. If, however, the variation is slow, all the coupled axles
have the same random variable U,and the risk of slipping
must be written as
R = P (UZF, Z T , ) < material is too limited and too contradictory to enable
But ZF,= nF, and ZT, = unF,. Thus
R = P(U Q U) = l-@(K)
ji-a
k=-
These investigations were made in order to study the
pure statistical influence on locomotives with free and
coupled axles. For this reason the change in the axle load
due to the tractive effort has been neglected. Furthermore,
it has been assumed that all axles have the same static
axle load and that the torque is the same for all the motors
in locomotives with free axles.
The deductions above may then be summarized as
follows.
When variation is slow, free and coupled axles are
When variation is rapid, the adhesion decreases for free
axles with the number of axles; the adhesion increases for
coupled axles with the number of axles. In other words,
a locomotive with coupled axles has higher adhesion.
The case of slow variation does not deviate, in principle,
from the conventional (non-statistic) manner of treating
the adhesion problem. Thus, for example, the least
loaded axle in a locomotive with free axles is still the
deciding factor for the adhesion (if motor torques are
equal). It gives, however, the extra advantage of linking
adhesion and risk of slipping together in a way that should
prove useful in the future.
The case of rapid variation, however, is novel and is in
no way covered by hitherto existing methods of treating
the adhesion problem. According to this theory the adhe-
sion of a locomotive can never be decided from or governed
by one single axle but is dependent on them all.
R A P I D O R SLOW V A R I A T I O N ?
It is clearly evident that it is of great importance to know
whether the variation of the friction is slow or rapid. This
can only be established by a study of the results from actual
tests. It should be stated at once, however, that the available
any definite conclusions to be drawn. Table 4.2 shows the
results from some comparative adhesion tests performed
as early as 1938 on an uphill gradient between Moholm
(8)
* *

Fig 4.8 summarizes graphically equations (7) and (8) Table 4.2. Adhesion tests 1938 on the Moholm-Varing
with p = 0.40; a = 0.05. The line for n = 1 is not only line. (The rail was probably wet)
valid for one axle but also for a locomotive with an arbi-
trary number of mechanically coupled axles, provided Locomotive Measured Adhesion quotient
the friction variation is slow. The adhesion value, cor- type amax ~

Measured According to theory

responding to a risk of slipping of 5 per cent, is 0.317. at 10 per cent risk of
If, on the other hand, the variation is rapid, the adhesion slipping
increases with the number of axles for a given risk of slow rapid
slipping. For R = 5 per cent the following values are
obtained. Dg.. . . }
Bg . . . 0.23
0.19 1.22 1.22 1.33

n . .
a . .
Percentage
*
.
.
1 1 2
1
4
0.317 0.342 0.352 0.359
100 108 l:1 ~113 1
Proc Iirsrn M e c h Engrs 1963-64

Downloaded from pcp.sagepub.com at UQ Library on June 4, 2016

32 S. JOHNSSON

and Varing in Sweden. Of the two locomotives used, type R%

.
Dg has the axle configuration 1C1, whereas type Bg is a
four-axle bogie locomotive. It should be noted that the
adhesion was measured as the mean value during a one-
minute run. Such a method of measurement does not
really meet the requirements for the statistical adhesion
theory, but the results have nevertheless been included
here. The quotient between the measured adhesion values
is 1.22 for the two locomotives, whereas the theory yields
1.22 for slow variation and 1-33 for rapid variation. The
figures include load transfer due to the tractive effort. It
should be stressed here that the results from these
measurements, which appear to indicate slow variation,
were obtained (so far as we can tell) on wet rails.
The results from another series of comparative tests
performed in 1951 are shown in Table 4.3. Here, too, the
test results have been calculated as a mean value over a
distance of 3 km on an uphill gradient. As can be seen,
the measured values (quotients of the adhesion values for
the two locomotives) again agree most closely with the
theoretically determined values for slow variation. The
quotients within parentheses in the column for the meas-
ured adhesion values have been determined in an attempt
to take into account the fact that the controllers for the Of
and M locomotives were not identical. The values include
load transfer.
Further systematic adhesion tests were performed in
the summer of 1959 and have been discussed elsewhere
(2) (5). The first series of these tests was performed on a
Swedish coupling-rod locomotive, type Dg 2. The results :5
are indicated by the points A in Fig. 4.9, where the risk
of slipping R (per cent) is the ordinate and the adhesion A recorded adhesion values for the Dg 2 locomotive.
a is the abscissa. B curve showing calculated risk of slipping, slow variation, for
the F locomotive.
Since the Dg 2 locomotive is fully symmetrical with C curve showing calculated risk of slipping, rapid variation, for
regard to its axle configuration, it is a simple matter to the F locomotive. p = 1.
determine from the measuring points A, which are approxi- C’as curve C, but with = = 1.04and P3 =p4 = 0.96.
M recorded adhesion values of the F locomotive.
mate with a straight line, the mean value and dispersion R risk of slipping expressed as a percentage.
applicable to one axle. With these values as the starting a coefficient of adhesion.
point, the theoretical adhesion curve can then be deter- Fig. 4.9. Measured and calculated adhesion for the test
locomotives. Dry rails
Table 4.3. Adhesion tests on the iron-ore railway in the
north of Sweden 1951. Dry rail mined for the other locomotive tested, which is of type F.
I I The results of this calculation will depend, however,
Locomotive Measured Adhesion quotient exclusively on whether slow or rapid adhesion is assumed.
type amaX
According to theory
If the adhesion is assumed to be slow, the line B is ob-
Measured
at 10 per cent risk of tained, whereas line C will be obtained for rapid adhesion.
slipping The actual measured points for the F-locomotive are
slow I rapid denoted with the letter M in the figure, and it can be seen
that they agree most closely with the theory for rapid
Of2
M .
.. .. variation, especially for the slip risk in the range of interest
where R is 5 per cent. Fig. 4.9 applies for sunny weather
y. -. and dry rails. Axle load transfer is included.
Fig. 4.10 shows the corresponding conditions for rainy
weather and wet rails. The values measured for the F
Of = lC+Cl. Dg2 = lD1. M = COCO. locomotive lie here between the theoretically estimated
The measured a,,,-values were reached without sand, and con- curves for rapid and slow variation but within the range
stitute the mean values over a 3-km uphill gradient. Speed was
15-40 km/h. that is of interest, i.e. around R = 5 per cent, they
Proc lnstn Mech Engrs 1963-64 Vol178 Pt 3E

Downloaded from pcp.sagepub.com at UQ Library on June 4, 2016

 ADHESION AS A STATISTICAL PROBLEM
R ,%
99.9s
99.9
99
95
80
50
20
5 R probability that at least one of the axles slips'
1 Bo-bo locomotive. Dry rails
0.1
0.01
0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30
a axle should be 100 per cent, whereas the other columns
A recorded adhesion values for the Dg 2 locomotive.
B curve showing calculated risk of slipping, slow variation, for
the F locomotive. = 1.
C curve showing calculated risk of-slipping, rapid variation, for
the F locomotive.
M recorded adhesion values for the F locomotive.
R risk of slipping expressed as a percentage.
a coefficient of adhesion.
Fig. 4.10. Measured and calculated adhesion for the
test locomotives. Wet rails
coincide very closely with the estimated curve for slow
variation.
Finally, a series of measurements (Fig. 4.11) is available
from the autumn of 1962, when tests were performed on a
four-axle bogie locomotive (rectifier locomotive) of type
Rb 1. These investigations, comprising a large number of
tests, have been used for establishing which axle or axles
have shown the greatest slip for a certain given adhesion.
If the adhesion were slow, the first axle should always
slip first according to the statistical adhesion theory,
since it has the smallest axle load (owing to load transfer).
It is then also reasonable to suppose that it should also
slip most in the case where the adhesion does not have its
maximum value but a slightly lower one. This supposition
was proved to be correct in the tests reported here. The
four columns with full-drawn lines in Fig. 4.11 show as a
Proc Instn Mech Engrs 1963-64
Downloaded from pcp.sagepub.com at UQ Library on June 4, 2016
33
Rv
- = 0.30
R 0.8. V 50km/h
I
I
0.6-
I
I lr m AT axle No.
measured.
- - - - calculated for rapid variation.
R"
-= probability that axle v slips
Fig. 4.11. Risk of slipping for different axles in Rb I
percentage how often the first, second, third, or fourth
axle slipped most as established by the measurements.
If the friction variation were slow, the first axle should
always slip most, i.e. the column representing the first
0.25
should be zero. It can be seen that this does not actually
take place. If, however, rapid variation is assumed, the
quotient R J R can be determined theoretically, where
_, -- probability that the vth axle will slip (most)
R
R probability that at least one of the axles will slip (most)
These theoretically computed values have been plotted
for each axle as columns with broken lines. If rapid varia-
tion is assumed, the agreement between measured and
calculated values is fairly good.
The results shown here apply for dry rails. Unfortunate-
ly, there are no similar results available at present from
measurements performed on wet rails.
An attempt to summarize the measurements mentioned
here certainly does not give any clear-cut results, and it is
obviously still too early to draw any definite conclusions.
The results obtained so far nevertheless seem to indicate
that the character of the friction depends on the weather
in such a way that its variation is rapid for sunny weather
and dry rails and slow for rainy weather and wet rails.
COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT MECHANICAL
AND ELECTRICAL METHODS FOR I M -
PROVING THE ADHESION OF A LOCOMOTIVE
With considerable surprise one often sees how much time
and effort are spent in investigating and measuring the
Vol 178 P t 3E
34 S . JOHNSSON

adhesion during sunny weather. I n the technical press

one sometimes reads articles describing new locomotives AN axles free
whose reputed outstanding adhesion characteristics are Mech.
Axles coupled 222
underlined by the reproduction of adhesion curves
recorded during sunny weather. A l l axles coupled
In Sweden where electric railways have existed for
almost 50 years and the coupling-rod locomotive for
40 years, it has long been known that these locomotives
Mf=kF,
Mp = M3-MQ-kFj
M/ = klj-k F/
1
during sunny weather can yield adhesion values of up to MZ-Mq-kfZ)

0-40, or even more, and we may therefore permit our- Mv-kFv

selves to be mildly surprised when adhesion values of this
magnitude have been presented during recent years as
something new and astonishing.
I n most countries of the world with a railway network
of any size rain is experienced at irregular intervals. At
certain times of the year, snow may occur and occasionally
fog or dew. All these phenomena reduce the adhesion
coefficient very considerably, often by 50 per cent. When
trains are to be composed in all these countries, it is
necessary to take into account that these phenomena may
occur at any instant. From this it follows that the adhesion
coefficient during sunny weather can only occasionally be
fully utilized.
The comparison made between various methods of
improving adhesion in the following summing-up will
therefore be related to the conditions which can be
considered as prevailing when the rails are wet. To be
more precise, it will be assumed that p = 0.24 and
u = 0.035 apply as the mean value and the dispersion,
respectively, for the friction of a single axle.
Since our reasoning is based on the assumption that
rainy weather is prevailing and that the rails are
consequently wet, we should infer in accordance
with the previous reasoning that the variation of the
friction is slow; this is, at least, the safest thing to
do at present.
The upper diagram in Fig. 4.12 shows a comparison
for the absolute adhesion values between six different
variants of a four-axle bogie locomotive having the same
geometrical dimensions for the height of the traction
point, for the drawbar between the locomotive body and
the bogies, the distance between axles in a bogie, and the
distance between bogie centres. This comparison applies
for a risk of slipping R of 5 per cent.
The first bar applies to a conventional four-axle bogie
locomotive on which no special measures have been taken
to improve the adhesion characteristics. With the given
initial values for the mean value and dispersion this loco-
motive will have an u value of 0.168.
If it is now assumed that the two axles in each bogie
of this locomotive are mechanically coupled (a locomotive
of the ‘mono-moteur’ type), the adhesion value rises to
u = G-177.
A further increase is obtained if all four axles are mech-
anically coupled, as in, for example, the Swedish rigid-
frame locomotive of type Dg 2.
The adhesion can also be improved by electrical means
and particularly by allowing the motor torque M to be
Proc l i m n M c c h Bngrs 1963-64
A l l axles f r e e
A x l e s coupled 2 + 2
A l l a x l e s coupled
MI = kFr
“2 =H3 -My= kF3)
M, =M3= k f i
Mp = M4=k Fz }
My-kFO
0 ro 3
~.
Fig. 4.12. Comparison between mechanical and electrical
meansfor improving the adhesion of a Bo-bo locomotive.
( W e t rails, slow variation, p = 0.24, o = 0.035,
R = 5 per cent)
proportional (proportionality factor k) to the actual axle
loads F in such a way that the torques are made to vary
as the axle loads change owing to the tractive effort. The
last bar shows the result of a fully developed system of
this kind, where each motor torque varies with the actual
axle load of its axle.
The lower diagram shows the adhesion improvements
as a percentage, where the adhesion for the locomotive
with free axles and motor torques of the same magnitude
have formed the base value.
From this diagram it can be seen that the electrical
methods theoretically enable the same adhesion values to
be obtained as are obtained with the rigid-frame locomo-
tive. I n fact, the electrical methods for improving the
adhesion seem to be preferable in many respects, since it
is a simple matter to incorporate the necessary equipment
and to control it. With electrical methods there are none
of the disadvantages related to wear, running stability,
and life, which are often encountered with mechanical
methods.
Furthermore, the electrical methods can be refined still
further, if the slip of each axle is controlled individually in
such a way that this slip never exceeds a certain pre-
selected value. I n such a case slip will never occur and it
can then be asserted that the maximum adhesion attainable
has actually been attained.
Vul 176 I-’t 3E

Downloaded from pcp.sagepub.com at UQ Library on June 4, 2016

 ADHESION AS A STATISTICAL PKOBLEM 35

APPENDIX 4.1 und Schiene’, Glasers A n n . Gew. 1959 83, 153. Also
published in ASEA Research 1960 4, 113.
REFERENCES
(4) CURTIUS, E. W. and KNIFFLER, A. ‘Neue Erkenntnisse iiber
H. I.
(I) ANDREWS, ‘The adhesion of electric locomotives’, die Haftung zwischen Treibrad und Schiene’, Elekr.
Proc. Instn elect. Engrs 1955 102 (Part A), 785. Bahnen, 1950 21.
(2) JOHNSON,S . ‘The adhesion problem in railway traction-a ( 5 ) JOHNSON,S. ‘Das Haftwertproblem in der Zugforderung in
statistical approach’, ASEA Research 1960 14, 47. statistischer Betrachtungsweise’, Glasers Aniz. Gew. 1961
(3) OLSON,P. E. and JOHNSON,S. ‘Seitenkrafte zwischen Rad 85, 173.

Proc Instrt M e c A Ertgrs 1963-64 Vol178 Pt 3 8

Downloaded from pcp.sagepub.com at UQ Library on June 4, 2016