On Constitutive Models

for Ratcheting of High

Strength Rail Steels
Chung Lun Pun, Peter Mutton, Wenyi Yan
Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

Qianhua Kan, Guozheng Kang

Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, China

2014/3/24

Content
Introduction
Motivations and Objectives
Experimental Results
Numerical Study
Summary
Future Work

2014/3/24

Material Response under cyclic

loading

Kapoor and
Johnson, 1994
a.
b.
c.
d.

< y
Pure elastic deformation
y < < EL Elastic shakedown
EL < < PL Plastic shakedown
> PL
ratcheting = accumulation of plastic
deformation
2014/3/24

Rail degradation
Stress level >
plastic
shakedown limit

Std HH

Std C

HE HT

ratcheting

Ratcheting strain
> ductility limit

HE1

Initiation of rail
degradation. i.e.
fatigue cracks

HE2

2014/3/24

Objectives
To investigate ratcheting behaviour in lab
conditions
To quantify plastic ratcheting
To investigate ratcheting performance in
practice

2014/3/24

Materials
Three high strength pearlitic rail steels
Rail

C (%)

Si (%)

Mn (%)

LAHT

0.8

0.7

0.95

0.4

HE1

1.0

0.5

0.7

0.2

HE2

0.85

0.55

0.55

Cr (%)

0.005

500

Hardness HV (kg/mm )

450

Hardness HV (kg/mm )

S (%)

0.014

500

400
350
LAHT
HE1
HE2

300
250

P (%)

14

21

28

35

450

400

350

LAHT
HE1
HE2

0
180

300

90

180

270

360

Angular displacement (degree)

Depth below gauge corner h (mm)

2014/3/24

Cyclic loading tests

Solid specimen

MTS 809-250kN machine

Tubular specimen
2014/3/24

Monotonic tensile test

Axial Stress (MPa)

1500
1200
900
1100

600

1000

900

300
0

LAHT
HE1
HE2

800

700
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

12

Axial Strain (%)

Elastic
Modulus
(GPa)

Nominal
yield
strength
(MPa)

Ultimate
tensile
strength
(MPa)

Elongation
at failure
(%)

Reduction
of area (%)

LAHT

212

1000

1446

11.3

35.87

HE1

203

850

1429

8.5

14.71

HE2

212

905

1384

12

39.5

2014/3/24

 (MPa)

Uniaxial symmetrical strain cycling,

a = 0.8%
LAHT

1200

Stress amlitude a

1050

Mean Stress

HE1

HE2

900
100
0
-100

20

40

60

80

100

N (cycles)

All three materials features cyclic softening

a 7.5% for the LAHT and 8% for the HE1 & HE2 over the first 10
cycles

LAHT & HE2 m

HE1 m
2014/3/24

Biaxial compression-torsion
stress cycling loading paths

Linear loading path

Oblique loading path

Butterfly loading path

Rectangular loading path

Elliptical loading path

2014/3/24

10

Biaxial stress cycling

0.0

0.0

HE1

-0.5

-0.7

-1.0

-1.4

r (%)

r (%)

LAHT

-1.5
Loading Path:
Linear
Oblique
Butterfly

-2.0
-2.5

20

60

Loading Path:
Linear
Oblique
Butterfly

-2.8

Rectangular
Elliptical
40

-2.1

80

-3.5

100

20

N (cycles)

Rectangular
Elliptical
40

60

80

100

N (cycles)

N r
N d r dN

0.0

HE2

Loading paths influence ratcheting

LAHT best resistance to
ratcheting

r (%)

-0.7
-1.4
-2.1
-2.8
-3.5
2014/3/24

Loading Path:
Linear
Oblique
Butterfly
0

20

Rectangular
Elliptical
40

60

N (cycles)

80

100
11

Modified cyclic plasticity

model

2014/3/24

12

Non-proportional parameter

2014/3/24

13

Calibration of material
parameters
Material constants and
From monotonic tensile tests

p
i

1400
LAHT

i = 1, 2, 3....10

Axial stress (MPa)

=
i

ip

ri = i i 1 i +1 i
p p
ip+1 ip

i 1
i

1200

1000

800

600
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

Plastic strain (%)

2014/3/24

14

Calibration of material
parameters
Control parameter
1200

eq
a = A1 + A2 [1 exp( N )]

1050

Saturated Isotropic
deformation resistance
for = 0 and = 1

a (MPa)

Curve fitting from

uniaxial strain cycling

Qsa 0 = Q0 ( eq
a | N =1 A1 A2 )

900

600

trial-error

LAHT
HE1
HE2

750

20

40

60

80

100

N (cycles)

2014/3/24

15

Calibrated Material Parameters

2014/3/24

16

Numerical Results
Monotonic tensile test
Axial Stress (MPa)

1500
1200
900
600
Exp. Simu.
LAHT
HE1
HE2

300
0
0.0

0.6

1.2

1.8

2.4

3.0

Axial Strain (%)

Agree well with experimental results

2014/3/24

17

Numerical Results
Rectangular loading path
Experiments
1000

Simulations
1000

Loading cycle, N

(MPa)
1/2

0
-500
st

-1000

Loading cycle, N

500

1/2

(MPa)

500

Simulation

1 cyc
th
100 cyc

-3.5

-2.8

LAHT
LAHT

-2.1

HE1
HE1

-1.4

-500
st

HE2
HE2

-0.7

-1000
0.0

1 cyc
th
100 cyc

-3.5

(%)

-2.8

LAHT
LAHT

-2.1

HE1
HE1

-1.4

HE2
HE2

-0.7

0.0

(%)

Similar shape and size of the hysteresis loops

Similar strain values
2014/3/24

18

Numerical Results biaxial

loading
0.0

0.0

LAHT

HE1

-0.7

-0.9
-1.8

-2.1 Exp.
-2.8
-3.5
0

r (%)

r (%)

-1.4
Simu.
Linear
Oblique
Rectangular
Butterfly
Elliptical

20

40

Exp. Simu.

-2.7

Linear
Oblique
Rectangular
Butterfly
Elliptical

-3.6

60

80

-4.5

100

20

N (cycles)

40

60

80

100

N (cycles)
0.0

Overprediction /
underprediction < 10%

HE2
-0.9
-1.8

r (%)

Quantification of
ratcheting with acceptable
accuracy

Exp.

-2.7

Simu.
Linear
Oblique
Rectangular
Butterfly
Elliptical

-3.6
-4.5

20

40

60

80

100

N (cycles)
2014/3/24

19

Summary - Experiment
Ratcheting behaviour of three high strength rail
steels was studied experimentally
All three rail steels features cyclic softening before
reaching stabilization
LAHT steel has a better resistance to ratcheting
than 2 HE steels in the lab condition

2014/3/24

20

Summary Numerical study

A modified constitutive model was developed
based on the Adbel-Karim and Ohno model
Non-proportional parameter is included
Verified by simulating the monotonic tensile tests
Simulation of biaxial compression-torsion tests
Difference between experimental results and simulated
results < 10%
Give a good prediction of ratcheting

2014/3/24

21

Future Work

Simulation of wheel/rail cyclic rolling contact

Investigation of performance of those three high strength rail steels in
practice

2014/3/24

22

Thank you
Questions ???

2014/3/24

23