Accepted Manuscript

EURAXLES PROJECT Fatigue properties of railway axles: New results of full-

scale specimens from EURAXLES project

Steven Cervello

PII: S0142-1123(15)00428-4
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2015.11.028
Reference: JIJF 3796

To appear in: International Journal of Fatigue

Received Date: 24 July 2015

Revised Date: 29 November 2015
Accepted Date: 30 November 2015

Please cite this article as: Cervello, S., EURAXLES PROJECT Fatigue properties of railway axles: New results of
full-scale specimens from EURAXLES project, International Journal of Fatigue (2015), doi: http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijfatigue.2015.11.028

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 EURAXLES PROJECT

Fatigue properties of railway axles:

new results of full-scale specimens from EURAXLES project

Author:
Steven Cervello – Lucchini RS

Abstract
Euraxles Project was a European Research project brought over under the 7th European Frame Work and promoted
by the European association of Railway Wheelsets manufacturers. The present paper is a dissemination of the main
results achieved during the full-scale axles fatigue test campaign in which various axles configurations were tested.
This experimental activity was part of the work package 3 of the Euraxles project.
The main scope of WP3 was to provide new fatigue limits for the Standard steel grades considering also the effect of
surface conditions that may be different from the normal newly machined axles, like surface corrosion that can appear
during the service or surface blasting as a method to improve paint adhesion.
The areas of the axles considered were the free body transitions or groves and the wheel seats where at high bending
rates relative micro slips take place generating the so called fretting fatigue phenomena.
The paper provides in the conclusions a comparison with the fatigue limits that are today included in the European
Standards.
Another aspect that is treated in this work is the stress concentration effect that takes place along the transitions
where the body fatigue limit is verified. These parameters were measured by strain gauges during each test and used
inside the Euraxle project to validate their estimation through FE model calculation. Also in this case a comparison is
made with the stress concentration values reported in the EN Standards that appear to be underestimated.

Keywords: fatigue, railway axles, design, reliability

Page 1 of 24
 1. Introduction

Euraxles was a European Research project performed under the 7th European Frame Work and promoted by the
European association of Railway Wheelsets manufacturers.
Euraxles main scope was to develop and validate an innovative design procedure for axles starting from the basic
method described in the present European Standards [1], [2], [3] and [4]. The main limitation of the present design
method is that it doesn’t consider the effect of service progressive damaging, both form the point of view of classic
fatigue due to a highly variable loading condition and of possible local corrosion and surface mechanical damaging
derived from impacts.
On the other side maintenance practices are defined in order to periodically check axles for possible defects and to
recondition axles to their new original state during the periodical revision.
With these aspects in mind we can say that the Standard implicitly accept a “damage tolerance” approach for which
many recent works are available.
The fatigue design developed in Euraxles is based on:
- Estimation of local stresses through FEM analysis and validated by strain gauges measurements [5].
- Update of fatigue limits for standard axle steel grades estimating the standard deviation (this subject is treated
in this paper).
- Methodology for probabilistic evaluation of axle in service failure based on load spectra and fatigue limits
[6],[7].

According to current Standards [1] and [2] the fatigue assessment is carried out with the following steps:
i) calculation of axle loads and bending moments in the different axle sections considering simplified load conditions
that are normally conservative respect to values determined in service;
ii) assessment of fatigue strength with the simple formula:

(1)

where: K - stress concentration factor;

Mtot - resultant bending moment (bending and torque are composed according to "maximum shear stress"
criterion);
σf,lim - fatigue limit strength under bending for full-scale axles
S - safety factor.

The typical values of fatigue strength and safety factors to be adopted are reported in Table 1 (the nomenclature F1,
F4 is the one used in the European Standard).

The research activity summarized in this paper refers to a series of full-scale fatigue tests, carried out within the
Euraxles project, aimed at a verification of the parameters contained in Equation (1): fatigue limit and stress
concentration factors.
Results of the tests performed in Euraxles were combined with results available from the Deufrako Project
Eisenbahnfarwerwerken [8] in order to increase the number of total experiments improving the estimation of the
standard deviation of the results.

2. Partners and test rigs involved

Probably for the first time a project of this kind involved such a large number of laboratories around Europe; 8
laboratories owned by wheelset manufacturers, railway operators or Universities and Research centres, performed full
scale and small scale fatigue tests. All components tested were produced by the five European manufactures so that
the results obtained can be considered representative of the European production. Figure 1 shows schematically the
role of the partners.
There are two types of full scale fatigue test rigs used in the Project (Figure 2):

Page 2 of 24
  the so called: “Minden type” : a resonant machine two point rotating bending that requires on one side a rigid
wheel adaptor constrained to the test rig base and an electric motor with rotating unbalanced masses fixed on
the opposite side.

 the so called “Vitry type” a three point rotating bending; the axle rotated by a motor is supported on the sides
by two journal axle bearing boxes and loaded in the middle by an actuator.

3. Test plan
The surface conditions that were considered for the fatigue tests are :
 Standards surface machining (as new) with a roughness in the range of 0.8 to 1.6 Ra on a normal transition.
 Standards surface machining (as new) on a typical grove used on powered axles
 Blasted surface with a roughness of 6.3 Ra; the blasting process was defined in Work Package 4 of the
Euraxles project and had the main scope of improving the adhesion of coatings.
 Corroded surface obtained in service on unpainted axles.

Concerning the press-fitted seat, the scope of the tests was to understand how the fatigue limit depends on the
diameter ratio (seat / body diameter) and the actual shape of the transition. These two geometrical parameters have
an influence on the local stress distribution in the initial part of the seat where the experience shows that cracks could
appear. A second scope of these tests is related to the qualification tests required by EN 13260; the experience shows
that MT indications (corresponding to surface micro cracks with a depth of about 0.2 mm) can be found at the end of
the 10 M cycle tests on an axle with a diameter ratio of 1.12 (the minimum that may be accepted in service).

Table 2 summarizes the test plan performed during the project, the steel grade, the type of test rig used, the geometry
configuration.

Figure 2 shows the typical geometrical configurations of axles depending on the type of test rig used, but the area of
testing is common in both configurations and is defined by the following parameters:
 D: diameter of the seat
 d: diameter of the body
 r1, r2, l: radius and length of the transition
 Ra: roughness of the transition
Table 3 summarizes the main parameters for each axle geometry used for the tests. Concerning F1 tests, various
configurations were used; the reason is that in the first configuration (used for F1 tests on A4T axle), the stress level in
the transition and the bending moment increased to a level that the seat become a more critical area for fretting
fatigue and cracks were generated in this area rather than in the transition; this was not an issue for the A1N axles for
which the geometry remained the one of drawing A. In order to solve this problem for the A4T axles, the body
diameter d was reduced (drawing A2), reducing as a consequence the relative stress in the seat; in the case of the
blasted axles (drawing C) the transition was made shorter and steeper increasing the stress concentration factor.
Among the F1 tests also the geometry of drawing B was tested, that reproduces the typical grove used on powered
axles, between the wheel and the gear seats.
For the corroded axles taken from service, their original geometry (drawing D) was used.
Drawings E and F of Table 3 were used for the F4 tests. Here the diameter ratio D/d was lower (1.12 and 1.08
respectively). By reducing this parameter the critical area becomes the seat and so it is possible to find the fatigue
limit of the press fitted seat.

4. Testing method principals

4.1 F1 tests
In the Euraxles project the body fatigue limit F1 was intended as a local stress in the most critical section of the axle
where a crack would tend to enucleate. For this reason the tested axles were equipped in this area, in the longitudinal
direction, with a chain of 10 strain gauges with a total length of 40 mm in order to establish the position of the section
with the maximum stress (see Figure 3).
It must be clarified that although the wheel adaptor was fitted on the axle seat generating some tensile stress in the
transition, these stresses were not taken into account in the strain gauge measurements used to evaluate the fatigue
limit; but of course the final fatigue limit includes this effect and this is coherent with the design method that calculates
the axle according to the beam theory and not through a FE model that in principle could calculate the press fitting
effect.
For the same reason the stress amplitude was simply estimated as if the stress state was uniaxial through the
equation:

Page 3 of 24
 a = E max (2)

where E is the Young's modulus (E=206000 MPa) and εmax is the maximum longitudinal strain measured along the
transition. The validity of Eq. (2) is further discussed in [5] and [6].

In the same area the nominal stress was evaluated by the bending moment acting on the transition considering the
nominal diameter of the body. The bending moment was evaluated through a linear interpolation of strain gauge
measurements made in two different sections of the cylindrical axle body (see Figure 3).
By dividing the local stress (as for eq.2) by the nominal stress it was then possible to evaluate the stress concentration
factor (Kt) of the specific transition geometry, as:

Kt = Kt = max /nom

(3)

4.2 F4 tests
In the Euraxles project the axle press-fit seat fatigue limit F4 was intended as the fatigue limit at the edge of the seat in
terms of nominal stress calculated in that section with the diameter of the seat. The nominal stress was evaluated by
the bending moment acting on that section and obtained through a linear interpolation of strain gauge measurements
in two or three sections on the cylindrical body.
A dummy hub was press-fitted on the seat in order to recreate the usual seat interface and the usual pressure of the
axle-wheel press-fit.
Fatigue limit F4 does not depend only on the material characteristics but more on the geometry: if the seat diameter
and the nominal stress are kept constant, the variation of the diameter ratio D/d and the shape of the transition will
change the local stress distribution on the seat surface and so the fatigue resistance.

4.3 Fatigue limit estimation

The fatigue limit for a given configuration has been mainly investigated by applying the Stair-case method: in the first
test the initial load level Is about 90% of the expected fatigue limit, the following load level in the next test is
respectively decreased or increased of a defined load step (12 MPa) depending if the previous test ended with a
failure or a run-out. Some tests have also been carried out with the "step method": if a specimen survived till 107
cycles, it was then re-tested at an higher stress amplitude until failure.

Fatigue strength distribution, for the different specimen series, was estimated by applying the "Maximum Likelihood
Method" [9]. Under the assumption that fatigue strength is described by a Gaussian distribution with parameters and
, the likelihood of the sample is:

(4)

where the first product refers to failures at the stress level Si, while the second refers to run-outs at the stress level Sj.
The estimates ˆ, ˆ are obtained by maximizing the sample likelihood (in reality numerical maximization is carried out
on log L). The test results for the "step sequences" were introduced in the previous formula by considering the two last
steps for a specimen (the stress level corresponding to the run-out and the one corresponding to the failure).

The results for the different test series are summarized in Table 5 in terms of ˆ, ˆ and the estimate of the 2.5%
percentile as:

p̂2.5% ˆ 1.96 ˆ (5)

This percentile has been taken as a significant design strength in [7].

The analysis, whose results are reported in Tab. 5, have produced fatigue limit estimations very close to those in [8]
where the data were analysed with Eq. (4) considering a lognormal distribution for fatigue strength.

Page 4 of 24
 5. Axle body fatigue limit results

5.1 F1 standard surface – transitions and groves (EA4T axles)

Results of this part of tests are about EA4T and can be directly compared with the fatigue limit defined in EN13261
that is equal to 240 MPa.

Description of axles tested

The transition geometry (Table 3, A1 and A2) was chosen to be similar to normal transitions, ensuring a maximum
stress at the beginning of the transition near to the cylindrical body.
The grove transition for powered axles (Table 3, B) was designed in order to achieve cracks in the grove surface and
not in the seats.

Statistical analysis of results

Figure 4 shows the analysis of all results together, including those from the Eisenbahnfarwerwerken project [8].
The average fatigue limit was 307 MPa with a standard deviation of 18 MPa (considered to be not so high).
In this group of tests, results from the first axles that generated cracks on the seat were not included. As explained in
§3 the axle geometry was modified in order to obtain cracks in the transition and not on the wheel seat.
The Eisenbahnfarwerwerken project results were also analyzed by their own and gave a slightly higher average limit:
311 MPa.

5.2 F1 Blasted surface – transitions (EA4T axles)

Surface blasting was one of the solutions proposed in order to improve the adhesion of coatings used to protect axles
from corrosion. Typically the problem of adhesion is more critical for water based coatings.
The reason for performing fatigue tests on axles with such kind of treatment was to verify its influence on the fatigue
limit and to take it into account in the design.

Description of axles tested.

Axles were machined to a roughness of 1.6 m Ra, then blasted to a higher roughness 6-7 m Ra (see the geometry
in Table 3Table 3, C).

Statistical analysis of results

The blasted axles showed an average fatigue limit of 322 MPa (Figure 5) that is higher than what found in §5.1 for
standard surface finishing, although the deviation is higher (27 MPa). As the mechanical properties of the materials
tested are comparable, it can be concluded that probably the fatigue limit increased due the compressive residual
stresses that may have been introduced by the blasting pressure against the axle surface.

5.3 F1 Standard surface – transitions (EA1N axles)

Results of this part of tests are about EA1N steel grade and can be directly compared with the fatigue limit defined in
EN13261 that is equal to 200 MPa.

Description of axles tested

The transition geometry remained the first one that was defined as cracks actually appeared in the transition and
never in the seat as instead happened with A4T steel grade (Table 3, A1).

Statistical analysis of results

The final analysis was made considering the results of both the results of the Euraxles project and of the
Eisenbahnfarwerwerken project.
Analyzing all the data together (Figure 6) the average fatigue limit was 248 MPa but the standard deviation was
relatively high, probably due to the differences between the batches used in the tests. In this case the standard
deviation was obtained as a pooled estimate of the standard deviation of the different test series: 34 MPa.

Page 5 of 24
 5.4 F1 Corroded surfaces – transitions of unpainted axles
One aim of the Euraxles project was to understand the effect of corrosion on the fatigue limit of axles. The European
Standard EN 13103 and EN13104 suggest an additional safety factor (1.3) in case the corrosion protection is not
guaranteed for the total life of the axle. This means that the fatigue limit is estimated to be reduced from 200 to 154
MPa.

Description of axles tested

10 unpainted A1N axles, that had been in service for about 10 years (1 M km) on a SNCB passenger vehicle, were
tested. These axles as most of the axles in service on SNCB network, were unpainted and generated during the
service time a uniform dark grey surface of rust. The transition geometry is defined in Table 3, D.
It must be underlined that the surface condition appeared to be much better than the surface of painted axles that
suffered of corrosion due to some local scratch or paint detachment; for this reason the obtained result should not be
generalized.

Statistical analysis of results

The results of the fatigue tests showed an average fatigue limit of 217 MPa that corresponds to a reduction of about
12.5% from the standard new axles: 248 MPa (Figure 7). In other words the extra safety factor that should be applied
in order to take into account of the corroded surface should be 248 / 217 = 1.14.
The value of 1.3 reported in the European Standards results to be conservative with respect to the obtained
experimental results.

6. Axle press-fit seat fatigue limits (F4)

6.1 Diameter ratio = 1.2 (EA4T axles)

According to the European Standards [1] [2], the diameter ratio D/d=1.12 is the minimum accepted for the design of
axles that may be reached in service due to some consecutive seat re-machining during maintenance (this may be
necessary in the case scratches are made during the unfitting of the wheel). For this reason the product qualification
of a new axle requires a fatigue test at this geometrical limit.
Nevertheless the experience has shown that micro cracks can be generated on the surface of the seats at some mm
from the edge without actually propagating significantly during the 10 M cycles tests. These cracks can only be
discovered at the end of the test after dismounting the wheel adaptor and performing MT inspection.
For this kind of test the results form Eisenbahnfarwerwerken Project [7] are not applicable as at that time MT
inspections were not made if the test was completed with 10M cycles without any change in the test rig performance.
The transition geometry of the tested axles is defined in Table 3, E.

Statistical analysis of results

The results showed that even if most of the tests were run-outs at 10 M cycles, still micro cracks could be detected
near to the seat edge that didn’t completely propagated during the test. It was noted (Figure 8) that in the case of the
Minden type test rig the cracks appeared at about 5 mm whereas for the Vitry type test rig the cracks took place more
inside at around 10 mm; the reason was not clear .
The average fatigue limit was 124 MPa, lower than the value given in the EN standard (132 MPa); this difference
confirms that in this kind of test there is a surface damaging effect that is due to the micro slip that takes place
between the seat and hub from which these cracks are generated.
The standard deviation was quite low (5.5 MPa) even if the axles came from 4 different manufactures; this fact should
underline even more the dependence of the fatigue limit on the design rather than on the material.

6.2 Diameter ratio = 1.08 (EA4T axles)

A lower diameter ratio was tested : 1.08 and the transition geometry of the tested axles is defined in Table 3, F.

Statistical analysis of results

The number of the results was actually too limited to draw final conclusions, but as shown in Figure 10 a higher
average fatigue limit (148 MPa) was obtained compared to the D/d=1.12 axles described previously (124 MPa).
The reason was probably due to the higher slope in the 1.08 geometry axle (see Figure 9), a higher  angle appears
to better reduce the local stress in the seat near to the edge.

Page 6 of 24
 7. Experimental stress concentration factors
For each axle tested, strain gauge measurements were made along the transition, normally on a length of 40 mm with
one strain gauge every 4 mm; in the same 10 points the nominal stress was evaluated through the linear interpolation
of strain gauge measurements in two or three sections made along the cylindrical body.
From the local stress and nominal stress values, the stress concentration factor kt was evaluated for each measuring
point of the transition.
Table 4 shows the results obtained for each axle geometry described in Table 3; the main geometrical parameters are
summarized, including the ones that are used to calculate the Kt in the EN Standards (D’/d, r1/d). In the majority of
cases the maximum Kt value appears near the starting of the first radius (r1); for the cases in which the maximum Kt
appears near the intersection of the two transition radius, two Kt values are provided, the first for the first maxima on
radius r1 and the second for the higher maxima at the two radius intersection.
When comparing the experimental data with the values provided by the EN Standards, it is clear that there is a large
inconsistency that for the time being it is not possible to explain.
In practice we can find that in the EN Standards there is an under estimation of about 20% in the normal transitions.
But when the transition is shorter or steeper, showing a maxima near the second radius (r2), the difference becomes
much higher than 20% if the calculation according to EN is made by using the radius r1; the difference decreases if
radius r2 is used instead. On the other hand the Kt diagrams seem to be formally valid for single radius transitions
which is never the case in real designs.
A correct definition of the transition geometry in order to calculate the Kt factor requires more parameters than just D’,
d and r1: the length of the transition and the second radius should also be used.
These experimental data were used to validate the FEM analysis procedures defined in the work package 2 of the
Euraxles project [5]; demonstrating how FE modeling is a useful tool to properly design transitions and groves (an
example is shown in Figure 10).

Page 7 of 24
 8. Conclusions

Table 5 presents a summary of the fatigue limit results compared to the values in the EN Standards [1] and [2].
It must be clarified that in the EN Standards no probability of failure is associated to the fatigue limits; for this reason it
is difficult to make a direct comparison.
In the evaluation of the results, some concern is found in the higher standard deviation of the EA1N axles compared to
the EA4T axles, probably related to differences in the tested series.
The blasting surface treatment that increases the surface roughness to 6-7 m Ra does not lead to a fatigue limit
reduction; instead a small increase is observed.
Unpainted corroded axles from service show about 12.5 % reduction of the main fatigue limit.
Experimental Kt stress concentration factors appear to be at least 20 % higher than the ones defined in the EN
Standards; this difference can increase depending on the actual geometry of the transition or grove.
When using in axle design the experimental fatigue limits presented in this paper, for coherence matters, the stress
concentration factors shall be the experimental ones here presented or estimated by FE model taking into account the
effect of the hub fixing on the wheel seat.
F4 fatigue tests for EA4T axles with a diameter ratio of 1.12 confirm a reduction of the fatigue limit compared to the
value in the Standard due to the particular phenomena of fretting fatigue.
F4 fatigue limits can be increased by designing a transition with a higher slope that will reduce the level of local stress
on the seat near to the edge.
The large differences in the Kt values and fatigue limits with the EN Standards suggest that its revision should not
simply be limited to the results of this paper but include a more organic review of the load estimation and safety factor
definition.

Page 8 of 24
Acknowledgments
A first acknowledgment goes to the EC that financially supported the Euraxle project in the 7th European Frame Work
program and to the ERWA association that together with UNIFE promoted the Project from the beginning.
The results presented in this paper were made possible by the very active cooperation that was build up between the
laboratories of the following Euraxles partners: Bonatrans, BVV, CAF, DB, Lucchini RS, Polimi and SNCF.
Special thanks are for the Euraxles partners representatives that managed the testing activities: Michele Carboni
(Polimi), Aitor Landaberera (CAF), Miroslav Novosad (Bonatrans), Gregory Saint-Ayes (SNCF), Matthias Schwartze
(BVV) and Markus Traupe (DB).

References
[1] EN13103 Railway applications – Wheelsets and bogies – Non powered axles – Design method
[2] EN13104 Railway applications – Wheelsets and bogies – Powered axles – Design method
[3] EN13260 Railway applications – Wheelsets and bogies – Wheelsets – Product requirements
[4] EN13261 Railway applications – Wheelsets and bogies – Axles – Product requirements
[5] M. Traupe, A. Landaberea (2015) EURAXLES – A Global Approach for Design, Production and Maintenance
of Railway Axles: Development of numerical models for the analysis of railway axles. Int. J. Fatigue, this
Special Issue.
[6] T.M.L. Nguyen-Tajan, X. Lorang (2015) EURAXLES – A Global Approach for Design, Production and
Maintenance of Railway Axles: Fatigue design method: advances in fatigue reliability assessments of axles.
Int. J. Fatigue, this Special Issue.
[7] S. Beretta, D. Regazzi (2015) – Probabilistic fatigue assessment for railway axles and derivation of a simple
format for damage calculations. Int. J. Fatigue, this Special Issue.
[8] M. Traupe, H. Meinen, H. Zenner. TUClausthal - Sichere und wirtschaftliche Auslegung von
Eisenbahnfarwerwerken Band I – Hauptteil.
[9] Lorén S. Estimating fatigue limit distributions under inhomogeneous stress 
conditions. Int J Fatigue
2004;26(11):1197–205.
[10] 10 W. Nelson (1990) Applied Life Data Analysis. J. Wiley, New York.

Page 9 of 24
Figure 1 – Partners involved and their role.

Page 10 of 24
 a)

b)

c)

d)
Figure 2 – a) Minden type test rigs form Bonatrans, Lucchini RS and Rafil
b) Typical full scale axles design for the Minden type test rig
c) Vitry type test rigs from Polimi and Lucchini RS
d) Typical full scale axles design for the Vitry type test rig.

Page 11 of 24
Figure 3 – Strain gauge chain applied along a body to seat transition in order to estimate the stress
concentration factor.

Page 12 of 24
 a)

b) c)

Figure 4 - Fatigue test results of F1 A4T axles: a) stair-case with all available data; b) failures at transitions
(axle type A2); c) failures in grooves (axle type B).

Page 13 of 24
 a)

b) c)

Figure 5 - fatigue test results of F1 A4T axles blasted at a roughness of 6-7 m Ra.
a)Stair case sequence; b) blasted surface appearance; c) crack on transition detected by MT.

Page 14 of 24
Figure 6 - Stair case fatigue test results of F1 A1N axles from all available data.

Page 15 of 24
 a)

b)

c) d)
Figure 7 - Fatigue test results of F1 A1N unpainted corroded axles: a) axles retired from service; b) stair-case
sequence; c-d) example of failures at the transition from r=75 to r=15 mm fillet.

Page 16 of 24
 b) c)

Figure 8 - Fatigue test results of F4 A4T axles with a diameter ratio of 1.12: a) stair-case sequence; b) failure
on Minden type test rig; c) failure on Vitry type test rig.

Page 17 of 24
Figure 9 - Fatigue test results of F4 A4T axles with a diameter ratio of 1.08: a) stair-case sequence; b)
comparison of the two different transitions : D/d=1.12 on the left, D/d=1.08 on the right.

Page 18 of 24
Figure 10

Figure 10 – Example of experimental and FE Kt factors on transition with axle geometry A1

 EA1N EA4T

F1 - Fatigue strength axle body [MPa] 200 240

F4 - Fatigue strength press-fits [MPa] 120 (solid axles) 132 (hollow axles)

Safety factor 1.2 1.33

Table 1 - Design limits for EA1N and EA4T steels according European Standards ( [1] and [2])

Page 20 of 24
 Surface condition Minden type Axle geometry for
Test type Material and geometry Vitry type test rig
test rig full scale test
transition
Standard, machined
0.8-1.6 Ra X X A1, A2, B
EA4T D/d = 1.19; 1.24
Blasted 6.3 Ra
F1 X C
D/d = 1.19
Free body
Standard, machined
fatigue limit
0.8-1.6 Ra X X A
EA1N D/d = 1.19
Corroded from service
X D
D/d = 1.18
Standard grinded
F4 0.8-1.6 Ra X X E
Press fitted D/d = 0.12
EA4T
seat fatigue Standard grinded
limit 0.8-1.6 Ra X F
D/d = 0.08
Table 2 – Test plan

Page 21 of 24
 A1 A2 B

C
D

E F
Table 3 – Geometries of axles seat-body-transitions used in the various tests.

Page 22 of 24
Table 4 – Results of Kt factors for each type of axle geometry tested and comparison with the EN Standards.

Page 23 of 24
 Surface or geometry Average Standard Fatigue Limit EN13260
Material
condition Fatigue Limit deviation 2.5% EN13261

Standard 307 18 271 240

EA4T
Blasted 6.3 Ra 322 27 268 /
F1
Standard 248 34 181 200
EA1N
Corroded 217 32.5 152 154

D/d = 1.12 124 5.5 113 132

F4 EA4T
D/d = 1.08 148 / / /

Table 5 – Summary of fatigue limit results compared to reference values in the EN Standards

Page 24 of 24