PSI - Issue 75

Said Allouch et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 75 (2025) 299–310 S. Allouch/ Structural Integrity Procedia (2025)

309 11

Fig. 10. RFS values disk wheel and spoke wheel.

Table 3. Comparison of RFS values: LBF design spectrum vs. load file with deviation analysis for the disk wheel

SG#

RFS-values LBF design spectrum [MPa]

RFS-values load file [MPa]

Deviation [%]

1 2

11.60 38.70

11.70 39.00

0.86 0.78

3

52.12

52.18

0.15

4 5

31.37 29.30

31.37 29.47

2.52 0.58

Table 4. Comparison of RFS values: LBF design spectrum vs. load file with deviation analysis for the spoke wheel.

SG#

RFS-values LBF design spectrum [MPa]

RFS-values load file [MPa]

Deviation [%]

1 2 3 4 5

23.10 43.70 37.11 53.67 25.44

21.17 39.73 37.85 52.07 23.24

-8,35 -9,08 1,99 -2.98 -8.65

The findings underscore the need to account for wheel design when generating load programs. Disc and spoke wheels experience distinct stress distributions under the same conditions, necessitating dedicated load files for each design to ensure accurate evaluation of loading and damage. 6. Conclusion In conclusion, the comprehensive analysis highlights the critical need to meticulously consider all influencing factors when developing load programs for wheel testing. The findings clearly indicate that using a generic load file across varied groups can result in misleading damage assessments, leading to either under-testing or over-testing, which could compromise safety and performance.