Thesis disser ta cao

© All Rights Reserved

4 views

Thesis disser ta cao

© All Rights Reserved

- Word-Problems-System-of-Linear-Equation-in-Two-Variables.doc
- Solar Collector
- 2010- O level A maths
- STAR-CCM v7 Brochure
- Equations
- C4 E
- Total Gadha-Quadratic Equations
- arema capitulo 4
- common core cte transportation standards
- planningplatformspow2
- Opinions of Nursing Students towards Simulation Efficiency in Nursing Education
- Academic History
- MT1.F13.v2.solved
- CM Monthly Test plan 2018-19.pdf
- Solomon B
- HBM nCode DesignOpt+RobustDesignWebinar Sumeet 1
- Micro Matic Student Manual
- Using Computer Simulations to Enhance Science Teaching and Learning
- Brochure_LMS Solutions for Aerospace Engineering
- GATE Syllabus 2014 for Electrical Engineering

You are on page 1of 101

Mechanical Engineering

Examination Committee

Chairperson: Prof. Luís Manuel Varejão de Oliveira Faria

Supervisor: Prof. Jorge Alberto Cadete Ambrósio

Co-Supervisor: Prof. João Carlos Elói de Jesus Pombo

External Supervisor: Prof. Manuel Frederico Oom de Seabra Pereira

October 2013

Acknowledgements

I want to thank Professor Manuel Seabra Pereira for introducing me to the field of

dynamic simulations that spiked my interest in the field, and to presenting me with the chance

to study what became my favourite subject.

To my advisor, Professor Jorge Ambrósio, I thank him for his fair advice and help with

the problems along the way in a fast and effective manner.

My deepest thanks to my co-advisor, Professor João Pombo, who took so much time to

help me develop my work and advising me on how to improve it and this thesis.

To Professor José Varandas, I want to thank for his explanation on the integration

methods and help with the correct modelling of the railway track.

Thanks to Professor Virgínia Infante I was able to progress with the development of the

post-processor and had the chance to apply it to real cases.

For my friends and colleagues, Pedro Antunes and Hugo Magalhães, I thank them for

their support and opinions on my work and how their own work helped in the development of

this thesis.

My final thanks go to all those who intervened in my life, from family to friends and

teachers, for pushing me and supporting me in my decisions which lead me to be able to

produce this thesis.

The work reported here has been developed in the course of several national projects

funded by FCT (Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology): SMARTRACK

(contract no. PTDC/EME-PME/101419/2008), WEARWHEEL (contract no. PTDC/EME-

PME/115491/2009) and the industrial project VOUGA.

i

ii

Resumo

A análise dinâmica de veículos ferroviários envolve três modelos independentes: o modelo do

veículo, o modelo da via e o modelo de contacto roda-carril. Neste trabalho, uma formulação

de multicorpo é utilizada para descrever a estrutura cinemática de corpos rígidos e juntas que

constituem o modelo do veículo. Também é proposta uma metodologia que cria modelos de

vias tridimensionais, que incluem a flexibilidade dos carris e da subestrutura. A metodologia

proposta modela os carris como vigas suportadas discretamente por elementos mola-

amortecedor que representam a flexibilidade das palmilhas, das travessas, do balastro e da

subestrutura. A inclusão de modelos flexíveis de via é muito importante para o estudo realista

do comportamento dinâmico de veículos ferroviários, especialmente para analisar as

consequências das operações ferroviárias na infraestrutura e os danos nos veículos

provocados pelas condições da via. Este tópico tem um impacto económico significativo na

manutenção de veículos e de vias ferroviárias. A formulação do contato roda-carril aqui

introduzida permite obter, durante a análise dinâmica, a localização dos pontos de contacto,

para qualquer movimento tridimensional. A metodologia proposta para a construção de

modelos de via flexíveis é validado através da comparação dos resultados obtidos com os

obtidos em ANSYS, mostrando que a metodologia proposta é adequada para aplicações

ferroviárias. Neste trabalho é ainda desenvolvido uma ferramenta de pós-processamento para

avaliar se um dado veículo está em conformidade com as normas e regulamentos ferroviários

e permite analisar quantitativamente o desempenho de veículos em diferentes vias tendo em

vista a sua aprovação para serviço.

Palavras-Chave

Dinâmica Ferroviária;

Modelos de Via Férreas Flexíveis;

Operações Ferroviárias Realísticas;

Interação Veículo-Via;

Homologação de Veículos.

iii

Abstract

The dynamic analysis of railway vehicles involves the construction of three independent

models: the vehicle model; the track model; and the wheel-rail contact model. In this work, a

multibody formulation is used to describe the kinematic structure of the rigid bodies and

joints that constitute the vehicle model. A methodology is also proposed in order to create

detailed three-dimensional track models, which include the flexibility of the rails and of the

substructure. This approach uses a finite element methodology to represent the rails as beams

supported in a discrete manner by spring-damper elements that represent the flexibility of the

pads, sleepers, ballast and substructure. The inclusion of flexible track models is very

important to study realistically the dynamic behaviour of railway vehicles, especially the

impact of train operations on the infrastructure and the damages on vehicles provoked by the

track conditions. This topic has a significant economic impact on the vehicles maintenance

and life cycle costs of tracks. The wheel-rail contact formulation proposed here allows

obtaining, online during the dynamic analysis, the contact points location, for any three-

dimensional motion. The methodology proposed to build flexible track models is validated by

comparing the results with the ones from ANSYS, showing that the proposed methodology is

appropriate to railway applications. In this work a post-processing tool is also developed to

assess if a given vehicle is conform to the norms and regulations in practice and allows

assessing quantitatively the dynamic behaviour of the vehicle in different operation

conditions, being used for vehicle approval.

Keywords

Railway Dynamics;

Flexible Railway Track Models;

Realistic Railway Operations;

Vehicle-Track Interaction;

Vehicle Approval.

iv

Contents

Acknowledgements ..............................................................................................................................i

Resumo ............................................................................................................................................ iii

Palavras-Chave ................................................................................................................................. iii

Abstract ............................................................................................................................................. iv

Keywords .......................................................................................................................................... iv

Contents ............................................................................................................................................. v

List of Figures .................................................................................................................................. vii

List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................... x

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Motivation ............................................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Literature Review ................................................................................................................. 5

2 Railway Vehicle Models .............................................................................................................. 11

2.1 Railway Vehicles ................................................................................................................ 11

2.2 Description of the Vehicle Multibody Model ....................................................................... 14

3 Development of Advanced Track Models ..................................................................................... 16

3.1 Track Description ............................................................................................................... 16

3.2 The Finite Element Method on the Track System ................................................................ 17

3.2.1 Dynamic Analysis of Railway Tracks Using Linear FEM .................................... 19

3.2.2 Time Integration .................................................................................................. 21

3.3 Automatic Finite Element Method Mesh Generation ........................................................... 26

3.4 Vehicle-Track Interaction ................................................................................................... 28

3.5 Case Studies of the Flexible Track ...................................................................................... 31

3.5.1 Simple Flexible Track and Static Validation ........................................................ 31

3.5.2 Realistic Flexible Track with Moving Loads and Vehicle Forces ......................... 34

4 Definition of the Post-Processing Tool ......................................................................................... 39

4.1 Data to be Measured and Simulated .................................................................................... 40

4.2 Limit Values ....................................................................................................................... 42

4.2.1 Limit Values of Running Safely .......................................................................... 42

4.2.2 Track Loading Limit Values ................................................................................ 46

4.3 Experimental Tests ............................................................................................................. 48

4.3.1 Recording the Measuring Signals ........................................................................ 49

4.3.2 Processing the Measuring Signals ........................................................................ 49

5 Post-Processor Application .......................................................................................................... 57

5.1 Case Study 1 ....................................................................................................................... 57

5.1.1 Measured Raw Data ............................................................................................ 57

5.1.2 Filtered Data ....................................................................................................... 58

v

5.1.3 Classification Method.......................................................................................... 61

5.1.4 Characteristic Values for Track Sections.............................................................. 61

5.1.5 Characteristic Values for Test Zones ................................................................... 66

5.1.6 Discussion ........................................................................................................... 67

5.2 Case Study 2 ....................................................................................................................... 69

5.2.1 Measured Raw Data ............................................................................................ 69

5.2.2 Characteristic Values for Test Zones ................................................................... 69

5.2.3 Discussion ........................................................................................................... 72

5.3 Discussion of the Case Studies ............................................................................................ 74

6 Conclusions and Future Development .......................................................................................... 75

References ........................................................................................................................................ 77

Annex A: Flexible Track Properties .................................................................................................. 83

Annex B: Communication between Multibody and FE Codes ........................................................... 87

Annex C: Case Study Properties........................................................................................................ 88

vi

List of Figures

Figure 1.1: Schematic representation of the methodology used for the dynamic analysis and post-

processing of railway systems ......................................................................................... 3

Figure 2.1: Generic multibody system ............................................................................................... 11

Figure 2.2: Rigid frame vehicle with carbody suspended on two wheelsets ........................................ 12

Figure 2.3: Bogie vehicle with two-axle bogies ................................................................................. 13

Figure 2.4: Relative rigid body motions of a carbody ........................................................................ 14

Figure 2.5: Schematic representation of the Alfa Pendular trainset..................................................... 14

Figure 2.6: Alfa Pendular multibody model ....................................................................................... 15

Figure 2.7: Subsystems of multibody model: (a) Track and Infrastructure; (b) Carbody; .................... 15

Figure 3.1: Main components of the railway track (Longitudinal view) ............................................. 17

Figure 3.2: Main components of the railway track (Cross-section view) ............................................ 17

Figure 3.3: Main components of the track model (Cross-section view) .............................................. 18

Figure 3.4: Main components of the track model (Longitudinal view) ............................................... 18

Figure 3.5: Schematic representation of the Pre-Processing Tool ....................................................... 19

Figure 3.6: Stability of Newmark’s parameters γ and ζ ...................................................................... 22

Figure 3.7: Newmark’s (a) Explicit and (b) Implicit Time Integration Methods ................................. 25

Figure 3.8: Representation of (a) the curvature of a straight track and (b) the finite element mesh of a

straight track using the Pre-Processing Tool .................................................................. 27

Figure 3.9: Representation of (a) the curvature of a realistic curved track and (b) the finite element

mesh of a realistic track using the Pre-Processing Tool .................................................. 28

Figure 3.10: Representation of (a) the transversal view of a rail element and contact forces and (b) the

location of a contact point relative to the rail finite element ........................................... 29

Figure 3.11: Representation of the three cases for the different values of id where (a) 0 id ij (b)

Figure 3.12: Representation of the potential point of contact on the rail element ................................ 31

Figure 3.13: Simple flexible track model: (a) Finite element mesh; (b) External loads applied ........... 32

Figure 3.14: Perspective view of the track deformation (deformation scaled 100): (a) Computational

tool; (b) ANSYS ........................................................................................................... 32

Figure 3.15: Lateral view of the track deformation (deformation scaled 100): (a) Computational tool;

(b) ANSYS ................................................................................................................... 32

Figure 3.16: Relative error for the track vertical deformation. ............................................................ 33

Figure 3.17: Relative error on the nodes in the vicinity of the applied loads: (a) Nodes on the rail; (b)

Nodes on the sleeper ..................................................................................................... 33

vii

Figure 3.18: Realistic Flexible track model ....................................................................................... 34

Figure 3.19: Comparison of (a) the moving load method and (b) realistic vehicle forces .................... 34

Figure 3.20: Comparison of the moving load method (Case 1) and realistic vehicle forces (Case 2) for

the front wheels of the vehicle for (a) the vertical loads and (b) the transversal loads ..... 35

Figure 3.21: Results of the Dynamic Analysis before the first transition curve: (a) vertical deformation

of the rails with moving loads (Case 1) and realistic vehicle forces (Case 2) and (b) their

comparison in percentage .............................................................................................. 35

Figure 3.22: Results of the Dynamic Analysis on the first transition curve: (a) vertical deformation of

the rails with moving loads (Case 1) and realistic vehicle forces (Case 2) and (b) their

comparison in percentage .............................................................................................. 35

Figure 3.23: Results of the Dynamic Analysis on the curve: (a) vertical deformation of the rails with

moving loads (Case 1) and realistic vehicle forces (Case 2) and (b) their comparison in

percentage ..................................................................................................................... 36

Figure 3.24: Results of the Dynamic Analysis on the second transition curve: (a) vertical deformation

of the rails with moving loads (Case 1) and realistic vehicle forces (Case 2) and (b) their

comparison in percentage .............................................................................................. 36

Figure 3.25: Results of the Dynamic Analysis before the first transition curve: (a) transversal

deformation of the rails with moving loads (Case 1) and realistic vehicle forces (Case 2)

and (b) their comparison in percentage .......................................................................... 36

Figure 3.26: Results of the Dynamic Analysis on the first transition curve: (a) transversal deformation

of the rails with moving loads (Case 1) and realistic vehicle forces (Case 2) and (b) their

comparison in percentage .............................................................................................. 37

Figure 3.27: Results of the Dynamic Analysis on the curve: (a) vertical deformation of the rails with

moving loads (Case 1) and realistic vehicle forces (Case 2) and (b) their comparison in

percentage ..................................................................................................................... 37

Figure 3.28: Results of the Dynamic Analysis on the second transition curve: (a) transversal

deformation of the rails with moving loads (Case 1) and realistic vehicle forces (Case 2)

and (b) their comparison in percentage .......................................................................... 37

Figure 4.1: Schematic representation of the Post-Processing Tool...................................................... 39

Figure 4.2: Representation of the Wheel’s Guiding Force (Y) and Wheel Force (Q) ........................... 40

Figure 4.3: Representation of the Sum of Guiding Forces (ΣY) and Vertical Wheel Forces (Q), in (a)

straight line and (b) curved track ................................................................................... 41

Figure 4.4: Representation of a Wheelset .......................................................................................... 41

Figure 4.5: Relative rigid body accelerations ..................................................................................... 41

Figure 4.6: Bode Plot of low-pass Butterworth filters with a cut-off frequency of 1 Hz and variable

order (from 1 to 5) ......................................................................................................... 52

viii

Figure 4.7: Filtered data and some of the windows used in the calculation of the Sliding Mean

(window length: 4 m and step length: 1 m) vs. displacement graph ................................ 53

Figure 4.8: Filtered data and its Sliding Mean (window length: 4 m and step length: 1 m) vs.

displacement graph ....................................................................................................... 53

Figure 4.9: Filtered data and some of the windows used in the calculation of the Sliding RMS (window

length: 4 m and step length: 1 m) vs. displacement graph ............................................... 54

Figure 4.10: Filtered data and its Sliding RMS (window length: 4 m and step length: 1 m) vs.

displacement graph ....................................................................................................... 54

Figure 4.11: Filtered data vs. displacement graph .............................................................................. 55

Figure 4.12: Reordered absolute data vs. position graph .................................................................... 55

Figure 4.13: Cumulative percentile curve graph ................................................................................ 55

Figure 5.1: Raw ÿ+ vs. time graph ..................................................................................................... 58

Figure 5.2: Raw ÿ* vs. time graph...................................................................................................... 58

*

Figure 5.3: Raw vs. time graph ..................................................................................................... 58

Figure 5.4: Filtered ÿ+S vs. time graph ............................................................................................... 59

Figure 5.5: Filtered ÿ*S vs. time graph................................................................................................ 59

*

Figure 5.6: Filtered S vs. time graph ............................................................................................... 60

Figure 5.7: Instability Criterion ÿ+S vs. time graph ............................................................................. 60

Figure 5.8: Filtered ÿ*qst vs. time graph .............................................................................................. 60

Figure 5.9: Filtered ÿ*q vs. time graph................................................................................................ 61

*

Figure 5.10: Filtered q vs. time graph ............................................................................................. 61

Figure 5.11: Reordered absolute ÿ+S data vs. position graph for the first section ................................. 62

Figure 5.12: Cumulative curve of ÿ+S vs. position graph for the first section ...................................... 62

Figure 5.13: Characteristic values of ÿ+S for each section of a zone .................................................... 63

Figure 5.14: Characteristic values of ÿ*S for each section of a zone .................................................... 63

*

Figure 5.15: Characteristic values of S for each section of a zone .................................................... 63

Figure 5.16: RMS ÿ+S vs. time graph ................................................................................................. 64

Figure 5.17: Characteristic values of ÿ*qst for each section of a zone................................................... 64

Figure 5.18: Characteristic values of ÿ*q for each section of a zone .................................................... 65

*

Figure 5.19: Characteristic values of q for each section of a zone .................................................... 65

Figure 5.20: Characteristic values of the sÿ*q for each section of a zone ............................................. 65

*

Figure 5.21: Characteristic values of the s q for each section of a zone ............................................. 66

Figure 5.22: Raw ÿ+ vs. time graph ................................................................................................... 70

Figure 5.23: Raw ÿ* vs. time graph .................................................................................................... 70

*

Figure 5.24: Raw vs. time graph.................................................................................................... 70

Figure A.1: Sleeper general geometry ............................................................................................... 85

ix

List of Tables

Table 3.1: Number of elements and their element type used to model each component of the railway

track model ................................................................................................................... 27

Table 4.1: Limit values for Maximum Accelerations in the Vehicle Body ......................................... 45

Table 4.2: Limit values for Track Loading ........................................................................................ 47

Table 4.3: Limit values for Ride Characteristics ................................................................................ 48

Table 4.4: Conditions for the processing of the measuring signals from EN 14363 [11] ..................... 50

Table 4.5: Conditions for the processing of the measuring signals from UIC 518 [12] ....................... 51

Table 5.1: Conditions for the processing of the measuring signals for the Simplified Method from UIC

518 [12] ........................................................................................................................ 57

Table 5.2: Case Study 1 safety approval table.................................................................................... 68

Table 5.3: Case Study 1 ride characteristics approval table ................................................................ 69

Table 5.4: case Study 2 safety approval table .................................................................................... 73

Table 5.5: Case Study 2 ride characteristics approval table ................................................................ 73

Table 5.6: Characteristic Values for the analysed case studies ........................................................... 74

Table A.1: Rail geometry data........................................................................................................... 83

Table A.2: Track segments data ........................................................................................................ 83

Table A.3: Track segment components data ...................................................................................... 83

Table A.4: Rail geometry data........................................................................................................... 84

Table A.5: Sleeper properties data ..................................................................................................... 84

Table A.6: Foundation properties data ............................................................................................... 85

Table A.7: Sleeper geometry data...................................................................................................... 86

Table A.8: Track model constants and output parameters .................................................................. 86

Table C.1: Track segments data for the case study ............................................................................. 88

Table C.2: Rail data for the case study .............................................................................................. 88

Table C.3: Foundation properties for the case study .......................................................................... 88

Table C.4: Sleeper data for the case study ......................................................................................... 89

Table C.5: Sleeper geometry for the case study ................................................................................. 89

x

1 Introduction

1.1 Motivation

The railway system is increasingly becoming a key-player in worldwide transport policies.

This results from the rising oil prices and from the urgency for reduction of CO2 emissions.

For short and medium distances, modern high speed trains are able to compete with air

transportation, having the advantage of presenting better energy efficiency and causing less

pollution. For longer distances the railway system is still the most economical mean for

transportation of goods and starts to have a competitive edge in the transport of passengers.

One of the main disadvantages of railway transport is the high costs of construction and

maintenance, when compared to other means of transportation. Furthermore, the increase of

speed, axle loads and traffic has led to higher-rates of degradation of the ballasted railway

tracks [1,2]. Hence, a considerable effort is necessary for maintenance of the tracks, with a

corresponding increase in costs for the infrastructure managers. The main cause for the

degradation of the track is the deformation and densification of the ballast layer, representing

75% of the total track position maintenance [3-5].

The use of profiled-flanged steel wheels running on steel tracks in order to provide

simultaneously support, guidance and traction was a brilliant concept in the early days of this

industry. Nevertheless, the simplicity of the concept masked the complexity of the contact

phenomenon. In fact, the complex contact forces that develop in the wheel-rail interface

strongly influence the dynamic behaviour of a rail guided vehicle. Also the characteristics of

the vehicle suspensions, the masses and inertias of the structural elements, and the geometry

and irregularities of the tracks play a dominant role in this regard.

Despite the complexity of the physical phenomena involved, the demands of increasing

speeds, better comfort and greater load capacity do not stop increasing in order to improve the

competitiveness and attractiveness of railway networks. Therefore, the increasing demands

for network capacity, either by increasing the traffic speed or the axle loads, put pressure on

the existing infrastructures and the effects of these changes have to be carefully considered.

Such requirements bring new problems to control the wheel-rail wear and to maintain the

vehicle stability and reliability in the different operation conditions.

Future developments are directed towards studies involving the influence of the track

settlement conditions on vehicles performance and analyses associated to railway

infrastructure degradation resulting from trainsets operation. The European Strategic Rail

1

Research Agenda [6] and the European Commission White Paper for Transports [7] have

identified key scientific and technological priorities for rail transport over the next 20 years.

One of the points emphasized is the need to reduce the cost of approval for new vehicles and

infrastructure products with the introduction of virtual certification.

The development of computer resources led simulations to be an essential part of the design

process of railway systems. Furthermore, the use of advanced computational tools during the

design phase of new trains allows carrying out several simulations, under various scenarios, in

order to improve its dynamic performance and reach an optimized design. In this way, studies to

evaluate the impact of design changes or failure mode risks can be performed in a much faster and

less costly way than the physical implementation and test of those changes in real prototypes.

Usually the track imperfections are measured by the infrastructure managers, and these can

be included in the track model when performing the computing simulations. Such feature allows

assessing the consequences of the track conditions on the vehicles performance, namely noise and

vibration. It can then help scheduling the track maintenance procedures by identifying the levels

of track irregularities that promote the increase of wear and/or vehicle-track interaction forces.

Due to their multidisciplinary, all issues involving railway systems are complex.

Therefore, the use of computational tools that represent the state of the art and that are able to

characterise the modern designs and predict the vehicles’ performance by using validated

mathematical models is essential. The use of a valid model of the railway track is necessary to

correctly determine the dynamic behaviour of the railway vehicle, which implies using flexible

track models in order to account for the deformation, wear, sags and maintenance state of the

track. While a complete model for the entire track layer would be desired, it would greatly

increase the computational cost of the simulations. Thus a simplified and computationally

friendly spring-damper model that simulates the track conditions is preferable.

In this work, the dynamic behaviour of the railway vehicle is studied using a multibody

formulation [8-10] where the main structural elements are treated as rigid bodies connected with

flexible links that represent the suspension elements. The relative motions between the bodies of

the system are restrained by using appropriate kinematic constraints. Recent computer codes for

railway applications use specific methodologies that, in general, only allow studying each

particular phenomenon at a time. By analysing such phenomena independently, it is not possible

to capture all the dynamics of the complete railway system and relevant coupling effects.

Developing innovative and more complex methodologies, each requiring different mathematical

formulations and numerical procedures, in a co-simulation environment allows, not only to

integrate all physical phenomena, but also to assess the cross influence between them.

2

Wheel-Rail

Track Model Vehicle Model

Contact Model

Railway Dynamic

Analysis

Raw Data

Filtering and

Post-Processing Tool

Data Processing

Characteristic

Values

Criteria Performance

Figure 1.1: Schematic representation of the methodology used for the dynamic analysis and

post-processing of railway systems

The main innovation of this work lies in the development of computational tools that are

able to model with detail the vehicle, the track and the subgrade. Instead of using the traditional

approach, in which these systems are handled independently, here they are integrated in a

common and reliable tool, where the interaction among them is considered. Then, the results

from the dynamic analysis are post-processed in order to determine if a given vehicle would be

accepted to operate on the track according to the international norms and regulations [11,12].

The methodology used in this work is represented schematically on Figure 1.1.

The track flexibility is included in the formulation by using finite element models [13,14] to

represent the rails, which are supported by discrete elastic elements, representing the flexibility of

the sleepers, pads, ballast (or slab) and subgrade. Another advantage of this methodology is that it

allows building realistic track models by considering the track irregularities in the formulation [15].

The finite element formulation proposed here to build flexible track models is based on an

analogous formulation used by Ambrósio et al. [16,17] to study the pantograph-catenary interaction.

3

The pre-processor tool that was developed in this work to build the flexible track model

allows dynamic analysis for much longer distances than the traditional approach, since it has a

much lower computational cost due to not using solid 3D finite elements to model the

foundation, instead opting to use discrete spring-dampers. The track model pre-processor and

the numerical implementation of the finite element methodology are validated in this work by

comparing the results with the ones obtained from ANSYS in a static analysis where the track

is loaded with wheelset loads. Also a comparative analysis between the use of moving loads

and realistic vehicle forces is performed in order to analyse the validity of the State of the Art,

where moving loads that represent the vehicle is more often considered.

A generic wheel-rail contact detection formulation [18,19] is introduced here to

determine, online during the dynamic analysis, the contact points location, without need to

use pre-computed lookup tables. This computational efficient methodology uses an elastic

force model that allows computing the normal contact forces in the wheel-rail interface,

accounting for the energy loss during contact [20,21]. The tangential wheel-rail contact forces

can be calculated using one of the creep force models, namely the Kalker linear theory [22],

Heuristic nonlinear method [23] and the Polach formulation [24].

It is important to assess the accuracy and suitability of the proposed methodologies

through the comparison of the dynamic analysis results against those obtained by experimental

testing. For this purpose, a partnership between this research group and the Portuguese railroad

company has been established in order to validate the developed methodologies using real data.

When studying the dynamic performance of railway vehicles, it is also necessary to assess

of the vehicle fulfils the requirements defined by international regulations such as EN 14636

[11] and UIC 518 [12] and to compare the performance of different vehicles in several railway

tracks at different speeds. A computational post-processing tool that handles all filtering and

data analysis as required by regulations was developed in this work, handling the acceptance

criteria that a vehicle must pass in order to operate on a given track at a given velocity.

The methodologies described in this work are meant to be applied in the study of the

dynamic behaviour of the Alfa Pendular railway vehicle, which is operated by the Portuguese

Railway company in the intercity service for passenger transportation in Portugal. It is a

trainset with an active tilting system which allows it to curve at speeds higher than the

balanced speed [25] and keeping the non-compensated acceleration within admissible values

for passenger comfort [26]. But the work presented here is flexible and generic enough,

allowing its use to model any vehicle/track combination, study its dynamic behaviour and

assessing its performance according to the international standards.

4

1.2 Literature Review

The computational simulation of a railway vehicle requires the implementation of a

mathematical model that describes it. From this perspective, the use of multibody dynamics

methodologies is the most flexible approach to create such models [8,10,27-32]. Due to its

simplicity and computational implementation easiness, Cartesian coordinates [8,27,28] are

used. Considering the high level of complexity of these equations, analytical solutions are

impractical to obtain and, therefore, numerical algorithms must be applied.

The numerical solution of the Differential Algebraic Equations (DAE), and their

consequent integration in time, introduces several problems, namely the existence and

uniqueness of solution and the numerical instabilities of the solutions [28]. An alternative

approach for the solution of the equations of motion transforms the set of DAE in a set of

Ordinary Differential Equations (ODE). With such approach, the solution is obtained by

integrating in time the ODE using direct integration algorithms [8,33-40]. In a constrained

multibody system, the equations of motion are solved by appending the constrained acceleration

equations to the formulation [8]. The approach used by Gonçalves and Ambrósio [39,41]

involves the successful use of a sparse matrix solver in rigid and flexible multibody systems. A

sparse matrix solver is also used in this work for the solution of the equations of motion.

Modelling and simulation in the field of railway dynamics is a complex

interdisciplinary topic [25,42-47]. The theoretical basis of the methodologies implemented is

now mature and the programs, originally written by research institutes [9,48-50], have

evolved into powerful, reliable and user friendly packages [51-75]. Shabana et al. [76] use an

analytical track description defined by a three-step procedure. In this approach, a few nodal

points that define the space curves of the left and right rails are obtained and stored in a pre-

processor, which is subsequently used by the dynamic simulation code. During the dynamic

analysis, the rail space curves are obtained by means of the absolute nodal coordinate

formulation [10], leading to an isoparametric beam element that can be conveniently used to

describe curved rigid and flexible rails. The method considers each rail as a separate body in

order to account for their relative motion.

Pombo and Ambrósio [77-80] suggest an appropriate methodology for the accurate

description of the track centerline, in the general case of a fully three-dimensional track

geometry, and demonstrate the approach with roller coaster applications. For railway

applications, the geometry of the left and right rails has to be described, which leads Pombo

and Ambrósio to extend the methodology used in roller coaster applications [81,82].

5

The complete characterization of a railway requires not only the description of its

design geometry, but also the description of the track irregularities that arise from its

construction, usage and change on the foundations [25,43,83,84]. In ADAMS/Rail 9.1.1 [54],

the analytical description of the track centerline is completely de-coupled from the description

of the track irregularities. Using this formulation, the track irregularities are given as a

correction of the wheelset position, and the geometrical contact parameters on the left and right

wheels are obtained according to the corrected location. In the track model proposed by Pombo

and Ambrósio [81,82], the left and right rails are considered as separate entities in order to

account for their relative misalignment due to the track irregularities. According to this

approach, the irregularity parameters are expressed with respect to each rail and not with

respect to the track centerline.

The wheel-rail interaction plays a dominant role in the study of the dynamic behaviour of

railway vehicles. The first step for the solution of the wheel-rail contact problem is the

determination of the contact geometry. The second step is related with the contact kinematics and

consists in the calculation of the creepages, or normalized relative velocities, at the point of contact.

The third and last step for the solution of the contact problem is the accurate characterization of the

contact mechanics that consists in the calculation of the wheel-rail contact forces.

Since the wheel and rail have profiled surfaces, the prediction of the contact point location

online during dynamic analysis is not a trivial problem. A common method used in many

existing computer algorithms consists in finding the location of the contact point, and the values

of some related parameters, by interpolating a set of pre-calculated table entries. Despite the fact

that this interpolating method does not represent a rigorous procedure for predicting the location

of the contact points, it is a fast and robust technique that is commonly used in railway

applications [51,54,65]. Many researchers use this approach in their studies [74,75,85,86].

In addition to the approximations due to the interpolation process, the pre-computed

contact table method fails to capture all possible three-dimensional configurations of the

wheelset with respect to the track, and does not account for possible simulation scenarios, such

as the lead and lag contact. Two alternative and conceptually different methods can be found in

the literature for solving the wheel-rail contact problem. The first is the constraint approach

that involves the definition of nonlinear kinematic contact constraints, leading to a model in

which the wheel has five degrees of freedom (DOF) with respect to the rail. The second method

is the elastic approach in which the wheel is assumed to have six DOF with respect to the rail.

One of the initial works using the constraint approach was presented by De Pater [87],

describing of the motion of a rigid wheelset on a pair of straight rigid rails, using four DOF.

6

The method was later implemented in a more general nonlinear way by Fisette and Samin

[71,72], who derived a new multibody wheel-rail contact model assuming a rigid independent

wheel on a rigid straight rail. More recently, Shabana et al. [88-91] implemented the

constraint method using an augmented Lagrangian formulation. Using this methodology, no

simplifications are required in the description of the surfaces geometry or in the kinematics of

the wheels and rails. Moreover, the most general motion of the wheelset can be considered

and the rotation and/or translation of the rails can be easily accounted for.

The method based on the elastic approach is also often used to solve the wheel-rail

contact problem. In this method, the wheel is assumed to have six DOF with respect to the rail

and the normal contact forces are defined in terms of the indentation between the surfaces and

using the Hertz contact theory. One of the initial works in this area was presented by Kik and

Steinborn [92]. In general, the main problem encountered when using the elastic approach is the

accurate determination of the contact points. Difficulties in predicting the location of the contact

points rise when dynamic analyses on curved tracks are considered. The accurate prediction of

the rail arc length travelled by each wheel over the track is, therefore, crucial. Shabana et al.

[90,91] address this problem and propose a methodology for the accurate prediction of the

contact points coordinates when the elastic approach is used. In their formulation, four surface

parameters are used to describe the geometry of the wheel and rail surfaces. In order to be able

to accurately determine the location of the contact points, a first order differential equation is

introduced. The solution gives the system generalized coordinates and velocities as well as the

rail arc length travelled by each wheel. This last parameter defines the rail cross section in

which the point of contact lies. Since the algorithm allows for an arbitrary number of contact

points, the methodology can be used to study multiple contacts between wheel and rail surfaces.

Kik and Piotrowski [93] suggest an approach to calculate the normal contact force between

wheel and rail. They propose a fast approximate method that allows estimating the area of

contact and the normal load for a prescribed penetration between the surfaces. Kik and

Piotrowski [93] show that the methodology predicts the normal load well when compared with

exact theories and with measured data.

Railway manufacturers fit their vehicles with conical wheels whose flanges are

fundamental to avoid derailment. Whenever the wheel moves laterally with respect to the rail, a

second point of contact between the wheel flange and the rail edge may occur. The contact

forces that result from the second point of contact influence the forces at the first contact point

and have a significant effect on the dynamic behaviour of the vehicle. The simulation of the two

points of contact scenario is one of the most difficult problems in the dynamic analysis of

7

railway systems. One of the initial works about the multi-contact problem was presented in

1982 by Piotrowski [94]. The basic assumption proposed is that the distance between the

contact patches is sufficient for the cross-influence of the normal and tangential stresses to be

neglected. Under this assumption, two distinct contact areas are considered for the wheel tread

and wheel flange and the rolling contact formulation can be stated independently. Several other

researchers also use this approach in their two-point wheel-rail contact studies [71,72,90,91,95].

Shabana and Sanborn [96] proposed a method allowing for general modelling of rail

and track flexibility and can be used to systematically couple finite element computer

programs with flexible multibody system codes, allowing for the development of detailed

track models that include rail, tie, and fastener flexibility as well as soil characteristics. In the

work reported by Dahlberg [97] the possibility to smooth out track stiffness variations is

discussed. It is demonstrated that by modifying the stiffness variations along the track, for

example by use of grouting or under-sleeper pads, the variations of the wheel/rail contact

force may be considerably reduced. Zhai et al. [4], established a five-parameter model for

analysis of the ballast vibration based upon the hypothesis that the load-transmission from a

sleeper to the ballast approximately coincides with the cone distribution. The concepts of shear

stiffness and shear damping of the ballast are introduced in the model in order to consider the

continuity of the interlocking ballast granules. A full-scale field experiment is carried out to

measure the ballast acceleration excited by moving trains and the theoretical simulation results

agreed well with the measured data.

The work developed by Ferreira [98] takes part of the development of a global

train/track dynamic model and carried out its validation with real experimental measurements

with the purpose to evaluate the influence of very high speeds in the induced track vibrations.

A quantification of the consequences of using different track design solutions was also

performed. The model was also developed to predict track differential settlements evolution

through the simulation of millions of train passages at high speeds.

Pombo et al. [15] propose a methodology that includes the track imperfections in the

definition of the track model. The methodology described in this work is applied to study the

influence of the track irregularities on the dynamic behaviour of the railway vehicle ML95.

For this purpose, a multibody formulation is used to build the vehicle model and a generic

wheel-rail contact formulation was applied in order to determine the contact points’ location

and the respective normal and tangential forces. The accuracy and suitability of the

methodology presented were demonstrated through the comparison of the dynamic analysis

results against those obtained by experimental testing.

8

In the work developed by Rauter [99], a general computational tool was developed for the

dynamic analysis of the pantograph-catenary interaction in nominal, operational and perturbed

conditions for high speed railway operation. The tool was characterised by a modular structure

with two independent codes running in a co-simulation environment. The pantograph dynamic

behaviour is analysed using a flexible multibody formulation and the catenary is modelled using

finite element method models. The contact force is modelled as a normal force using elastic

contact models with energy dissipation. In this work the multibody module, the contact module

which works as a co-simulation procedure and the pantograph module were developed.

In order to investigate the dynamic derailment of a railway vehicle Xiao et al. [100]

developed a coupled vehicle/track dynamics model, in which the vehicle is modelled as a

multibody system and the track is modelled as a 3-layer discrete elastic support model. Rails were

assumed to be Timoshenko beams supported by discrete sleepers, and the effects of vertical and

lateral motions and rolling of the rail on the wheel/rail creepages were taken into account. The

sleepers were treated as Euler beams on elastic foundation for the vertical vibration, while as

lumped masses in the lateral direction. A moving sleeper support model was developed to

simulate the effect of the periodical discrete sleepers on the vehicle/track interaction. The vehicle

and the track are coupled by wheel/rail contacts whereas the normal forces and the creep forces

are calculated using the Hertzian contact theory and the nonlinear creep theory by Shen et al. [23],

respectively. The equations of motion of the coupled vehicle/track system are solved by means of

an explicit integration method. The numerical results obtained indicate that track misalignment

and vehicle speed have a great influence on the whole vehicle running safely.

Feng [101] studied the influence of design parameters on dynamic response of the

railway track structure by implementing Finite Element Method (FEM). The rails and sleepers

have been modelled by Euler-Bernoulli beam elements, while springs and dashpots have been

used for the simulation of rail pads and the connection between the sleeper and ballast ground.

Dynamic explicit analysis has been used for the simulation of a moving load, and the train

speed effect has been studied. The displacement of the track bed has been evaluated and

compared to the measurement taken in Sweden in the static analysis [101].

The work presented by Antunes [102] refers to a computational tool and a modelling

methodology that handles the dynamics of pantograph-catenary interaction using a three-

dimensional methodology. To exploit the advantages of using a multibody formulation to model

the pantograph, a high-speed co-simulation procedure was setup in order to allow the

communication between the multibody code and the finite element catenary module. A contact

model, based on a penalty formulation, was selected to represent the interaction between the

9

two modelling procedures. Pombo and Ambrósio [103] present a fully three-dimensional

methodology for the computational analysis of the interaction between catenary and

pantographs. The Finite Element Method (FEM) is used to support the model of the catenary,

while a multibody (MB) dynamics methodology is applied to support the pantograph model.

The contact between the two subsystems is described using a penalty contact formulation. A

high-speed co-simulation procedure is proposed to ensure the communication between the two

methodologies. The numerical results were compared against experimental data and the results

show that the passage of the front pantograph excites the catenary, leading to the deterioration

of the contact conditions on the rear one.

Montalbán et al. [104] use the Finite Element Method to analyse the mechanical

behaviour of different track types by considering the different conditions to which they may be

subjected. The values of the stress and deformation as a function of depth are obtained at each

point of the cross-section of the considered track. These values allow quantification of the basic

design parameters for railway structures. The work developed by Varandas [105] describes the

research undertaken to model the dynamic response of the railway tracks, taking into account

the behaviour of ballast at railway transition zones, where the long-term settlements are

amplified by dynamical loading on the ballast due to the discontinuities. The numerical

simulations showed that the use of soft rail pads on the stiff side of the transition is beneficial,

provided the problem is mostly caused by stiffness variation of the track support. The slab track

solution was also tested and showed advantages over the ballasted track by displaying much

smaller differential rail displacements, for identical change of the track support stiffness.

In the work by Pombo et al. [106] a finite element methodology is used to create detailed

three-dimensional track models, which include the flexibility of the rails and of the substructure.

In the approach, the rails are modelled as beams supported in a discrete manner by spring-

damper systems that represent the flexibility of the pads, sleepers, ballast and subgrade. A

multibody formulation is used to describe the kinematic structure of the rigid bodies and joints

that constitute the vehicle model. The inclusion of flexible track models is very important to

study the dynamic behaviour of railway vehicles in realistic operation scenarios, especially

when studying the impact of train operations on the infrastructure and, conversely, the damages

on vehicles provoked by the track conditions. The wheel-rail contact formulation used here

allows obtaining, online during the dynamic analysis, the contact points location, even for the

most general three-dimensional motion of the wheelsets with respect to the track. The

methodology proposed to build flexible track models is validated here by comparing the results

obtained with this new approach with the ones obtained with ANSYS.

10

2 Railway Vehicle Models

The dynamic analysis of a multibody system involves the study of its motion and forces

transmitted during a given time period, as a function of the initial conditions, external applied

forces and/or prescribed motions. A multibody system can be defined as a collection of rigid

and/or flexible bodies interconnected by kinematic joints and/or force elements. The kinematic

joints control the relative motion between the bodies, while the force elements represent the

internal forces that develop among bodies due to their relative motion. The external forces may

be applied to the system components as a consequence of their interaction with the surrounding

environment. A generic multibody system is represented in Figure 2.1.

Flexible Body

Spring

Da mper Revolute Joint

Spherica l Joint

Rigid Body

Spherical Joint Force

Moment

Spring

Revolute Joint

Rigid Body Revolute Joint

Ground

Figure 2.1: Generic multibody system

system of second order differential equations, possibly mixed with algebraic equations [39,108].

Depending on the type of system modelled and/or on the type of coordinates used, the number of

coordinates may be larger than the number of DOF of the multibody system. Different sets of

coordinates may be chosen to describe the configuration of the bodies at any instant of time [109].

In the following, a multibody methodology is overviewed to present the formulation adopted

in the development of this work. In the formulation presented throughout this work only rigid

bodies are considered for the multibody formulation.

Rail guided vehicles can be divided into different classes, depending on the field of

application [109]. The most common vehicles for different types of rail traffic systems are:

11

a) Railways: Often with different types of traffic like passenger, freight, suburban, main-

line traffic, etc.

b) Subways or metros: Suburban rail systems fully or partly underground, separated from

other rail traffic and from road traffic.

c) Tramways: Suburban rail systems with light-weight vehicles fully or partly operating

in combination with the road traffic.

d) Roller-Coaster: Rail systems for roller-coaster applications.

Rail vehicles are also divided into two categories, depending if they are powered or not:

a) Tractive stock: The vehicles in this class are powered. Locomotives take no passengers

whereas motor coaches do. The vehicles can be powered electrically or by diesel fuel.

b) Rolling stock: The vehicles are not powered and can be divided into coaches, if they

take passengers, or wagons, if they don’t.

a) Running gear: It consists of wheels, axles, and suspension, which include the

components connecting these parts. A wheelset normally consists of two wheels and a

connecting axle. The running gear should support the carbody and guide, brake and,

for a tractive unit, drive the vehicle.

b) Carbody: This part of the vehicle carries the payload, i.e. passengers or goods, and/or

the traction equipment.

Depending on the running gear characteristics, there are two vehicle types:

a) Rigid frame vehicles: The running gear only consists of wheelsets and suspension

components, as the vehicle schematically shown in Figure 2.2.

b) Bogie vehicles: The running gear is a so called bogie. It consists of wheelsets, a

framework and suspension elements, as shown in Figure 2.3.

Carbody

Wheelset

Figure 2.2: Rigid frame vehicle with carbody suspended on two wheelsets

Rigid frame vehicles are the simplest, most inexpensive and lighter ones. However these

vehicles have limited payload capacity and its length is also restricted by the need to have an

acceptable curving performance. From the dynamic point of view, the rigid frame vehicles give

12

a rather shaky and uncomfortable ride since they have only one suspension level. A horizontally

stiffer wheelset-carbody connection increases the so-called critical speed, but gives a worse

curving performance [43]. In summary, rigid frame vehicles are most appropriate for rather

unqualified transports, for instance, light weight freight traffic with speeds up to 100–120 Km/h.

Bogie Carbody

frame Wheelset

The bogie vehicles have two levels of suspension, the primary suspension, between the

wheelsets and the bogie frame, and the secondary suspension, between the bogie frame and

the carbody. Though the bogies increase the vehicle weight and costs, they provide isolation

for the high frequency contents of the motion due to the inertia of bogie frames. This

assemblage has also a geometric advantage since disturbances acting on one wheelset are, in

principle, halved at the bogie frame longitudinal midpoint, decreasing their transmission to

the carbody. The vehicles assembled with bogies have better curving performance and the

derailment risk is lower than for rigid frame vehicles. The carbody vibrations and the wheel-

rail contact forces are also reduced as a result of the two levels of suspension [43].

In rail-guided vehicle dynamics, the motion of the vehicle as a whole and the motion of

the particular vehicle parts are very important to quantify. In Table 2.1 the motions

corresponding to the six relative degrees of freedom of the rigid bodies that compose a rail

vehicle are defined and are represented in Figure 2.4. An example would be a vehicle composed

by a carbody that is supported by two bogies through a set of mechanical elements that constitute

the secondary suspension. The bogies are the subsystems that, through the wheelsets, are in contact

with the track and include another group of mechanical elements that constitute the primary

suspension. Further detail on this topic is outside the scope of this thesis; the interested reader is

referred to see the work developed by Pombo [109].

Translation in direction of travel x Longitudinal

Translation in transverse direction, parallel to the track plane y Lateral

Translation perpendicular to the track plane z Vertical

Rotation about longitudinal axis Roll, Sway

Rotation about a transverse axis, parallel to the track plane Pitch

Rotation about an axis perpendicular to the track plane Yaw

13

z y

x

In this section, the Alfa Pendular trainset, a railway vehicle used for passenger transportation

in Portugal, is described. It is a trainset with an active tilting system which allows it to

negotiate curves at higher speeds, maintaining the passengers comfort within admissible

values [110]. This trainset is composed of six vehicles, being four motor units and two

trailers, as shown in Figure 2.5. In the following, all mechanical elements that are relevant to

build the multibody model, namely the structural and the suspension elements, are described.

Figure 2.5: Schematic representation of the Alfa Pendular trainset

Due to the trainset configuration, it is assumed that the dynamic behaviour of each vehicle

has a non-significant influence on the others and, therefore, each vehicle of the trainset can be

studied independently. In this way, the vehicle model introduced here is composed only by one

trailer unit of the trainset. It should be noted that the methodology described is generic and can

be applied to any railway vehicle. The Alfa Pendular trailer vehicle is composed by one

carbody, where the passengers travel. It is supported by two bogies through a set of mechanical

elements that constitute the secondary suspension. The main function of these elements is to

minimize the vibrations, resulting from the vehicle-track interaction, transmitted to the

passenger compartment, improving the comfort and reducing the problems associated to the

structural fatigue. Each bogie includes the wheelsets, which are in contact with the rails, and

another group of mechanical elements that constitute the primary suspension. These elements

are responsible mainly for the steering capabilities and stability behaviour of the whole group

and, ultimately, being responsible for the critical speed of the vehicle.

14

Figure 2.6: Alfa Pendular multibody model

The first step for modelling a railway vehicle using a multibody formulation is the division of

the group in several subsystems, which are simpler to handle. This strategy allows building each

subsystem independently, being the whole vehicle model built by assembling the subsystems. The

subsystems considered here to model the Alfa Pendular vehicle are shown in Figure 2.6.

The subsystem 0 is used to represent the track and the infrastructure, as shown in Figure

2.7 (a). The subsystem 1, depicted in Figure 2.7 (b), represents the carbody of the vehicle. The

subsystems 2 and 3, shown in Figure 2.7 (c), represent the front and the rear bogies. As these

last two are equal, it is only necessary to build one subsystem representing the bogie. Then,

when assembling the railway vehicle, this subsystem is used twice to represent both the front

and the rear bogies. The subsystem 1 is connected to subsystems 2 and 3 by attaching

elements, which represent the secondary suspension and the bogie-carbody connection

elements. The interaction between the rails (from subsystem 0) and the wheels (from

subsystems 2 and 3) is performed by using an appropriate wheel-rail contact model [18,19].

Figure 2.7: Subsystems of multibody model: (a) Track and Infrastructure; (b) Carbody;

(c) Front and Rear Bogies

For each subsystem it is necessary to provide the information about the rigid bodies,

kinematic joints and linear and/or nonlinear force elements. The relative motion between the

bodies is limited by kinematic joints [8], which restrain relative degrees-of-freedom between

the bodies connected by them. The suspension components, such as springs and dampers that

connect the rigid bodies, are modelled as force elements. These are responsible for

transmitting the internal forces that are developed in the system as function of the relative

motion between the bodies. Further detail on this topic is outside the scope of this thesis; the

interested reader is referred to see the work developed by Pombo et al. [106].

15

3 Development of Advanced Track Models

The performance of railway vehicles is dependent on the track conditions. The loads induced

on the vehicle by the track and the corresponding forces transmitted to the track by the vehicle

also depend on the track geometry. Therefore, the accurate description of the track is essential

for the dynamic analysis of railway systems.

The description of a railway requires not only the characterization of its design

geometry, but also the description of the irregularities that are associated with the track. The

track irregularities represent the deviations of the track from its design geometry and result

from construction imperfections, usage operations and change on the foundations. The

realistic definition of a railway involves a combination between its design geometry and the

parameters that define the track irregularities. In the dynamic analysis of railway systems the

track irregularities must be considered, especially when studying the wheel-rail interaction

forces and the passenger ride comfort. Further detail on this topic is outside the scope of this

thesis; the interested reader is referred to see the work developed by Pombo [109].

A railway track is generally composed by an assembly of elements of distinct elasticity

responsible for gradually transmitting to the subsoil the dynamic loadings coming from the

trains’ passage, besides the important function of guiding the vehicles. These elements are the

rails, which are supported by the sleepers through the pads. The sleepers rest on an elastic bed

made up of supporting layers as ballast, sub-ballast, form layer and subsoil, as represented in

Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2.

The most common railway track consists of steel rails supported on timber or pre-

stressed concrete sleepers, which are laid on crushed stone ballast. A plastic or rubber pad is

usually placed between the rail and the concrete sleepers with the rail held down to the sleeper

with resilient fastenings.

The railway tracks are generally laid on a bed of stone ballast or track bed, which in turn

is supported by prepared earthworks known as the substructure. The substructure comprises the

subgrade, a layer of sand or stone dust (often sandwiched in impervious plastic), known as the

form layer, which restricts the upward migration of wet clay or silt and the sub-ballast, which

consists of smaller crushed stone than the ballast. This may also contain layers of waterproof

fabric to prevent water penetrating to the subgrade. The term foundation may be used to refer to

the ballast and substructure, i.e. all man-made structures below the tracks.

16

Rail Sleeper Rail Pad

Superstructure

Ballast

Track

Supporting

Layers Substructure

Subsoil or Subgrade Soil

Figure 3.1: Main components of the railway track (Longitudinal view)

Sleeper Rail

Rail Pad

Ballast

Figure 3.2: Main components of the railway track (Cross-section view)

The track and ballast form the superstructure. The track ballast is customarily crushed

stone, and the purpose of this is to support the sleepers and allow some adjustment of their

position, while allowing free drainage.

Despite being considered as rigid by many authors and computational tools, the railway track

exhibits some flexibility that is characterised by small deformations and rotations, which,

besides other phenomena, originate track irregularities. Due to its nature and magnitude, these

deformations can be characterised as linear.

In this work the railway track system is modelled with linear finite elements, being the

wheel-rail contact forces included in the force vector of the finite element formulation. The

rails and sleepers are modelled by using Euler-Bernoulli beam elements [110], while the

foundations and rail pads are represented by spring-damper elements acting in the six degrees

of freedom, as shown in Figure 3.3 and Figure 3.4.

17

Rail Flexibility of

Element Rail Pad

Sleeper Flexibility of

Elements Ballast and

Rigid Foundation Substructure

Flexibility of the

Rail Sleeper Interaction

Elements

Flexibility of Rail Pad

Sleeper

Flexibility of Ballast

Element

and Substructure

Rigid Foundation

Figure 3.4: Main components of the track model (Longitudinal view)

A realistic track model requires a lot of variable information for it to approximate real

cases. It requires a detailed 3D geometry that includes irregularities, the different track zones

detailing the properties inherent to the elements within them and the transitions between the

different zones and sections where there are discontinuity of properties. The required data to

build this flexible track model is detailed in Annex A.

In this work, a pre-processor tool was developed in order to build detailed flexible track

models using a finite element formulation. The pre-processing tool builds a given track using

its 3D geometry as a pathway reference and places along that pathway the different track

segments on the intended order, each of them with their own elements, i.e., with specified rail,

pad, sleeper and foundation elements. The track geometry comes from the designed track

layout with the irregularities present, while the rails, pads, sleepers and foundations have their

own material and geometric properties that need to be defined. A schematic representation of

the pre-processor tool is presented on Figure 3.5.

The methodology used here to build the track model takes into account the influence of all

elements, namely the different properties of the foundation and its variation along the track,

allowing the presence of transitions. While other approaches also allow these features, few allow a

practical evaluation of a long track due to the computational cost of studying the soil properties, as it

requires many layers of 3D solid elements to be correctly modelled. Since the focus of this study is

on the influence of the track on the vehicle and of the vehicle on the track, this model uses a discrete

foundation that allows for dynamic analyses on longer tracks than the traditional approach.

18

Rail Pad Sleeper Foundation

Properties Properties Properties Properties

Pre-Processing Tool

Track

Track

Segment 1

Track

Segment 2

Track Layout Track Irregularities Track

Segment ...

Segment n

Track

Geometry Track Properties

Track Model

implemented based on the implicit Newmark’s trapezoidal rule [111], taking into account the

modelling needs of the dynamics of the track model, due to the integration algorithm’s

accuracy, stability and other crucial aspects, especially considering the computational costs.

These aspects are discussed in the following.

The equilibrium equations of the finite element method for the railway track structural system

are assembled as [112]:

Ma Cv K d f (3.1)

where M, C and K are the finite element global mass, damping and stiffness matrices of the

finite element model of the railway track [110,112]. The accelerations, velocities and

displacements vectors are represented respectively as a, v and d while the sum of all external

applied forces is depicted by vector f. The 3D linear Euler-Bernoulli beam element Ke and the

local mass matrix Me are [110]:

19

EA

l

0 12 EI z

l3

0 12 EI y

0 Symmetric

l3

0 GJ

0 0

l

6 EI y 4 EI y

0 0 0

l2 l

6 EI z 4 EI z

0 0 0 0

l2 l

Ke

EA EA

0 0 0 0 0

l l

12 EI z 6 EI z 12 EI z

0 0 0 0 0

l3 l2 l3

12 EI y 6 EI y 12 EI y

0 0 0 0 0 0

l3 l2 l3

GJ GJ

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

l l

6 EI y 2 EI y 6 EI y 4 EI y (3.2)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

l2 l l2 l

6 EI z 2 EI z 6 EI 4 EI z

0 0 0 0 0 2z 0 0 0

l2 l l l

1

3

13

0

35

13

0 0 Symmetric

35

0 Jx

0 0

3A

11l l2

0 0 0

210 105

11l l2

0 0 0 0

e

M lA 210 105

1 0 0 0 0 0

1

6 3

9 13l 13

0 0 0 0 0

70 420 35

9 13l 13

0 0 0 0 0 0

70 420 35

Jx Jx

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

6A 3A

13l 3l 2 11l 13

0 0 0 0 0 0 0

420 420 210 35 (3.3)

13l 3l 2 11l 13

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

420 420 210 35

in which E is the Young modulus, G is the transversal modulus of rigidity, l is the element length,

A is the cross section area, ρ is the material density, and Iy, Iz and Jx are the second area moments

of inertia about the respective y, z, and x axis. The global stiffness and mass matrixes, K and M,

are built by assemblage of the matrices of the elements according to the railway track mesh.

20

In order to model the damping behaviour of the system, proportional damping, also

known as Rayleigh damping [112], is used. The global damping matrix C is obtained by

assembling the element damping matrices, Ce, for each element as:

Ce = eΚ e + eΜ e (3.4)

where αe and βe are proportionality factors associated with each type of railway track element

e, such as sleeper, rail and others.

The force vector, f, containing the sum of all external applied loads, is evaluated at

each time step of the time integration. For a time t+Δt the force vector is calculated as:

f t t f g ftc t (3.5)

where the vector f g contains the gravitational forces of all element which remains constant.

The force vector f c represents the wheel contact forces being evaluated as:

ftct B c fc i (3.6)

i

where fc represents the equivalent forces and moments applied at appropriate nodes of the rail

element where a contact force, at time t+Δt, is to be applied. The matrix Bc means the Boolean

operation of assembling each contact force fc i in the global force vector. The contact force

value to be applied and its point of application are evaluated, at each integration time step, by

geometric interference and a proper contact modelling method, to be discussed on section 3.4.

To solve the time integration problem, Newmark [111] proposed that for a given time t and a

fixed time step Δt the solution of the equilibrium equation for a forthcoming time t+Δt is

represented as:

Which would require the knowledge of how the d, v and a evolve over time and their

relation to each other. Admitting that the solution of the dynamic equilibrium equation is known

at time t, the direct use of Taylor’s series provides an approach to obtain these relations:

t 2 da t t 3

d t t d t v t t a t ... (3.8)

2 dt 6

21

da t t 2

v t t v t a t t ... (3.9)

dt 2

Newmark truncated these equations in his methods assuming that the acceleration

would be linear within the time step:

dat at t at

(3.10)

dt t

Which leads to Newmark’s equations in the standard form, where the displacements and

velocities on time t+Δt can be obtained by:

1 2

d t t d t v t t at at t t (3.11)

2

The parameters γ and ζ are determined in order to obtain integration accuracy and stability

[111]. The ζ controls the numerical dampening, where if ζ < 1/2 there is negative dampening and

introduce a self-excited vibration; similarly if ζ > 1/2 there is positive dampening and will

decrease the magnitude of the response even without real dampening. On the other hand γ controls

the convergence rate, where if γ < (1/2 + ζ)2/4 means that the results will not converge, and if γ >

(1/2 + ζ)2/4 they will converge, but will periodically introduce errors the smaller it is [111].

However when ζ = 1/2 and γ = 1/4, parameters known for the “trapezoidal rule”, and the

above stated assumptions are used implicitly to solve the equilibrium equation, results in a

particulate application of the Newmark method that is unconditionally stable. The stability of

both γ and ζ on Newmark methods is shown on Figure 3.6.

ζ= ½

γ

γ = (1/2 + ζ)2/4

Unconditionally

1 Stable

Unstable

3/2

1/2 Conditionally

Stable

1/4

1/2 1 3/2 2 ζ

Figure 3.6: Stability of Newmark’s parameters γ and ζ

22

The selection of a proper time integration numerical procedure to solve the governing

dynamic equilibrium equations of a system is usually decided by engineering judgement.

Such decision must take into account not only the stability and accuracy of the selected

algorithm, but also its computer processing effort.

An explicit method does not involve the solution of a set of linear equations at each time step.

Basically, these methods use the differential equation at a given time t to predict a solution for time

t+Δt. For most real structures a very small time step is required in order to obtain a stable solution,

since all explicit methods are conditionally stable with respect to the size of the time step.

For example, using Newmark’s Explicit Constant Average Acceleration Method [113],

the next time step’s displacement and velocity would be approximated by:

2

t

d t t dt t vt at (3.13)

4

t

v tt v t at (3.14)

2

With those values, the next time step’s acceleration can now be calculated by solving:

t t 2

M C K at t ft t Cv t t Kd t t (3.15)

2 4

2

t

dt t d t t at t (3.16)

4

t

v tt v t t a (3.17)

2 t t

Then, the next time step’s acceleration is corrected by solving equation (3.15) with the

new values obtained from equations (3.16) and (3.17). This process is repeated until a given

stability value is reached, before proceeding to the next time step.

The explicit methods are corrective methods and as such only approximate the solution

of the problem at each time step, thus requiring a small Δt to prevent instability, which

increases the computational time.

23

Implicit methods attempt to satisfy the differential equation at time t+Δt after the

solution at time t is found. These methods require the solution of a set of linear equations at

each time step; however, larger time steps may be used in comparison with an explicit

method. Implicit methods can be conditionally or unconditionally stable [111].

For example, in the Newmark’s Implicit Constant Average Acceleration Method [113],

the equations (3.11) and (3.12) are rearranged respectively for at t and v t t in terms of d t t :

1 1 1

2 t t

at t d dt v t 1 at (3.18)

t t 2

t

v t t dt t dt 1 v t 2 a t t (3.19)

t 2

Which applied to (3.7) and assuming ζ = 1/2 and γ = 1/4, result in the following

equation to be solved at each time step:

4 2 4 4 2

K 2 M C dt t ft t M 2 d t v t at C dt vt (3.20)

t t t t t

And with the displacements at the next time step, it is possible to calculate the

remaining variables:

4 4

2 t t

at t d dt vt (3.21)

t t

t t

v t t v t a t a t t (3.22)

2 2

Newmark’s Methods were chosen as examples because both assure the dynamic

equilibrium, which isn’t the case with other Explicit Methods such as the Central Differences

Method. With some alterations done to Newmark’s Methods, these allow different “numerical

dampening” and “period elongation”, for faster resolution for some specific problems [111].

A schematic comparison of these two methods is shown Figure 3.7, which shows the

required variables necessary to obtain a given value.

The time integration method embraced for this specific implementation is an implicit Newmark

family integration algorithm [112,114]. This particular method was chosen due to its

unconditional stability nature when used implicitly and its proven robustness in FEM applications.

24

While this method requires more computational power, it enforces the equilibrium between the

internal structure forces and the external applied loads at each time step, which an explicit

integration algorithm would not, allowing the time step to increase and solving the problem faster.

vt at dt dt at vt

t

1 v t t d t t dt+Δt

2 a t+Δt a t+Δt

(a) (b)

Figure 3.7: Newmark’s (a) Explicit and (b) Implicit Time Integration Methods

To solve the implicit problem, the relations (3.18) and (3.19) are substituted into the

equilibrium equation (3.7) which than can then be solved for the displacements d t t as:

ˆ

Kd ˆ LUd t+Δt = fˆt+Δt (3.23)

t+Δt = f t+Δt

ˆ K a MaC

K (3.24)

0 1

1 1 1

a0 ; a1 ; a2 ; a3 1;

t 2 t t 2

(3.26)

t

a4 1; a5 2 ; a6 t 1 ; a7 t

2

matrix in the solution of the implied system of equations [115]. Afterwards the accelerations

and velocities can be calculated by using equations (3.21) and (3.22).

25

For the time integration of a linear system the matrix K̂ is constant unless the time step size

changes. An important computational advantage can be taken out of this predicament in integration

algorithms, because the largest computation cost that occurs at each integration time step is the

solution of the system of linear equations (3.23). More particularly when numerically solving this

system, a relevant part of the processing effort is strongly influenced by the numerical solver used

and its implicit matrix factorization algorithm [112,116]. In this case a LU decomposition is

selected. Taking the advantage on the fact that the effective stiffness matrix K̂ remains constant,

means that the factorization is done only once and the same products are used on the procedure at

every time step, resulting in a methodology that saves computational cost for the dynamic analysis.

Another aspect of the integration algorithm involves the calculation of the effective loads

vector fˆ . As the external loads vector f, expressed in (3.5), is not constant in time the effective

t + Δt

loads vector must be calculated at every integration time step. Moreover the calculation of the

wheel contact forces, as expressed in equation (3.6), depends on a close prediction of the node

displacements, d t t , and velocities, v t t ,that would belong to the solution of the dynamic

equilibrium equations at time t+Δt. In order to be accurately close to this prediction, the

approximation of the displacements and velocities is evaluated iteratively within each time step of

the integration algorithm. On the first iteration the last time step displacements d t and v t are

considered a close enough prediction and used to form the effective loads vector and to evaluate

the dynamic equilibrium equations. The solution obtained is considered as the new displacements

and velocities prediction for the next iteration. This correction procedure is done iteratively until a

good enough convergence is reached where, d d t t and v v

t t d t t , being εd

t t d

and εv user defined tolerances. This iterative process is similar to the one used by Antunes [102],

but applied to the track instead of to the catenary.

One of the key features of the Pre-Processing Tool is its ability to automatically generate a FEM

mesh using the information stored in a database, containing the rails geometry, and its use as a

guide for all the elements underneath, such as the rail pads, the sleepers and the foundation. The

rail geometry database includes all the characteristics of the rails, such as its position, length,

curvature and cant angle, as well as the irregularities. The method of construction of this

database was developed by Pombo [109] and is outside the scope of this thesis.

26

In addition to the definition of the rail position, the Pre-Processor also adds the

remaining elements that compose the track model using the data provided by the user. These

elements are equidistantly positioned at a selected distance in order to represent the flexibility

of the track components, namely the sleepers, pads and foundation. Further detail on the data

required to correctly represent this flexibility is presented in Annex A.

In this work, the construction of finite element models of railway track involves modelling, all

rail and sleeper elements with 3D beam elements based on Euler-Bernoulli beam theory [117]. This

3D beam element, which formulation is developed in [110], is assumed to be a straight beam of

uniform cross section capable of resisting axial forces, bending moments about the two principal

axes of its cross section and twisting moments about its centroid axis. The other element type used

here is the spring-damper element to represent the pad and foundation components, which are better

modelled as a spring-damper in all degrees of freedom due to their intrinsic properties.

The approach proposed here uses symmetric sleepers composed of six collinear

elements in order to account for the common transitions of section and thus a spring-damper

element must be placed below each node in order to accurately represent the sleeper support

system. There is no special requirement on the number of elements needed to model each rail

between sleepers as shown in Table 3.1.

Foundation Spring-Damper Element 7 below each sleeper

Sleeper Euler-Bernoulli Beam 6 each

Pad Spring-Damper Element 1 each

Rail Euler-Bernoulli Beam 1 between pads (minimum)

Table 3.1: Number of elements and their element type used to model each component of the

railway track model

Two examples of generated meshes produced by the Pre-Processing Tool are shown in

Figure 3.8 and Figure 3.9. On the first case a straight track is shown, while the second case a

similar example was produced, but for a realistic curved track.

1

0,8

0,6

Curvature (1/R) [m-1]

0,4

0,2

0

-0,2

-0,4

-0,6

-0,8

-1

0 100 200 300 400 500

Length [m]

(a) (b)

Figure 3.8: Representation of (a) the curvature of a straight track and (b) the finite element

mesh of a straight track using the Pre-Processing Tool

27

0,0025

0,002

Curvature (1/R) [m-1]

0,0015

0,001

0,0005

0

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100

Length [m]

(a) (b)

Figure 3.9: Representation of (a) the curvature of a realistic curved track and (b) the finite

element mesh of a realistic track using the Pre-Processing Tool

The contact in the vehicle-track interaction involves the surface of the wheels and the top

surface of the rails, and other phenomena, the wear of the wheels and of the rails is deeply

influenced by the quality of this contact. This implies that the correct modelling of the contact

mechanics involved is crucial for accurate and efficient railway dynamic studies.

The contact problem can be treated either by a kinematic constraint between the wheel and

the rail or by a penalty formulation of the contact force. In the first procedure, the contact force is

simply the joint reaction force of the kinematic constraint [118,119]. With the second procedure,

the contact force is defined in function of the relative penetration between the wheel and the rail

[120,121]. The use of the kinematic constraint between the rail and the wheel forces these

elements to be in permanent contact, which is only valid if no contact loss exists; while the use of

the penalty formulation allows for the loss of contact and it is the method chosen in this work.

Since the vehicle is modelled by multibody formulation [8-10] and the track is modelled

by finite element formulation [13,14], there is a communication problem between the two

methods. This problem is solved by running the two simulations simultaneously and

performing a communication between them, where both exchange data with each other. This

communication procedure is detailed in Annex B.

In order to model the contact force using a penalty formulation it is necessary to

geometrically assess if there is contact and identify the contact point location on the wheel and on

the rail, in addition to the relative penetration of the contact. For this purpose a three step

procedure is implemented at every time step of the track integration algorithm and for each wheel

present on the dynamic analysis. In the first step a rail finite element is evaluated to be a candidate

for the contact solution. The first element that starts to be evaluated is the one used for the contact

on the last time step. If the element is not eligible for contact the procedure restarts for the next

28

element on the rail. On the second stage, it is assumed that there is contact and by geometric

interference and by using shape functions of the rail finite element, the potential points of contact

on the rail and the wheel are located. At the third step the relative penetration of the contact is

calculated and it is assessed if there is indeed contact or there is a contact loss.

To find the rail element candidate for contact, consider the representation of the

transversal view of a rail element and the contact forces present in it on Figure 3.10.

F1 c

c1 j

F2

c2

d

z

ûij

i λid

y

(a) (b)

Figure 3.10: Representation of (a) the transversal view of a rail element and contact forces

and (b) the location of a contact point relative to the rail finite element

The nodes i and j represent the rail element extremities and each node c represents a

contact point at the actual time. The node c represents the position on the rail element where

the contact force is located. The node d is located where a line, containing the point c and

perpendicular to the rail element, intersects the rail element. Since these are perpendicular:

where rij and rdc define the vectors from nodes i to j and from nodes d to c, respectively. The

rdc rc rd (3.28)

where rc and rd define the positions of nodes c and d respectively. But the position of node d

rd ri id uˆ ij (3.29)

where ri defines the position of node i, id is the norm from node i to d and uˆ ij is a versor of a

generic vector that goes from node i to node j. Then combining the equations (3.27) to (3.29),

it is possible to obtain:

29

this equation can be further simplified, since:

ric rc ri (3.31)

where ric defines the vector from node i to c. Substituting equation (3.31) into equation (3.30)

rij ric

id (3.32)

rij uˆ ij

Now, assuming that there is contact and the rail element is a rigid body, its potential

point d, can be calculated as presented in equation (3.29). Now three possible solutions exists

depending of ij . Which is the norm from node i to j, as represented in Figure 3.11.

d

j

j j

ûij

d

ûij i ûij λid

d

i λid λid i

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 3.11: Representation of the three cases for the different values of id where (a)

0 id ij (b) id 0 and (c) id ij

If 0 id ij , it means that the candidate for the contact is correct and the program can

advance to the second stage. If id 0 , it means that the contact is occurring in a previous rail

element and the program repeats the first step for the previous rail element. If id ij , it

means that the contact is occurring ahead of the candidate rail element and the program

repeats the first step for the next element.

The correct position of node d on the rail element can be calculated as:

rd rd0 N( )di , j (3.33)

where, as presented on Figure 3.12, rd0 corresponds to the rail node d position without the

deformation accounted for; the vector di, j contains the displacements of the node i and j; and

the matrix N( ) contains the element shape functions [122] in order of , which is the local

element relative position of the contact point in its longitudinal direction defined as:

id i0 d0

(3.34)

ij i0 j0

where i0 d0 and i0 j0 correspond to id and ij without the deformation, respectively.

30

j0

dj

d0

dd j

i0

d

di

i

λid potential point of

λ ij contact on the ra il

Figure 3.12: Representation of the potential point of contact on the rail element

In the following three case studies are presented, including a static validation of a simple

flexible track and the dynamic analysis of realistic tracks with moving loads and realistic

vehicle forces. These results demonstrate the differences between using moving vertical loads

and realistic vehicle-track interaction forces.

The typical data required to build a finite element model representing a railway track is

presented in Annex C, using the data provided by the SMARTRACK partners. Using that data

and the curvature graph presented in Figure 3.8 (a), a finite element model of a generic railway

track is obtained, as shown in Figure 3.13. In order to validate the methodology proposed here

to define finite element flexible track models, a static analysis was performed and compared to a

similar case study on a commercial program. A realistic flexible track model was built and

subjected to wheelset loads of a railway vehicle, as depicted in Figure 3.13 (b). The results

obtained were compared against the ones provided by ANSYS 12. The data used to build the

flexible track model is given in Annex C. These forces represent the maximum wheelset load of

22.5 ton that a railway vehicle can have to be allowed to operate in the Portuguese railway

network. In ANSYS, the BEAM4 [123] element was used as an Euler-Bernoulli beam element

and the MATRIX27 [123] element was used as substitution for spring-damper elements, as it

allows to create user defined elements. All other parameters required to build the track model in

ANSYS match the ones used by the computational tool proposed here.

31

P

P

(a) (b)

Figure 3.13: Simple flexible track model: (a) Finite element mesh; (b) External loads applied

A pair of static downward vertical forces P of 112.5 kN are applied, as depicted in

The deformations obtained with the two numerical tools are shown in Figure 3.14 and

Figure 3.15. As the deformations are very small when compared with the other dimensions of

the track, they are multiplied by a factor of 100 in these figures. The results obtained show

that the maximum vertical deformation of the track is 2.9 mm on the nodes where the loads

are applied. On the other hand, the maximum displacement in the lateral direction is 44.910-6

m, also on those nodes. The displacement in the longitudinal direction is negligible.

(b)

(a)

Figure 3.14: Perspective view of the track deformation (deformation scaled 100): (a)

Computational tool; (b) ANSYS

(a) (b)

Figure 3.15: Lateral view of the track deformation (deformation scaled 100): (a)

Computational tool; (b) ANSYS

32

When comparing the results obtained with the methodology proposed here and with

ANSYS, it is observed that the maximum relative error for the track vertical deformation is

less than 0.04%, as shown in Figure 3.16, corresponding to a maximum absolute error of

57.410-9 m. Notice that the 0% error corresponds to the constrained nodes on the foundation.

0,045

0,04

0,035

0,03

Z Relative Error [%]

0,025

0,02

0,015

0,01

0,005

0

9600 9700 9800 9900 10000 10100 10200 10300 10400

Node Number

Figure 3.17 (a) presents the relative errors on the rail nodes that are in the vicinity of those

where vertical wheelset forces were applied. The relative error of the vertical deformation on

the nodes of the sleeper subjected to the external loads is shown in Figure 3.17 (b).

0,0035 0,0021

0,0021

0,0030

0,0021

Z Relative Error [%]

0,0025

0,0021

Lef t Rail

0,0020 Right Rail 0,0021

0,0021

0,0015

0,0021

0,0010 0,0021

-10 -5 0 5 10 9992 9993 9994 9995 9996 9997 9998

Node Distance to Load Location on Rail Node Number

(a) (b)

Figure 3.17: Relative error on the nodes in the vicinity of the applied loads: (a) Nodes on the

rail; (b) Nodes on the sleeper

Similar analyses were performed considering four and eight loads on the rail, representing the

bogies of an Alfa-Pendular vehicle. The results obtained are similar to the ones presented above.

These results demonstrate that the proposed finite element methodology represents the track

flexibility in an appropriate manner and it is quantitatively validated for static loads.

33

3.5.2 Realistic Flexible Track with Moving Loads and Vehicle Forces

As in the case study presented before, the typical data required to build a finite element model

representing a realistic curved railway track is also presented in Annex C. Using that data and

the curvature graph presented in Figure 3.9 (a), a finite element model of a realistic railway

track is automatically generated by the Pre-Processor, as shown in Figure 3.18.

Since there was no opportunity to fully develop the communication procedure between

the finite element and the multibody modules, this case study was analysed using two

different approaches. In Case 1 constant moving loads are considered representative of the

total weight of the vehicle divided by the vehicle wheels, as depicted in Figure 3.19 (a). In

Case 2 realistic wheel-rail contact forces obtained from the vehicle-track interactions forces

on a realistic dynamic simulation are considered, as represented in Figure 3.19 (b). These

loads are 3D, including the normal contact forces and creep forces.

P P P P

v

P P P P v

(a) (b)

Figure 3.19: Comparison of (a) the moving load method and (b) realistic vehicle forces

Both cases are analysed considering that the vehicle is moving at v = 20 m/s (72 km/h)

on the realistic track represented in Figure 3.18. The vertical and transversal loads applied on

the track in both cases are depicted in Figure 3.20.

34

100000 40000

Case 1 Left Rail

90000

Case 1 Right Rail

30000

Vertical Load on Rails [N]

70000 Case 2 Raight Rail

20000

60000

50000 10000

40000

0

30000

Case 1 Left Rail

20000 Case 1 Right Rail

-10000

10000 Case 2 Left Rail

Case 2 Raight Rail

0 -20000

0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000

Track Length [m] Track Length [m]

(a) (b)

Figure 3.20: Comparison of the moving load method (Case 1) and realistic vehicle forces

(Case 2) for the front wheels of the vehicle for (a) the vertical loads and (b) the

transversal loads

The vertical displacement of the rails at four selected locations is shown in Figure 3.21

to Figure 3.24, which are located before the first transition curve, on the first transition curve,

on the curve and on the second transition curve; together with their corresponding comparison

in percentage. Here the maximum vertical deformation is 6.19 mm and is found on the left rail

at the second transition curve.

0 0,6

Left Rail

Right Rail

0,5

Z Cases Comparison [%]

-0,001

Z Displacement [m]

0,4

-0,002

0,3

-0,003

0,2

Case 1 Left Rail

-0,004 Case 1 Right Rail 0,1

Case 2 Left Rail

Case 2 Raight Rail

-0,005 0

0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1

Time [s] Time [s]

(a) (b)

Figure 3.21: Results of the Dynamic Analysis before the first transition curve: (a) vertical

deformation of the rails with moving loads (Case 1) and realistic vehicle forces

(Case 2) and (b) their comparison in percentage

0 2,5

Left Rail

Right Rail

Z Cases Comparison [%]

-0,001 2

Z Displacement [m]

-0,002 1,5

-0,003 1

-0,004 Case 1 Right Rail 0,5

Case 2 Left Rail

Case 2 Raight Rail

-0,005 0

7 7,5 8 8,5 9 7 7,5 8 8,5 9

Time [s] Time [s]

(a) (b)

Figure 3.22: Results of the Dynamic Analysis on the first transition curve: (a) vertical

deformation of the rails with moving loads (Case 1) and realistic vehicle forces

(Case 2) and (b) their comparison in percentage

35

0,001 140

Left Rail

0 120 Right Rail

Z Displacement [m]

-0,001 100

-0,002 80

-0,003 60

Case 1 Right Rail

-0,005 Case 2 Left Rail 20

Case 2 Raight Rail

-0,006 0

26 26,5 27 27,5 28 26 26,5 27 27,5 28

Time [s] Time [s]

(a) (b)

Figure 3.23: Results of the Dynamic Analysis on the curve: (a) vertical deformation of the

rails with moving loads (Case 1) and realistic vehicle forces (Case 2) and (b)

their comparison in percentage

0,002 1200

Left Rail

0,001 Right Rail

1000

0

Z Displacement [m]

-0,001 800

-0,002

600

-0,003

-0,004 400

Case 1 Left Rail

-0,005

Case 1 Right Rail 200

-0,006 Case 2 Left Rail

Case 2 Raight Rail

-0,007 0

45 45,5 46 46,5 47 45 45,5 46 46,5 47

Time [s] Time [s]

(a) (b)

Figure 3.24: Results of the Dynamic Analysis on the second transition curve: (a) vertical

deformation of the rails with moving loads (Case 1) and realistic vehicle forces

(Case 2) and (b) their comparison in percentage

The transversal displacement of the rails for the previous four selected locations is

shown in Figure 3.25 to Figure 3.28. Here the maximum transversal deformation is 0.29 mm

and is found on the left rail at the curve. Comparably, the deformations on the longitudinal

direction are almost negligible, with a maximum inferior to 310-9 m.

0,00007 35

Case 1 Left Rail Left Rail

0,00006 Case 1 Right Rail 30 Right Rail

Y Cases Comparison [%]

0,00005

Y Displacement [m]

0,00004

20

0,00003

15

0,00002

10

0,00001

0 5

-0,00001 0

0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1

Time [s] Time [s]

(a) (b)

Figure 3.25: Results of the Dynamic Analysis before the first transition curve: (a) transversal

deformation of the rails with moving loads (Case 1) and realistic vehicle forces

(Case 2) and (b) their comparison in percentage

36

0,00012 14

Case 1 Left Rail Left Rail

0,0001 Right Rail

Case 1 Right Rail 12

Y Displacement [m] 0,00008 Case 2 Left Rail

0,00006 Case 2 Raight Rail 10

0,00004

0,00002 8

0 6

-0,00002

-0,00004 4

-0,00006

2

-0,00008

-0,0001 0

7 7,5 8 8,5 9 7 7,5 8 8,5 9

Time [s] Time [s]

(a) (b)

Figure 3.26: Results of the Dynamic Analysis on the first transition curve: (a) transversal

deformation of the rails with moving loads (Case 1) and realistic vehicle forces

(Case 2) and (b) their comparison in percentage

0,0003 40

Case 1 Left Rail Left Rail

0,0002 Case 1 Right Rail 35 Right Rail

Case 2 Left Rail

30

Y Displacement [m]

25

0

20

-0,0001

15

-0,0002

10

-0,0003 5

-0,0004 0

26 26,5 27 27,5 28 26 26,5 27 27,5 28

Time [s] Time [s]

(a) (b)

Figure 3.27: Results of the Dynamic Analysis on the curve: (a) vertical deformation of the

rails with moving loads (Case 1) and realistic vehicle forces (Case 2) and (b)

their comparison in percentage

0,0001 100

Case 1 Left Rail Left Rail

0,00008 Case 1 Right Rail 90 Right Rail

Y Cases Comparison [%]

Y Displacement [m]

0,00002 60

0 50

-0,00002 40

-0,00004 30

-0,00006 20

-0,00008 10

-0,0001 0

45 45,5 46 46,5 47 45 45,5 46 46,5 47

Time [s] Time [s]

(a) (b)

Figure 3.28: Results of the Dynamic Analysis on the second transition curve: (a) transversal

deformation of the rails with moving loads (Case 1) and realistic vehicle forces

(Case 2) and (b) their comparison in percentage

Similar results were obtained for the sleeper below the rail, where the maximum vertical

deformation is 5.56 mm also on the left side of the sleeper positioned at the second transition

curve. On the sleeper, the longitudinal deformation is even inferior to the one presented on the

rail, with a peak at 810-9 m, and the transversal deformation that peaks at 0.29 mm at the curve.

Although there are differences between the use of moving loads and realistic vehicle forces,

these are small, allowing the correct study of the track using either of them when the contact forces

are considered independent from the deformation of the rail. A future development of this work

37

consists on the development of a Co-Simulation Procedure, allowing for the correct calculation of

the track deformation and contact forces, since these quantities are dependent on each other.

In the future, with the completion of the Co-Simulation Procedure, the coupling

between the track deformation and the contact forces will be considered for future studies, as

it is fundamental for the understanding of realistic dynamic track deformation and how it

affects the vehicle performance.

38

4 Definition of the Post-Processing Tool

The results obtained from a railway dynamic analysis are kinematic data, such as positions,

velocities and accelerations from all vehicle components and kinetic data, such as the wheel-rail

interaction forces. When the flexibility of the track is considered, it is also possible to obtain the

realistic loading of the track and its deformation. Unfortunately, these results vary greatly, becoming

impossible to compare similar analysis, namely using other vehicles or tracks, and obtain significant

conclusions. In order to become comparable to other analyses, the results need to be filtered and

processed, to become possible to analyse the safety and comfort parameters of the case study.

This chapter describes the post-processing tool that was developed in this work to

perform all filtering and data processing that are required to assess the dynamic performance of

the railway vehicle according to the international regulations EN 14636 [11] and/or UIC 518

[12]. To comply with the requirements defined in these norms a set of values must be

determined. These characterise the behaviour of the vehicle on the different zones of the track,

being derived from measured or simulated data, namely accelerations and forces exerted on the

vehicle, which are filtered and processed. This process is represented in Figure 4.1.

Raw Data

Filtering and

Post-Processing Tool

Data Processing

Characteristic

Values

Criteria Performance

Two different methods can be used to approve vehicles: the Normal Method that uses all

assessment values, with the exception of the sum of the lateral axle box forces; while the

Simplified Method only uses accelerations and has the option to use the sum of the lateral axle

box forces as assessment values. The use of axle box forces and applicability is outside the

scope of this thesis; the interested reader is referred to see EN 14636 [11] and/or UIC 518 [12].

39

The industry specifies a series of limit values on the forces that the vehicle can apply on

the rails, the forces that the vehicle bogies or wheelsets can be subjected to and the

accelerations on the bogies or wheelsets and on the carbody. These limit values are then

divided into three categories: the safety limit values that ensure that the vehicle will not be in

any risk of derailment, the track loading limit values that ensure that the track will not be

damaged by the passage of the vehicle and the comfort limit values that ensure that the vehicle

is comfortable enough to be used for passengers transportation. To certificate the validity of a

given vehicle to travel on a given track, the vehicle must respect all these limit values.

This section contains the information collected from EN 14636 [11] and UIC 518 [12] related

to the necessary data to assess the correct functioning of the vehicle. Since both norms are

similar in this matter, their contents will be condensed in a single section being the differences

between the two identified. Assessment values for running behaviour are either measured

directly or derived from other measured parameters. They are used in assessing the interaction

between vehicle and track and mainly describe the wheel/rail system or are closely related to

it. The following assessment values are generally used for the testing of running characteristics:

a) Forces between wheel and rail:

1) Guiding Force Y, lateral measuring direction, for each axle on bogies or

wheelset on non-bogie vehicles (Figure 4.2)

2) Wheel Force Q, vertical measuring direction, for each axle on bogies or

wheelset on non-bogie vehicles (Figure 4.2)

3) Sum of Guiding Forces ΣY of a wheelset, per axle on bogies or wheelset on

non-bogie vehicles (Figure 4.3)

4) Quotient Y/Q of Guiding Force/Wheel Force, for each axle on bogies or

wheelset on non-bogie vehicles (Figure 4.2)

Figure 4.2: Representation of the Wheel’s Guiding Force (Y) and Wheel Force (Q)

40

ΣY

ΣY

QR

QL QR QL

(a) (b)

Figure 4.3: Representation of the Sum of Guiding Forces (ΣY) and Vertical Wheel Forces (Q),

in (a) straight line and (b) curved track

1) Sum of the lateral Axle Box Forces H, for each axle on instrumented bogies

or wheelset on non-bogie vehicles (Figure 4.4)

c) Accelerations:

1) Accelerations at axles, lateral measuring direction ÿ, on each wheelset for

non-bogie vehicles (Figure 4.5)

2) Accelerations at bogie, lateral measuring direction ÿ+, on bogie frame or on

each wheelset for non-bogie vehicles (Figure 4.5)

3) Accelerations in the vehicle body, lateral ÿ* and vertical ̈ ∗ measuring

directions, above the bogies or the wheelsets on non-bogie vehicles (Figure 4.5)

Axlebox Axlebox

Axle

Wheel Wheel

flange tread

̈ ÿ

41

4.2 Limit Values

This section contains the information collected from EN 14636 [11] and UIC 518 [12] related

to the limit values that a vehicle may possess and still be able to operate in a given track.

The running safely limit values must be used restrictively. These limit values can only be changed

nationally and/or multi-nationally if the track and operating conditions differ from the basis

conditions used by UIC for the definition of limit values. Accelerations or H forces shall not be

considered for safety assessment of vehicles or vehicle parts on which Y and Q are measured.

The safety-critical limit for track shifting is:

2Q 0

ΣYmax,lim k 1 10 [k N ] (4.1)

3

where ΣYmax,lim and 2Q0 (static axle-load) are expressed in kN and the factor k1:

k1 = 1.0 for locomotives, power cars, multiple units, passenger coaches and

track maintenance vehicles

k1 = 0.85 for freight wagons and special transport vehicles

The factor k1 takes into account the minimum Guiding Force values of a wheelset that a

track is still able to withstand without permanent lateral displacements. The limit ΣYmax,lim refers

to ballasted track; with timber sleepers, with a distance between sleepers inferior to 65 cm; and

rails with a weight greater than 46 kg/m; where the track bed has been recently tamped (see DT

66 and RP1 from ORE Committee C138 [124]). To take into account variations in geometrical

dimensions and the state of maintenance, a smaller factor k1 is assumed for freight wagons, but

exceptions are permissible for well-founded cases. For vehicles with short axle spacing the

influence of the adjacent axles increase the limit value ΣY a track can endure. It is allowed to

use extended calculation methods which take this fact into consideration.

The safety-critical limit for the quotient of a leading wheel is:

on curved tracks with radius of R ≥ 250 m. This recommended limit value, applicable for

dynamic on-line tests according to UIC 518 [12], was given by ORE C138 in RP9 [125]. To

42

assess safety against derailment at low speed on twisted track, the conditions quoted in ORE

B55/RP8 [126] have to be met. According to previous investigations, it was verified the limit

(Y/Q)max,lim for constant track curves (without transition curves and ramps) with radii R ≥ 300

m (see ERRI C138 [124]), in some loading conditions. Evidence of suitability for curves R <

300 m has not been provided. Until reliable results are available, it is recommended that the

limit value referred in equation (4.2) is also used for curves 250 m ≤ R < 300 m.

In transition curves it is recognized that higher values than 0.8 may be encountered. The

maximum limit value of 1.2 (for flange angle of 70º) applied for quasistatic testing according

to EN 14363 [11] section 4.1 shall be respected. Actually in transition curves no specific limit

can be specified, however it shall not exceed 1.2 and in the case where 0.8 is exceeded each

case shall be investigated and justified. These values are currently being revisited, on the basis

of test results from various vehicle types. Pending conclusions of these studies, when this

limit is exceeded it is allowed to recalculate the Y/Q estimated maximum value according to

the following process, considered by C138 [124] when setting at 0.8 the limit value:

1) Create an alternative test zone made up of all track sections with 300 m ≤ R ≤ 500 m.

2) For the statistical processing per section (see page 36 of UIC 518 [12]), use

xi(97.5 %) instead of xi(99.85%).

3) For the statistical processing per zone (see page 37 of UIC 518 [12]), use

Student coefficient t(N – 2; 95%) – (see table in page 78 of UIC 518 [12]) to

replace k = 3 (when using one-dimensional method) or Student coefficient t(N –

2; 99%) – (when using two-dimensional method).

4) Both results (before and after recalculation) shall be reported.

A recent UIC study, i.e. page 118 of UIC 518 [12], based on tests with empty freight

wagons equipped with Y25 bogies, showed that values up to 0.83 were evaluated as above on

lines comprising many sections with track quality above QN2. If the recalculation is made for

vehicles with axle load > 15 t there may be a track loading problem due to an unfavourable

angle of the force leading to failure of fastening on sharp curves. In this case operation may not

be accepted on some networks.

UIC 518 considers an additional criteria for category IV vehicles [12], where this limit value is:

η,lim 1 (4.3)

43

The definition of category IV vehicles and of the overturning criterion are outside the scope

of this thesis; the interested reader is referred to see UIC 518 [12].

This limit value is only used in the simplified measuring method when measurement of lateral

axle box forces is carried out. The safety-critical limit is:

2Q 0

H max,lim k 2 10 [kN] (4.4)

3

where Hmax,lim and 2Q0 (static axle load) are expressed in kN and the factor k2:

k2 = 0.90 for locomotives, power cars, multiple units and passenger coaches,

track-maintenance vehicles (and special vehicles in EN 14363 [11])

k2 = 0.75 for empty freight wagons (and special vehicles in UIC 518 [12])

k2 = 0.80 for loaded freight wagons (and special vehicles in UIC 518 [12])

The factor k2 takes into account the dynamic behaviour of the wheelset in the lateral

direction. To take account of greater variations in geometrical dimensions and of the state of

maintenance, smaller factor k2 is assumed for freight wagons. Exceptions are permissible in

well-founded individual cases.

The application of this assessment value is only used in the simplified measuring method

when measurement of lateral axle box forces is not carried out. Depending on the mass m+ of

the complete bogie (including wheelsets) the following limit values ÿ+max,lim are to be applied:

m+

ÿ +max,lim 12 – [m / s 2 ] (4.5)

5

EN 14363 [11] allows for partial on-track tests with the simplified measuring method a

reduced limit value of ÿ+max,lim,simp shall be calculated at a third of the remaining margin

between the highest estimated maximum value of this assessment value and its limit value:

ÿ + max,lim max Y PA max,normal

ÿ +

max,lim,simp

max Y PA max,normal 3

[m / s 2 ] (4.6)

during the initial complete on-track test.

44

4.2.1.6 Maximum Accelerations in the Vehicle Body ÿ*Smax and ̈ *Smax

The limit value ÿ*Smax,lim is only used in the simplified measuring method when measuring of

lateral axle box forces is not carried out. The Table 4.1 shows the necessary limit values. This

table assumes that the static axle force 2Q0 is in kN and that ̈ *Smax,lim for empty freight

wagons is known to be a problem in test zone 1 and 2, it is currently being reviewed by UIC

so deviations from this limit value may be allowed.

EN 14363 [11] allows for partial on-track tests with the simplified measuring method a

reduced limit value of ÿ*Smax shall be calculated at a third of the remaining margin between the

highest estimated maximum value of this assessment value and its limit value:

ÿ* S,max,lim max Y PA max,normal

ÿ *

S,max,lim,simp

max Y PA max,normal 3

[m / s 2 ] (4.7)

during the initial complete on-track test.

Vehicle, test conditions

ÿ*Smax,lim ̈ *Smax,lim

Single Suspension level or deflated air 5

spring condition

Locomotives Double Suspension level 3

Power Cars

Multiple Units Test Zone 1 and 2 3

Passenger Coaches

Test Zone 3 2.8

Test Zone 4 2.6

Freight Wagons (loaded) and Special Vehicles 5

Freight Wagons (empty) 5

Freight Wagons, Special Vehicles with Bogies 3

2Q0 < 60 kN 4

Freight Wagons

Special Vehicles without 60 kN ≤ 2Q0 ≤ 200 kN 4.43 – 2Q0/140

Bogies

2Q0 > 200 kN 3

Table 4.1: Limit values for Maximum Accelerations in the Vehicle Body

Depending on the applied measuring method and the vehicle type the following limit values

shall be used:

a) Normal measuring method: Sum of Guiding Forces,

45

ΣYrms,lim ΣYmax,lim / 2 (4.8)

b) Simplified measuring method and measurement of lateral axle box forces: Sum

of lateral Axle Box Forces,

non-bogie vehicles: Accelerations on Axle,

ÿrms,lim 5 [m / s 2 ] (4.10)

bogie vehicles: Accelerations at bogie frame,

These values only apply for the Normal Measuring Method and are applicable to vehicles up

to maximum static wheel force of 112.5 kN. For operation of heavier vehicles on selected

tracks the limit values may be increased.

EN 14363 [11] uses a constant limit value that is:

for curved test zones with large, small and very small radius, excluding transition sections.

This limit value is known to be a problem for vehicles in curved test zones with very small

radius. It is currently being reviewed by UIC. Deviations from this value may be allowed. On

the other hand UIC 518 uses the following limit value is:

10500

Yqst ,lim 30 [kN] (4.13)

Rm

being Rm the mean radius of the track sections retained for the evaluation. When this limit

value is exceeded due to severe friction conditions, it is allowed to recalculate the estimated

value of Yqst on the zone after replacing the individual (Yqst)i values on the track sections “i”

where (Y/Q)ir (mean value of Y/Q ratio on the inner rail over the section) exceeds 0.40 by:

(Yqst)i – 50[(Y/Q)ir – 0.4]. Both results (before and after the recalculation) shall be reported.

46

4.2.2.2 Quasi-static Wheel Force Qqst

This limit value is:

for curved test zones with large, small and very small radius, excluding transition sections.

UIC 518 [12] makes an exception for freight trains with Q0 > 112.5 kN and Vadm ≤ 100 km/h

where it is:

This limit value is:

where Qmax,lim and Q0 are expressed in kN, Q0 being the static loading on each wheel and are

limited to the values present on Table 4.2 depending on the permissible maximum speed of

the vehicle Vadm.

Vadm ≤ 160 km/h: Qmax,lim ≤ 200 kN

160 km/h < Vadm ≤ 200 km/h: Qmax,lim ≤ 190 kN

200 km/h < Vadm ≤ 250 km/h: Qmax,lim ≤ 180 kN

250 km/h < Vadm ≤ 300 km/h: Qmax,lim ≤ 170 kN

Vadm > 300 km/h: Qmax,lim ≤ 160 kN

*For freight trains with Q0 > 112.5 kN only according to UIC 518 [12]

Where Vadm is the vehicle’s operating speed limit. The limiting value to be selected is

the smaller of the values obtained by applying the law of variation and the limitation due to

speed. The track loading limit values take into account rails with a weight ≥ 46 kg/m and the

minimum values of rail strength of 700 N/mm2.

UIC 518 [12] considers an additional criteria on curved test zones with large, small and very

small radius, excluding transition sections. The limit value is:

B

qst lim 185 [kN] (4.17)

where:

47

10500

Bqst Yqst 0.83Qqst a – 30 (4.18)

Rm

with a = 53.3 for small radius curves or a = 67.5 for very small curves.

In case of severe friction conditions it is allowed to use the recalculated estimated value

of Yqst on the test zone using (Yqst)i - 50[(Y/Q)ir – 0.4] for each test section “i” where (Y/Q)ir >

0.4. This limit value is based on the fatigue strength of the rail type 49 E1 (S 49) [127]. In

cases where (Bqst)lim is exceeded, a reduction of operating speed in curves may be considered.

For the assessment of the vehicle’s ride characteristics the following accelerations are used:

a) Quasistatic Accelerations in the Vehicle Body ÿ*qst

b) Maximum Accelerations in the Vehicle Body ÿ*max, ̈ *max

c) Root mean square of Accelerations in the Vehicle Body ÿ*rms, ̈ *rms

Assessment, Vehicle, Test Conditions Limit Values for Accelerations in Vehicle Body (m/s²)

Ride Characteristics ÿ*qst,lim ÿ*max,lim z̈ *max,lim ÿ*rms,lim z̈ *rms,lim

Locomotives, Power Cars 1.5 2.5 2.5 0.5 1.0

Multiple Units, Passenger Coaches 1.5 2.5 2.5 0.5 0.75

Freight Wagon, Special Vehicles with Bogies 1.3 3.0 5.0 1.3 2.0

Freight Wagon, Special Vehicles without Bogies 1.3 4.0 5.0 1.5 2.0

Table 4.3: Limit values for Ride Characteristics

Table 4.3 shows the values for good ride characteristics. If higher values occur, the influence

on passengers or loading safety and the strength of the vehicle and its mounted parts shall be

regarded. Number and duration of the incidents as well as the service concept shall be considered.

ÿ*qst,lim only is applicable in curved test zones. For degraded suspension conditions (see section

5.4.3.4 of EN 14363 [11]) running safely will be respected according to the limits in 4.2.

This section contains the information collected from EN 14636 [11] and UIC 518 [12] related

to the procedures required to analyse the data collected from experimental tests.

48

4.3.1 Recording the Measuring Signals

In principle, the measuring signals of all measured parameters and influencing parameters

intended for subsequent evaluation shall be recorded using machine-readable data carriers.

For the recording of the measuring signals, a low-pass filter shall be used. The cut-off value

of the frequency depends on the type of recording and of the type of parameter:

a) ≥ 40 Hz for data carriers

b) Graphical representation:

– Lateral parameters: ≥ 10 Hz

– Vertical parameters: ≥ 20 Hz

The filtering for recording and evaluation, method of classification and numerical values of

the accumulative curve are effective during the processing of measuring signals and affect the

characteristics values of frequency distribution and consequently all the dependent results.

Therefore, conditions once defined shall not be altered without good reason in order to

prevent systematic deviations and for comparability reasons.

The method of classification is taken to mean a specific method for the acquisition of

random vibrations. Applied methods of classification include the following:

1) Sampling Method: At specified intervals, the instantaneous value of the variable is

determined and counted according to classes.

2) Sliding Mean Method: First, the arithmetic mean is determined from a specific number

of instantaneous values over the window length. This mean shall be classified. A new

mean, displaced by the sampling step, shall be created and also classified.

3) Sliding RMS Method: The rms-value is calculated from a specific number of

instantaneous values (window length), a new rms-value shall be calculated displaced

by the sampling step length.

Table 4.4 and Table 4.5 give the conditions that apply to the processing of measuring

signals according to EN 14363 [11] and UIC 518 [12], respectively. The test zones are: 1)

strait track and curved tracks with very large radius, 2) curved track with a large radius, 3)

curved track with a small radius and 4) curved track with a very small radius.

49

Assessment Filtering for Method of Characteristic Grouping and Conversion

Symbol k

Value Evaluation Classification Values Test Zone 1 Test Zone 2, 3, 4

Running Safely

Sum of

Guiding

ΣYmax 3

Forces Per wheelset

Per wheelset group:

Wheelset 1, 2 Sliding Mean group:

xj(h2) for left hand curves

Sum of Method: xj(h2) and

xj(h1)*(-1) for right hand curves

Lateral Axle Low-pass Window length: xj(h1)*(-1)

Hmax 3

Box Forces filter: 20 Hz 2.0 m

Wheelset 1, 2 Step length: 0.5

m For leading wheelset group:

Quotient

x11(h2) for left hand curves

Leading (Y/Q)max 3

h1 = 0.15% x12(h1)*(-1) for right hand

Wheelset

h2 = 99.85% curves

Acceleration

Low-pass

at Bogie ÿ+max 3

filter: 10 Hz

Wheelset 1, 2

Per end

Random

Low-pass group:

Acceleration ÿ*smax Sampling 3

filter: 6 Hz xj(h2) and

in Vehicle Method

xj(h1)*(-1)

Body

Band-pass

End I, II Per end group:

̈ *smax filter: 0.4-4 3

xj(h2) and xj(h1)*(-1)

Hz

ΣYrms Sliding RMS -

Hrms Method: -

Band-pass

Instability ÿ+rms – Window -

filter: Max-Values Per wheelset Per wheelset

Criterion length: 100 m

f0 ± 2 Hz

ÿrms – Step length: 10 -

m

Track Loading

Per wheelset group:

Guiding

xj1(h0) for left hand curves

Force Yqst 0

xj2(h0)*(-1) for right hand

Wheelset 1, 2

h0 = 50.0% curves

Random

Low-pass Per bogie group:

Sampling

Qqst filter: 20 Hz xj1(h0) for left hand curves 0

Wheel Force Method

xj2(h0) for right hand curves

Wheels 11,

Per bogie group:

12, 21, 22

Qmax h2 = 99.85% xjk(h2) xj1(h2) for left hand curves 2.2

xj2(h2) for right hand curves

Ride Characteristics

Per end group:

Low-pass

ÿ*qst h0 = 50.0% xj1(h0) for left hand curves 2.2

Acceleration filter: 20 Hz

Random xj2(h0) for right hand curves

in Vehicle

ÿ*max Sampling h1 = 0.15%

Body Band-pass Per end group: xj(h2) and xj (h1)*(-1) 2.2

̈ *max Method h2 = 99.85%

End I, II filter:

ÿ*rms

0.4-10 Hz rms-values 2.2

̈ *rms

Influencing Parameters

Speed V Random 0

Low-pass

Cant Sampling h0 = 50.0% 0

cd filter: 4 Hz

Defiency Method

Table 4.4: Conditions for the processing of the measuring signals from EN 14363 [11]

50

Filtering Grouping and Conversion

Assessment Method of Characteristic

Symbol for k

Value Classification Values Test Zone 1 Test Zone 2, 3, 4

Evaluation

Running Safely

Sum of

Guiding

Forces

(ΣY)2m 3

All Per wheelset

Sliding Mean Per wheelset group:

instrumented group:

Method xj(h2) for right hand curves

wheelsets xj(h2) and

Low-pass Window length: |xj(h1)| for left hand curves

Sum of |xj (h1)|

filter: 20 Hz 2.0 m

Lateral Axle

(H)2m Step length: 0.5 3

Box Forces

m

Wheelset 1, 2

Quotient For leading wheelset group:

Leading (Y/Q)2m x11(h2) for right hand curves 3

Wheelset |x12(h1)| for left hand curves

h1 = 0.15% Per bogie

Per bogie group:

Overturning Low-pass h2 = 99.85% group:

η xj (h2) for right hand curves 3

Criterion filter: 1.5 Hz xj(h2) and

|xj(h1)| for left hand curves

|xj (h1)|

Acceleration Per wheelset

Per wheelset group:

at Bogie Low-pass group:

ÿ +s xj(h2) for right hand curves 3

Outer filter: 10 Hz Random xj(h2) and

|xj(h1)| for left hand curves

wheelsets Sampling |xj (h1)|

Method Per end

Per end group:

Low-pass group:

Acceleration ÿ* s xj(h2) for right hand curves 3

filter: 6 Hz xj(h2) and

in Vehicle |xj(h1)| for left hand curves

|xj (h1)|

Body

Band-pass

End I, II Per end group:

̈ *s filter: 0.4-4 3

xj(h2) and |xj (h1)|

Hz

Instability ΣY -

Criterion H Band-pass Sliding RMS Method: -

All ÿ +s filter: – Window length: 100 m -

instrumented ÿ* s f0 ± 2 Hz – Step length: 10 m -

wheelsets ÿs -

Track Loading

Guiding

Force Per wheelset group:

All wheels on Yqst xj1(h0) for right hand curves 0

instrumented |xj2(h0)| for left hand curves

h0 = 50.0%

wheelsets Random

Low-pass

Sampling Per bogie group:

filter: 20 Hz

Wheel Force Qqst Method xj1(h0) for right hand curves 0

All wheels on xj2(h0) for left hand curves

instrumented Per bogie group:

wheelsets Q h2 = 99.85% xjk(h2) xj1(h2) for right hand curves 2.2

xj2(h2) for left hand curves

Ride Characteristics

Per end group:

Low-pass

ÿ*qst h0 = 50.0% xj1(h0) for right hand curves 0

Acceleration filter: 20 Hz

Random xj2(h0) for left hand curves

in Vehicle ÿ* q Sampling h1 = 0.15%

Body Band-pass Per end group: xj(h2) and |xj (h1)| 2.2

̈ *q Method h2 = 99.85%

End I, II filter:

sÿ*q

0.4-10 Hz rms-values Per end group: rms-values 2.2

s ̈ *q

Table 4.5: Conditions for the processing of the measuring signals from UIC 518 [12]

The sampling frequency of the Random Sampling Method should be at least 200 Hz.

The f0 is the instability frequency, defined as the dominant frequency in the case of unstable

behaviour and must be determined before evaluation of test results. Filter with cut-off

frequency at -3 dB, gradient ≥ 24 dB/octave, tolerance ± 0.5 dB up to the cut-off frequency, ±

1 dB beyond that value.

51

4.3.2.1 Filtering Raw Data

An ideal filter completely eliminates all frequencies outside of the passable frequency band

while passing those inside unchanged. The transition region present in practical filters does

not exist in an ideal filter. However, the ideal filter is impossible to realize without a signal of

infinite extent in time, and so generally needs to be approximated for real ongoing signals.

There are many different types of filter circuits, with different responses to changing

frequency. The frequency response of a filter is generally represented using a Bode plot, and

the filter is characterised by its cut-off frequency and rate of frequency roll-off. In all cases, at

the cut-off frequency, the filter attenuates the input power by half or 3 dB. In the case of the

Butterworth filter, at the cut-off frequency the filter always attenuates the input power by 3

dB, regardless of its order, unlike other filters.

The order of the filter then determines the amount of additional attenuation for

frequencies outside the passable frequency window. In general, the final rate of power roll-off

for an order-n all-pole filter is 6n dB/octave (i.e., 20n dB/decade). Here the poles define the

order of the filter. In Figure 4.6, a series of low-pass Butterworth filters with various orders

and their influence in the attenuation of the signal is presented. As shown, the signal suffers

almost no attenuation before the cut-off frequency and is much reduced after it, with the

greater the number of poles influencing that attenuation.

40

0

Attenuation [dB]

-40

-80

Order-1

-120 Order-2

Order-3

-160 Order-4

Order-5

-200

0,01 0,1 1 10 100

Frequency [Hz]

Figure 4.6: Bode Plot of low-pass Butterworth filters with a cut-off frequency of 1 Hz and

variable order (from 1 to 5)

To use the Sliding Mean Method there are two required parameters, the Window Length and the

Step Length. With them, a series of windows are calculated, each with the length given by the

Window Length and displaced by the Step Length in relation to each other, so that the mean

52

value for those windows is possible to calculate. This results in the cut of the initial and end

data. Figure 4.7 presents some of the windows that will have their content averaged to a single

point, as an example of the process needed to determine the data set that to be averaged.

6

4

2

0

Data Value (y)

-2

-4

-6

-8

-10

-12

-14

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Displacement [m]

Figure 4.7: Filtered data and some of the windows used in the calculation of the Sliding Mean

(window length: 4 m and step length: 1 m) vs. displacement graph

Figure 4.8 shows an example of a Sliding Mean with a window length of 4 m and a step

length of 1 m when applied to a set of data. As shown, the resulting signal has fewer peaks

and is much smoother.

0

Data Value (y)

-2

-4

-6

-8

Sliding Mean Data

-12

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Displacement [m]

Figure 4.8: Filtered data and its Sliding Mean (window length: 4 m and step length: 1 m) vs.

displacement graph

To use the Sliding Root Mean Square Method there are also two required parameters, the

Window Length and the Step Length. With them, a series of windows are calculated, each

with the length given by the Window Length and displaced by the Step Length in relation to

each other, so that the square root of the mean value of the squares of the data for those

53

windows is possible to calculate. This is also results in the cut of the initial and end data like

the Sliding Mean Method, but ignores the sign of the signal, seeing it as its absolute value.

Figure 4.9 presents some of the windows here the RMS method will be applied and

converted to a single point, as an example of the process needed to determine the data set

where the RMS method will be applied.

6

4

2

0

Data Value (y)

-2

-4

-6

-8

-10

-12

-14

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Displacement [m]

Figure 4.9: Filtered data and some of the windows used in the calculation of the Sliding RMS

(window length: 4 m and step length: 1 m) vs. displacement graph

Figure 4.10 shows an example of a Sliding RMS with a window length of 4 m and a

step length of 1 m when applied to a set of data. The resulting signal has much less peaks and

is much smoother, using the absolute value of the raw data.

15

10

Data Value (y)

-5

Sliding RMS Data

-15

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Displacement [m]

Figure 4.10: Filtered data and its Sliding RMS (window length: 4 m and step length: 1 m) vs.

displacement graph

From the measuring signals, which were processed in accordance with the tables present in

4.3.2 the cumulative curve shall be determined by the sum of the absolute values y ordered from

smallest to greatest, for any parameter being processed. So the absolute values from the filtered

54

data, shown in Figure 4.11, are ordered from smallest to greatest, as represented by Figure 4.12.

Now the accumulative values are determined and then divided by the maximum accumulated

value as to obtain the percentile accumulative curve, as represented in Figure 4.13.

0

Data Value (y)

-2

-4

-6

-8

-10

-12

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Displacement [m]

12,00

10,00

Data Value (y)

8,00

6,00

4,00

2,00

0,00

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Position x(h)

100

90

80

Frequency (h) [%]

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Position x(h)

55

From the cumulative curve (Figure 4.13), the frequency values x(hj) can be obtained, so that

it is possible to determine the value of y correspondent to the desired value of hj from Figure 4.12:

– x(h1), frequency of cumulative curve h1 = 0.15%

– x(h0), frequency of cumulative curve h0 = 50.00%

– x(h2), frequency of cumulative curve h2 = 99.85%

The values y, gathered for each section of a zone as described in 4.3.2.4, are then used to

determine the value for the zone. To do that, it is calculated the arithmetic mean and the

standard deviation s for the quantities grouped as seen in the tables present in 4.3.2. These

statistical values serve to determine the estimated maximum value, using the equation ymax =

+ k ∙ s, where k is a factor that depends, among other things, on the level of confidence

selected (and is present in the tables in 4.3.2).

56

5 Post-Processor Application

The post-processor tool is applied here to two case studies using the Simplified Method and

only considers the accelerations measurements. Both cases were taken from the experimental

data gathered on the Vouga track, in Portugal, and studied under the Vouga Project. While the

first case is fully described, the second case only present the raw data, its derived characteristic

values and the conclusions; following the same procedures as the ones presented for the first

case. Table 5.1 shows the required data for a Simplified Method analysis.

Symbol k

Value Evaluation Classification Values Test Zone 1 Test Zone 2, 3, 4

Running Safely

Acceleration Per wheelset

Per wheelset group:

at Bogie Low-pass group:

ÿ +s xj(h2) for right hand curves 3

Outer filter: 10 Hz xj(h2) and

|xj(h1)| for left hand curves

wheelsets |xj(h1)|

Random Per end

h1 = 0.15% Per end group:

* Low-pass Sampling group:

Acceleration ÿ s h2 = 99.85% xj(h2) for right hand curves 3

filter: 6 Hz Method xj(h2) and

in Vehicle |xj(h1)| for left hand curves

|xj(h1)|

Body

Band-pass

End I, II Per end group:

̈ *s filter: 0.4-4 3

xj(h2) and |xj(h1)|

Hz

Instability

Criterion Band-pass Sliding RMS Method:

All ÿ +s filter: – Window length: 100 m -

instrumented f0 ± 2 Hz – Step length: 10 m

wheelsets

Ride Characteristics

Per end group:

Low-pass

ÿ*qst h0 = 50.0% xj1(h0) for right hand curves 0

Acceleration filter: 20 Hz

Random xj2(h0) for left hand curves

in Vehicle ÿ* q Sampling h1 = 0.15%

Body Band-pass Per end group: xj(h2) and |xj(h1)| 2.2

̈ *q Method h2 = 99.85%

End I, II filter:

sÿ*q

0.4-10 Hz rms-values Per end group: rms-values 2.2

s ̈ *q

Table 5.1: Conditions for the processing of the measuring signals for the Simplified Method

from UIC 518 [12]

As it will be shown, this case study fails to respect all limit values, namely fails two safety

limit values and, therefore, this vehicle would not be allowed to operate on the analysed track

at the considered speed.

Based on the information provided by Table 5.1, the raw data required would be ÿ+, ÿ* and ̈ *,

as presented in Figure 5.1, Figure 5.2 and Figure 5.3. This data was measured directly from

the vehicle and is unprocessed.

57

25

20

15

10

Accelaration [g]

5

0

-5

-10

-15

-20

0 5 10 15 20

Time [s]

+

Figure 5.1: Raw ÿ vs. time graph

1,5

0,5

Accelaration [g]

-0,5

-1

-1,5

-2

0 5 10 15 20

Time [s]

4

3

2

Accelaration [g]

1

0

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5

0 5 10 15 20

Time [s]

A filter that fulfils all the criteria defined by EN 14636 [11] and UIC 518 [12] is a 4th-order

Butterworth filter. It will be the one used in this case study. Several filtering procedures need to be

applied to the data presented in Figure 5.1, Figure 5.2 and Figure 5.3. This will be explained in the

following, step by step.

58

5.1.2.1 Safety Parameters

Acceleration at Bogie ÿ+S: The lateral acceleration at the bogies ÿ+S is filtered with a low-

pass filter at 10 Hz (see 4.3.2 after Table 4.5 for the remaining filter characteristics). The

results are shown in Figure 5.4.

2,5

2

1,5

1

Accelaration [g]

0,5

0

-0,5

-1

-1,5

-2

-2,5

-3

0 5 10 15 20

Time [s]

Figure 5.4: Filtered ÿ+S vs. time graph

Acceleration in Vehicle Body ÿ*S and ̈ *S: The lateral acceleration in the vehicle body ÿ*S is

filtered with a low-pass filter at 6 Hz and the vertical acceleration in the vehicle body ̈ *S is

filtered with a band-pass filter at 0.4-4 Hz (see 4.3.2 after Table 4.5 for the remaining filter

characteristics). The results are shown in Figure 5.5 and Figure 5.6, respectively.

-0,02

-0,04

Accelaration [g]

-0,06

-0,08

-0,1

-0,12

-0,14

-0,16

0 5 10 15 20

Time [s]

Figure 5.5: Filtered ÿ*S vs. time graph

Instability Criterion ÿ+S: The Instability Criterion defined by ÿ+S is filtered with a band-pass

filter at f0 ± 2 Hz (see 4.3.2 after Table 4.5 for the remaining filter characteristics). In this

instance the instability frequency f0 was determined to be at 89.57 Hz. The results are shown

in Figure 5.7.

59

0,3

0,2

Accelaration [g]

0,1

-0,1

-0,2

-0,3

0 5 10 15 20

Time [s]

Figure 5.6: Filtered ̈ *S vs. time graph

2

Accelaration [g]

-1

-2

-3

-4

0 5 10 15 20

Time [s]

Figure 5.7: Instability Criterion ÿ+S vs. time graph

Acceleration in Vehicle Body ÿ*qst: The lateral acceleration in the vehicle body ÿ*qst is filtered

with a low-pass filter at 20 Hz (see 4.3.2 after Table 4.5 for the remaining filter characteristics).

The results are shown in Figure 5.8.

1

Accelaration [g]

-1

-2

-3

-4

0 5 10 15 20

Time [s]

Figure 5.8: Filtered ÿ*qst vs. time graph

60

Acceleration in Vehicle Body ÿ*q, ̈ *q, sÿ*q and s ̈ *q: The lateral and vertical accelerations in

the vehicle body ÿ*q, ̈ *q, sÿ*q, s ̈ *q are filtered with a band-pass filter at 0.4-4 Hz (see 4.3.2

after Table 4.5 for the remaining filter characteristics). The results are shown in Figure 5.9

and Figure 5.10, respectively.

0,15

0,1

Accelaration [g]

0,05

-0,05

-0,1

0 5 10 15 20

Time [s]

Figure 5.9: Filtered ÿ*q vs. time graph

0,4

0,3

0,2

Accelaration [g]

0,1

0

-0,1

-0,2

-0,3

-0,4

-0,5

0 5 10 15 20

Time [s]

The direct use of the accelerations at the bogie and vehicle body is possible if they include

more than 200 measurements per second. As such, no action is required in this step for this

Simplified Method.

Each section of a given zone is characterised by values that define it. In this case study, it is

considered that each zone has 50 sections equally spaced, in order to accommodate the

61

smallest track sections. A step by step example will be given for the first section of the first

assessment value, with the remaining sections following similar methodologies.

Acceleration at Bogie ÿ+S: The lateral acceleration at the bogies ÿ+S is characterised by the

values at h1 = 0.15% and at h2 = 99.85% using the accumulative curve. The filtered data

presented in Figure 5.4 is divided in 50 equal sections and reordered using the method

presented in 4.3.2.4 and then used to build the cumulative curve. The reordered absolute data

from the first section is shown in Figure 5.11, while the cumulative curve for the first section

is shown in Figure 5.12.

0,40

0,35

0,30

Acceleration (y) [g]

0,25

0,20

0,15

0,10

0,05

0,00

0 50 100 150 200

Position x(h)

Figure 5.11: Reordered absolute ÿ+S data vs. position graph for the first section

100

90

80

Frequency (h) [%]

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

0 50 100 150 200

Position x(h)

Figure 5.12: Cumulative curve of ÿ+S vs. position graph for the first section

From the cumulative curve it is possible to acquire the position for a given h value and from

that its corresponding acceleration. Resulting in the first section having an y(h1) = 0.006985 g and

an y(h2) = 0.373682 g. The Figure 5.13 shows the y(hi) values for each section along the zone.

62

2,5

y(h1) y(h2)

1,5

0,5

0

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49

Section

Figure 5.13: Characteristic values of ÿ+S for each section of a zone

Acceleration in Vehicle Body ÿ*S and ̈ *S: The lateral acceleration in the vehicle body ÿ*S is

characterised by values h1 = 0.15% and h2 = 99.85% using the accumulative curve. The

filtered data presented in Figure 5.5 is divided in 50 equal sections and reordered using the

method presented in 4.3.2.4 and then used to build the cumulative curve. Following a similar

procedure, Figure 5.14 shows the y(hi) values for each section along the zone. The same

method is applied to the vertical acceleration in the vehicle body ̈ *S, as shown in Figure 5.15.

0,18

y(h1) y(h2)

0,16

0,14

Acceleration (y) [g]

0,12

0,1

0,08

0,06

0,04

0,02

0

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49

Section

Figure 5.14: Characteristic values of ÿ*S for each section of a zone

0,3

y(h1) y(h2)

0,25

Acceleration (y) [g]

0,2

0,15

0,1

0,05

0

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49

Section

Figure 5.15: Characteristic values of ̈ *S for each section of a zone

63

Instability Criterion ÿ+S: The Instability Criterion defined by ÿ+S uses the RMS Method (with

the characteristics presented in Table 5.1). The resulting graph is represented by Figure 5.16.

0,7

0,6

0,5

Accelaration [g]

0,4

0,3

0,2

0,1

0

0 5 10 15 20

Time [s]

Acceleration in Vehicle Body ÿ*qst: The lateral acceleration in the vehicle body ÿ*qst is characterised

by the values at h0 = 50% using the accumulative curve. The filtered data presented in Figure 5.8 is

divided in 50 equal sections and reordered using the method presented in 4.3.2.4 and then used to

build the cumulative curve. Figure 5.17 shows the y(h0) values for each section along the zone.

2,5

2

Acceleration (y) [g]

1,5

0,5

0

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49

Section

Acceleration in Vehicle Body ÿ*q, ̈ *q, sÿ*q and s ̈ *q: The lateral acceleration in the vehicle

body ÿ*q is characterised by the values at h1 = 0.15% and at h2 = 99.85% using the

accumulative curve. The filtered data presented in Figure 5.9 is divided in 50 equal sections

and reordered using the method presented in 4.3.2.4 and then used to build the cumulative

curve. Following a similar procedure, Figure 5.18 shows the y(hi) values for each section

64

along the zone. The same method is applied to the vertical acceleration in the vehicle body

̈ *q. The results are represented in Figure 5.19.

The lateral and vertical accelerations in the vehicle body sÿ*q and s ̈ *q use the rms value

for each section. The results are represented in Figure 5.20 and Figure 5.21, respectively.

0,12

y(h1) y(h2)

0,1

Acceleration (y) [g]

0,08

0,06

0,04

0,02

0

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49

Section

0,4

y(h1) y(h2)

0,35

0,3

Acceleration (y) [g]

0,25

0,2

0,15

0,1

0,05

0

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49

Section

0,05

0,045

0,04

Acceleration (y) [g]

0,035

0,03

0,025

0,02

0,015

0,01

0,005

0

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49

Section

Figure 5.20: Characteristic values of the sÿ*q for each section of a zone

65

0,2

0,18

0,16

0,14

0,12

0,1

0,08

0,06

0,04

0,02

0

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49

Section

After the analysis for each track section the characteristic value can be calculated for the

whole zone using the values of the track section.

Acceleration at Bogie ÿ+S: For straight track zones, the lateral acceleration at the bogies ÿ+S is

determined by the method explained in 4.3.2.5, using all the values gathered by all the

sections contained within the zone, i.e., the sum of the average plus three times the standard

deviation of the sections’ characteristic values for ÿ+S. For the analysed zone, ÿ+S = 2.1962 g.

For curved track zones, the lateral acceleration at the bogies ÿ+S is determined by the

same method, but using only some of the values required, as shown in Table 5.1. For the

analysed zone it was obtained ÿ+S = 2.5313 g.

Acceleration in Vehicle Body ÿ*S and ̈ *S: For straight track zones, the lateral acceleration in

the vehicle body ÿ*S is determined by the method explained in 4.3.2.5 using all the values

gathered by all the sections contained within the zone. For the analysed zone, ÿ*S = 0.1664 g.

For curved track zones, the lateral acceleration in the vehicle body ÿ*S is determined by the

same method, but using only some of the values required as shown by Table 5.1 and for the

analysed zone the computed value is ÿ*S = 0.1511 g. For the vertical acceleration in the vehicle

body ̈ *S is determined by the same method, but only applied to the curved test zones and for

the analysed zone it was obtained ̈ *S = 0.1883 g.

66

Instability Criterion ÿ+S: The Instability Criterion defined by ÿ+S is only valid for strait and

large radius curve test zone using the method explained in 4.3.2.5 for the maximum value in

the zone. For the present case, ÿ+S = 0.6475 g.

Acceleration in Vehicle Body ÿ*qst: The lateral acceleration in the vehicle body ÿ*qst is only relevant

for curve test zones and is determined by the method explained in 4.3.2.5 using all the values

gathered by all the sections contained within the zone. For the analysed zone, ÿ*qst = 0.7312 g.

Acceleration in Vehicle Body ÿ*q, ̈ *q, sÿ*q and s ̈ *q: For straight and curved track zones, the

lateral acceleration in the vehicle body ÿ*q is determined by the method explained in 4.3.2.5

using all the values gathered by all the sections contained within the zone. For the analysed

zone, ÿ*q = 0.0849 g. For the vertical acceleration in the vehicle body ̈ *q is determined by the

same method and for the analysed zone ̈ *q = 0.2182 g. For the lateral acceleration in the

vehicle body sÿ*q is determined by the same method and for the analysed zone sÿ*q = 0.0408

g. For the vertical acceleration in the vehicle body s ̈ *q is determined by the same method and

for the analysed zone s ̈ *q = 0.1254 g.

5.1.6 Discussion

After determining the characteristic values for each track zone it is then possible to compare

them to the limit values imposed by EN 14636 [11] and UIC 518 [12] and previously

presented in section 4.2.

Acceleration at Bogie ÿ+S: In the present case the bogie with all its constituent parts and

wheelsets weights 4 tonnes, and the limit value is defined by equation (4.5), so we have that

the limit for the lateral acceleration at the bogie is:

mb 4

(ÿ+S )lim 12 12 11.2 [m / s 2 ] (5.1)

5 5

or about 1.1417 g. This limit value is lower than the maximum encountered for the analysed

zone (2.5313 g) and so the operation is outside of the safety limits.

67

Acceleration in Vehicle Body ÿ*S and ̈ *S: The limit value for the lateral acceleration in the

vehicle body ÿ*S in straight tracks and curved tracks with large radius is 3 m/s2 or 0.3058 g. This

limit is much higher than the maximum encountered of 0.1664 g. The limit value becomes 2.8

m/s2 or 0.2854 g in curved tracks with small radius and 2.6 m/s2 or 0.2650 g in curved tracks

with very small radius, both of which are respected. For the vertical acceleration in the vehicle

body ̈ *S the limit value depends on the type of suspension that the vehicle has, with single

suspension level or deflated air spring condition as 5 m/s2 (0.5097 g) and double suspension

level 3 m/s2 (0.3058 g), both of which are much higher than the maximum found of 0.1883 g.

Instability Criterion ÿ+S: The limit value for the Instability Criterion defined by ÿ+S is half of

the safety limit value of the lateral acceleration at the bogie, defined in equation (5.1). In this

case it becomes 5.6 m/s2 or 0.5708 g. In this instance, the maximum value encountered (0.6475

g) also surpasses this limit and as such the vehicle instability surpasses the safety limits.

Safety Assessment: In the present case the lateral accelerations at the bogie ÿ+S exceed both

the safety limits values for such acceleration and the stability limits. As such the vehicle

cannot circulate at the analysed speed, but it is likely that at a lower speed these concerns

cease to exist and so further research is required. Table 5.2 presents the condensed results

concerning the safety of Case Study 1.

ÿ+S 2.5313 g 1.1417 g Not Approved

ÿ* S 0.1664 g 0.2650 g Approved

̈ *S 0.1883 g 0.3058 g Approved

Instability ÿ+S 0.6475 g 0.5708 g Not Approved

Table 5.2: Case Study 1 safety approval table

The limit values for the ride characteristics are greatly influenced by the type of vehicle it is.

In this case we will consider this vehicle as a Power Car and its correspondent limit values

can be found in Table 4.3.

Acceleration in Vehicle Body ÿ*qst: The limit for the lateral acceleration at the bogies ÿ*qst for

a Power Car is 1.5 m/s2 or 0.1529 g, which is much lower than the maximum encountered of

0.7312 g. As such the vehicle’s comfort is outside of the established comfort limit.

Acceleration in Vehicle Body ÿ*q, ̈ *q, sÿ*q and s ̈ *q: The limit for the lateral acceleration in the

vehicle body ÿ*q on a Power Car is 2.5 m/s2 or 0.2548 g, which is higher than the maximum

68

encountered of 0.0849 g. For the vertical acceleration in the vehicle body ̈ *q the limit on a Power

Car is 2.5 m/s2 or 0.2548 g, which is higher than the maximum encountered of 0.2182 g. For the

lateral acceleration in the vehicle body sÿ*q the limit on a Power Car is 0.5 m/s2 or 0.0510 g, which

is higher than the maximum encountered of 0.0405 g. For the vertical acceleration in the vehicle

body s ̈ *q the limit on a Power Car is 1.0 m/s2 or 0.1019 g, which is lower than the maximum

encountered of 0.1254 g. As such the vehicle’s comfort is outside of the established limit.

Ride Characteristics Assessment: In the present case the both lateral and vertical accelerations

in the vehicle body exceed the quality limits imposed for a comfortable ride. The vehicle can

still circulate at the analysed speed (if it didn’t exceed the safety limits, as shown in 0), but it is

likely that at a lower speed this problem is reduced or completely eliminated. Table 5.3 presents

the condensed results concerning the ride characteristics of Case Study 1.

ÿ*qst 0.7312 g 0.1529 g Not Approved

ÿ* q 0.0849 g 0.2548 g Approved

̈ *q 0.2182 g 0.2548 g Approved

sÿ*q 0.0405 g 0.0510 g Approved

s ̈ *q 0.1254 g 0.1019 g Not Approved

Table 5.3: Case Study 1 ride characteristics approval table

This case study respects all limit values and, therefore, this vehicle would is able to operate on

the analysed track. The measured data is processed exactly the same way as shown for Case

Study 1. Hence, only the raw data and the results are shown.

Based on the information provided by Table 5.1, the raw data required would be ÿ+, ÿ* and ̈ *,

as presented in Figure 5.22, Figure 5.23 and Figure 5.24 for Case Study 2.

After the analysis for each track section, the characteristic value can be calculated for the

whole zone using the values of the track section. As the steps required to go from the Raw

Data presented in 5.2.1 to the Characteristic Values for the Test Zone are the same as for Case

1, they are omitted here.

69

25,00

20,00

15,00

Accelaration [g]

10,00

5,00

0,00

-5,00

-10,00

-15,00

-20,00

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Time [s]

+

Figure 5.22: Raw ÿ vs. time graph

1,00

0,80

0,60

0,40

Accelaration [g]

0,20

0,00

-0,20

-0,40

-0,60

-0,80

-1,00

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Time [s]

*

Figure 5.23: Raw ÿ vs. time graph

6,00

4,00

2,00

Accelaration [g]

0,00

-2,00

-4,00

-6,00

-8,00

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Time [s]

*

Figure 5.24: Raw ̈ vs. time graph

Acceleration at Bogie ÿ+S: For straight track zones, the lateral acceleration at the bogies ÿ+S is

determined by the method explained in 4.3.2.5 using all the values gathered by all the sections

contained within the zone. For the analysed zone, ÿ+S = 0.9728 g. For curved track zones, the

70

lateral acceleration at the bogies ÿ+S is determined by the same method, but using only some

of the values required, as shown by Table 5.1 and for the analysed zone ÿ+S = 1.0437 g.

Acceleration in Vehicle Body ÿ*S and ̈ *S: For straight track zones, the lateral acceleration in

the vehicle body ÿ*S is determined by the method explained in 4.3.2.5 using all the values

gathered by all the sections contained within the zone. For the analysed zone, ÿ*S = 0.1494 g.

For curved track zones, the lateral acceleration in the vehicle body ÿ*S is determined by the

same method, but using only some of the values required as shown by Table 5.1 and for the

analysed zone, ÿ*S = 0.1301 g. For the vertical acceleration in the vehicle body ̈ *S is

determined by the same method, but only applied to the curved test zones. For the analysed

zone, ̈ *S = 0.0751 g.

Instability Criterion ÿ+S: The Instability Criterion defined by ÿ+S is filtered with a band-pass

filter at f0 ± 2 Hz (and other characteristics see 4.3.2). The f0 frequency was determined to be

approximately 0 Hz, which results in an empty signal after filtering, meaning that there is no

instability.

Acceleration in Vehicle Body ÿ*qst: The lateral acceleration in the vehicle body ÿ*qst is only relevant

for curve test zones and is determined by the method explained in 4.3.2.5 using all the values

gathered by all the sections contained within the zone. For the analysed zone, ÿ*qst = 0.0137 g.

Acceleration in Vehicle Body ÿ*q, ̈ *q, sÿ*q and s ̈ *q: For straight and curved track zones, the

lateral acceleration in the vehicle body ÿ*q is determined by the method explained in 4.3.2.5

using all the values gathered by all the sections contained within the zone. For the analysed

zone, ÿ*q = 0.0620 g. For the vertical acceleration in the vehicle body ̈ *q is determined by the

same method and for the analysed zone ̈ *q = 0.1341 g. For the lateral acceleration in the

vehicle body sÿ*q is determined by the same method and for the analysed zone, sÿ*q = 0.0220

g. For the vertical acceleration in the vehicle body s ̈ *q is determined by the same method and

for the analysed zone s ̈ *q = 0.0396 g.

71

5.2.3 Discussion

After determining the characteristic values for each track zone it is then possible to compare

them to the limit values imposed by EN 14636 [11] and UIC 518 [12] and previously

presented in section 4.2.

Acceleration at Bogie ÿ+S: In the present case the bogie with all its constituent parts and

wheelsets weights 4.3 tonnes, and the limit value is defined by equation (4.5), so we have that

the limit for the lateral acceleration at the bogie is:

mb 4

(ÿ+S )lim 12 12 11.2 [m / s 2 ] (5.2)

5 5

or about 1.1417 g. This limit value is higher than the maximum encountered for the analysed

zone (1.0437 g) and so the operation is within the safety limits.

Acceleration in Vehicle Body ÿ*S and ̈ *S: The limit value for the lateral acceleration in the

vehicle body ÿ*S in straight tracks and large radius curve tracks is 3 m/s2 or 0.3058 g. This

limit is much higher than the maximum encountered of 0.1494 g. The limit value becomes 2.8

m/s2 or 0.2854 g in small radius curve tracks and 2.6 m/s2 or 0.2650 g in very small radius

curve tracks, both of which are respected. For the vertical acceleration in the vehicle body ̈ *S

the limit value depends on the type of suspension that the vehicle has, with single suspension

level or deflated air spring condition as 5 m/s2 (0.5097 g) and double suspension level 3 m/s2

(0.3058 g), both of which are much higher than the maximum found of 0.0751 g.

Instability Criterion ÿ+S; The limit value for the Instability Criterion defined by ÿ+S is half of

the safety limit value of the lateral acceleration at the bogie, in this case it becomes 5.6 m/s2 or

0.5708 g. In this instance, since there is no instability, the vehicle is within the safety limits.

Safety Assessment: In the present case all safety limit values are respected and as such the

vehicle can operate on the analysed track at the analysed speed. Further analyses are required

to determine the vehicle maximum operating speed within the analysed track. Table 5.4

presents the condensed results concerning the safety of Case Study 2.

72

Parameter Obtained Characteristic Value Limit Value Conclusion

ÿ+S 1.0437 g 1.1417 g Approved

ÿ* S 0.1494 g 0.2650 g Approved

̈ *S 0.0751 g 0.3058 g Approved

Instability ÿ+S 0g 0.5708 g Approved

Table 5.4: case Study 2 safety approval table

The limit values for the ride characteristics are greatly influenced by the type of vehicle it is.

In this case we will consider this vehicle as a Power Car and its correspondent limit values

can be found in Table 4.3 for the EN 14636 [11] for UIC 518 [12].

Acceleration in Vehicle Body ÿ*qst: The limit for the lateral acceleration at the bogies ÿ*qst for

a Power Car is 1.5 m/s2 or 0.1529 g, which is much higher than the maximum encountered of

0.0137 g.

Acceleration in Vehicle Body ÿ*q, ̈ *q, sÿ*q and s ̈ *q: The limit for the lateral acceleration in

the vehicle body ÿ*q on a Power Car is 2.5 m/s2 or 0.2548 g, which is higher than the maximum

encountered of 0.0620 g. For the vertical acceleration in the vehicle body ̈ *q the limit on a

Power Car is 2.5 m/s2 or 0.2548 g, which is higher than the maximum encountered of 0.1341 g.

For the lateral acceleration in the vehicle body sÿ*q the limit on a Power Car is 0.5 m/s2 or

0.0510 g, which is higher than the maximum encountered of 0.0220 g. For the vertical

acceleration in the vehicle body s ̈ *q the limit on a Power Car is 1.0 m/s2 or 0.1019 g, which is

higher than the maximum encountered of 0.0396 g.

Ride Characteristics Assessment: In the present case all ride characteristics limit values are

respected and as such the vehicle is validated for passenger transport on the analysed track at

the analysed speed. Further analyses are required to determine the vehicle maximum

operating speed within the analysed track. Table 5.5 presents the condensed results

concerning the ride characteristics of Case Study 2.

ÿ*qst 0.0137 g 0.1529 g Approved

ÿ* q 0.0620 g 0.2548 g Approved

̈ *q 0.1341 g 0.2548 g Approved

sÿ*q 0.0220 g 0.0510 g Approved

s ̈ *q 0.0396 g 0.1019 g Approved

Table 5.5: Case Study 2 ride characteristics approval table

73

5.3 Discussion of the Case Studies

Now that the data has been processed, these cases can be analysed and compared to the data

used by the Industry in order to assess the safety and comfort and compared with each other.

In the first case the lateral accelerations at the bogie exceed both the safety limits for such

acceleration and the stability limits and the both lateral and vertical accelerations in the

vehicle body exceed the quality limits imposed for a comfortable ride. As a result, the vehicle

cannot circulate at the analysed speed, but it is likely that at a lower speed these concerns

cease to exist and so further research is required.

In the second case all safety and ride characteristics limit values are respected and,

therefore, the vehicle can operate on the analysed track at the analysed speed. Further

analyses are required to determine the vehicle maximum operating speed on the track

considered here. This case also has overall lower characteristic values than the first analysed

case, but still retains a high lateral acceleration at the bogie. This high value can be caused by

many factors, such as a damaged or unbalanced bogie, bad track conditions, irregularities...

In Table 5.1 is presented a resume of the characteristic values for both case studies and

their comparison with each other and their limit values. Here, red indicates that the limit value

was exceeded, orange indicates that the values exceeds 75% of the limit value, yellow

indicates that the values exceed 50% of the limit value, green indicates that the values exceed

25% of the limit value and white indicate that the values are inferior to 25% of the limit value.

Assessment Values Symbol Case 1 [g] Case 2 [g] Limit Values [g]

Running Safely

Accelerations at Bogie ÿ+S 2.5313 1.0437 1.1417

ÿ* S 0.1664 0.1494 0.2650

Accelerations in Vehicle Body

̈ *S 0.1883 0.0751 0.3058

+

Instability Criteria ÿ S 0.6475 0 0.5708

Ride Characteristics Values

ÿ*qst 0.7312 0.0137 0.1529

ÿ* q 0.0849 0.0620 0.2548

Accelerations in Vehicle Body ̈ *q 0.2182 0.1341 0.2548

sÿ*q 0.0405 0.0220 0.0510

s ̈ *q 0.1254 0.0396 0.1019

Table 5.6: Characteristic Values for the analysed case studies

74

6 Conclusions and Future Development

The correct evaluation of the loads imposed to the railway infrastructure by trainsets and,

conversely, the damages on vehicles provoked by the track conditions has been attracting the

attention of railway industry in recent years. The raising interest on this subject has occurred

mainly due to the development of new high-speed railway lines and to the common drive to

upgrade the capacity of existing infrastructures. The increasing demands on railway transportation

require improvements of the network capacity, which can be achieved either by increasing the

speed of the traffic or by increasing the axle loads. However, both of these options place pressures

on the existing infrastructures and the effects of these changes have to be carefully considered.

The main goal of this work is to develop advanced computational tools for railway

dynamics, with innovative methodologies that are handled in a co-simulation environment, where

all physical phenomena can be integrated, as shown in Figure 1.1. This includes not only the

detailed representation of the vehicle, track and subgrade, but also the interaction among them.

Such tools can indicate solutions with technological relevance and give answer to the industry’s

most recent needs, contributing to improve the competitiveness of the railway transportation

system. The two main tools developed in this work are: a) the pre-processor that builds the

flexible track model from provided geometric and material properties for the track and its

elements, and b) the post-processor that computes the results of the dynamic analysis in order to

determine if a given vehicle is acceptable to operate on a given track at the proposed speed.

The mathematical models of the railway vehicles are created using a multibody

formulation. The kinematic constraints between the different system components are formulated

in terms of the set of generalized coordinates. On the other hand, the flexible track model uses the

finite element methodology. While the rails and the sleepers are modelled as beams, the pads and

foundations are modelled as spring-dampers to account for their intrinsic flexibility. Between the

multibody and the finite element codes lies the contact model, connecting the vehicle’s wheels

and the track’s rails using a co-simulation procedure. Although other procedures exist, the use of a

contact penalty formulation demonstrates to be enough to obtain all main contact features.

From the results obtained in the present work, it can be concluded that the proposed

numerical tools are appropriate for railway applications and that finite element methodology,

proposed here to represent the track flexibility, is suitable for railway studies and it is

quantitatively validated for static loads.

The developed post-processing tool intends to verify if the a given vehicle-track combination

is within the safety and comfort parameters defined by EN 14636 [11] and UIC 518 [12], which are

75

commonly used by the railway industry. This tool was developed and demonstrated in two case

studies. One failed to meet all required criteria and the other that complies requirements.

Although the co-simulation procedure required to perform the dynamic analysis of the

modelled railway vehicle running on the modelled flexible track isn’t complete, the results

taken from both the pre-processing and post-processing tools developed in this work are valid

and useful when integrated on a complete dynamic analysis.

The first future development to be realised is the conclusion of this co-simulation procedure

and the integration of the track, vehicle and contact models in a common tool, so that it can perform

complete dynamic analysis and evaluate the results according to the current industry requirements.

Other future development of this work is to perform comparative studies in order to

investigate the influence of track flexibility and of track conditions on vehicles performance. Also

studies involving the consequences of trainset operation on railway infrastructure degradation are

possible to develop. The establishment of partnerships with Portuguese railway operators and

infrastructure manager gives good perspectives for the industrial application of these studies.

Other aspect which needs further investigation is the identification of the railway track

damping parameters. However, it is recognized that the estimation of the structural damping

of structures is still a technological challenge. Rayleigh damping, also known as proportional

damping, was used to model the developed track model. Still, these damping parameters need

to be identified with further detail, either on tracks under current operation or in the design

phase. So it is important to find methodologies able to identify the track damping on existent

tracks with experimental testing and validation. Moreover, it is important to relate these

findings to tracks that are still in the design phase.

76

References

[1] Schmitt, L., "Recent sncf research on ballasted high speed track. fatigue behaviour.", Track for

High-Speed Railways, Porto, Portugal2006.

[2] López-Pita, A., Teixeira, P.F., Casas, C., Ubalde, L. and Robusté, F., "Evolution of track

geometric quality in high-speed lines: Ten years experience of the Madrid-Seville line.",

Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit, 147 – 155, 2007.

[3] Selig, E. T. and Waters, John M., "Track geotechnology and substructure management", T.

Telford ;American Society of Civil Engineers, Publications Sales Dept. distributor,

LondonNew York, 1994.

[4] Zhai, W.M., Wang, K.Y. and Lin, J.H., "Modelling and experiment of railway ballast

vibrations", Journal of Sound and Vibration, 270, pp. 673-683, 2004.

[5] Esveld, C., "Modern Railway Track.", MRT-Productions, Zaltbommel, Netherlands2001.

[6] ERRAC, European Rail Research Advisory Council, "Strategic Rail Research Agenda 2020",

Brussels, Belgium, 2007.

[7] EC, European Commission, "White Paper: Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area -

Towards a Competitive and Resource Efficient Transport System", Brussels, Belgium, 2011.

[8] Nikravesh, P. E., "Computer-Aided Analysis of Mechanical Systems", Prentice-Hall,

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1988.

[9] Schiehlen, W., "Multibody Systems Handbook", Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 1990.

[10] Shabana, A. A., "Dynamics of Multibody Systems", 2nd Edition, Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, United Kingdom, 1998.

[11] EN 14363, "Railway applications - Testing for the acceptance of running characteristics of

railway vehicles - Testing for running behaviour and stationary tests", 2005.

[12] UIC 518, "Testing and Approval of Railway Vehicles from the Point of View of their

Dynamic Behaviour - Safety - Track Fatigue - Running Behaviour", 2007.

[13] Reddy, J. N., "An Introduction to the Finite Element Method", 3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill,

2005.

[14] Zienkiewicz, O. and Taylor, R., "The Finite Element Method", Butterwort-Heinemann,

Woburn, Massachussetts, 2000.

[15] Pombo, J. and Ambrósio, J., "An Alternative Method to Include Track Irregularities in

Railway Vehicle Dynamic Analyses", Nonlinear Dynamics, 68, pp. 161-176, 2012.

[16] Ambrósio, J., Pombo, J., Pereira, M., Antunes, P. and Mósca, A., "Recent Developments in

Pantograph-Catenary Interaction Modelling and Analysis", International Journal of Railway

Technology, 1, No. 1, pp. 249-278 (DOI:10.4203/ijrt.1.1.12), 2012.

[17] Ambrósio, J., Pombo, J., Pereira, M., Antunes, P. and Mósca, A., "A Computational Procedure

for the Dynamic Analysis of the Catenary-Pantograph Interaction in High-Speed Trains",

Journal of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, 50, No. 3, pp. 681-699, 2012.

[18] Pombo, J. and Ambrósio, J., "Application of a Wheel-Rail Contact Model to Railway

Dynamics in Small Radius Curved Tracks", Multibody Systems Dynamics, 19, No. 1-2, pp. 91-

114, 2008.

[19] Pombo, J., Ambrósio, J. and Silva, M., "A New Wheel-Rail Contact Model for Railway

Dynamics", Vehicle System Dynamics, 45, No. 2, pp. 165-189, 2007.

[20] Lankarani, H. M. and Nikravesh, P. E., "A Contact Force Model with Hysteresis Damping for

Impact Analysis of Multibody Systems", AMSE Journal of Mechanical Design, 112, pp. 369-

376, 1990.

[21] Lankarani, H. M. and Nikravesh, P. E., "Continuous Contact Force Models for Impact

Analysis in Multibody Systems", Nonlinear Dynamics, 5, pp. 193-207, 1994.

[22] Kalker, J. J., "Simplified Theory of Rolling Contact", Progress Report Series C: Mechanical

and Aeronautical Engineering and Shipbuilding, 1, pp. 1-10, Delft University of Technology,

Delft, The Netherlands, 1973.

[23] Shen, Z. Y., Hedrick, J. K. and Elkins, J.A., "A Comparison of Alternative Creep Force

Models for Rail Vehicle Dynamic Analysis", 8th IAVSD Symposium on Dynamics of Vehicles

77

on Road and Tracks, (J. K. Hedrick, Ed.), Swets and Zeitlinger, Cambridge, Massachussetts,

pp. 591-605, 1983.

[24] Polach, O., "A Fast Wheel-Rail Forces Calculation Computer Code", Vehicle System

Dynamics, Supplement 33, pp. 728-739, 1999.

[25] Dukkipati, R. V. and Amyot, J. R., "Computer-Aided Simulation in Railway Dynamics", M.

Dekker Inc., New York, New York, 1988.

[26] Pombo, J., Ambrósio, J., Pereira, M., Verardi, R., Ariaudo, C. and Kuka, N., "Influence of

Track Conditions and Wheel Wear State on the Loads Imposed on the Infrastructure by

Railway Vehicles", Computers and Structures, 89, No. 21-22, pp. 1882-1894, 2011.

[27] Haug, E., "Computer Aided Kinematics and Dynamics of Mechanical Systems", Allyn and

Bacon, Boston, Massachussetts, 1989.

[28] Jalón, J. and Bayo, E., "Kinematic and Dynamic Simulation of Multibody Systems: The Real-

Time Challenges in Mechanical Systems Simulation", Springer-Verlag, New York, New

York, 1994.

[29] Huston, R., "Multibody Dynamics", Butterworth-Heinemann, Stonehan, Massachusetts, 1990.

[30] Roberson, R. E. and Schwertassek, R., "Dynamics of Multibody Systems", Springer-Verlag,

Berlin, Germany, 1988.

[31] Schiehlen, W., "Advanced Multibody System Dynamics - Simulation and Software Tools",

Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1993.

[32] Pereira, M. and Ambrósio, J., "Computational Dynamics in Multibody Systems", Kluwer

Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1995.

[33] Gear, C. W., "Numerical Solution of Differential-Algebric Equations", IEEE Translations on

Circuit Theory, 18, pp. 88-95, 1981.

[34] Gear, C. W. and Petzold, L., "ODE Methods for the Solutions of Differential/Algebraic

Equations", SIAM Journal Numerical Analysis, 21, 4, pp. 716-728, 1984.

[35] Marsden, J. and West, M., "Discrete Mechanics and Variational Integrators", Acta Numerica,

Cambridge University Press, pp. 357-514, 2001.

[36] Ascher, U., Chin, H., Petzold, L. and Reich, S., "Stabilization of Constrained Mechanical

Systems with DAEs and Invariant-Manifolds", Mechanics of Structures and Machines, 23(2),

pp. 135-157, 1995.

[37] Baumgarte, J., "Stabilization of Constraints and Integrals of Motion in Dynamical Systems",

Computer Methods in Apllied Mechanics and Engineering, 1, pp. 1-16, 1972.

[38] Avello, A. and Bayo, E., "A Singularity-Free Penalty Formulation for the Dynamics of

Constrained Multibody Systems", Mechanical Design and Synthesis, 46, pp. 643-649, 1992.

[39] Gonçalves, J., "Rigid and Flexible Multibody Systems Optimization for Vehicle Dynamics",

Ph. D. Dissertation, Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisbon, Portugal, 2002.

[40] Silva, M., "Human Motion Analysis Using Multibody Dynamics and Optimization Tools", Ph.

D. Dissertation, Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisbon, Portugal, 2003.

[41] Gonçalves, J. and Ambrósio, J., "Advanced Modeling of Flexible Multibody Systems using

Virtual Bodies", NATO ARW on Computational Aspects of Nonlinear Structural Systems with

Large Rigid Body Motion, (J. Ambrósio, M. Kleiber, Eds.), IOS Press, The Netherlands, 2000.

[42] Garg, V. K. and Dukkipati, R. V., "Dynamics of Railway Vehicle Systems", Academic Press,

New York, New York, 1984.

[43] Andersson, E., Berg, M. and Stichel, S., "Rail Vehicle Dynamics, Fundamentals and

Guidelines", Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden, 1998.

[44] British-Rail, Research, "Introduction to Railway Vehicle Dynamics", AEA Technology plc.,

London, United Kingdom, 1997.

[45] Ambrósio, J., "Trainset Kinematic: A Planar Analysis Program for the Study of the Gangway

Insertion Points", Technical Report IDMEC/CPM/97/005, Institute of Mechanical

Engineering, Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisbon, Portugal, 1997.

[46] Filipe, T., "Análise Dinâmica e de Estabilidade de Material Ferroviário (Dynamic and

Stability Analysis of Railway Vehicles)", Master Thesis, Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisbon,

Portugal, 1995.

[47] Pombo, J. and Ambrósio, J., "Modelos Computacionais para Aplicação em Dinâmica

Ferroviária (Computational Models for Railway Dynamics Applications)", Technical Report

78

IDMEC/CPM/98/005, IDMEC - Institute of Mechanical Engineering, Instituto Superior

Técnico, Lisbon, Portugal, 1998.

[48] Kortum, W. and Sharp, R. S., "Multibody Computer Codes in Vehicle System Dynamics",

Vehicle System Dynamics, Supplement 22, 1993.

[49] Pombo, J. and Ambrósio, J., "Avaliação de Ferramentas Computacionais Comerciais para a

Análise Dinâmica de Veículos Ferroviários", Technical Report No. 16 of PEDIP Project No.

25/00379 on "Dinâmica de Veículos Ferroviários", Lisbon, Portugal, 1999.

[50] Pombo, J. and Ambrósio, J., "Aquisição e Instalação do Programa Comercial e Formação de

Utilizadores", Technical Report No. 17 of PEDIP Project No. 25/00379 on "Dinâmica de

Veículos Ferroviários", Lisbon, Portugal, 1999.

[51] MDI, Mechanical and Dynamics, "ADAMS/Rail 9.1 - Technical Manual", Ann Arbor,

Michigan, 1995.

[52] MDI, Mechanical Dynamics, "Getting Started Using ADAMS/Rail 9.1", Ann Arbor,

Michigan, 1995.

[53] MDI, Mechanical and Dynamics, "Using ADAMS/Rail 9.1", Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1998.

[54] MDI, Mechanical and Dynamics, "ADAMS/Rail 9.1.1 ADtranz Milestone I - Release Notes",

Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1999.

[55] MDI, Mechanical Dynamics, "ADAMS/View 9.0 - Training Documentation", Ann Arbor,

Michigan, 1998.

[56] MDI, Mechanical Dynamics, "Standard Interface in ADAMS/Rail 10.1", Ann Arbor,

Michigan, 1999.

[57] DEsolver, "GENSYS User's Manual", Release 9910, Stockholm, Sweden, 1999.

[58] Persson, I., "GENSYS in Railway Vehicle Modeling", DEsolver, Stockholm, Sweden, 1997.

[59] Persson, I., "Technical Description of GENSYS", Release 9703, DEsolver, Stockholm,

Sweden,

[60] Rulka, W. and Eichberger, A., "SIMPACK - An Analysis and Design Tool for Mechanical

Systems", Vehicle System Dynamics, Supplement 22, pp. 122-126, 1993.

[61] Schupp, G., Netter, H., Mauer, L. and Gretzschel, M., "Multibody System Simulation of

Railway Vehicles with SIMPACK", Vehicle System Dynamics, Supplement 31, pp. 101-109,

1999.

[62] Netter, H., Schupp, G., Rulka, W. and Schroeder, K., "New Aspects of Contact Modelling and

Validation within Multibody System Simulation of Railway Vehicles", Vehicle System

Dynamics, Supplement 28, pp. 246-269, 1998.

[63] Schupp, G. and Jaschinski, A., "Virtual Prototyping: The Future way of Designing Railway

Vehicles", Vehicle Design, 1998.

[64] Kortum, W., Rulka, W. and Eichberger, A., "Recent Enhancements of SIMPACK and Vehicle

Applications", EUROMECH 320 - Multibody Systems: Advanced Algorithms and Software

Tools, Prague, Czech Republic, June 6-8, 1994.

[65] Jaschinski, A., Kortum, W. and Wallrapp, O., "Simulation of Ground Vehicles with the

Multibody Program MEDYNA", Seminar FMC - System Analysis and Design, San Jose, May

29, 1987.

[66] Schwartz, W., "The Multibody Program MEDYNA", Vehicle System Dynamics, Supplement

22, pp. 91-94, 1993.

[67] British-Rail, Research, "Introduction to VAMPIRE", AEA Technology plc., London, United

Kingdom, 1997.

[68] Scott, G. A., "Multibody Simulation Software - VAMPIRE", Vehicle System Dynamics,

Supplement 22, pp. 127-129, 1993.

[69] Fisette, P., Maes, P., Samin, J. C. and Willems, P. Y., "AUTODYN and ROBOTRAN",

Vehicle System Dynamics, Supplement 22, pp. 45-52, 1993.

[70] Maes, P., Samin, J. C. and Willems, P. Y., "AUTODYN and ROBOTRAN", Multibody

System Handbook, (W. Schiehlen, Ed.), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 1990.

[71] Fisette, P. and Samin, J. C., "Lateral Dynamics of a Light Railway Vehicle with Independent

Wheels", Proceedings of 12th IAVSD Symposium, Lyon, France, v. 20, pp. 157-171, 1991.

[72] Fisette, P. and Samin, J. C., "A New Wheel/Rail Contact Model for Independent Wheels",

Archive of Applied Mechanics, 64, pp. 180-191, 1994.

79

[73] Pascal, J. P., "The Railway Dynamic Codes - VOCO", Vehicle System Dynamics,

Supplement 22, pp. 137-139, 1993.

[74] Pascal, J. P. and Sauvage, G., "The Available Methods to Calculate the Wheel/Rail Forces in

Non-Hertzian Contact Patches and Rail Damaging", Vehicle System Dynamics, 22, pp. 263-

275, 1993.

[75] Barbosa, R. S., "Aplicação de Sistemas Multicorpos na Dinâmica de Veículos Guiados

(Multibody System Dynamics Applied to Guided Vehicles)", Ph. D. Dissertation, Escola de

Engenharia de São Carlos da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil, 1999.

[76] Berzeri, M., Sany, J. R. and Shabana, A. A., "Curved Track Modeling Using the Absolute

Nodal Coordinate Formulation", Technical Report #MBS00-4-UIC, Department of

Mechanical Engineering, University of Illinois, Chicago, 2000.

[77] Pombo, J. and Ambrósio, J., "General Spatial Curve Joint for Rail Guided Vehicles:

Kinematics and Dynamics", Multibody Systems Dynamics, 9, No. 3, pp. 237-264, 2003.

[78] Pombo, J. and Ambrósio, J., "General Rail Track Joint for the Dynamic Analysis of Rail

Guided Vehicles", Proceedings of the Euromech Colloquium No. 427 on Computational

Techniques and Applications in Nonlinear Dynamics of Structures and Multibody Systems, (A.

Ibrahimbegovic, W. Schiehlen, Eds.), Cachan, France, September 24-27, 2001.

[79] Pombo, J. and Ambrósio, J., "Development of a Roller Coaster Model", Proceedings of the

Métodos Numéricos en Ingeniería V, (J. Goicolea et al.), SEMNI, Madrid, Spain, June 3-6,

2002.

[80] Pombo, J. and Ambrósio, J., "Development of a Roller Coaster Model", Proceedings of the

NATO-ASI on Virtual Nonlinear Multibody Systems, (W. Schiehlen, M. Valasek, Eds.),

Prague, Czech Republic, June 23 - July 3, 2, pp. 195-203, 2002.

[81] Pombo, J. and Ambrósio, J., "A General Track Model for Rail Guided Vehicles Dynamics",

Proceedings of the VII Congresso de Mecânica Aplicada e Computacional, (J. I. Barbosa,

Ed.), Évora, Portugal, April 14-16, 2, pp. 47-56, 2003.

[82] Pombo, J. and Ambrósio, J., "A Wheel-Rail Contact Model for Rail Guided Vehicles

Dynamics", Proceedings of the ECCOMAS Thematic Conference on Advances in

Computational Multibody Dynamics, (J. Ambrósio, Ed.), Lisbon, Portugal, July 1-4, 2003.

[83] Geismar, "Engin de Controle de la Geometrie de la Voie - ECG 7 (Track Geometry Control

Unit - ECG 7)", Document from the Library of Lisbon Subway Company (in French)1993.

[84] CP, "Descrição Geral do Veículo de Análise Geométrica EM-120 (General Description of the

Geometric Analysis Vehicle EM-120)", Document from the Library of Portuguese Railway

Operator (in Portuguese), Lisbon, Portugal, 1994.

[85] Christiansen, L. E., "The Dynamics of a Railway Vehicle on a Disturbed Track", M. Sc.

Thesis, Technical University of Denmark, Denmark, 2001.

[86] Petersen, D. E. and Hoffmann, M., "Dry Friction and Impact Dynamics in Railway Vehicles",

M. Sc. Thesis, Technical University of Denmark, Denmark, 2003.

[87] De Pater, A. D., "The Geometrical Contact Between Track and Wheelset", Vehicle System

Dynamics, v. 17, pp. 127-140, 1988.

[88] Shabana, A. A. and Sany, J. R., "An Augmented Formulation for Mechanical Systems with

Non-Generalized Coordinates: Application to Rigid Body Contact Problems", Nonlinear

Dynamics, 24, No. 2, pp. 183-204, 2001.

[89] Shabana, A. A., Berzeri, M. and Sany, J. R., "Numerical Procedure for the Simulation of

Wheel/Rail Contact Dynamics", Journal of Dynamic Systems Measurement and Control-

Transactions of the ASME, 123, No. 2, pp. 168-178, 2001.

[90] Shabana, A. A., Zaazaa, K.E., Escalona, J. L. and Sany, J. R., "Modeling Two-Point

Wheel/Rail Contacts Using Constraint and Elastic-Force Approaches", Proceedings of the

IMECE'02: 2002 ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition,

New Orleans, Louisiana, November 17-22, 2002.

[91] Shabana, A. A., Zaazaa, K.E., Escalona, J. L. and Sany, J. R., "Dynamics of the Wheel/Rail

Contact Using a New Elastic Force Model", Technical Report #MBS02-3-UIC, Department of

Mechanical Engineering, University of Illinois, Chicago, 2002.

80

[92] Kik, W. and Steinborn, H., "Wheel/Rail Connexion Element for use in a Multibody

Algorithm", 8th IAVSD Symposium - Dynamics of Vehicles on Roads and Tracks, Cambridge,

Massachusetts, pp. 303-316, 1984.

[93] Kik, W. and Piotrowski, J., "A Fast, Approximate Method to Calculate Normal Load at

Contact Between Wheel and Rail and Creep Forces During Rolling", 2nd Mini Conference on

Contact Mechanics and Wear of Rail/Wheel System, (I. Zabory, Ed.), TU Budapest, Hungary,

1996.

[94] Piotrowski, J., "A Theory of Wheelset Forces for Two Point Contact between Wheel and

Rail", Vehicle System Dynamics, 11, pp. 69-87, 1982.

[95] Escalona, J., González, M., Zaazaa, K. and Shabana, A., "A Study to Validate Multibody

Wheel/Rail Contact Algorithms", Technical Report # MBS02-8-UIC, Department of

Mechanical Engineering, University of Illinois, Chicago, 2002.

[96] Shabana, A. A. and Sanborn, G., "An Alternative Simple Multibody System Approach for

Modelling Rail Flexibility in Railroad Vehicle Dynamics", Institution of Mechanical

Engineers, Part K: J. Multi-body Dynamics, 223, pp. 107-120, 2009.

[97] Dahlberg, T., "Railway Track Stiffness Variations – Consequences and Countermeasures",

International Journal of Civil Engineering, 8, No. 1, 2010.

[98] Ferreira, P., "Modeling and Prediction of the Dynamic Behaviour of Railway Infrastructures at

Very High Speeds", Ph. D. Dissertation, Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisbon, Portugal, 2010.

[99] Rauter, L., "Pantograth-Catenary Interaction Using Flexible Multibody Dynamics

Methodology", Ph. D. Dissertation, Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisbon, Portugal, 2011.

[100] Xiao, X., Jin, X., Wen, Z., Zhou, Z. and Zhang, W., "Effect of tangent track buckle on vehicle

derailment", Springer Science+Business Media B.V., pp. 531-557, 2010.

[101] Feng, H., "3D-models of Railway Track for Dynamic Analysis", M. Sc. Dissertation, School

of Architecture and Built Environment, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden,

2011.

[102] Antunes, P., "Development of Multibody Pantograph and Finite Element Catenary Models for

Application to High-speed Railway Operations", M. Sc. Dissertation, Instituto Superior

Técnico, Lisbon, Portugal, 2012.

[103] Pombo, J. and Ambrósio, J., "Multiple Pantograph Interaction with Catenaries in High-Speed

Trains", Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics, 7, 041008, 2012.

[104] Montalbán, L., Real, J. and Real, T., "Mechanical characterization of railway structures based

on vertical stiffness analysis and railway substructure stress state", Rail and Rapid Transit,

Part F, 227, pp. 74-85, 2012.

[105] Varandas, J., "Long-Term Behaviour of Railway Transitions Under Dynamic Loading", Ph. D.

Dissertation, Univercidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal, 2013.

[106] Pombo, J., Almeida, T., Magalhães, H., Antunes, P. and Ambrósio, J., "Development of a

Fiite Element Methodology for Flexible Track Models in Railway Dynamics Applications",

Tehran, Iran2013.

[107] Jalón, J. and Bayo, E., "Kinematic and dynamic simulation of multibody systems", Springer-

Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany, 1993.

[108] Ambrósio, J., "Elastic-Plastic Large Deformation of Flexible Multibody Systems in Crash

Analysis", Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, 1991.

[109] Pombo, J., "A Multibody Methodology for Railway Dynamics Applications", PhD

Dissertation, Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisbon, Portugal, 2004.

[110] Przemieniecki, J. S., "Theory of matrix structural analysis", McGraw-Hill, New York,, 1967.

[111] Newmark, N., "A Method of Computation for Structural Dynamics", ASCE Journal of the

Engineering Mechanics Division, 85, EM 3, pp. 67-94, 1959.

[112] Bathe, K-J., "Finite element procedures", Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1996.

[113] Bathe, K. J, "Finite Element Procedures", Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1996.

[114] Newmark, N., "A Method of Computation for Structural Dynamics", ASCE Journal of the

Engineering Mechanics Division, 85, EM 3, 67-94, 1959.

[115] Bathe, Klaus-Jürgen, "Finite element procedures in engineering analysis", Prentice-Hall,

Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1982.

81

[116] Pina, H. L. G., "Métodos Numéricos (Numerical Methods)", McGraw-Hill, Lisbon, Portugal,

1995.

[117] Poetsch, G., Evans, J., Maisinger, R., Kortum, W., Baldauf, W., Veitl, A. and Wallaschek, J.,

"Pantograph/Catenary Interaction and Control", Vehicle System Dynamics, 28, 159-195, 1997.

[118] Seo, J-H., Sugiyama, H. and Shabana, A. A., "Three-Dimensional Deformation Analysis of

the Multibody Pantograph/Catenary Systems", Nonlinear Dynamics, 42, 199-215, 2005.

[119] Seo, J-H., Kim, S-W., Jung, I-H., Park, T-W., Mok, J-Y., Kim, Y-G. and Chai, J-B.,

"Dynamic Analysis of a Pantograph-Catenary System Using Absolute Nodal Coordinates",

Vehicle System Dynamics, 44, 8, 615-630, 2006.

[120] Pereira, C., Ramalho, A. and Ambrósio, J., "A Critical Overview of Internal and External

Cylinder Contact Force Models", Nonlinear Dynamics, 63, No. 4, 681-697, 2011.

[121] Flores, Paulo, "Kinematics and dynamics of multibody systems with imperfect joints : models

and case studies", Springer, Berlin, 2008.

[122] Theodore, G. T. and Khozeimen, K., "Computer Analysis of Rigid Frames", Computers and

Structures, 1, 193-221, 1971.

[123] ANSYS, Inc, "Theory Reference for the Mechanical APDL and Mechanical Applications",

Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, USA2009.

[124] ERRI C138, "Permissible limit values for the y and q forces and derailment criteria", 1977.

[125] ORE C138/RP9, "Permissible Maximum Values for the Y- and Q-Forces and Derailment

Criteria", 1986.

[126] ORE B55/RP8, "Conditions for negotiating track twists - Recomended values for the track

twist and cant - Calculation and measurement of the relevant vehicle parameters - Vehicle

testing", 1983.

[127] UNI EN 13674, "Rail 49 E1 - DIN S 49", 2011.

[128] Ambrósio, J., Pombo, J., Rauter, F. and Pereira, M., "A Memory Based Communication in the

Co-Simulation of Multibody and Finite Element Codes for Pantograph-Catenary Interaction

Simulation", Multibody Dynamics, (Bottasso C.L., Ed.), Springer, Dordrecht, The

Netherlands, pp. 211-231, 2008.

[129] Rauter, F., "Dynamic Analysis of the Pantograph-Catenary Interaction in Railway Systems",

PhD Dissertation, Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisbon, Portugal, 2011.

82

Annex A: Flexible Track Properties

In the following, the data required to define the flexible track model is described together with

the pre-processor developed to build its FE mesh.

In order to define a given railway track, it is necessary to provide information about the

geometry of each rail. This is done in 3D space by defining a set of control points that are

representative of the geometry of each rail. In addition, it is necessary to provide the Cartesian

components of the tangential t, normal n and binormal b vectors that define the rail referential

associated to each nodal point. These quantities are tabulated as function of the rail arc length, as

represented in Table A.1.

Rail arc

Length Xi Yi Zi Txi Tyi Tzi Nxi Nyi Nzi Bxi Byi Bzi

<Num> <Num> <Num> <Num> <Num> <Num> <Num> <Num> <Num> <Num> <Num> <Num> <Num>

… … … … … … … … … … … … …

<Num> <Num> <Num> <Num> <Num> <Num> <Num> <Num> <Num> <Num> <Num> <Num> <Num>

After defining the 3D geometry of each rail, it is necessary to provide information about

the number of track segments to be considered in the finite element mesh. For each segment,

it is necessary to define its name, length and the refinement level of the mesh, as represented

in Table A.2.

Number of

<Number>

Track Types:

Track Type i Track Type Name Length of Track Type i Refinement Level of Track Type i

Track Type 1 <Track Type 1 Name> <Number> <Number>

Track Type 2 <Track Type 2 Name> <Number> <Number>

… … … …

Track Type n <Track Type n Name> <Number> <Number>

Table A.2: Track segments data

For each track segment defined in Table A.2, it is necessary to provide information about

the types of rails, sleepers and foundations that compose each one, as represented in Table A.3.

Rail Data Type <Rail Data Type Name>

Sleepers Data Type <Sleepers Data Type Name>

Foundations Data Type <Foundations Data Type Name>

Table A.3: Track segment components data

83

Then, for each rail, it is necessary to define the properties required for the Euler-

Bernoulli beam elements formulation, as represented in Table A.4.

UIC Rail Code: <Code>

Young Modulus - E [Pa]: <Number>

Poisson Coefficient: <Number>

Cross Section Area [m²]: <Number>

Effective Shear Section Area in yy Direction [m²]: <Number>

Effective Shear Section Area in zz Direction [m²]: <Number>

Second Moment of Area in xz Plane - Iyy [m⁴]: <Number>

Second Moment of Area in xy Plane- Izz [m⁴]: <Number>

Second Moment of Area in yz Plane - Ixx [m⁴]: <Number>

Density [kg/m³]: <Number>

Torsion Modulus - G [Pa]: <Number>

Rayleigh Damping Parameter α: <Number>

Rayleigh Damping Parameter β: <Number>

Table A.4: Rail geometry data

After introducing the information about the rails, it is necessary to provide all properties

required to define the sleepers for each track segment, as represented in Table A.5.

Sleepers Distance [m]: <Number>

Number of Nodes Between Sleepers: <Number>

Sleeper Geometry: <Sleeper Geometry Name>

Pad Longitudinal Stiffness Kx [N/m]: <Number>

Pad Transversal Stiffness Ky [N/m]: <Number>

Pad Vertical Stiffness Kz [N/m]: <Number>

Pad Torsional Stiffness Kt [N/m]: <Number>

Pad Vertical Rotation Stiffness Kry [N/m]: <Number>

Pad Transversal Rotation Stiffness Krz [N/m]: <Number>

Pad Longitudinal Damping Cx [N.s/m]: <Number>

Pad Transversal Damping Cy [N.s/m]: <Number>

Pad Vertical Damping Cz [N.s/m]: <Number>

Pad Torsional Damping Ct [N.s/m]: <Number>

Pad Vertical Rotation Damping Cry [N.s/m]: <Number>

Pad Transversal Rotation Damping Crz [N.s/m]: <Number>

Table A.5: Sleeper properties data

Besides the information about the rails and sleepers, the properties for the definition of

the foundations for each track segment are required, as represented in Table A.6.

84

Foundations Data Type: <Foundations Data Type n Name>

Foundation Longitudinal Stiffness Kx [N/m]: <Number>

Foundation Transversal Stiffness Ky [N/m]: <Number>

Foundation Vertical Stiffness Kz [N/m]: <Number>

Foundation Torsional Stiffness Kt [N/m]: <Number>

Foundation Vertical Rotation Stiffness Kry [N/m]: <Number>

Foundation Transversal Rotation Stiffness Krz [N/m]: <Number>

Foundation Longitudinal Damping Cx [N.s/m]: <Number>

Foundation Transversal Damping Cy [N.s/m]: <Number>

Foundation Vertical Damping Cz [N.s/m]: <Number>

Foundation Torsional Damping Ct [N.s/m]: <Number>

Foundation Vertical Rotation Damping Cry [N.s/m]: <Number>

Foundation Transversal Rotation Damping Crz [N.s/m]: <Number>

Sleeper Interaction Longitudinal Stiffness Kx [N/m]: <Number>

Sleeper Interaction Transversal Stiffness Ky [N/m]: <Number>

Sleeper Interaction Vertical Stiffness Kz [N/m]: <Number>

Sleeper Interaction Torsional Stiffness Kt [N/m]: <Number>

Sleeper Interaction Vertical Rotation Stiffness Kry [N/m]: <Number>

Sleeper Interaction Transversal Rotation Stiffness Krz [N/m]: <Number>

Sleeper Interaction Longitudinal Damping Cx [N.s/m]: <Number>

Sleeper Interaction Transversal Damping Cy [N.s/m]: <Number>

Sleeper Interaction Vertical Damping Cz [N.s/m]: <Number>

Sleeper Interaction Torsional Damping Ct [N.s/m]: <Number>

Sleeper Interaction Vertical Rotation Damping Cry [N.s/m]: <Number>

Sleeper Interaction Transversal Rotation Damping Crz [N.s/m]: <Number>

Table A.6: Foundation properties data

As previously referred, the rails and sleepers are modelled by using Euler-Bernoulli

beam elements. The rail geometry data is provided in Table A.4. For the sleepers, with a

general geometry shown in Figure A.1, the data required to define their geometry is

represented in Table A.7.

C B

A

85

Sleeper Geometry: <Sleeper Geometry n Name>

Sleeper Length (Parameter A) [m]: <Number>

Rail-to-End Position (Parameter C) [m]: <Number>

Rail-to-Start Position (Parameter B) [m]: <Number>

Number of Additional Nodes on Half Sleeper: <Number>

End Young Modulus - E [Pa]: <Number>

End Poisson Coefficient: <Number>

End Cross Section Area [m²]: <Number>

End Effective Shear Section Area in yy Direction [m²]: <Number>

End Effective Shear Section Area in zz Direction [m²]: <Number>

End Second Moment of Area in xz Plane - Iyy [m⁴]: <Number>

End Second Moment of Area in xy Plane - Izz [m⁴]: <Number>

End Second Moment of Area in yz Plane - Ixx [m⁴]: <Number>

End Density [kg/m³]: <Number>

End Torsion Modulus - G [Pa]: <Number>

End Rayleigh Damping Parameter α: <Number>

End Rayleigh Damping Parameter β: <Number>

Start Young Modulus - E [Pa]: <Number>

Start Poisson Coefficient: <Number>

Start Cross Section Area [m²]: <Number>

Start Effective Shear Section Area in yy Direction [m²]: <Number>

Start Effective Shear Section Area in zz Direction [m²]: <Number>

Start Second Moment of Area in xz Plane - Iyy [m⁴]: <Number>

Start Second Moment of Area in xy Plane - Izz [m⁴]: <Number>

Start Second Moment of Area in yz Plane - Ixx [m⁴]: <Number>

Start Density [kg/m³]: <Number>

Start Torsion Modulus - G [Pa]: <Number>

Start Rayleigh Damping Parameter α: <Number>

Start Rayleigh Damping Parameter β: <Number>

Middle Young Modulus - E [Pa]: <Number>

Middle Poisson Coefficient: <Number>

Middle Cross Section Area [m²]: <Number>

Middle Effective Shear Section Area in yy Direction [m²]: <Number>

Middle Effective Shear Section Area in zz Direction [m²]: <Number>

Middle Second Moment of Area in xz Plane - Iyy [m⁴]: <Number>

Middle Second Moment of Area in xy Plane - Izz [m⁴]: <Number>

Middle Second Moment of Area in yz Plane - Ixx [m⁴]: <Number>

Middle Density [kg/m³]: <Number>

Middle Torsion Modulus - G [Pa]: <Number>

Middle Rayleigh Damping Parameter α: <Number>

Middle Rayleigh Damping Parameter β: <Number>

Table A.7: Sleeper geometry data

Finally it is necessary to define the constants and output parameters for the track model.

These quantities are represented in Table A.8.

Gravity Acceleration [m/s2]: <Number> Deformation Scalar Factor: <Number>

Table A.8: Track model constants and output parameters

86

Annex B: Communication between Multibody and FE Codes

In this work, a 3D methodology to study the interaction of a railway vehicle, described by a

multibody formulation, with a flexible track, represented by a finite element methodology, is

proposed. Instead of using the conventional approach where the vehicle and track dynamics

are handled independently, here an integrated strategy is used to handle the vehicle-track

coupled dynamics. For this purpose, a high-speed co-simulation procedure is established in

order to communicate between the multibody and the finite element codes. The vehicle-track

interaction forces are computed by using an appropriate wheel-rail contact formulation

[18,19].

For the dynamic analysis of the finite elements model, a Newmark family numerical

integrator [111,114] using a fixed time step is employed, while for the multibody vehicle

model the integration procedure is based on a predictor-corrector algorithm with variable time

step [128]. Each code handles independently their equations of motion of their referred sub-

system and applies the contact forces on the contact points both shared between them.

The compatibility between the two integration algorithms imposes readily available

state variables of the two sub-systems during the integration procedure and that a prediction

of the contact forces is available at any given time step. There are occasions in which one of

the algorithms has to wait for the other and vice-versa. The developed communication

interface is composed of two stages. In the first stage, the codes exchange input data

necessary to their own initialization procedures. No contact at the track is implied or allowed

at the initial time step. In the second stage, data is shared between codes to perform dynamic

analysis, exchanging data as previously described.

One critical issue of using co-simulation procedures is the added computational cost due

to the data exchange between codes. The time spent on data exchange between applications

must be negligible compared to the computation time costs of the two analyses. In order to

reduce this computational cost, the data exchange methodology adopted will use virtual

memory sharing via memory mapped files [129]. Further details on this topic are outside the

scope of this thesis, the interested reader is referred to the work developed by Antunes [102],

where is it applied to the catenary instead of the track and to the pantograph instead of the

vehicle.

87

Annex C: Case Study Properties

The following track data was provided by the SMARTRACK partners from New University

of Lisbon.

Track Type i Track Type Name Length of Track Type i Refinement Level of Track Type i

Track Type 1 Track1 500 1

Table C.1: Track segments data for the case study

UIC Rail Code UIC60

Young Modulus - E [Pa] 210×109

Poisson Coefficient 0.3

Cross Section Area [m2] 7.6700×10-3

Second Moment of Area in xz Plane - Iyy [m4] 30.383×10-6

Second Moment of Area in xy Plane - Izz [m4] 5.123×10-6

Second Moment of Area in yz Plane - Ixx [m4] 35.506×10-6

Density [kg/m3] 7.860×103

Torsion Modulus - G [Pa] 80.770×109

Rayleigh Damping Parameter α 0

Rayleigh Damping Parameter β 0

Table C.2: Rail data for the case study

Foundation Longitudinal Stiffness Kx [N/m]: 3×106

Foundation Transversal Stiffness Ky [N/m]: 55×106

Foundation Vertical Stiffness Kz [N/m]: 55×106

Foundation Torsional Stiffness Kt [N/m]: 1×10-20

Foundation Vertical Rotation Stiffness Kry [N/m]: 1×10-20

Foundation Transversal Rotation Stiffness Krz [N/m]: 1×10-20

Foundation Longitudinal Damping Cx [N.s/m]: 31×103

Foundation Transversal Damping Cy [N.s/m]: 31×103

Foundation Vertical Damping Cz [N.s/m]: 31×103

Foundation Torsional Damping Ct [N.s/m]: 1×10-20

Foundation Vertical Rotation Damping Cry [N.s/m]: 1×10-20

Foundation Transversal Rotation Damping Crz [N.s/m]: 1×10-20

Sleeper Interaction Longitudinal Stiffness Kx [N/m]: 55×106

Sleeper Interaction Transversal Stiffness Ky [N/m]: 55×106

Sleeper Interaction Vertical Stiffness Kz [N/m]: 3×106

Sleeper Interaction Torsional Stiffness Kt [N/m]: 1×10-20

Sleeper Interaction Vertical Rotation Stiffness Kry [N/m]: 1×10-20

Sleeper Interaction Transversal Rotation Stiffness Krz [N/m]: 1×10-20

Sleeper Interaction Longitudinal Damping Cx [N.s/m]: 31×103

Sleeper Interaction Transversal Damping Cy [N.s/m]: 31×103

Sleeper Interaction Vertical Damping Cz [N.s/m]: 31×103

Sleeper Interaction Torsional Damping Ct [N.s/m]: 1×10-20

Sleeper Interaction Vertical Rotation Damping Cry [N.s/m]: 1×10-20

Sleeper Interaction Transversal Rotation Damping Crz [N.s/m]: 1×10-20

Table C.3: Foundation properties for the case study

88

Sleepers Data Type Sleeper1

Sleepers Distance [m]: 0,6

Number of Nodes Between Sleepers: 5

Sleeper Geometry: SleeperGeo1

Pad Longitudinal Stiffness Kx [N/m]: 260×106

Pad Longitudinal Stiffness Kx [N/m]: 260×106

Pad Transversal Stiffness Ky [N/m]: 65×106

Pad Vertical Stiffness Kz [N/m]: 68×106

Pad Torsional Stiffness Kt [N/m]: 1×10-20

Pad Vertical Rotation Stiffness Kry [N/m]: 1×10-20

Pad Transversal Rotation Stiffness Krz [N/m]: 1×10-20

Pad Longitudinal Damping Cx [N.s/m]: 75×103

Pad Transversal Damping Cy [N.s/m]: 19×103

Pad Vertical Damping Cz [N.s/m]: 19×103

Pad Torsional Damping Ct [N.s/m]: 1×10-20

Pad Vertical Rotation Damping Cry [N.s/m]: 1×10-20

Pad Transversal Rotation Damping Crz [N.s/m]: 1×10-20

Table C.4: Sleeper data for the case study

Sleeper Geometry A

Sleeper Length (Parameter A) [m]: 2.6

Rail-to-End Position (Parameter C) [m]: 450×10-3

Rail-to-Start Position (Parameter B) [m]: 425×10-3

Number of Additional Nodes on Half Sleeper: 0

End Young Modulus - E [Pa]: 37×109

End Poisson Coefficient: 0.2

End Cross Section Area [m²]: 50×10-3

End Second Moment of Area in xz Plane - Iyy [m⁴]: 260.42×10-6

End Second Moment of Area in xy Plane - Izz [m⁴]: 166.70×10-6

End Second Moment of Area in yz Plane - Ixx [m⁴]: 427.12×10-6

End Density [kg/m³]: 2.5×103

End Torsion Modulus - G [Pa]: 15×109

End Rayleigh Damping Parameter a: 0.04

End Rayleigh Damping Parameter b: 0.96

Start Young Modulus - E [Pa]: 37×109

Start Poisson Coefficient: 0.2

Start Cross Section Area [m²]: 50×10-3

Start Second Moment of Area in xz Plane - Iyy [m⁴]: 260.42×10-6

Start Second Moment of Area in xy Plane - Izz [m⁴]: 166.70×10-6

Start Second Moment of Area in yz Plane - Ixx [m⁴]: 427.12×10-6

Start Density [kg/m³]: 2.5×103

Start Torsion Modulus - G [Pa]: 15×109

Start Rayleigh Damping Parameter a: 0.04

Start Rayleigh Damping Parameter b: 0.96

Middle Young Modulus - E [Pa]: 37×109

Middle Poisson Coefficient: 0.2

Middle Cross Section Area [m²]: 50×10-3

Middle Second Moment of Area in xz Plane - Iyy [m⁴]: 260.42×10-6

Middle Second Moment of Area in xy Plane - Izz [m⁴]: 166.70×10-6

Middle Second Moment of Area in yz Plane - Ixx [m⁴]: 427.12×10-6

Middle Density [kg/m³]: 2.5×103

Middle Torsion Modulus - G [Pa]: 15×109

Middle Rayleigh Damping Parameter a: 0.04

Middle Rayleigh Damping Parameter b: 0.96

Table C.5: Sleeper geometry for the case study

89

- Word-Problems-System-of-Linear-Equation-in-Two-Variables.docUploaded byJoric Magusara
- Solar CollectorUploaded byAnonymous 73gEYyEtL
- 2010- O level A mathsUploaded byhypetuition9993
- STAR-CCM v7 BrochureUploaded byAntonio Martins
- EquationsUploaded byÁlvaro Arroyo Parejo
- C4 EUploaded byshah143
- Total Gadha-Quadratic EquationsUploaded bySaket Shahi
- arema capitulo 4Uploaded byedisjdav
- common core cte transportation standardsUploaded byapi-246943618
- planningplatformspow2Uploaded byapi-238782358
- Opinions of Nursing Students towards Simulation Efficiency in Nursing EducationUploaded byinventionjournals
- Academic HistoryUploaded byDrunkDracula69
- MT1.F13.v2.solvedUploaded byPPP
- Solomon BUploaded bynishit0157623637
- HBM nCode DesignOpt+RobustDesignWebinar Sumeet 1Uploaded bySaad Al Hely
- Micro Matic Student ManualUploaded byrtkoby
- CM Monthly Test plan 2018-19.pdfUploaded byRupangi Dalal
- Using Computer Simulations to Enhance Science Teaching and LearningUploaded bykangalbert86
- Brochure_LMS Solutions for Aerospace EngineeringUploaded byaniket_nikam2000
- GATE Syllabus 2014 for Electrical EngineeringUploaded bySunil Narayanan
- Boethius Has Successfully Shown That We Have Free Will PresentUploaded byNora Young
- oconnor preparing to launchUploaded byapi-414017065
- Teacher Level 8.PDFUploaded byElmor 2019
- Let Exam Coverage for Math SpecializationUploaded byAndy Quino
- alg 2 lesson planUploaded byapi-332045960
- GATE-2015-syllabus-for-EEE.pdfUploaded byAdityaKushwaha
- Ndaii2018 eUploaded byAkhalesh
- C1BS02-C1902-MATHEMATICS-IIUploaded bySudhakar_08
- Qu2622Uploaded byapi-3861295
- AAMOG2013msiaUploaded byRashid Serakawi

- Prediction of wheel wearUploaded bybenssj
- Coleman-IJ-2014-PhD-Thesis.pdfUploaded bybenssj
- Disser Ta Cao thesisUploaded bybenssj
- Conveyor Systems and Equipment11Uploaded bybenssj
- 271516484 an Efficient Pulp Lifter for Ag Sag Mills PDFUploaded bybenssj
- Cencen Gong - Final ThesisUploaded bybenssj
- shevtsov_2008 trainUploaded bybenssj
- Thesis 2002 Zolotas 222Uploaded bybenssj
- 2016 03 PhD Binin LiuUploaded bybenssj
- CF R Advisors EN1591Uploaded bybenssj
- Amtec - Flange Calculation According to EN 1591-1_2001 + A1_2009Uploaded bymicver_00
- EN1591 BasisUploaded bysathishjey
- Wk10 - External Flow 2Uploaded bybenssj
- Insulated PipingUploaded bybenssj
- Precipitation Hardening LabUploaded bybenssj
- modeks03Uploaded bybenssj
- Unit4-VVBUploaded bybenssj
- Balancing of Rotating MassesUploaded bybenssj
- White Paper - Torque Arm - Final EditUploaded bybenssj
- week6(1)Uploaded bybenssj
- 1100 - Draft.pdfUploaded bybenssj
- David Murphy PIR.pdfUploaded bybenssj
- 1100 - second-nature-collaborative-combined.pdfUploaded bybenssj
- 'cheat sheet'.pdfUploaded bybenssj
- 63097283 Video Kill the Radio Star Buggles Piano GTR VocalUploaded byAnthony Fisher

- Steel and Konig 2006 Integrating Theories of MotivationUploaded byRichard
- 132819680 Quantitative AptitudeUploaded byRishabh Vasu
- R1-081567 PDCCH Search Space Randomization (Revised)Uploaded bySanjeev Kumar
- PolynomialsUploaded by林冠揚
- On the Geometry of Tensor Network StatesUploaded byPhilip Ngem
- SyllabusUploaded bymenakadeviece
- Calculator ProficiencyUploaded byGladys Joyce Faustino
- Best Book for orUploaded bysanthosh90mech
- 777_1Uploaded byAKHIL PASULA
- mth 462 lesson day 6Uploaded byapi-436843543
- Analytic GeometryUploaded byKorinta Kori
- EES ManualUploaded byFilipe Santana
- 10 Partial Fractions.pptUploaded byNdzalama Mhangwana
- Liu, R. Y. (1995). Control Charts for Multivariate Processes.Uploaded byJudith Lugo
- 1-s2.0-0045794972900430-mainUploaded bySavvas Papadopoulos
- Classification of Differential Equations.docxUploaded byJera Obsina
- Algebra2PreCalculusLogarithmicandExponentialEquationsMazeFREEBIEUploaded byShubham Tiwari
- Homework 2 SOLUTION.docUploaded byporifera
- Lecture Notes Nonlinear Equations and RootsUploaded byAmbreen Khan
- 37. M.E. Medical ElectronicsUploaded byLogambikaPalaniswami
- Figure 3Uploaded byFarisda
- Imc 2015 ExtendedUploaded byJoseph Viju
- 34032_IntEquns.pdfUploaded bySyed Beeban Basha
- Metodo de Separacion de VariablesUploaded byRoy Vallejo
- the American mathematicsUploaded bypiping1522
- Mathematics FYUP Syllabus Delhi UniversityUploaded byShivam Shekhar
- 13.mechtronics(1)Uploaded byRaj Nivas
- Complex Numbers - Introduction.pdfUploaded byhamxafarrukh
- linearUploaded byAmalina Zulkiflee
- Strategy for Mathematics « Kashish MittalUploaded byKnucasior Bich