Optimizing Railcar Fatigue Resistance: Terminology and Calculations

[Altai]

Hi everyone.
I'm trying to find a proper wording for "Calculations made to show the fatigue resistance of a railcar to which multicycle loading is applied".
Would someone please advise how to rephrase the phrase so it sounds good and professional?
"Railcar multicycle loading fatigue resistance calculations", probably?
Being no native English speaker, I'm kind of having a hard time...

 

[AlephZero]

Hi everyone.
I'm trying to find a proper wording for "Calculations made to show the fatigue resistance of a railcar to which multicycle loading is applied".
Would someone please advise how to rephrase the phrase so it sounds good and professional?

"Railcar multicycle loading fatigue resistance calculations", probably?

That's OK.

When you said "calculations", if you just mean that you calculated something using some standard formulas, then leave out the word "calculations" altogether and say "Multicycle loading fatigue resistance of a railcar".

On the other hand, if you are talking more about the calculation methods than about the actual railcar, I would probably say "modelling" rather than "calculations". For eaxmple
"Fatigue resistance modelling of a railcar with multicycle loading".

 

[Altai]

On the other hand, if you are talking more about the calculation methods than about the actual railcar, I would probably say "modelling" rather than "calculations". For eaxmple
"Fatigue resistance modelling of a railcar with multicycle loading".

It's more like the second one, thank you very much.
The only thing I'm a bit unsure about is the "with". Would "in case of multicycle loading" probably sound better?
P.S. Loading here refers to cargo loading/unloading procedures.

 

[AlephZero]

The only thing I'm a bit unsure about is the "with". Would "in case of multicycle loading" probably sound better?

I think "With" sounds better than "in the case of" (in British English).

"In the case of X" usually means "When the particular thing X happens, compared with when something different happens". An example would be "In the case of fire, leave the building using the stairs. Do not use the escalators". That means "When there is a fire, you do something different from when there is not a fire".

I don't know anything about railways, so I thought "multicycle loading" was a general description of fatigue analysis where the applied forces (loads) are a combination of several different amplitudes and frequencies.

Now I know it is the name of a specific procedure, you could say "Fatigue resistance modelling of the multcycle loading procedure for railcars".

Or "a multicycle loading procedure" or "multicycle loading procedures" - whichever is the best description.

 

[DickL]

I'm not quite clear on exactly to what you are referring. If you are talking about fatigue type loadings, then the term I've mostly worked with is 'cyclical loading' (e.g. a load of +5/-5 at 20 Hz frequency).

The other situation to which you maybe referencing is when there are several different loading patterns that are encountered, such as 60% of the time the loading is +5/-5 at 20 Hz, and 40% of the time the loading is +10/+2 at 3 Hz. If this is what you are concerned with, then the term 'load case(s)' is used.

For either usage make certain that 'fatigue' is used to make clear these are not to be considered static loadings.

I've not run into the term 'multicycle loading' in the context you seem to want to use it. Of course my background is US engineering practice.

 

[Altai]

Jee, I seem to have made a fool of myself...
Loading here refers to loading modes (or types of load, whatever), it doesn't have anything to do with cargo.
Sorry, my mistake.

 

[DickL]

Not sure you made a mistake, certainly you didn't make a fool of your self. We may have just taken a different view of what you were working on. That said, I think my response would still apply, although the frequencies might be a little less, say one loading cycle very week. If you are thinking of something such as dropping coal or ore out of a chute, that could be significant for fatigue loading, and its frequency may be in the range of once per week.

Does that help.

 

[Altai]

Thank you very much!
By the "multicycle loading" I meant one particular type of loading being periodically applied to the car. There are no several different loading patterns. So I guess it really is what you call "cyclical loading", which should be the right term for it.
And I guess it should be something like "Calculations of fatigue resistance of the car subjected to cyclical loading" - again, I'm not really sure about the "subjected to" part - does it sound right within the context? Would "relating to" probably be better?

 

[AlephZero]

Jee, I seem to have made a fool of myself...

Not at all. I already said I don't know anything about railways so I'm not surprised I made some wrong assumptions about what you meant.

"Subjected to" is OK, but I would probably say "under cyclic loading" (meaning "undergoing cyclic loading", not that the car is underneath something!).

 

[Altai]

Thank you! By the way, is there any difference between "subjected to" and "subject to", or it doesn't matter which to use?

 

[DickL]

I don't think it makes much difference which is used. "subjected to" is past tense, "subject to" is present or future tense. I would use "subject to", but as I first said, it doesn't make much difference.

 

[Altai]

Thank you very much.
I have another question up my sleeve. :)
Dear English-speaking professionals! How do you normally put it when a product is subject to test loads to see it meets all the requirements... if the product successfully passes all the tests and stays undamaged - in this case the product "withstands the design loads undamaged" or it "withstands the design loads without damage" or just "successfully withstands the design loads"? Which is more correct or more to the point?

 

[DickL]

If this is being used for a general instruction document, then any of your options are fine. If you are writing a test specification or contract, then it gets more difficult as specific failure modes or conditions would need to be defined (e.g. rupture, yield, distortion, cracking...) and reference made to the defined failure criteria.