ALGORITHMS IN SUPPORT OF DETECTOR-BASED

PREDICTIVE ROLLING STOCK MAINTENANCE:

CORRELATION BETWEEN DATA AND TEARDOWN RESULTS
1
H.M. Tournay, S. Chapman, R. Lang, and R, Walker
1
Transportation Technology Center, Inc. Pueblo, Colorado, USA

Abstract
The North American railroad industry is increasingly moving to wayside detection to reduce vehicle
inspection and maintenance costs. Wheel Impact Load Detectors have been extensively deployed and
high impact wheels are currently being removed. Hunting Detectors have also been deployed and data
from these detectors is currently being analyzed. Cars identified as having poor hunting characteristics
have been identified, inspected and tested. These cars have been found, generally, to have truck low
warp and truck rotational resistance characteristics. Truck friction wedge replacement and the fitting of
constant contact side bearings have been found sufficient to improve performance. Truck Performance
Detectors have also been deployed to identify cars with poor curving performance. Poor performers have
been identified, inspected and tested. Causes of poor performance have been found to be worn truck
friction wedge systems, mismatched side frames, and high truck rotational resistance associated with
incorrect side bearing set up height and center plate and bowl geometry and friction.

1. Introduction
North American railroads are increasingly moving toward wayside detection to reduce vehicle inspection
and maintenance costs. Information from wayside detectors can be used to anticipate maintenance
interventions, and focus maintenance attention on those components and systems requiring attention in
support of predictive maintenance. The object of this paper is to present the current state of deployment
of wayside detectors, detector databases, and describe the algorithms used to identify cars requiring
maintenance attention and the correlation between detector data and the condition of the cars.

2. Detector Deployment in North America

Wayside detection of car and component condition on railroads is not new. Most railroads have used Hot
Bearing and Dragging Equipment Detectors for many years to provide an alarm to avoid or reduce the
consequences of derailment. The advent of a greater range of available instrumentation, improved
communication, automatic equipment identification (AEI), and increased data capture and analysis
capabilities has enabled wayside detection to be developed to monitor in-service performance of
individual cars and components. A variety of detector types is in the process of deployment and a
common database, InteRRIS®2 has been developed by the Transportation Technology Center, Inc. (TTCI)
to enable access to data across railroads and integration of information from detector types. The following
wayside detectors are deployed in North America in support of predictive maintenance:

• Hot Bearing Detector (HBD). This detector is often deployed at intervals as close as every 5 miles
throughout North America. Their original purpose was to alarm and avoid derailment. In this role, there
was little need to store the measured results. Consequently, AEI at each HBD site and the necessary
communication channels for recording and processing historic performance data are not available. A
number of railroads are currently developing methods to capture historic HBD data and associate the
data with a particular bearing in support of short term trending of thermal performance. TTCI has
developed algorithms in support of this effort. These algorithms and others developed by the individual
railroads are currently under test and will be reported on completion of these tests. Data is currently not
available in the North America-wide database, InteRRIS.

2
InterRRIS is a Registered Trade Mark of the Transportation Technology Center, Inc.

1
• Wheel Impact Load Detector (WILD). This detector is the first detector type to measure the force
transmitted between wheel and rail. Currently there are 86 WILD equipped sites deployed in North
America and providing information to InteRRIS.
In their simplest form, WILD measures the vertical load between the wheel and rail at a number of strain-
gaged cribs along a section of track. A single crib is illustrated in Figure 1. Quasi static and dynamic
wheel loads are measured and currently, wheels are being removed from the fleet based on a
performance limit of 90 kips.

Figure 1: Instrumented crib.

• Overload and Imbalanced Load Detector (OILD). This detector is an extension of the WILD.
Currently, OILD information from all WILD sites is available in InteRRIS. Performance limits for the
various allowable load combinations (side-to side, end-to-end, and diagonal) are being investigated for
application in North America.
• Hunting Detector (HD). Sixty Six WILD equipped sites have been enhanced to detect hunting trucks
and cars. This is done by detecting sinusoidal patterns in vertical and lateral load imparted on the track as
a hunting truck or car passes across the series of cribs at the site as illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Wheelset hunting action.

Hunting can also be sensed by detecting the cyclic lateral and yaw position of individual wheelsets along
a section of track. Sensors can either be optical or of the proximity type. Detectors using this technology
are either in development or deployment.

Correlation between data from the HD based on WILD and the condition of cars thus identified will be a
subject for this paper.

• Truck Performance Detector (TPD). The TPD is designed to detect trucks and cars with poor curving
performance. Lateral (L) and vertical (V) loads are measured at a series of crib pairs in circular curves of
opposite sense and on intervening tangent track (Figure 3). High lateral forces at the TPD are indicative
of poor curving performance. There are 22 TPD equipped sites in North America.

2
 Figure 3: Topography of a TPD Site.

Correlation between TPD data and truck and car condition will be a subject of discussion in this paper.
• Hot and Cold Wheel Detectors (HWD and CWD). These detectors utilize similar detection technology
to HBD to measure wheel rim temperatures and assess the condition of vehicle and train brake systems.
HWD and CWD deployment is relatively extensive in Canada to sense and alarm stuck brakes. The data
is currently being analyzed and will be correlated with car condition by TTCI during the second half of
2006.
• Acoustic Bearing Detector (ABD). Seven ABD equipped sites are currently deployed or in the
process of deployment in North America. As bearings develop defects on the rolling surfaces of the cup,
cone, or roller, the sound of rolling action of the bearing is accompanied by a specific frequency and
amplitude component associated with the defect. Knowledge of the bearing type and the vehicle speed
together with the detected frequency of the defect enables the defective component (cup, cone, or roller)
to be identified. Measurement of amplitude provides an indication of the severity of the defect.
Microphones are placed alongside the track at ABD sites to detect the distinctive acoustic signature of
defective bearings.
• Wheel Profile Measurement System (WPMS). This system is in the initial stages of deployment with
three sites currently in prototype use. No data is currently available from these detectors. The WPMS is
the first in an envisioned series of detectors based on machine vision. This compares an actual image of
a particular component/system with an expected image. From this comparison, wear or deformation can
be measured or, in the extreme, the presence or lack thereof can be detected. The intention is to extend
this technology to measure, for example, the presence of brake shoes and safety related equipment
(steps, handles, etc).
3.0 Correlation between Hunting Detector Data and Car Condition
Currently, all HD data available in InteRRIS is sourced from WILD equipped sites. The data is presented
in the form of a Hunting Index (HI) together with related operating parameters per car (site I/D, train I/D,
car I/D, direction of travel, car orientation, truck I/D, time, date, and train speed). Additional information
available from this detector type includes: average vertical load, maximum vertical load, and maximum
lateral load across the site.
Values of HI range, typically, from 0 to values in excess of 0.65. Data for a period of 1 year has been
analyzed using the following four levels of performance chosen for cars (individual trucks) subject to
inspection, test, and teardown (Table 1).

3
 Required Number of
Identification
Passes at Alarm
Level (HI)
Level
0.25 ≤ |HI| At least 3
0.30 ≤ |HI| At least 3
0.45 ≤ |HI| At least 2
0.65 ≤ |HI| At least 1
Table 1: Initial Hunting Index Identification Levels.

Railroads and car owners were presented with lists of cars identified at these four levels. Identified cars
were then sent to the Transportation Technology Center (TTC) for inspection, test, and teardown with the
following conclusions for 4-axle (2-truck) cars:
• All cars hunted at speeds between 35 and 50 mph
• All identified trucks showed low warp restraint, either from original design or condition (worn friction
wedge systems)
• All identified trucks showed low truck/car body rotational resistance (no constant contact side bearings
(CCSBs), or if fitted with CCSBs, little pre load, or melted plastic elements)
• Many trucks showed signs of hunting in service (worn friction wedges and column liners, worn/melted
plastic CCSBs, worn coupler carrier plates, etc)
• Most cars identified were seen to have wheel profiles well within established wear limits. A histogram of
the calculated conicities for the wheels running on TTC tracks is provided in Figure 4.

12

10

8
Number of Axles

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Binsize=0.01, 124 axles Conicity

Figure 4: Histogram of calculated conicities for wheels running at TTC.

It is evident that the calculated conicities suggest that the hunting threshold could be considerably
improved by fitting new wheels. This was, however, not considered a suitable repair option since this
action is both costly and likely to produce improvements of short duration. Limited tests were conducted
on these identified cars when fitted with instrumented wheelsets. These tests revealed that the L/V ratio
measured on some cars increased with increasing speed beyond 1.0 (the accepted derailment limit),
while the L/V ratio measured on other cars “plateaued” at a HI level substantially below 1.0 (Figure 5).
This behavior was replicated in the detector data. This observation has initiated further investigation. It
may be possible in future to discriminate between cars having different maximum L/V ratio characteristics.

4
 Figure 5: L/V ratio versus speed for two different cars.

A number of cars were systematically repaired to establish the optimum repair method. Generally,
improving the truck warp restraint by fitting a new friction wedge system (wedges, liners, etc) improved
the hunting threshold by 15 mph. A similar improvement was seen when the truck/car body rotational
constraint was increased by fitting CCSBs. Interestingly, effecting both improvements produced net gains
greater than the sum of the individual gains (that is, gains were generally greater than 30mph). This may
suggest that increasing both the warp and rotational restraints will ensure a hunting threshold greater
than 50 mph after repair and without replacing wheelsets.
The following interim conclusions are made:
• Hunting cars can be identified using wayside detection.
• The reason for poor performance is a combination of low truck warp restraint and truck/car body
rotational constraint. Both these issues can be rectified through focused maintenance actions.
• The threshold of hunting is at a HI less than 0.25. Further analysis of HD data to a threshold of HI ≥ 0.1
together with inspection, tests, and teardown is in process.
4.0 Correlation between Truck Performance Detector Data and Car Condition
TPD data comprises a record of the L and V loads associated with each pass of a wheel of a car across the
two rails at each crib. Associated data identifies: train, time and date, direction of travel across the detector,
car I/D, car orientation (A-end lead or trail), axle and wheel identity. The combination of measures of L and
V for each wheel has led to the development of a number of performance metrics to identify poorly
performing cars. These metrics have been evaluated and it is suggested that the following have utility and
are representative of most other TPD metrics:
• Lead Axle High Rail L/V Ratio (LAHRLV). This is the L/V ratio of the flanging wheel of the lead axle
and is a measure of the propensity for wheel climb derailment of this wheel.
• Truck Gage Spread Force (TGSF). This is the net force developed by the two wheelsets of a truck to
force the rails apart. It is a measure of the forces generated by a poorly steering truck in a curve and, in
particular, related to the warp attitude of a 3-piece truck.
• Normalized Truck Gage Spread Force (TGSF). As the name implies, this metric normalizes the
TGSF with respect to the vertical load on the rail and thus relates the TGSF for different axle loads.
Interpretation of these metrics is facilitated by the development of the so-called Truck Warp Factor (TW F).
This factor substantially indicates the warped state of a 3-piece truck. A plot of one of the above three main
performance metrics against TWF segregates warped from un-warped trucks and leads to an improved
understanding of the reason for the origin of the forces measured at the TPD. A typical plot of TGSF versus
TWF for data collected in a 5-degree curve is shown in Figure 6.

5
 Figure 6: TGSF versus TWF in a 5-degree curve.

A TWF of approximately 0 percent indicates an un-warped truck (the left hand cluster of data in Figure 6).
A TWF approaching 100 percent indicates a substantially warped truck (the right hand cluster of data in
Figure 6). It can be seen that most substantially warped trucks produce high TGSFs. It is from this
population of trucks that cars were chosen for inspection in service, and, in certain cases, inspection, test
and teardown at TTC. Initial inspection and limited teardown (body lift) revealed the following:
• Trucks showing signs of low warp restraint. These trucks had high friction wedges (not necessarily
condemnable), plastic-backed friction wedges (shown in test to have low warp restraint), broken main
and/or friction wedge springs, and broken and/or worn column wear plates.
• Some Trucks with measured radial wheelset misalignment. These trucks had mismatched side
frames beyond the allowable limit.
A number of trucks were inspected with no obvious signs of defects. In fact, many trucks were of the
improved, high warp type (wide wedges, etc.). Many of these trucks were associated with cars having
reduced or no side bearing clearance (solid contact on metal rockers). Closer inspection showed that
invariably, the reduced side bearing clearances were associated with the “other” truck in the car, not that
truck showing high gage spread forces. In addition, some poorly performing trucks showed evidence of
line contact on the hardened steel center plate liner (see Figure 11).
Cars were then sent to TTC for closer inspection, test, and teardown. One car that was examined had a
record suggesting poor curving performance of the A-truck through left hand curves with the A-end
leading (Figure 7).

6
 Figure 7: Performance history of car identified as a poor performer across the TPD.

Examination of the car revealed no CCSB clearance on the B-truck with associated heavy metal contact
on the rockers (Figure 8).

Figure 8: Lack of side bearing clearance on B-truck and associated metal-to metal contact.

Furthermore, line contact was observed on the center plate liner of the A-truck with signs of edge contact
on the center plate (Figure 9).

Figure 9: Signs of edge contact between center plate and liner.

A hypothesis was developed suggesting that extreme line contact away from the geometric center of the
bowl would give rise to an eccentric center of rotation (Figure 11). This would result in side wall contact in
the center bowl and an increased rotational resistance and consequent truck warp.

7
 Figure 10: Result of eccentric rotation in center bowl.

The car and truck were placed on an air table for test. The car body was rotated in roll on the A-truck
center plate to simulate car body roll and spiral entry and resultant edge contact between center plate and
liner. The truck was then rotated under the car body and the rotational resistance measured with respect
to angular truck rotation. The resulting hysteresis graphs are reflected in Figure 11 together with a plot of
the motion of the center plate in the center bowl and resulting side wall contact.

Figure 11: Truck rotation results.

Figure 11 shows that under high body roll angles, the center plate translates across the bowl and makes
side wall contact prior to rotating sufficiently to negotiate a 3-degree curve. During this translation process

8
the truck rotational moment remains relatively low (40 ft-kip); however, on side wall contact, the rotational
moment doubles (80 ft-kip).
Under lower car body roll angles, the center plate translates at a lower rate prior to side wall contact and
permits higher truck rotation before inducing a higher rotational resistance.
It is concluded that tight side bearings on the B-truck induces line (edge) contact on the A-truck center
plate. Edge contact induces eccentric truck rotation and causing side wall contact. Side wall contact
produces high truck rotational resistance and results in truck warp even in high warp resistant trucks.
Thus, it has been found that in addition to low warp restraint and radial misalignment, high truck rotational
resistance can be detected at the TPD. The root cause of this high rotational resistance is associated with
tight short travel CCSBs and edge contact in the center bowl. This finding supports the decision to
encourage the use of long travel CCSBs and suggests that the design and management of the truck/car
body interface should be examined with a view to improving overall performance.
4.0 Conclusions
The use of wayside detection is improving the maintenance and performance environment of the railroad.
WILDs are identifying high impact wheels. Consequently, the root cause of high impact wheels is being
realized.
HDs are identifying trucks with low warp and rotational resistance together with focused maintenance
actions for improved performance.
TPDs are also identifying low warp trucks. They are also identifying trucks having radial misaligned axles.
In addition, trucks having a high rotational resistance are being found. This resistance is associated with
incorrectly adjusted short travel CCSBs and suggests the use of long travel CCSBs and a closer
examination of the mechanics of truck/car body rotation.