Alternating Current Field Measurement
ACFM is a noncontact electromagnetic technique
that is used to detect and size surface-breaking
cracks in metals. The technique involves detect-
ing discontinuities by scanning the surface of a
test object with an ACFM probe that contains
sensors. The results of the scan are then electroni-
cally monitored, and the components of the asso-
ciated magnetic fields are measured to determine
the size and depth of the flaws. The basic concept
behind this technique consists of inducing locally
uniform alternating current into an area of the
test component and measuring the magnetic flux
density above the test component surface. When a
surface-breaking crack is present, the current flows
around the ends and down the faces of the crack,
interrupting the magnetic flux density (Lugg 2011
Lugg and Smith 2018 Lugg and Topp 2006). Figure 4
shows the implementation of the ACFM approach
for axle body inspection.
Ultrasonic Testing
For many decades, UT has been used as a standard
NDE method. It is also one of the most widely
accepted NDE methods for inspection of railcar
axles. The frequency commonly applied during
ultrasonic inspection of axles ranges from 2.25 to
5 MHz. The general idea of UT NDE is based on
the emission of an acoustic wave and the record-
ing of the signal after it passes through the material
being tested. Any irregularity in signal and time of
flight could be an indication of a defect. Information
obtained from ultrasonic waves includes (a) acoustic
intensity and frequency and (b) time of flight mea-
surements (determines location of discontinuities).
Phased Array Ultrasonic Testing
PAUT is an advanced ultrasonic NDE technique
that uses multiple elements (transducers) in a single
probe to send an array of sounds, in a wide range of
angles, through the material being tested. It works
on the wave physics principle of phasing that is,
by pulsing (firing) the elements in different delay
sequences (at different times). Ultrasonic beams
can be electronically controlled to steer and focus
the sound beams effectively. Typically, elements
are pulsed in groups of 4 to 32, which increases
sensitivity and sharpens the focus by increasing
the aperture and reducing the unwanted spreading
of the beam. Several UT methods are available for
inspecting railway axles. These methods are usually
selected based on whether the axle being inspected
is solid or hollow.
SOLID AXLES
The inspection of solid axles is usually performed
using conventional manual and automated contact
pulse-echo UT and PAUT approaches, as shown
in Figure 5. Conventional pulse-echo methods,
shown in Figure 5a, are used to detect axial flaws.
They are usually done from the surface of the axle
at “zero-degree” scans. “Far-end” scans are done
from the ends to inspect the full length of the axle.
These scans are generally applied during overhauls.
“Near-end” scans are also done from the end of
the axle to detect flaws underneath the wheel-
sets, bearings, and grooves. And “high-angle” scans
are done from the surface to inspect areas under
bearings and wheels. These scans also require the
removal of bearings and bearing caps for inspection.
Similarly, PAUT inspection of solid axles is
usually performed from the surface body of an axle
or from the end of an axle (Liaptsis et al. 2011), as
shown in Figure 5b. Phased array probes (with a
frequency range from 2.25 to 5 MHz) emit ultra-
sonic shear waves at different angles, which allows
the scanning of a larger surface area of the axle.
Longitudinal and shear wave scans are also done
from the ends to inspect for any anomaly in the
body of the axle.
FEATURE
|
RAILROADS
Figure 4. ACFM system for axle inspection: (a) inspection
setup (b) results for good axle (c) results for bad axle
(Maass et al. 2014).
WATCH
THE VIDEO
30
M A T E R I A L S E V A L U A T I O N J A N U A R Y 2 0 2 4
2401 ME January.indd 30 12/20/23 8:01 AM
Several commercial axle inspection systems
are available for use in the shop and depot. They
require that either the wheelsets or bearings be dis-
mounted, and the bearing end caps be removed
from the axle. These automated systems use various
fixed phased array probes for full-volume coverage
to inspect for discontinuities along the length of the
axle. The wheelset is automatically positioned and
rotated in a gantry. At the same time, the vertical
arms deliver gimbaled holders that carry the ultra-
sonic probes. The inspection takes approximately 4
to 5 min per axle (Marty et al. 2012).
HOLLOW AXLES
Hollow axles are inspected similarly to solid axles—
that is, in the depot without disassembling the
wheelset or during overhaul, which requires dis-
assembling the wheelset. The PAUT technique, as
described for solid axles, is the primary technique
for inspecting hollow axles. Several automated
hollow axle inspection systems exist and are com-
mercially available, as shown in Figure 6.
In one of the automated systems (Marty et al.
2012), phased array probes are mounted on the end
of a shaft to inspect axles from the borehole. Phased
array ultrasonic probes are arranged in the internal
probe to inspect for circumferential and axial dis-
continuities in the axle. Simultaneous rotation
and axial movements generate a helical scan of
the entire axle, and the complete inspection and
handling time per axle using this system is approx-
imately 6 min. In addition, online roll-out C-scan
and B-scan images are displayed for reliable assess-
ment of the axle specimen. Another automated
system utilizes up to 10 angular and zero-degree
ultrasonic probes to maximize the probability of
detection in axles. For each set of angled probes,
one probe looks both forward and backward
(Gauna et al. 2018).
Emerging/Advanced NDE Technologies for
Axle Inspection
This section briefly highlights some of the initiatives
researchers around the world have conducted on
emerging/advanced NDE technologies, which are at
different phases of development and are not com-
mercially available.
INDUCED CURRENT FOCUSING POTENTIAL DROP
TECHNIQUE
The induced current focusing potential drop (ICFPD)
technique is similar to the ACFM technique in that it
works on the principle of electromagnetic induction.
The primary difference between these two tech-
niques is that the ICFPD technique uses induction
High-angle
scan
Zero-degree
scan
Far-end
scan
Solid axle
Near-end
scan
Figure 5. UT scan coverage in solid axles: (a) conventional UT (b) PAUT methods (Marty et al. 2012).
Figure 6. PAUT hollow
axle inspection system:
(a) production system
(Marty et al. 2012)
(b) PAUT results (Gauna
et al. 2018).
J A N U A R Y 2 0 2 4 M A T E R I A L S E V A L U A T I O N 31
2401 ME January.indd 31 12/20/23 8:01 AM
Previous Page Next Page