This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

BooksAudiobooksComicsSheet Music### Categories

### Categories

Scribd Selects Books

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Scribd Selects Audiobooks

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Scribd Selects Comics

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Scribd Selects Sheet Music

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Top Books

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Audiobooks

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Comics

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Sheet Music

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

P. 1

Solids Info 2|Views: 7|Likes: 0

Published by Philip Donovan Bradley

See more

See less

https://www.scribd.com/doc/95744974/Solids-Info-2

06/03/2012

text

original

com/locate/advengsoft

**Wheel-rail contact elements incorporating irregularities
**

C.J. Bowe*, T.P. Mullarkey

Department of Civil Engineering, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland Received 25 November 2003; accepted 17 March 2005 Available online 22 August 2005

Abstract The aim of this study is to simulate the dynamic vertical response of a vehicle traversing rigid rails and a railway bridge. This is achieved by using the authors’ wheel-rail contact element (WRC) to model the dynamic interaction that exists between a sprung wheel, using a Hertzian spring, and the rail. The objective in creating these elements was to model the rail and wheel irregularities, which was not a feature of the contact elements within the ANSYS ﬁnite element program. In this paper the numerical results generated using the authors’ WRC element are identical to the results generated using the commercial contact element of ANSYS for a smooth rail condition. In the case of irregular rails, the numerical results generated using the authors’ WRC elements compare very favourably with the results from the literature. q 2005 Civil-Comp Ltd and Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Wheel-rail contact element; Hertzian spring; Rigid rails; Irregularities

1. Introduction In recent years, research on the dynamic response of trains and railway bridges has become an important topic in civil engineering. Engineers and researchers have a responsibility for ensuring the safe passage of trains traversing rails and railway bridges by carrying out extensive research on existing structures. Much of the dynamic response that the bridge and vehicle experience can be attributed to the contact that exists between the wheel and the rail. Therefore, by modelling the different wheel-rail conditions, one can better understand the dynamic response of vehicles and railway bridges. Many researchers such as Cheng et al. [1], Yang and Wu [2] and Yau et al. [3] have developed their own vehiclebridge elements, whereby the vehicle is the assembly of an unsprung mass for the wheel and sprung mass for the vehicle body. In these systems, the wheel is assumed to be in direct contact with the rail at all times; hence, the wheel and rail have the same deﬂection and wheel-rail separation is not possible on a rigid rail. In doing so, these systems must also

* Corresponding author. Tel.: C353 91 524411x3086; fax: C353 91 750507. E-mail address: cathal.bowe@nuigalway.ie (C.J. Bowe).

include the additional convective accelerations due to the wheel as it travels along the beam. In the authors’ model, the wheel is represented by a sprung mass, thus a Hertzian spring exists between the wheel and the rail and is simulated by means of the WRC elements. In this case, the wheel and beam no longer have the same deﬂection; hence the additional convective accelerations due to the wheel are not required. The authors’ technique involves modelling each wheel as a Hertzian spring perpendicular to the surface of the rail. Each WRC element consists of three stiffness matrices to simulate the action of the wheel on the ﬂexible rail, whereas only one stiffness matrix is required to represent the action of the wheel on the rigid rail. The appropriate non-zero values, inputted into the stiffness matrices, relate to the position of a wheel on a particular element using its shape functions. The WRC elements use the extension in the Hertzian spring at each time-step to calculate the contact force that exists between the wheel and the rail. Wheel-rail separation occurs when the extension in the spring becomes positive, thus all stiffness matrices related to that particular wheel are made equal to zero. Introducing irregularities into the model tends to affect the behaviour of the train as it travels along the rails. Authors such as Au et al. [4], Chu et al. [5] and Wiriyachai

0965-9978/$ - see front matter q 2005 Civil-Comp Ltd and Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.advengsoft.2005.03.026

jZ1. the reader can see a free-body diagram for the WRC element and one beam element representing part of the rail. travelling from left to right. Certain irregularities can lead to wheel-rail separation and as the wheel regains contact with the rail. When the wheel travels on the rigid rail. In the authors’ model the irregularities are created using the summation of a series of sine curves and are represented indirectly using forces and moments applied to the ﬂexible rail and wheel as well as modifying the equation for extension. In Fig. Again the forces and moments used are related to the position of a wheel on a particular element using its shape functions. 2 indicates that the coordinate system adopted in this study has x positive along the beam element. ULxi. 2. Free-body diagram of the wheel-rails contact element. 1. kL12 is equal to kL21. the deﬂection in the x. (2). jZ1. et al. 1. VB ðxÞ Z VB1 N1 ðxÞCqB1 G1 ðxÞCVB2 N2 ðxÞCqB2 G2 ðxÞ where N1 ðxÞ Z 1C2ðx=lÞ3 K3ðx=lÞ2 G1 ðxÞ Z xf1K2ðx=lÞCðx=lÞ2 gN2 ðxÞ Z 3ðx=lÞ2 K2ðx=lÞ3 G2 ðxÞ Z xfðx=lÞ2 Kðx=lÞg The length of the beam element is denoted by l and the distance travelled along the element is given by x. y plane and (2) (3) y ULx2 3rd stiffness matrix θB1 UB1 0 1 1 2nd stiffness matrix Hertzian Spring 1 2 1 UB2 x 1st stiffness matrix z VB1 VB2 θ B2 Fig. the authors are obliged to use this facility to input the three additional stiffness matrices. Wheel-rail contact elements 2. respectively. The spring is always perpendicular to the surface. The beam acts with a vertical force on the spring. jZ1. we can state the following: ULy2 2 2 2 2. " # " # cos2 q sin q cos q 0 0 kL11 Z kH ðq Z 908 Þ Z kH 2 0 1 sin q cos q sin q The vertical displacement at any point along the beam can be calculated using Eq. only the force applied to the wheel is taken into account. Fig. the user can create a stiffness matrix between any pair of nodes. the latter being equal to minus one times kL11. For twodimensional problems. rotation about z-axis are denoted as U. Point forces and moments on the nodes represent this force on the beam. Wheel modelled as a sprung mass. The origin of the coordinate system is at local node 1 of the beam. respectively. the spring acts with an equal and opposite force on the beam.828 C. 2) are the nodal displacement vector and FLxi. kL22 is equal to kL11. it can cause a sharp impact load to the structure. . : ULy2 FLy2 where kLij (i. The subscripts B and L denote beam and spring. 2. Bowe. y positive upward and z positive outwards. V and q. T. 2) denotes a 2!2 stiffness matrix.P. Mullarkey / Advances in Engineering Software 36 (2005) 827–837 Wheel Centre Wheel Centre Rail Sprung mass Fig. Smooth rails The technique involves modelling a wheel as a Hertzian spring with one node at the centre of the wheel and the other node on the rail as illustrated in Fig. The interaction between the spring and beam element over which it is travelling has to be in accordance with Newton’s third law. between local node 1 of the beam and local node 2 of the spring and ﬁnally between local node 2 of the beam and local node 2 of the spring. : . the nodal forces in the wheel-rail contact element can be expressed as follows 9 8 9 8 > ULx1 > > FLx1 > > > > > > > > " #> > > > > kL11 kL12 < ULy1 = < FLy1 = Z (1) kL21 kL22 > ULx2 > > FLx2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > .1. In ANSYS. Because local node 1 of the spring is located at position x on the beam. [6] have discussed the effects of irregularities on the rails. where N1 and N2 are the transverse displacement shape functions and G1 and G2 are the rotational shape functions. thereby simulating the vertical effects of the wheel. 2. hence. kL11 is a symmetrical matrix. three additional stiffness matrices are created between local node 1 and local node 2 of the beam. From the free-body in Fig.J. 2) are the nodal force vector of the Hertzian spring (also referred to as a link). ULyi (i. To simulate the spring. FLyi (i.

giving rise to the following equation. G2 G2 ( ) VB1 N1 ðxÞCqB1 G1 ðxÞCVB2 N2 ðxÞCqB2 G2 ðxÞ ! ULy2 Eq. (5) and (2) resulting in the following: 8 9 >0> > > > > > > > > >0> > > > > > > > > > > > > <0= 8 > > > > > < 8 9 > VB1 > > > > > > > >q > < B1 = Ã 8 9 >0> > > > > 9> > > > > > >> 0 > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > =< 0 = FLy2 Â C½kH ULy2 Z ½KkH N1 G1 N2 G2 >V > > > > >> > > B2 > >0> > >> 0 > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > : > > : . which in turn is equal to minus one times the left hand side of Eq. This generalised force consists of vertical forces and moments applied to the nodes. Mullarkey / Advances in Engineering Software 36 (2005) 827–837 829 ULy1 ZVB ðxÞ (4) three stiffness matrices used by the WRC elements: 38 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 >UB1 > > > > 7> 6 > > 6 0 N1 N1 N1 G1 0 N1 N2 N1 G2 7> VB1 > > > > > 7> 6 > > > > 7> 6 > > >q > 6 0 G N G G 0 G N G G 7< = 6 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 27 B1 7 6 Z½kH 6 FLy1 7> >0> > > > 60 0 0 0 0 0 7>UB2 > > > > > > > > 7> 6 > > > > > > > 7> 6 > > > > N2 > > 6 0 N2 N1 N2 G1 0 N2 N2 N2 G2 7> VB2 > > > > > > > > 5> 4 > > > > > > . resulting in the following equation: 8 9 8 9 > 0 > > 0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > N1 > > N1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >G > >G > < 1 = < 1 =Â Ã Z kH KkH FLy1 > 0 > > 0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > (7) > > > > > > > > > > > > > N2 > > N2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > : . K 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 000 2 38 9 9 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 > UB1 > > UB2 > > > > > > > > 6 7> > > > > > > 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 7> V > > > > > > VB2 > > B1 > 6 7> > > > > > > > > > > 6 7> > > > > > > > > 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 7< <q = 6 7 qB1 = B2 6 7 C½kH 6 ð10Þ ! 7 > > > > > > 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 7> ULx2 > > > ULx2 > > > > > 6 7> > > > > > > > 6 7> > > >U > > 6 0 0 0 0 1 0 7> U > > > Ly2 > > > > > 4 5> Ly2 > > > > > > > > > . The force imparted to the wheel axle by the spring is KFLy2. The ﬁrst term represents the stiffness matrix along the beam element. T. > . (5). (7) can also be rewritten as: 8 9 8 9 9 8 >0> >0> > > > > > > > > > > > > > VB1 > > > > > > > > > N1 > > N1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >q > > > > > > > B1 > > > > > > " #> > >G > >G > > = < 1 = < 1 =Â Ã N1 G1 N2 G2 0 < VB2 Z kH KkH FLy1 > >0> >0> > > > > > > 0 0 0 0 1 > > > > > > > > > > >q > > > > > > > B2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > N2 > > N2 > > > > > > > > . where FLy2 is derived from Eqs. : . K K 2 2 38 3 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 > UB1 > 0 0 0 000 > > > 6 6 7> 7 > > > 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 7> V > 60 0 0 0 0 07 > B1 > > 6 6 7> 7 > > > > 6 6 7> 7 > > 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 7> 60 0 0 0 0 07 <q > = 6 6 7 7 B1 7 7 C½KkH 6 Z½KkH 6 6 6 7> 7 > 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 7> ULx2 > 60 0 0 0 0 07 > > > 6 6 7> 7 > > > 6 6 7> 7 > > 6 0 N1 G1 0 0 0 7> U > 6 0 N 2 G2 0 0 0 7 > Ly2 > > 4 4 5> 5 > > > > : . : . . VB(x) is replaced by the right-hand side of Eq.P. G2 G2 In Eq. the second term represents the stiffness matrix between local node 1 of the beam and local node 2 of the spring element and the third term represents the stiffness matrix between local node 2 of the beam and local node 2 of the spring element. (9). (6). : > : G2 qB2 0 G2 N1 G2 G1 0 G2 N2 G2 G2 9 9 38 38 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 > UB1 > 0 0 0 0 0 0 > UB2 > > > > > > > 7> 7> 6 6 > > > > 6 0 0 0 0 N1 0 7> V > 6 0 0 0 0 N2 07> V > > > > > > B1 > > B2 > 7> 7> 6 6 > > > > > > > > 7> 7> 6 6 > > > > 6 0 0 0 0 G 0 7> 6 0 0 0 0 G 07> = = <q > <q > 6 6 1 7 2 7 B1 B2 7 7 6 6 C½KkH 6 C½KkH 6 7> 7> > > > > 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 7>ULx2 > 6 0 0 0 0 0 07> ULx2 > > > > > 7> 7> 6 6 > > > > > > 7> 7> 6 6 > > > > 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 7>U > 6 0 0 0 0 0 07> U > > Ly2 > > Ly2 > > > 5> 5> 4 4 > > > > > > > > . (1) gives the following: 9 8 9 8 > ULx2 > > FLx1 > > > > > > > > " #> > > > > kL11 kL12 < VB ðxÞ = < FLy1 = Z (5) kL21 kL22 > ULx2 > > FLx2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > . (8) is developed further. (4) into Eq. The force imparted to the beam by the spring is equal to KFLy1 located at position x. . Bowe. : FLy2 ULy2 Since it is assumed that the Hertzian spring element remains perpendicular to the surface at all times. (6). G2 G2 (8) The right-hand side of Eq. : : K K 000000 . . (2).J. the horizontal displacement on both nodes are equal.C. : : K K 0000 0 0 0000 0 0 8 9 >0> > > > > > > > > > N1 > > > > > > > > > > > >G > < 1= 2 (9) The substitution of Eq. : . : .> > > > > > >1> >1> qB2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > : . > > > > : > > > > > > > > ULy2 : . (6) come from Eq. The right-hand side of Eq. which contain the There are three matrix terms on the right-hand side of Eq. 8 9 8 9 > 0 > > 0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > >N > >N > > 1> > 1> > > > > > > > > > > > > ( ) > > > > < G = < G =Â Ã VB ðxÞ 1 1 Z k KkH FLy1 (6) > 0 > > 0 > H ULy2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >N > >N > > 2> > 2> > > > > > > > > > > > > : . : .

: ULy2 In the model. A negative extension (compression) indicates that contact exists between the wheel and the rail. f.J. The horizontal distance from the left support of the beam to the spring is denoted as x. (10) to include irregularities yields the following: 9 8 > VB1 > > > > > > > >q > < B1 = Ã >V > > B2 > > > > > > > .830 C. An inspection of Fig. (4) has been incorporated. Mullarkey / Advances in Engineering Software 36 (2005) 827–837 The right-hand side of Eq. the extension in the spring is calculated at each timestep to determine if the wheel is in contact with the rail. while a positive extension (tension) means that there is no contact. thus inﬂuencing the behaviour of the train. Its equation for extension cannot include function f. Free-body diagram of the WRC element with irregularities. The Hertzian extension is given by Eq. Bowe. updated at each timestep. : . respectively. A free-body diagram showing irregularities on the rail can be seen in Fig. is the summation of several sine curves as given in Eq. This equation explains why the contact element of ANSYS is unsuitable for modelling irregularities. Modifying Eq. G2 G2 (14) 8 9 >0> > > > > > > > > > N1 > > > > > > > > > > > >G > < = 1 Â ( ) x Ã VB ðxÞCf ð Þ aj sin 2px gj where the irregularity function f ð Þ has been isolated on the x right-hand side. (12) fZ N X jZ1 ULy2 y x θ B1 UB1 1 0 1 2 2 2 ULx2 f (x ) Hertzian Spring 1 UB2 2 x VB2 z VB1 θ B2 Fig. (10) contains three matrix terms. (4) must be modiﬁed as follows: ULy1 Z VB ðxÞ C f ðxÞ (13) G1 N2 G2 C ½kH ULy2 C ½kH f ðxÞ The Hertzian extension in the spring is now modiﬁed by the irregularity function f and takes the form of Eq. (11). 9 8 > ULx1 > > > > > > > > > Â Ã< ULy1 = extension Z K q K q cos q sin q cos sin > ULx2 > > > > > > > > > . This ﬁgure shows the Hertzian spring following the proﬁle of the irregularities on the rail. 3 tells us that Eq. Modifying Eq. Both the x and the irregularity function f are shown in this ﬁgure. where q is equal to 908 for the spring and where Eq. (16). : . thus all stiffness matrices related to that particular wheel are set equal to zero when the extension is positive. (14). 3. the vertical position of the wheel changes in accordance with the proﬁle of the irregularity. G2 G2 8 9 8 9 >0> >0> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > N1 > > N1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ( ) > > ( ) >G > >G > < 1 =Â < 1 =Â x Ã VB ðxÞ Ã f ð Þ k KkH k KkH Z C > > H >0> H ULy2 >0> > > 0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > N2 > > N2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > : . and the third term by itself represents the effects of the rigid rails. : qB2 ð15Þ (12) Â FLy2 Z½K H N1 k where aj and gj are the amplitude and wavelength. (6) to include the effects of irregularities on the rails yields the following equation: 8 9 >0> > > > > > > > > > N1 > > > > > > > > > > > >G > < = 1 FLy1 Z k KkH >0> >0> H ULy2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > N2 > > N2 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > : . of the jth wave and N is the number of sine curves. 3. 2. the force imparted to the beam by the spring is equal to minus one times the left hand side of Eq. Irregular rails As a wheel traverses a rail with irregularities. For programming purposes Eqs. Once again. Certain irregularities can lead to wheel-rail separation and as the wheel regains contact with the rail. it can cause a sharp impact load to the structure. (14)–(16) are . In this model the irregularity function.2. : ULy2 9 8 > ULx1 > > > > > > > V ðxÞ > = < B > Â Ã Z 0 K 0 1 1 ð11Þ > ULx2 > > > > > > > > > . resulting in symmetrical stiffness matrices for the Hertzian spring. (9) and (10) are combined. Eqs. T. The wheel-rail contact force in the spring is evaluated by multiplying the extension by the spring stiffness.P.

C. one only considers the centre span of the Boyne Viaduct railway bridge located in Drogheda. Â extension Z 0 K 1 0 1 9 8 ULx1 > > > > > > > < VB ðxÞ C f ðxÞ > = Ã > > > > : ULx2 ULy2 > > > > .1. 3. 4. Three-dimensional model of the Boyne Viaduct railway bridge. with each bogie supported by axles and ﬁnally a pair of wheels supports each axle. T. 6 presents a three-dimensional locomotive model. The three-dimensional model of the bridge comprises a simply supported truss as shown in Fig.77 m and a total mass of approximately 275 tonnes. The three-dimensional vehicle model considered in this paper comprises a six-axle locomotive and a single fouraxle railway carriage as illustrated in Fig. Ireland.P. but the rail to the left and right of the bridge is rigid. Bowe. 5. y θz x y θx z vehicle body k2 k1 mw kH l2 c1 mw c2 secondary suspension bogie primary suspension k2 c2 k1 c1 mw Hertian spring mw mw mw kH wheelset l2 l3 l2 l2 l4 Fig. Sleeper and ballast effects are ignored in the model. The bridge has a clear span Fig. The bogies are connected to the axles through primary suspensions and to the vehicle body through secondary suspensions. Fig. Train model updated at each timestep. The primary spring stiffness and damping is given by k1 and c1. 6. with each suspension consisting of a spring and dashpot. while k2 and c2 denote the (16) 3.2. 5. while elastic beam elements are used to model the bogie and vehicle body components. Lumped masses mw are used to model the wheel masses. Each vehicle consists of a vehicle body supported by a pair of bogies.J. All members in the bridge are modelled using three-dimensional elastic beam elements. Bridge and train model 3. Three-dimensional locomotive model. In our model the rail on the bridge is ﬂexible. Bridge model As a case study. Six-axle locomotive and four-axle railway carriage. Fig. 4. . Mullarkey / Advances in Engineering Software 36 (2005) 827–837 831 of 80.

4 kN is attached to the centre of the wheel i.1–4.2.1. The deﬂection and TIME (sec) Fig. Horizontal links are required between the vehicle body and the bogie and also between the bogie and axles to prevent the structure from becoming a mechanism.0010 –0.1.1.9 (a) WRC ELEMENT ANSYS CONTAC48 TIME (sec) 0. 8 and 9.8 0.0000 0 –0.0025 0.2 –0.2 0.5 0.8 0. 9.3 0. (b) comparing the WRC element with analytical solution [8]. Results 4. The distance between the axles of a single bogie is l2.7 0.1 0. between centres of two bogies is l3 and between wheels of a single axle is l4.e.1.. T. (a) Comparing the WRC element with ANSYS CONTAC48 element. also known as the wheel-rail contact stiffness.0020 –0.0005 VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT (m) secondary spring stiffness and damping. (a) Comparing the WRC element with ANSYS CONTAC48 element.1 –0.4 0.7 0.4 0.1. Vertical acceleration at mid-point of beam due to a moving sprung load.6 0.1 0.3 0.0 –0.3 0. respectively. Simply supported beam subjected to a moving sprung load. The gravitational and damping effects of the bridge are ignored.5 0.0015 –0.0020 –0. the authors compare their use of the WRC element with their use of the commercial node-to-surface contact element in ANSYS (CONTAC48). 7.3 0 0.9 (b) ANALYTICAL (5 modes) WRC ELEMENT 4.7 0. The three-dimensional railway carriage model is similar to the locomotive model expect that it has two axles instead of three per bogie as described in Esveld [7]. 4.3 0. Fig. Wheel as a moving sprung load As shown in Fig. (b) Comparing the WRC element with analytical solution [8]. Vertical displacement at mid-point of beam due to a moving sprung load.8 0.1 0.5 0. the vertical acceleration at mid-point of the beam are plotted as a function of time in Figs. such that the bridge has a length lZ25 m. In Sections 4.3 0. The Hertzian spring stiffness.5 0. local node 2 of the spring.6 0.3 0.0015 –0.1 0.0025 ANSYS CONTAC48 0.2 0.6 0.0010 –0. Young’s modulus of elasticity EZ2.5 0.87!106 kN/m2.7 0.2 0.3 0 0.P. a simply supported beam is subjected to a moving sprung load P travelling at speed c from left to right. The bridge properties adopted in Sections 4.4 0.4 0.J.832 C. The wheel traverses the bridge at a constant speed cZ27.1 –0. Each example uses the Newmark time integration method [9] with 200 equal time steps to solve the transient analysis.3 are similar to those of Yang and Wu [2]. Model validation for a single mass In order to validate the system.0005 0. These horizontal links do not interact with the suspension springs.4 0. (a) 0. moment of inertia IZ2.2 time t is arranged in such a manner that the vehicle is at the left hand support at tZ0 s.2 –0.2 0. is given by kH.9 TIME (sec) 0.1–4. Bowe. (a) Comparing the WRC element with ANSYS CONTAC48 element.303 t/m and a Poisson’s ratio nZ0.2 0. where the ﬁrst 5 modes of vibration are used to determine the deﬂection and acceleration of the beam. VERTICAL ACCELERATION (m/s2) 0. mass per unit length mZ 2.2 0.6 0.0005 WRC ELEMENT –0.0 –0. In each case.1. while ﬁgure (b) compares the solution using the WRC elements with Biggs’s [8] analytical solution.9 m4. 7.5 0.8 0. ﬁgure (a) compares the WRC element with ANSYS CONTAC48 element. Mullarkey / Advances in Engineering Software 36 (2005) 827–837 VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT (m) 0. The Hertzian spring stiffness kHZ1595 kN/m. .1.1 0.9 VERTICAL ACCELERATION (m/s2) (b) ANALYTICAL (5 modes) WRC ELEMENT TIME (sec) Fig. In the authors’ model.4 0.0005 –0. (b) comparing the WRC element with analytical solution [8].6 0.0000 0 –0. the wheel is given a zero mass and the point force PZ56.78 m/s.6 0. They also compare their results with some simple analytical solutions developed by Biggs [8].1 0. 8.

2 –0.0 –0.0000 0 –0.8 0. equally the numerical and analytical solutions are strikingly similar.2 0.3 0 0.3 0.7 0.4 0. respectively. Vertical displacement of the wheel due to a sprung mass.0005 TIME (sec) VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT (m) 0.0005 (a) 0.0025 ANSYS CONTAC48 0.9 (b) 0.J.6 0.2 0.0025 –0.7 0. 10.0015 –0.2.6 0.6 0. T.5 0.8 0.0010 –0.2 –0. (a) Comparing the WRC element with ANSYS CONTAC48 element.0005 ANALYTICAL (2 modes) –0. (b) comparing the WRC element with analytical solution [8]. In Fig. In this example. .0005 WRC ELEMENT –0. and (2) the analytical solution [8] models the wheel as an unsprung VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT (m) (a) 0. (b) comparing WRC element with analytical solution [8].0015 –0.3 0.5 0.5 0.0015 –0.6 0.5 0.2 0.0005 0. 12.7 0.0 –0. (b) ANALYTICAL (2 modes) WRC ELEMENT One should notice from the plots a striking similarity between the solutions using the WRC element and the ANSYS CONTAC48 element.8 0. (a) Comparing the WRC element with ANSYS CONTAC48 element. 15.1. one can see that the results from the WRC element and ANSYS CONTAC48 element are very similar again.5 0. Mullarkey / Advances in Engineering Software 36 (2005) 827–837 VERTICAL ACCELERATION (m/s2) 833 0.6 0.2 0. 13.2 0. a plot of the contact force between the wheel and the rail is presented. Fig.0020 –0.4 0.9 0. 0.3 0.5 0. Vertical displacement at mid-point of beam due to a sprung mass. 10 presents a simply supported beam subjected to a moving sprung mass MwZ5. (a) Comparing the WRC element with ANSYS CONTAC48 element. From inspection.1 0.1 0.6 0.0010 –0.0000 0 –0.4 0. TIME (sec) VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT (m) 0. one compares the deﬂection and vertical acceleration at midpoint of the beam as a function of time in Figs.5 0.1 0.C. (a) Comparing the WRC element with ANSYS CONTAC48 element.0010 –0. while the vertical displacement and acceleration of the sprung mass as a function of time are shown in Figs.P.0005 WRC ELEMENT –0. Bowe.1 0.3 0.0015 –0.4 0.0030 ANSYS CONTAC48 0.1 0. 11 and 12.3 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.2 0.3 0. Two reasons for the inaccuracy in the analytical solution are as follows: (1) too few modes are used to describe the deﬂection of the beam.0025 –0. (b) comparing WRC element with analytical solution [8].4 0.75 t traversing the beam at a constant speed. Simply supported beam subjected to a moving sprung mass.0030 ANALYTICAL (2 modes) WRC ELEMENT 0.6 0.9 (b) TIME (sec) TIME (sec) Fig.7 0.1 0. Wheel as a moving sprung mass Fig.3 0 0. Vertical acceleration at mid-point of beam due to a sprung mass.9 .0020 –0.8 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.8 .1 0. 11.0020 –0.0010 –0.8 0.0000 0 –0.0005 –0.1 –0.0000 0 –0.2 0.0025 WRC ELEMENT 0.0020 –0. The contact force due to the motion of the wheel varies somewhat from the weight of the wheel.6 0. (b) comparing the WRC element with analytical solution [8].0005 TIME (sec) Fig.3 0. Again.3 0.9 . 13 and 14. the analytical solution [8] consists of the ﬁrst two modes of vibration.1 –0.1 0.7 0. respectively. whereas there are some slight deviations between the analytical solution [8] and the solution using the WRC element. VERTICAL ACCELERATION (m/s2) Fig. 4. VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT (m) 0.9 (a) WRC ELEMENT ANSYS CONTAC48 TIME (sec) 0.

2 0. which are ignored in the analytical solution.06 –0.5 1.J.5 2. 18.7 0. 17. 0. 15.00 0.6 0. no contact exists between the wheel and the rail.0RC ELEMENTS ANSYS CONTAC48 CONTACT FORCE (kN) 0. Vertical displacement of the travelling bouncing wheel. In this model.01 m.10 0.5 TIME (sec) Fig.3 C.5 –52 –54 –56 –58 Weight of the wheel –60 WRC ELEMENT ANSYS CONTAC48 TIME (sec) TIME (sec) Fig. (a) Comparing the WRC element with ANSYS CONTAC48 element. Again. The initial horizontal position of the wheel at time tZ0 s is located at a distance lrZ25 m from the left support of the beam. The vertical displacement of the beam (at mid-point) and the wheel as a function of time is plotted in Figs.1 0. 14.1 0.05 –0. 4.20 ANALYTICAL (2 modes) WRC ELEMENT 0.02 0. whereby the wheel is modelled as a travelling sprung mass with an initial positive extension resulting in a zero contact force. and all stiffness matrices related to that particular wheel are put equal to zero.1.005 –0.4 0. 17 is much greater than the corresponding value in Fig. .3. 19.15 –0.P. –50 0 0. 4.12 W1.7 0.02 –0. respectively. 19 that as the wheel regains contact with the rail it generates a large impact load.001 –0.9 Fig.20 0. As mentioned earlier.001 0 0. 16. thus requiring the additional convective accelerations. One can also see from Fig. Vertical displacement at mid-point of the beam due to the travelling bouncing wheel. 17 and 18.5 2. The wheel traverses the simply supported beam between the times tZ0.7 0.834 VERTICAL ACCELERATION (m/s2) 0. when the extension in the Hertzian spring becomes positive. rigid rails are located on either side of a simply supported beam as shown in Fig.05 VERTICAL ACCELERATION (m/s2) (b) Fig.10 –0.9 VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT (m) 0. Fig.20 0 0.1 0.10 –0. Model validation for a pair of masses separated by a spring for a wide range of speeds The WRC element models the wheel of a vehicle as sprung mass involving a Hertzian spring.00 0 –0.10 0.5 0. much greater than the weight of the wheel.4 0.3 0. thus the maximum deﬂection of the beam shown in Fig. 16.04 –0. Vertical acceleration of the wheel due to a sprung mass.003 –0.0 –0.05 0.3 0.0 1. A travelling bouncing wheel In the following example one examines the effects of wheel-rail separation. In this section.0 2.10 –0.9 WRC ELEMENT ANSYS CONTAC48 TIME (sec) 0.8 s and at all other times the wheel travels on the rigid rail.2 0.004 –0.0 2.8 0. while the contact force between the wheel and rail is shown in Fig.002 0. VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT (m) 0.2 0.2.08 –0.6 0. (b) Comparing WRC element with analytical solution [8].20 0.4 0.002 –0.003 0.15 0.15 0. 11.5 0.15 –0. while the initial vertical extension is 0.0 –0. T.9–1.05 –0.00 –0.8 0.8 0. Bowe. Mullarkey / Advances in Engineering Software 36 (2005) 827–837 (a) 0.5 0. the contact force is zero.5 1.6 0. TIME (sec) mass. Wheel-rail contact force due to a sprung mass. Rigid rail and simply supported beam subjected to a travelling bouncing wheel.006 Whee on rigid rail Wheel on rigid rail WRC ELEMENTS ANSYS CONTAC48 0. excellent agreement can be seen between the solution using the WRC element and ANSYS CONTAC48 element results.

8 0.5 1. 21. 21. One can see from the results that the solution for the hard Hertzian spring stiffness is almost identical with the solution of Olsson [10] at all speeds.8 1.5.3 0.0 2.0 0. hard and soft Hertzian spring are used for comparison purposes. The critical speed is the speed of the vehicle such that the vehicle travels a distance of twice the length of the bridge in a time equal to the natural period of the bridge.9 835 0. the vehicle damping ratio is 0.7 1. This is a three-dimensional problem.1 1. Olsson [10] uses an unsprung mass system while the authors use their WRC element.2 0.0 1. the ratio of the bridge length to the irregularity wavelength is equal to 10. 19. such that the vehicle to bridge mass ratio is 0. the bridge to vehicle frequency ratio is 3.3. the authors use both hard and soft Hertzian springs for the WRC elements because Hertzian springs are absent from Olsson’s [10] model as shown in Fig.5 VEHICLE SPEED / CRITICAL SPEED Fig. Fig.4 0. In Fig. Simply supported beam subjected to a moving vehicle using different Hertzian spring stiffness on a smooth rail.1 0.4 1. In Fig. the authors compare their WRC element with the unsprung mass system of Olsson [10]. Other dimensionless parameters used are a speed ratio (that is the vehicle speed divided by the critical speed) and a dynamic ampliﬁcation factor (ratio between the maximum dynamic deﬂection and static deﬂection of the mid-point of the bridge).2 1. 20.3 1. Mullarkey / Advances in Engineering Software 36 (2005) 827–837 0 0. however. Boyne Viaduct subjected to a moving locomotive and carriage on smooth and irregular rails The authors will now use the WRC element to investigate the dynamic response of the Boyne Viaduct Railway Bridge subjected to a moving vehicle travelling at a constant speed.4 1.C.25. The bridge and vehicle properties used are deﬁned in Table 1. the authors use the Newmark time integration method [9] to solve the transient analysis with 500 equal time steps. The dimensionless parameters adopted are similar to those of Olsson [10].1 0. VEHICLE SPEED / CRITICAL SPEED Fig.7 1. the unsprung wheel mass to sprung vehicle mass ratio is 0. The contact force between the rail and the travelling bouncing wheel.1 are used in this example. one can see that the results for the hard and soft Hertzian springs vary somewhat from the results of Olsson [10].05. the authors compare their WRC element with the unsprung mass system of Olsson [10] under smooth rail conditions. 1. Comparing Olsson [10] unsprung model with the author sprung mass system using WRC elements.2 1.0 OLSSON [10] UNSPRUNG MASS SOFT HERTZIAN SPRING HARD HERTZIAN SPRING 0. Bowe. Again. 4.3 0.2. while the ratio of the irregularity amplitude to the static deﬂection is 0. 22. which are twodimensional. whereby the hard to soft Hertzian spring stiffness has a ratio of 500. 20. Simply supported beam subjected to a moving vehicle using different Hertzian spring stiffness on a rail with irregularities.0 Fig.4 0. . whereas the soft Hertzian spring stiffness compares better with Olsson [10] at lower speeds. One now examines the dynamic effects of rail irregularities on the simply supported beam subjected to the same moving vehicle. T. 22.5 1.1 1.0 –20 –40 –60 –80 –100 –120 –140 –160 WRC ELEMENTS ANSYS CONTAC48 Weight of the wheel 1.5 1.6 0.0 0.7 0.5 TIME (sec) DYNAMIC / STATIC DEFLECTION CONTACT FORCE (kN) 1. The bridge properties of Section 4.5 0. In the model. The WRC element is used to model rail irregularities. which are not a feature of the contact element of ANSYS.1 and 4.125.5 2.3 1.6 1.8 DYNAMIC / STATIC DEFLEVTION 1. unlike the examples of Sections 4.0 OLSSON [10] UNSPRUNG MASS SOFT HERTZIAN SPRING HARD HERTZIAN SPRING 0.2 0.J.P.6 1. In this example.

Rail irregularities out of phase along bridge. 28. Fig.035 Front wheel on left support Front wheel on right support 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Rear wheel on right support 7 SMOOTH RAIL IRREGULARITIES RAIL A RAIL B 0. The vertical displacement at mid-point of the bridge (point T1 as shown in Fig. something not possible using the contact element of ANSYS. taken from an animation. The simulation assumes that the bridge is horizontal in the absent of gravity and bridge damping is neglected.P.0050 –0. Vehicle traversing the Boyne Viaduct with rail irregularities.78 1 2. one can also see that.05!108 7. It should be noted that the displacements have been increased by a factor of 10. This example studies the rolling of a railway carriage about the long axis. with each irregularity having a wavelength of 40 m and amplitude of 0. Bowe.56 14 18.010 –0. k2 (kN/m) Damping of spring in secondary suspension.0050 Irregularity along bridge wheel of the train arrives at the left support at tZ0.850 0.175 4. induced by rails with irregularities out of phase. Vertical displacement at mid-point of the Boyne Viaduct (T1). k1 (kN/m) Damping of spring in primary suspension.01 m.005 –0.2 1. l2 (m) Distance between two centre of bogie frames. 5) on rail A are plotted as a function of time in Figs. A plot of the two rails (A and B) with irregularities out of phase is presented in Fig.005 0.025 –0. while the lateral displacement of the vehicle body (point V1 as shown in Fig.8 4100 22 1. 24.8 14 18 1 Carriage 33. 25. 24.020 –0. . 24. Mullarkey / Advances in Engineering Software 36 (2005) 827–837 Overall length of bridge (m) Self-weight of bridge (t) First natural frequency of unloaded bridge (Hz) First natural frequency loaded bridge (Hz) Train properties Mass of car body (t) Mass of each bogie frame (t) Mass of each axle together with wheels. In Fig.5 s and the rear wheel of the train leaves the right support at tZ 6. 5) can be seen in Fig.0100 –40 –20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 DISTANCE (m) TIME (sec) Fig. 25 and 26. 0.94 Locomotive 90.958 10.88 410 Fig. c1 (kN s/m) Stiffness of spring in secondary suspension. 4) and the vertical displacement of the front wheel of the train (point W1 in Fig. 23.5 700 5. for this particular speed and irregularity. VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT (m) 0. From inspection of the graphs. Time t is arranged in such a manner that the front IRREGULARITY FUNCTION (m) . 2.J. Examining Figs. respectively. the authors show an image.0000 –0. l3 (m) Overall length of vehicle (m) Number of vehicles General properties Young’s modulus of elasticity (kN/m2) Density of steel (t/m3) Poisson’s ratio 81.522 7000 58.836 Table 1 Model properties Bridge properties C.030 –0.15 1. 27 presents the contact force that exists between the front wheel (W1) of the train and rail A.3 In addition the WRC element is used as a lateral spring to prevent the wheels of the vehicle from sliding laterally off the rails. Fig. of the train traversing the Boyne Viaduct. The train model consists of a six-axle locomotive pulling a single four-axle railway carriage traversing the Boyne Viaduct railway bridge at (20 m/s) 72 km/h from left to right. 23 and 26. one can see that the front wheel of the train follows the proﬁle of the irregularity.0100 Irregularity along rigid rail 0. In the results that follow the smooth rail is compared with the irregular rail. c2 (kN s/m) Hertzian spring stiffness.7 3. Rails A and B are indicated on Fig.000 –0.015 –0.40!106 2. T. One can see from the image that the irregularities cause the locomotive to rolls about its long axis as it traverses the bridge. mw (t) Stiffness of spring in primary suspension.67 s. the dynamic effects of the bridge are less signiﬁcant than those of the train.14 1. 23. inﬂuenced by the irregularities on the rail using their WRC element.40!106 1.77 275 3. kH (kN/m) Distance between two centre of axles.

01 0. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 1985. Impact in truss bridge due to freight trains. and is modelled using three stiffness matrices. Chu KH. Englewood Cliffs. –50 0 CONTACT FORCE (kN) –70 –90 –110 –130 –150 –170 TIME (sec) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SMOOTH RAIL IRREGULARITIES Fig.J. [9] Bathe KJ. The authors compare their WRC element with the unsprung mass system of Olsson [10]. 27.222(5):781–801. T. If the extension become positive. Wheel-rail separation is determined by calculating the extension of the spring at each timestep. 1st Edition. Contact force between the ﬁrst wheel of the train and rail A (W1). Impact study of cable-stayed railway bridges with random rails irregularities. For analytical solutions. Finally the authors subject the Boyne Viaduct to a moving locomotive and railway carriage on smooth and irregular rails. Cheung YK. 1st Edition. the contact force is put equal to zero and all stiffness matrices related to that wheel are set equal to zero.030 –0.010 –0.21: 836–44.108:648–65. summarised above. The authors’ results compare very favourably with Olsson’s [10] results.01 TIME (sec) –0. Enginnering Structures 1999. Prentice-Hall. Bowe. however. Au FTK. 5. . [8] Biggs JM. Yang YB. Vertical displacement of the ﬁrst wheel of the train on rail A (W1). Finite element procedures. On the separation between moving vehicles and bridges. modal co-ordinate analysis of structures subjected to moving loads. References [1] Cheng YS. Based on the results. Journal of Sound and Vibration 1985. [2] Yang YB. [5] Chu KH. and the travelling bouncing wheel. Engineering Structures 2002.010 VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT (m) 0. Wang JJ. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division 1982. MRT Production. Introduction to Structural Dynamics. [3] Yau JD.000 –0. In the case of the wheel considered as a moving sprung load. Garg VK. Modern railway track. Zheng DY. A versatile element for analyzing vehicle-bridge interaction response. Fig. Engineering Structures 2001.020 –0. Journal of Sound and Vibration 1999. Englewood Cliffs.050 –0. The model is next validated for a pair of moving masses separated by a spring for a wide range of speeds.23:452–69. [4] Au FTK. 1964. Mullarkey / Advances in Engineering Software 36 (2005) 827–837 LATERAL DISPLACEMENT (m) 0. the authors use both hard and soft Hertzian springs for the WRC elements because Hertzian springs are absent from Olsson’s [10] model.C. Wu YS. [7] Esveld C. 26. [10] Olsson M. 1989. The authors compare the use of their WRC element with the use of the ANSYS CONTAC48 element. the WRC has a threedimensional formulation and it simulates the vertical and lateral interaction between the wheel and the rail.P. Conclusions In this paper. 1st Edition.02 IRREGULARITIES 0. the wheel considered as a moving sprung mass. 24:529–41. 28. Bridge impact due to wheel and track irregularities. Garg VK.99: 1–12. the WRC element compares better with ﬁve modes than with two modes. In this example. 1996. Rolling motion of the train is evident in the case of irregularities that are out of phase on the two rails. [6] Wiriyachai A. Prentice-Hall.070 –0. the rail being smooth or irregular.040 –0. They also compare their results with some simple analytical solutions developed by Biggs [8].00 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 –0. Kuo SR. Impact response of high speed rail bridges and riding comfort of rails cars. the solutions using the WRC element are identical to the solutions using the ANSYS CONTAC48 element. Lateral displacement of the vehicle body (V1).3:159–73. the authors can claim that the WRC element is exceedingly robust. This system uses a Hertzian spring to represent the wheel. the authors develop their own wheel-rail contact element to simulate the dynamic interaction that exists between a sprung wheel and the rail. Bhatti MH. Cheung YK.02 TIME (sec) Fig.080 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 SMOOTH RAIL IRREGULARITIES 837 0.060 –0. Finite element.

MBL912L Module Overview_2015

MBL911K Module Overview 2015

Handout - How to Analyze a Case

LC

CNF Bundle

300814_Group7

MECN3010 2007

Photo Voltaic Solar Energy

Bending %28Ch-6%29-2010

Geothermal

- Read and print without ads
- Download to keep your version
- Edit, email or read offline

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

CANCEL

OK

You've been reading!

NO, THANKS

OK

scribd