Engineering Failure Analysis 10 (2003) 745–758

www.elsevier.com/locate/engfailanal

An investigation of rail bearing reliability under real

conditions of use
J.L.A. Ferreira*, J.C. Balthazar, A.P.N. Araujo
Mechanical Engineering Department, University of Brası´lia, Brasilia, Brazil 709l0-900

Received 30 January 2002; accepted 24 June 2002

Abstract
The objective of the present work is to carry out a performance analysis of roller bearings used in railway ore
transportation wagons. Data from 47,000 failed bearings divided in seven groups, were used to determine the failure
distribution. Six groups corresponded to operation in the years 1985–1988, 1990, 1991 and one group included all the
others. The failure distribution in bearings was described by the three parameter Weibull distribution. To conduct the
statistical analysis it was necessary to estimate these parameters by the nonlinear regression method, because it does
not require the whole group of failed bearings, and direct inference on the sample. A Monte Carlo technique was used
to validate the procedure. Analytically two estimate methodologies were considered. Methodology I is a well estab-
lished technique while Methodology II is an alternative approach proposed by the authors, which was inspired by a
procedure used to design rail shafts. Studying the bearing failure behavior led to the following observations: based on
sample inference techniques, an excessive variation was observed in the parameters that characterize the failure dis-
tribution. A dispersion of the order of 40 or 25% was found in the minimum and nominal lives when evaluated by the
direct inference method or by the nonlinear regression method, respectively, and a dispersion of 17% calculated by
nonlinear regression was observed for the shape parameter,
^ . In spite of this dispersion, it was found that the mini-
mum lives estimated by direct inference were conservative by a factor of four, when compared to analytical methods,
while estimates of the nominal life were shown to be similar to its smallest value observed in the sample groups.
# 2003 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Keywords: Fatigue; Life prediction; Bearing failures; Reliability analysis; Railway engineering

1. Introduction

Contact fatigue, internal clearance, corrosion, and contamination of the lubricating oil can cause bearing
failures. Generally, failures show up as imperfections in the ball race, in the balls/roller or in the retainer.
The more frequent types of defect are caused by contact fatigue. This type of failure is characterized by the
appearance of micro cracks below the surface of the tracks. In the initial phase the crack nucleation site has
a whitish aspect. Failures can occur in the outer ring (OR fatigue), in the inner ring (IR fatigue) and in the

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +55-61-307-2313; fax: +55-61-307-2314.

E-mail address: jorge@enm.unb.br (J.L.A. Ferreira).

1350-6307/03/$ - see front matter # 2003 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

PII: S1350-6307(02)00052-3
746 J.L.A. Ferreira et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 10 (2003) 745–758

rolls. The bearing life is characterized by the formation of small flaws in the surface of the track that tend
to grow, resulting in the loss of performance of the bearing. Bearings are selected based on a theoretical
life, defined as the nominal life L10, in that 90% of them reach such lifetime. The characterization of the
conditions of use is fundamental to estimate L10. Due to several factors, bearing life can vary significantly.
According to Amaral [1], it can be observed that 50% of the bearings reach up to 5 times the L10 life.
Besides, the relationship between the life for the appearance of the first defect and L10 is approximately
10%. Therefore, to evaluate the conditions of operation of a bearing it is necessary to consider the statis-
tical behavior of its life. Motivated by the concern of the maintenance department of an important Brazi-
lian mining company regarding the elevated rate of failures in the bearings of wagons used to transport
minerals, we conducted an analysis of approximately 47,000 bearings to investigate their reliability under
real conditions of use. In this sense, the L10 parameter was evaluated by analytical and statistical methods.
Analytically two estimate methodologies were considered. Methodology I is a well established technique
described in [2] while Methodology II is an alternative approach proposed by the authors [3], which was
inspired by a procedure used to design rail shafts [4]. In the statistical analysis, the bearing life is described
by a three-parameter Weibull distribution. Thus, to characterize such a probability distribution it is
necessary to determine the minimum life parameter, L0, the shape parameter,
, and the L10 life. In the
determination of these parameters was used the nonlinear regression method [5–7], and direct inference on
the sample. Based on these results we applied the Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests [8] to verify the hypothesis
that the bearing life has a Weibull distribution. Once characterized, the distribution was used to estimate
the reliability functions and risk for the bearing in use.

2. Reliability of bearings

To describe the bearing failure probability distribution the Weibull distribution is generally used. This
distribution is intimately related to the fatigue failure problem [7,10]. According to Meyer [11], the Weibull
distribution represents an adequate model to describe failure rules, whenever the system is composed of
several components and the failure is caused by the most serious imperfection or irregularity among a great
number of imperfections in the system. The Weibull distribution can be defined by two or three para-
meters. In the specific case of bearing life, to represent the probability distribution and the probability
density function of the three parameter Weibull distribution, Bergling [12] recommended the use of the
following equation:
"
 #
l  L0

FðlÞ ¼ 1  exp 0:105 ; ð1Þ
L10  L0
and
  "   #
0:105
l  L0
l  L0

fðlÞ ¼   exp 0:105 ; ð2Þ
l  L0 L10  L0 L10  L0

where L0 represents the minimum value expected for the bearing life and
is the shape parameter or
Weibull inclination. This parameter controls the degree of asymmetry of the distribution. L10 is the scale
parameter or characteristic value. It represents the value below which is 10% of the sample.
Due to the dispersion observed in practice, it is impossible to establish a priori an accurate value for
the L0 parameter. The value L0 could be assumed to be zero, implying that failures can happen soon
after the bearing installation. However, experiments indicate the existence of a minimum life different from
zero [13]. Bergling [12] recommends the use of the following equation to evaluate the bearing theoretical
minimum life:
 J.L.A. Ferreira et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 10 (2003) 745–758 747

L0 ¼ 0:05L10 : ð3Þ

Using Eqs. (1) and (2) it is possible to define two very important functions in the description of the fail-
ure characteristics of a component: the reliability function, R(l), and the hazard function, or failure rate,
Z(l).
The reliability function allow us to estimate the probability that a component will not fail during the
interval [0, l], or, equivalently, the probability that a component is still operating in the time l. Thus, in
terms of Eq. (1), the reliability function of the bearings will be expressed according to:
"

#
l  L0
RðlÞ ¼ 1  PðL 4 lÞ ¼ 1  FðlÞ ¼ exp 0:105 : ð4Þ
L10  L0

The hazard function could be considered as a measure of the probability that a component comes to fail
during an interval of time, t, as long as this component is operating appropriately in the instant, t. Thus,
associated with the random variable, l, the hazard function can be estimated by:


fðlÞ 0:105 l  L0
1
ZðlÞ ¼ ¼ 
 : ð5Þ
RðlÞ L10  L0 L10  L0

3. Analytical methods to estimate the L10 life

Two methodologies are presented to estimate L10. Methodology I is a typical description of a well
established technique often found in bearing manufacture manuals. Here the SKF approach will be
adopted [2], due to its large use in the Brazilian industrial sector. A drawback observed in this type of
approach is the lack of rigor in defining the terms associated with the mathematical model used to estimate
L10. In order to define a more refined procedure we developed an alternative technique (Methodology II),
which was inspired by an approach used to design rail shafts [JIS/4501]. This methodology describes in
detail the several loadings applied to the bearings. Next, the necessary procedures to use these methods will
be presented.

3.1. Methodology I

In this methodology we use the SKF approach to estimate L10. It can be calculated by:
Dw 
L10 ¼ KP m ; ð6Þ
1000

where L10 is expressed in km, Dw is the wheel diameter (in mm), K and m are empirical constants associated
with a specific type of bearing, and P is the equivalent dynamic load applied to the bearing (in newtons).
To determine the intensity of the dynamic load applied to the bearing the following expression is used:

P ¼ 0:5f0 f1 G; ð7Þ

where G is the static load applied to the bearing, f0 is related to the variation of the load and f1 is a factor
that characterizes the influence of the axial and the radial dynamic loads on the bearing. f0 and f1 are
748 J.L.A. Ferreira et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 10 (2003) 745–758

associated with the speed and the railroad condition, respectively. Typical values of these parameters are
presented in Table 1.
The static load is obtained considering the total weight of the loaded wagon. This value is given by:

G ¼ 0:5 ðG1  Gw Þ; ð8Þ

where G1 is the load applied to the shaft and Gw is the combined weight of the bearings and the wheels
assembled to the rail shaft.

3.2. Methodology II

As mentioned previously, this methodology to estimate L10 is based on procedures used for the design of
rail shafts [JIS/4501]. In order to implement it the following steps are necessary.

3.2.1. Determination of the loading applied on the bearings

In the design of rail shafts two types of loading should be considered: (i) the static loading, W, char-
acterized by the weight, and (ii) the dynamic loadings, P and Q, generated by the vibratory response of the
wagon due to variation of the wagon speed and irregularities of the rails. Such irregularities are provoked
by vertical and horizontal undulations along the rails.

3.2.2. Static loading—W

Considering the loading conditions on the wagon, the static loading, W, can be calculated by:

Mc g
Wc ¼ ; ð9aÞ
Ne

and

Mv g
Wv ¼ ; ð9bÞ
Ne

where M is the mass of the wagon, g is the acceleration due to gravity, Ne is the number of shafts per
wagon, and the subscripts c and v represent the conditions of full and empty wagon, respectively.

3.2.3. Dynamic loading—P and Q

The horizontal and vertical components of the dynamic forces, respectively Pi and Qi, can be obtained by
equilibrium of forces and moments in the wagon [Eqs. (10)–(13)]. The free body diagram of the system can
be observed in Fig. 1. Then:

Table 1
Typical values of the parameters f0 and f1

f0 f1

1.0 Locomotives and wagons subjected to constant static loads 1.3 Rails in good condition
0.9–l.0 Train cabin 1.4 Rails in normal condition
0.8–0.9 Wagons of loads, where 0.8 represents the complete load during half of the period 1.5 Rails in bad condition
 J.L.A. Ferreira et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 10 (2003) 745–758 749

Mc g
Pc ¼ Lc  ; ð10Þ
Ne Nr

Mv g
Pv ¼ Lv  ; ð11Þ
Ne Nr

Mc g hc
Qc ¼ Lc   ; ð12Þ
Ne Nr j

Mc g hv
Qv ¼ Lv   ; ð13Þ
Ne Nr j

where h is the vertical distance from the axle to the center of gravity of the wagon, j is the distance between
the bearings, aL is the coefficient of horizontal acceleration, Ne and Nr are the number of axles and the
bearings per axle, respectively.
The coefficient of horizontal acceleration, L, is a parameter used to quantify the effect of the dynamic
loading on the wagon. Basically, this coefficient depends on the speed of the wagon and on the conditions
of the railroad. Considering that the rail system did not have such information, we adopted as reference the
values given in [4] and reported in Table 2.

3.3. Determination of the mean equivalent dynamic loads on the bearing

Once the horizontal and vertical components of load on the bearing are determined, it becomes necessary
to evaluate the equivalent dynamic load. According to the bearing manufacturer [SKF], this is determined
by Eq. (14):

Fd ¼ XQ þ YP; ð14Þ

where X and Y are the radial and axial loading factors, and the subscript d stands for dynamic.

Fig. 1. Definition of the loads applied to the rail shaft [9].

750 J.L.A. Ferreira et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 10 (2003) 745–758

Depending on the wagon’s conditions of loading Eqs. (14) can be rewritten as:

Mc g hc Mc g
Fcd ¼ XLc   þ YLc  ; ð14aÞ
Ne Nr j Ne Nr

and

Mv g hv Mv g
Fvd ¼ XLv   þ YLv  : ð14bÞ
Nc Nr j Ne Nr

The mean equivalent dynamic load used to estimate the bearing’s life, Fm, will be given by:
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u 3
uF1 u1 þ F23 u2 þ . . . þ Fk3 uk
Fm ¼3 u
u ; ð15Þ
t P K
ui
i¼1

where Fi, i=1. . .K, are the possible loadings applied to the wagon along the track, and ui, are their
respective periods of operation. Considering the specific conditions of this analysis, the mean equivalent
dynamic load can be quantified by:
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
( " ffi
u
u
3 # "
3 #)
1 W 1 W
Fm ¼3 t0:5
c v
 fc  ðFcd Þ3 þfrc  þ  fv  ðFvd Þ3 þfrv  ; ð16Þ
frc þ fc Nr frv þ fv Nr

where frc and frv [Hz] are the frequencies of Wc and Wv, and fc and fv [Hz] are the frequencies of oscillation
of the wagon along the track. In order to determine these frequencies it will be necessary to consider that
(i) frc and frv are proportional to the rotation of the axle, and (ii) fc and fv depend on the conditions
of the rail track and the train speed. Here we will assume that: fc and fv equal 0.5 Hz, while fr can be
calculated by:

2Vi
fri ¼ ; ð17Þ
Dw

where Vi [m/s] is the wagon speed and Dw [m] is the wheel diameter.

Table 2
Coefficients of acceleration

Rail system Class Speed, V (km/h) Acceleration coefficients (L)

System 1 AS 200–350 (0.030 0.00060) . V

A 150–200 (0.030 0.00085) . V
System 2 A 60–160 (0.040 0.0012) . V
A <60 0.11
B 60–130 (0.060 0.0018) . V
B <60 0.17
 J.L.A. Ferreira et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 10 (2003) 745–758 751

The L10 is calculated by:


Dw C p
L10 ¼  ; ð18Þ
1000 Fm

where C is the dynamic load capacity.

4. Estimate of the Weibull parameters by nonlinear regression

In order to estimate the parameters of the Weibull distribution function a nonlinear regression procedure
is used. The advantage of using such a technique is that it is relatively simple to implement and provides
consistent estimates. The necessary steps for the implementation of it are:
1. Apply the Naperian logarithm function to Eq. (1), yielding:



1 l  L0

ln ¼ 0:105 : ð19Þ
1  FðlÞ L10  L0

2. Apply the Naperian logarithm function to Eq. (19), yielding:


1
ln ln ¼ lnð0:105Þ þ
 ½lnðl  L0 Þ  lnðL10  L0 Þ
: ð20Þ
1  FðlÞ

3. Re-write Eq. (20) as Y=
.X+C, where:


1
Y ¼ ln ln  lnð0:105Þ; ð20aÞ
1  FðlÞ

C ¼
lnðL10  L0 Þ; ð20bÞ

X ¼ lnðl  L0 Þ: ð20cÞ

4. Apply the linear regression technique to a representative sample of the failure distribution, to calculate
X and C.
5. Use Eq. (21) to estimate L10:

L10 ¼ eC=
þ L0 : ð21Þ

The main drawback associated with the use of this method is the need to have a representative sample of
the distribution. Typically, this methodology is used when 100% of the sampling collection failed. How-
ever, results obtained by the authors demonstrate that it can be used when at least 15% of the collection is
available.
752 J.L.A. Ferreira et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 10 (2003) 745–758

5. Characteristics of the wagon and the bearing

The bearings considered in this work were installed in wagons used to transport minerals, denominated
GDTs. These wagons contain four rigid axles. Four self-aligning roller bearings are installed in each axle.
Table 3 reports the main characteristics of this type of wagon.

5.1. Bearing characteristics

The bearing considered in this work is a double self-aligning roller bearing, which was designed to
withstand axial and radial loads. It is composed of two sets of rolls, having a common spherical track in
the external ring and two independent tracks in the internal one. The basic characteristics of these bearings
are presented in Table 4.

5.2. Description of the sampling

To carry out this study 12 bearing groups were supplied by the operator of the rail system. Each one of
these groups was identified according to the year of the bearing assembly. To assure the quality of the
analysis the following criteria were established for the samples:

 To accept groups which presented a quantity of defective bearings greater than 15% of the total
number of bearings in the group.
 To reject groups where all the bearings contain manufacturing defects.

Based on these criteria six groups, whose characteristics are reported in Table 5, were accepted.

Table 3
GDT wagon characteristic

Characteristic Value

Weight (ton) Full, Mc 120

Empty, Mv 21
Characteristics of the axles system of the wagon Distance between the bearing supports, j [m] 2.197
Vertical distance from axle to centre of gravity of full wagon, hc [m] 1.8
Vertical distance from axle to centre of gravity of empty wagon, hv 0.8
Number of axles of the wagon, Ne 4
Number of bearings in each axle, Nr 4
Diameter of the wheels, D [m] 0.965
Wagon speed [km/h] Full, Vc 70
Empty, Vv 75

Table 4
Bearing characteristicsa

Designation Main dimensions (mm) Load capacity (N) Weight (kg)

d D B Dynamic (C) Static (Co)

231481J/C3 157, 174 270 86 845,000 1,410,000 20.7

a
d is inner diameter; D is outer diameter; B is width; C is dynamic load and Co is static load.
 J.L.A. Ferreira et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 10 (2003) 745–758 753

6. Results—evaluation of bearing life

To evaluate the bearing failure distribution the following steps are required:

1. Characterize the main failure mode;

2. Theoretically estimate L0 and L10;
3. Use nonlinear regression to characterize L0, L10 and
;
4. Apply statistic inference on the samples to characterize the behavior L0, L10;
5. Compare L0 and L10 with their respective theoretical estimates;
6. Compare the parameters L0, L10 and
, estimated by statistical techniques, with their respective
theoretical estimates;
7. Evaluate the reliability curves and the hazard function.

6.1. Failure mode

The analysis of the defective bearings allowed us to identify and quantify the most frequent failure mode
for the specific conditions of use. A summary of this analysis is presented in Table 6. From these results
one can observe that approximately 80% of the bearings failed by fatigue.

6.2. Theoretical estimate

Considering the equations presented in Sections 3 and 4, the minimum and nominal lives were estimated.
These values are presented in Table 7.

Table 5
Characteristics of the bearing groups

Groups Installation date Number of bearings Defective bearings Failure percentile L0 (km) L10 (km)
until year 2000

85 June 1985 26,000 3839 15 3.02.105 2.46.106

86 June 1986 19,160 4371 23 2.39.105 1.70.106
87 June 1987 900 177 20 7.01.105 1.73.106
88 June 1988 500 214 44 5.45.105 1.18.106
90 June 1990 350 49 14 6.28.105 1.57.106
91 June 1991 120 24 20 6.65.105 1.49.106
All 47,030 8674 18 2.39.105 2.19.106

Table 6
Failure mode observed in the groups

Failure mode Damaged bearings (%)

Fatigue IR 13.0
Fatigue OR 58.0
Fatigue in the rolls 3.0
Micro fatigue 4.0
Oxidation 5.0
Others 17.0
754 J.L.A. Ferreira et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 10 (2003) 745–758

6.3. Statistical estimate

Estimates of the life distribution parameters, obtained by nonlinear regression, were computed for each
bearing group and compared with their respective values evaluated by direct inference. The results calcu-
lated by the former approach are reported in Table 8, while the mean values, the standard deviation and
the coefficients of variation of the nominal and minimum life computed using both procedures are pre-
sented in Table 9.
The following conclusions can be drawn from the results reported in Tables 7–9: (1) the dispersions of
the parameters of nominal and minimum life are high. Notice that in terms of maintenance management,
such behavior is not interesting, because bearings can fail much before or much after than was predicted.
(2) Applying the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test [12], it was observed that the estimated values for the nominal
and minimum lives can be described by a Gaussian distribution. (3) The application of the t-student test
[12] to the respective estimates of L10 and L0 results in the acceptance of the hypothesis that the mean
values are similar. (4) According to method I, the estimates of L10 presented values close to the mean
estimates obtained by linear regression and by direct observation of the samples. (5) A conservative esti-
mate for L10 was obtained by method II. It predicts a 2% probability of failure when the mean statistical
distribution of the bearings is considered.

Table 7
Nominal life estimate

Method Estimate

L10 L0

I 1.70.10 6
85,000
II 1.04.106 51,950

For the shape parameter,
, Bergling [9] suggested the value 1.11.

Table 8
Parameters of the life distribution—nonlinear regression method

Sample L̂0 L̂10
^ R2

1985 1.50.105 2.36.106 1.72 0.99

1986 5.00.105 2.01.106 1.64 0.99
1987 6.50.105 2.27.106 1.69 0.97
1988 5.00.105 1.32.106 1.62 0.94
1990 5.70.105 1.57.106 1.09 0.99
1991 5.80.105 1.52.106 1.11 0.97
Other 1.12.105 2.18.106 1.72 0.99

Table 9
Comparison between the parameters estimated by linear regression and by direct inference

Parameter L10 L̂10 L0 L̂0

Mean 1.69.106
1.89.10 6
5.13.10 5
4.37.105
Standard deviation 4.26.105 4.14.105 1.96.105 2.16.105
CoV (%) 25 22 38 49
Normality hypothesis OK OK OK OK
 J.L.A. Ferreira et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 10 (2003) 745–758 755

The accumulated failure distribution associated with the sample groups are presented in Figs. 2–4. The
analysis of these curves shows that the nonlinear regression model used to evaluate the Weibull parameters
allows one to determine the failure distribution function, when the sample size is relatively small. Further,
the comparison of the theoretical and experimental failure distribution functions shows that, for the bear-
ing groups considered in this work, Eq. (6) does not characterize appropriately the bearing failure
distribution.

6.4. Assessment of failure probability and reliability curves

To determine the parameters which describe the life of the bearings considered in this work four inde-
pendent methodologies were used: (1) the method adopted by the rail system operator—Method I; (2) the
procedure proposed by the authors—Method II; (3) information supplied by the bearing manufacturer,

Fig. 2. Failure distribution function—(a) Group 85, (b) Group 86.

Fig. 3. Failure distribution function—(a) Group 87, (b) Group 88.

756 J.L.A. Ferreira et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 10 (2003) 745–758

and (4) the nonlinear regression method. Based on these methodologies curves of reliability and failure
probability were plotted (see Fig. 5).
Apparently the bearings, under the specific use conditions, possess superior failure probability to that
specified by the manufacturer. Analyzing the bearing failure distribution estimated by the adapted JIS/
4501 norm, it is observed that this is conservative to a life of approximately 107 km. Already the reliability
curves described by Eq. (14) represent the probability that the bearings do not fail. In Fig. 5(b) are
presented curves that describe the reliability of the bearings with time. Observing the behavior of the curves
presented in that figure, it can be observed that the bearings operate in an appropriate way up to 106 km.
However, after 106 km the bearings do not reach the reliability level predicted by the model adapted from
JIS/4501 and that specified by the manufacturer.

Fig. 4. Failure distribution function—(a) Group 90, (b) Group 91.

Fig. 5. (a) Failure distribution functions and (b) bearings reliability functions.
 J.L.A. Ferreira et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 10 (2003) 745–758 757

Fig. 6. Hazard function of the bearings.

6.5. Bearings hazard function

The hazard function, described by Eq. (15), represents the probability that the bearing fails during a
certain interval L as long as it is operating appropriately. Fig. 6 contains the curves characterizing the
behavior of the hazard function of the bearings. This graph shows that up to 106 km the hazard rates for
the bearings are less than the theoretical ones. This essentially means that initially the bearings are working
properly, but their failure rate increases significantly with time.

7. Conclusions

Motivated by the high rate of bearing failures in wagons used to transport minerals, a reliability analysis
was carried out of approximately 47,000 bearings. An evaluation of the statistical behavior of each group
that composed the sample was conducted. To assess the bearing nominal life, L10s two methodologies were
considered. Methodology I was based on a standard procedure proposed by the bearing manufacturer,
while Methodology II was developed by the authors. The following conclusions can be drawn from these
analyses:

 An excessive variation was observed in the parameters that characterize the behavior of the failure
distribution. Based on direct inference a dispersion of the order of 40% was observed for L0 and L10.
The dispersion was reduced to 25% when linear regression was used. A dispersion of 17% was
calculated for the shape parameter,
^ , using linear regression.
 Regarding the estimates of the parameters that describe the failure distribution of the bearings, it
was observed that the linear regression method could be used to evaluate the characteristic para-
meters of the distribution. Furthermore, application of the t-student test has shown that such
parameters were similar to their respective values obtained directly from the samples.
 Methodologies I and II were capable of estimating the lives L10s. However, considering the integrity
analysis, methodology II was shown to be more flexible as it allows the control of the parameters
directly involved in the bearing failure phenomenon (static loads, speed, dynamic loads, vibratory
response of the structure).
758 J.L.A. Ferreira et al. / Engineering Failure Analysis 10 (2003) 745–758

 The minimum lives, L0, predicted by methodologies I and II were conservative by a factor of four
(Method I: L0=51.950 km, Method II: L0=85.000 km, and L0=239.000 km). However, the
theoretical estimates for the nominal life, L10s, were shown to be similar to the smallest value of
the nominal life observed in the groups (Method I: L10=1.7.106, Method II: L10=1.0.106, and
L10=1.1.106).
 Evaluating the behavior of the reliability curves up to 106 km we observed that the bearing groups
presented a reliability level greater than those predicted by methods I and II.
 As far as the hazard curves are concerned, we verified that groups 1985–1988 presented hazard rates
which evolve in an exponential manner. This indicates a strong trend to increase the number of
failures per journey. Such behavior can be related to the excessive number of bearing inspections,
which have been carried out at intervals of 20,000 km. It is worth noticing that the manufacturer
recommends that these inspections should take place at intervals not smaller than 200,000 km.

References

[1] Amaral RV. Detecção de Falhas em Bearings através de Medidas de Emissão Acústica. Anais da Conferência Internacional
sobre Avaliação de Integridade e Extensão de Vida de Equipamentos Industriais: Pouso Alto, MG, Brazil; 1993.
[2] Casas de Grasa para Ferrocarriles—Technical Catalogs, Pub. 3561SP, Reg. 832 01 1000. 1990 - 10.
[3] Araujo APN. Análise de Confiabilidade de Rolamentos Ferroviários sob Condições Reais de Operação, Dissertação de
Mestrado, Departamento de Engenharia Mecânica, UnB, 2000.
[4] JIS/4501. Japanese Standards Association, Railway Rolling Stock—Design Method for Strength of Axles. Japanese Industrial
Standard, E 1995, 4501, pp. 1–3.
[5] Li YM. A general linear—regression analysis applied to the 3-parameter Weibull distribution. IEEE Transactions on Reliability
1994;48(1):255–63.
[6] Jiang R, Murthy DNP, Ji P. Models involving two inverse Weibull distribution. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 2001;73:
73–81.
[7] Lipson C, Sheth NJ. Statistical design and analysis of engineering experiments. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company; 1973.
[8] DeGroot MH. Probability and statistics. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company; 1986.
[9] Hirakawa K, Toyama K, Kubota M. The analysis and prevention of failure in railway axles. International Journal of Fatigue
1998;20(2):135–44.
[10] Johnson LG. The statistical treatment of fatigue experiments. Amsterdam, Holland: Elsevier Publishing Company; 1964.
[11] Meyer PL. Introductory probability and statistical applications. Massachussetts: Addison Wesley; 1983.
[12] Bergling G. Fiabilidad de los rodamientos. La Revista de Rodamientos 1976:188.
[13] Snare B. Nuevas experiencias respecto a al seguridad de los rodiamentos. La Revista de Rodamientos 1975:184.