Eddy current (EC) testing is the most commonly used method to inspect near-surface cracks in railheads. Monitoring surface defects periodically is important to assess the track quality for serving daily operations. Nevertheless, despite being used in many countries, this method has limitations when characterizing cracks under the rail surface. Theoretically, EC testing is unreliable for the inspection of many cracks situated too close to each other in a concentrated location. This study has aimed to prove these limitations. EC signals from inspected cracks were compared with real crack profile parameters, i.e. depth and area, which were delivered by slicing the inspected cracked spots into 0.65 mm-thick pieces. The results show that the EC signal responses to the parameters of area and depth may lead to misleading measurements of the near-surface crack depth in the railhead. For instance, a shallower crack with a larger area can generate a higher EC signal response than a deeper crack with a smaller area. Another important conclusion is that the EC testing in this experiment could not be used to measure densely located cracks, which are those near-surface cracks which are typically found in a rail track.
SongZYamadaTShitaraH, et al. Detection of damage and crack in railhead by using eddy current testing. J Electromagn Anal Appl2011; 3: 546–550.
2.
RamanDDevadossRChattopadhyayG, et al. RCF quantification – towards rail grinding best practices for Australian heavy haul rail. In: World congress on railway research, Sydney, November 25–27, 2013.
3.
AsplundMFamurewaSMSchoechW.A Nordic heavy haul experience and best practices. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail Rapid Transit2017; 231: 794–804.
4.
SchöchW.Recording assisted RCF-treatment gains ground. Geneva: Speno International SA, 2012. pp.1–8.
5.
SchoechW. New rail maintenance trends in Europe – anti-headcheck-profiles and preventive cyclical, 2009. November 2009. Speno International SA.
6.
DeyAHintzeHReinhardtJ. Operation of railway maintenance machines with integrated eddy current technique – an overview of the new requirements in Germany. In: 11th European conference on Non-Destructive Testing, Prague, October 6-11, 2014.
7.
PopovićZBrajovićLLazarevićL, et al. Rail defects head checking on the Serbian railways. Teh Vjesn2014; 21: 147–153.
8.
IshidaMAkamaMKashiwayaK, et al. The current status of theory and practice on rail integrity in Japanese railways-rolling contact fatigue and corrugations. Fatigue Fract Eng Mater Struct2003; 26: 909–919.
9.
PapaeliasMPRobertsCDavisCL.A review on non-destructive evaluation of rails: state-of-the-art and future development. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail Rapid Transit2008; 222: 367–384.
10.
MagelESrobaPSawleyK, et al. Control of rolling contact fatigue of rails. Cent Surf Transp Technol2005; 1: 1–29.
11.
AsplundM. Improved wheel-rail system of Sweden’ s Iron Ore Line. In: Proceeding of 11th International Heavy Haul Conference 2017, Cape Town, September 2–6, 2017.
12.
SchöchW.Strategic monitoring of rail grinding – a new era of rail maintenance. Geneva: Speno International SA, n.d.
13.
SchöchW. Resolution of one peak in ECT signal of rail inspection. 2017.
14.
CannonDFPradierH.Rail rolling contact fatigue research by the European rail research institute. Wear1996; 191: 1–13.
15.
RingsbergJWLoo-MorreyMJosefsonBL, et al. Prediction of fatigue crack initiation for rolling contact fatigue. Int J Fatigue2000; 22: 205–215.
16.
KumarS. A study of the rail degradation process to predict rail breaks. 2006, p.93.
17.
KalousekJMagelE.Achieving a balance: the magic wear rate. Railw Track Struct1997; 50–52.
18.
SectionB.Analysis of cracking on running surface of rails. J Croat Assoc Civ Eng2013; 65: 251–259. doi:10.14256/jce.877.2012.
19.
MolodovaM. Detection of early squats by axle box acceleration. 2013, pp.1–138.
20.
RingsbergJW.Life prediction of rolling contact fatigue crack initiation. Int J Fatigue2001; 23: 575–586.
21.
PalSDanielWJTFarjooM.Early stages of rail squat formation and the role of a white etching layer. Int J Fatigue2013; 52: 144–156.
22.
PalSValenteCDanielW, et al. Metallurgical and physical understanding of rail squat initiation and propagation. Wear2012; 284–285: 30–42.
23.
JessopCAhlströmJHammarL, et al. 3D characterization of rolling contact fatigue crack networks. Wear2016; 366–367: 392–400.
24.
MagelEMuttonPEkbergA, et al. Rolling contact fatigue, wear and broken rail derailments. Wear2016; 366–367: 249–257.
25.
García-MartínJGómez-GilJVázquez-SánchezE.Non-destructive techniques based on eddy current testing. Sensors (Basel)2011; 11: 2525–2565.
26.
SongZLYamadaTShitaraH, et al. Eddy current defect detection of side transverse crack in railhead by integrating experiment with simulation. Adv Mater Res2014; 875–877: 593–598.
27.
BettaiebLKokabiHPoloujadoffM, et al. Analysis of some nondestructive evaluation experiments using eddy currents. Res Nondestruct Eval2009; 20: 159–177.
28.
YangBZhaoYZhangW.Quantification of crack defect using a new pulsed eddy current probe. Nondestruct Test Eval2011; 26: 155–168.
29.
RamosHGRochaTRibeiroAL, et al. GMR versus differential coils in velocity induced eddy current testing. In: Conf Rec – IEEE Instrum Meas Technol Conf., 2014, pp.915–918.
30.
HartmannKRickenWBeckerW. Improved eddy current sensor for hot wire inspection. In: European conference on Non-Destructive Testing, Berlin, Germany, 2006, pp.1–9.
31.
HansenJ.The eddy current inspection method, part 2. The impedance plane and probes. Insight Non Insight2004; 46: 364–365.
32.
HarzallaSBelgacemFBMChabaatM.Non-destructive technique for cracks detection by an eddy current in differential mode for steel frames. AIP Conf Proc2014; 1637: 1406–1415.
33.
ZhuJMinQWuJ, et al. Probability of detection for eddy current pulsed thermography of angular defect quantification. IEEE Trans Ind Inf2018; 14: 5658–5666.
34.
LiuBHuangPZengX, et al. Hidden defect recognition based on the improved ensemble empirical decomposition method and pulsed eddy current testing. NDT E Int2017; 86: 175–185.
35.
HadlockDEHowerGL.Efficient calculation of eddy current responses due to defects. Res Nondestruct Eval1990; 2: 225–237.
36.
HeMLiWZhengW, et al. Study on a combined NDT method based on ACFM and eddy current thermography. Nondestruct Test Eval2019; 34: 147–163.
37.
RajamäkiJVippolaMNurmikoluA, et al. Limitations of eddy current inspection in railway rail evaluation. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail Rapid Transit2018; 232: 121–129.
38.
PohlRErhardAMontagHJ, et al. NDT techniques for railroad wheel and gauge corner inspection. NDT E Int2004; 37: 89–94.
39.
SzugsTKrügerAJansenG, et al. Combination of ultrasonic and eddy current testing with imaging for characterization of rolling contact fatigue. 2016, pp.1–8.
40.
DiasPSukasamK.Eddy current testing level 2: ‘training guidelines for non-destructive testing techniques’. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency, 2011, p.152.
41.
ASTM. Standard guide for eddy current testing of electrically conducting materials using conformable sensor arrays 1. USA: ASTM2015, pp.1–7.
42.
YusaNChenWWangJ, et al. Fabrication of imitative cracks by 3D printing for electromagnetic nondestructive testing and evaluations. Case Stud Nondestruct Test Eval2016; 5: 9–14.
43.
SongKWanBZhangL, et al. Simulation study on the effect of crack width on ECT signal. Procedia Eng2011; 15: 5227–5231.
44.
BeissnerRE.Approximate model of eddy-current probe impedance for surface-breaking flaws. J Nondestruct Eval1988; 7: 25–34.
45.
OneidaEKShellEBAldrinJC, et al. Characterizing surface-breaking cracks through eddy current NDE and model-based inversion. Mater Eval2017; 75: ▪.
46.
RajamäkiJVippolaMNurmikoluA, et al. Limitations of eddy current inspection in railway rail evaluation. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail Rapid Transit2018; 232: 121–129.
47.
BentoumiMAkninPBlochG.On-line rail defect diagnosis with differential eddy current probes and specific detection processing. Eur Phys J2003; 23: 227–233.
48.
OpanasenkoAIurchenkoALutsenkoG, et al. Eddy current multi-channel module for in-line high-speed inspection of railroad rails.2016, pp.1–7.
49.
ChandranPRantataloMOdeliusJ, et al. Train-based differential eddy current sensor system for rail fastener detection. Meas Sci Technol2019; 30: 125105.
50.
de BergMCheongOvan KreveldM, et al. Computational geometry. 3rd ed. USA: Springer US, 2008, pp.191–218.
