Article

Journal of Vibration and Control

2020, Vol. 0(0) 1–8

Rail/wheel rolling noise generation due to © The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
parametric excitation DOI: 10.1177/1077546320968650
journals.sagepub.com/home/jvc

Anders Nordborg

Abstract
When a wheel rolls over a railway rail, it ‘sees’ a varying stiffness downwards because the rail is periodically supported by
sleepers, leading to parametric excitation of the rail/wheel system. This study investigates the importance of parametric
excitation on railway noise generation. Because the problem is non-stationary, it is modelled in the time domain. Rail and
wheel impulse response functions, together with an iteration scheme to match boundary conditions in the rail/wheel
contact patch, yield rail and wheel response plus contact force at each wheel position on the rail. Forward velocity and
rotation of the elastic wheel are accounted for. Feedback coupling between response and force takes part in the excitation.
Numerical simulations show that, for a rail on stiff pads, parametric excitation is a major excitation mechanism, above all
leading to increased excitation and noise levels in a broad frequency region around the pinned–pinned frequency.

Keywords
Railway noise, rolling noise, parametric excitation, periodically supported rail, pinned–pinned frequency, time domain,
rail vibration

1. Introduction
Rail/wheel rolling noise is generated during the rolling
process due to small-scale roughnesses on the rail/wheel
running surfaces. Another excitation mechanism is para-
metric excitation due to the varying track stiffness because
the rail is periodically supported on sleepers. A third
mechanism is the feedback coupling mechanism between
wheel/rail response and contact force. Of these three effects,
roughness-induced excitation has been thoroughly in-
vestigated by Remington (1987a, 1987b) and Thompson
(2009) and it is also known to be the main cause for rail/
wheel rolling noise.
Parametric excitation increases noise generation at low
frequencies, at the sleeper-passing frequency, and at higher
frequencies around the rail pinned–pinned frequency, which
occurs around 1 kHz, (Nordborg, 1998a, 2002) and (Wu and
Thompson 2004, 2006). Parametric excitation can be ne-
glected for a softly padded rail, Nordborg and Koh (2016),
but it is shown in this study that for a rail on stiff pads,
parametric excitation may be a major excitation mechanism.
The model presented in this study is more realistic than
those in the references cited above because it also includes
the wheel resonances, as opposed to the simpler rigid wheel
mass models used before. In addition, the influences of high
train speeds on rail and wheel dynamics are included in the
moving rail Green’s function, as well as the rotating wheel
Green’s function. Thus, the model adopts a Green’s function
approach. Those Green’s functions are transformed to the
time domain, represented there by impulse response
functions. In the time domain, the system state variables
(contact force and rail/wheel response) are computed for
each time step by an iteration process, after which time and
wheel position on the rail are incremented by a small
amount. Because the model operates in the time domain,
non-stationary processes (parametric excitation, feedback
coupling and non-linear effects) can be accounted for. A
frequency-domain model is incapable of doing that. The
current model has previously been used to investigate
non-linear rail/wheel contact mechanics during rolling
(Lundberg et al., 2016). Similar Green’s function ap-
proaches of the railway track have been used to study the
effects of curve squeal and impacts of wheel flats, Pieringer
(2014) and Mazilu (2007), and on the effect of introducing
rail dampers on the rail/wheel interaction (Sheng et al.,
2016). The wheel was always a rigid mass in those
investigations.
Sound View Instruments AB, Sweden
Received: 5 June 2020; accepted: 2 October 2020
Corresponding author:
Anders Nordborg, Sound View Instruments AB, Hoby Gard, Borrby
27636, Sweden.
Email: anders.nordborg@soundview.se
2 Journal of Vibration and Control 0(0)
The simulation calculations of the current model result in
broadband contact force and rail/wheel response spectra, as
opposed to the discrete response spectra obtained in pre-
vious studies on the same topic mentioned above.
Parts of the current model have previously been pre-
sented in detail in a number of studies and conference
proceedings (see the reference list at the end of the article)
and are summarized in the following. An introduction to the
theory of parametric excitation can be found in the book by
Nayfeh and Mook (1979).
2. Theory
2.1. Rail
The rail is modelled as a uniform Euler beam of infinite
length, resting on identical supports (sleepers) at periodic
intervals (Figure 1) (Nordborg, 1998b). The Euler beam
theory can be used up to at least 2000 Hz if the bending
stiffness is reduced by an appropriate amount (Nordborg
and Verhelst, 2019). The spacing between (the centres of)
two sleepers is l. The supports are modelled as lumped
Figure 1. Discretely supported rail, with a wheel moving (rolling)
forward, exciting rail and wheel into vibrations and noise radiation,
due to surface roughnesses and parametric excitation.
mass-spring-damping systems. The rail is thus restrained
to move in the vertical direction. Rotational constraints
(Nordborg, 1999) as well as sleeper modes (Dalenbring,
1995) can also be included in the support description. The
response, that is the vertical rail deflection, at coordinate x
due to a stationary harmonic unit point force δ(x
x0) at x0,
by definition is the Green’s function, G(x|x0). As the rail–
sleeper system is periodic with period l, according to
Floquet’s theorem, Green’s function is a linear combination
of solutions having the form defined by
Y ðx þ nlÞ ¼ Y ðxÞeng (1)
where the complex coefficient g determines vibration
propagation and sound radiation from the rail. Integer n
denotes the number of the sleeper bay. Waves (propagating
to the right) decay if ℜðgÞ ≤ 0; such frequency ranges are
called stopbands. On the other hand, if ℜðgÞx0 (some
damping is always present), the waves propagate almost
unattenuated; these frequency ranges are called passbands.
Because Green’s function here has unit m/N, it represents
the (point or transfer) receptance of the rail. The integral of
vertical rail vibrations over the whole length of the rail, the
energy spectral density ESD1 (Nordborg and Koh, 2016) of
the rail
Z ∞
2
ESD1 ¼ jGω0 ðxjx0 Þj dx (2)

∞
is an important property determining the amount of radiated
noise. Subscript 1 indicates that the rail is excited by a unit
point force. This integral, and thus the noise radiation,
becomes large when vibrations can propagate unimpeded
over long distances in the rail–sleeper system, that is when
the real part of the propagation coefficient ℜðgÞx0 (see
equation (1)). The track decay Rate (TDR; Thompson,
2009) determines attenuation of rail vibration per metre
rail length, TDR =
20 log(|eg|)/l (dB/m), which can be
rewritten as
20 1
TDR ¼
ℜðgÞ (3)
lnð10Þ l
Green’s function can be used to calculate rail response Y
(vertical vibration) and subsequently also the contact force.
Assume the rail is excited by a general force, f(x,t) in the
time domain and F(x,ω) in the frequency domain. The
solution, vertical rail vibrations at the position x0, can in
the frequency domain be written as
Z ∞
Y ðx0 ,ωÞ ¼ Gω ðxjx0 ÞFðx,ωÞdx (4)

∞
The problem to be solved is to calculate rail and wheel
responses, yr(x0, t0) and yw, as the wheel rolls over the rail,
and subsequently the noise radiation during the rolling
process. In the time domain, the vertical rail deflection,
Nordborg
yr(x0, t0), at the moving point, x0 = vt0, (under the wheel) is
a convolution of the rail Green’s function in the time do-
main, the impulse response function g(x, x0; t, t0) and
the forward moving contact force f(x, t) = f(t) δ (x
vt)
(Nordborg, 2002)
Z Z
yr ðx0 ,t0 Þ ¼ gðx,x0 ; t,t0 Þf ðx,tÞdxdt (5)
Green’s function in the time domain, g(x, x0; t, t0), is
calculated by an inverse Fourier transform of Green’s
function in the frequency domain, G(x|x0).
2.2. Wheel
The wheel response (Nordborg and Kohrs, 2015) is as for
the rail, calculated using the (wheel) impulse response
function gw
Z Z
yw ¼ gw f dxdt þ yw,m (6)
The excitation force is the same as for the rail because the
rail and wheel are in contact. The wheel impulse response
function, gw, is calculated in this study using inverse Fourier
transform of point and transfer receptance in the radial
direction of the wheel (more details about the calculation
algorithm can be found in Klaus (2019)). However, the
vertical displacement of the rigid mass of the wheel, yw,m, is
calculated separately by numerically solving the ordinary
differential equation (ODE) of the wheel mass acted upon
by inertia forces caused by the constant preload force P plus
the contact force f (without the preload, caused by the
weight of the train on the wheel axle, the wheel would not
stay in contact with the rail). Therefore, the rigid mass mode
of the modal model describing the frequency response
functions (FRFs) of the wheel is excluded from the modal
model, and thus not included in the impulse response
function, gw, of the wheel. Separation of the rigid mode and
the other higher frequency modes of the wheel is a neces-
sary step to perform the ODE integration mentioned above.
In addition, it enables comparison of the effects of these
higher wheel modes on the rail/wheel interaction with the
response using a simple lumped mass model only (although
not done in this study).
2.3. Contact
The compression of the wheel/rail contact region (patch)
must simultaneously fulfil two equations. First, it is de-
termined by the vertical rail and wheel deflections and
surface roughness, ys
δ ¼ yr þ ys
yw (7)
Second, according to Hertz, the indentation is a non-
linear function of the contact force f, δH = δH(f). Of course,
3
f ≥ 0 always; f = 0 implies the loss of wheel–rail contact,
δ ≤ 0.
The rolling process is simulated by calculation of rail/
wheel deflections and contact force at each time step. If δ
and δH are not equal, the indentation is varied a little, and
rail/wheel deflections and contact force are recalculated.
Solving
δ
δH ðf Þx0
iteratively yields the contact force f (Nordborg, 2002) for
the current time step. When the contact force f finally has
been determined, rail and wheel deflections, yr and yw,
respectively, can also be calculated with the help of the
impulse response functions, and the convolutions described
in equations (5) and (6). The time and wheel position on the
rail is incremented, and the process described above is
repeated.
2.4. Surface roughness
To calculate the contact force, we need to know ys, the
vertical deviation of the rail surface from a perfectly smooth
rail surface. The roughness of the rail is usually expressed
by a roughness amplitude spectrum (dB re. 1 μm) versus
roughness wavelength. A random sequence ys as a function
of distance along the rail running surface is generated. The
sequence is then processed to ensure that the spectrum takes
the same form as the desired roughness amplitude spectrum.
It is Fourier transformed to the frequency domain where the
spectrum is shaped, then inverse Fourier transformed back
to the time domain again. The spectrum used is a combined
rail/wheel roughness spectrum, including contact filtering
effects (Thompson, 2009).
2.5. Noise radiation
Sound radiation from the rail depends on the total rail vi-
bration. It is shown (Nordborg 1998a) that the energy
spectral density (ESD) of vertical rail vibrations excited by
a moving force can be estimated by the expression
1
ESD ¼ SFF ESD1 (8)
v
if v << cB (the bending wave speed in the rail) and the
excitation force F (equation (4)) are periodic along the
periodic rail–sleeper system. The factor 1=v appeared be-
cause the rail is excited by a moving force. The ESD1 when
the rail is excited by a stationary unit point force is defined
by equation (2), and SFF is the power spectral density of the
contact force. Force as a function of time was calculated in
section Contact above, from which the power spectral
density is obtained. The pass-by time Tp, defined by the train
length, yields the corresponding power spectral density
of vertical rail vibrations PSD ¼ 1=vTp SFF ESD1 . Sound
4 Journal of Vibration and Control 0(0)

power W of radiated noise due to vertical rail vibrations also Table 1. Rail and wheel input parameters.
depends on rail width w and radiation efficiency σ
Parameter Value Description
1 E 2.11011 N/m2 Rail modulus of elasticity
W ¼ ρ0 c0 σwω2 SFF ESD1 (9)
vTp ηr 0.02 Rail loss factor
I 18.510
6 m4 Rail moment of inertia (62%)
Multiplication by ω2 comes from going from vibration
mr 60 kg/m Rail mass per unit length
displacement to vibration velocity (squared).
Ms 143 kg (half) sleeper mass
L 0.6 m Sleeper spacing
3. Numerical simulations Kp 1000 MN/m Pad stiffness
ηp 0.25 Pad loss factor
3.1. Application example: time-domain versus Kb 100 MN/m Ballast stiffness (half sleeper)
frequency-domain models ηb 1.0 Ballast loss factor
With numerical simulations, it is shown why a model for Mw 600 kg Wheel mass
prediction of rail/wheel rolling noise at least sometimes has P 85 kN Wheel preload
to be performed in the time domain, and not in the frequency W 0.150 m Rail foot width
domain, to yield valid prediction results. Mostly, railway V 300 km/h Speed
noise is predicted using frequency-domain models (see e.g.
TWINS (Thompson, 2009)) because frequency-domain
models have many advantages: they are relatively easy to surface roughness level used is the one for a rather rough
perform and their calculation times are short. However, the rail; the TSI (the European railway standard Technical
disadvantage is that they sometimes are incapable of de- Specifications for Interoperability) limits plus 3 dB. The
scribing all relevant effects taking part in the rolling noise speed is 300 km/h for all calculations in this study.
generation process, which leads to prediction errors. To
illustrate this, numerical simulations with two models, one
3.3. Rail/wheel Green’s functions
in the time domain developed in this paper, and the other in
the frequency domain, are performed and the results For the rail, point (Figure 2) and transfer FRFs (receptances)
compared and shown below. The frequency-domain model are needed to construct the moving impulse response
(Nordborg and Koh, 2016) uses the same input FRFs as the function (Figure 3) and the moving FRF (Figure 4). Inverse
time-domain model; however, forward velocity and wheel Fourier transforms yield the moving impulse response
rotation as well as the interaction between rail/wheel re- function in the time domain (Nordborg, 2002) and trans-
sponse and contact force cannot be included. It will be forming back again to the frequency domain, the moving
shown, that for a track with stiff pads (used in this calcu- FRF. It may be interesting to note, that the force point is not
lation example), in addition to rail surface roughnesses, fixed to any particular position on the rail, but it is moving in
parametric excitation and the feedback coupling mechanism the x-direction along the rail surface.
between wheel/rail response and contact force are important For the wheel, as for the rail, we need the moving
excitation mechanisms. (or rotating) impulse response function, in the rail/wheel
contact point rotating around the perimeter. The same
calculation scheme as for the rail is used, but an finite el-
3.2. Input parameters
ement model of the wheel yields the input and transfers
Table 1 shows values of input parameters used for the FRFs in the radial direction (Nordborg and Kohrs, 2015).
calculations. Stiff pads are assumed, with a stiffness value Using these functions, inverse Fourier transforms then
of 1000 MN/m. This is a high value but not unrealistic generate the rotating impulse response function in the time
because the pad stiffness generally increases with frequency domain (Figure 5). Fourier transforming the rotating im-
(Nordborg and Verhelst, 2019) and load. In Germany, the pulse response function then generates the rotating FRF in
most commonly used rail pad has a dynamic stiffness higher the frequency domain (Figure 6).
than 1000 MN/m. The rail moment of inertia has been
chosen to 62% of the nominal value. The ballast stiffness 3.4. Rail/wheel interaction contact force: smooth
value regards half a sleeper. The wheel preload includes the
wheel mass. In the time-domain model, non-linear Hertzian
rail surface.
contact mechanics determines the value of the contact In the first calculation example, a wheel rolling over
spring stiffness; in the frequency-domain model, the a perfectly smooth rail is simulated. The rail/wheel contact
Hertzian contact spring stiffness is linearized. The rail force spectrum is shown in Figure 7. Also shown are spectra
Nordborg
Figure 2. Rail receptance (magnitude) and (colour online). The
upper curve shows the receptance between two sleepers and the
lower on a sleeper position.
Figure 3. Moving impulse response function of the rail. The rail is
hit between two sleepers. The plot shows the impulse response in
the point moving with the forward velocity v = 300 km/h along the
rail surface.
Figure 4. Moving rail receptance (magnitude). The rail is excited
by a force moving with the forward velocity v = 300 km/h over the
rail surface.
5
Figure 5. Rotating impulse response function of the wheel in the
radial direction. The wheel is hit radially. The plot shows the radial
impulse response in the point moving (rotating) around the wheel
perimeter with the rotational velocity v = 300 km/h.
Figure 6. Rotating wheel receptance in the radial direction. The
wheel is excited by a force moving (rotating) around the wheel
perimeter with the rotational velocity v = 300 km/h. For com-
parison, the stationary (non-rotating) point receptance is also
shown.
for a wheel rolling on a rail with a roughness spectrum 3 dB
above the TSI limit and 10 dB below that.
3.5. Rail/wheel interaction and rolling noise
generation: rough rail surface
When the wheel rolls over the rail, the contact force f excites
the rail and wheel into vibration, yr, equation (5), and yw,
equation (6). As a consequence, the rail radiates noise W
equation (9). Plots of spectra of the contact force and rail
and wheel vibrations are shown in Figures 8 and 9. The plot
in Figure 10 shows rail noise radiation. The time-domain
model developed in this study is compared with the
6 Journal of Vibration and Control 0(0)
Figure 7. Rail/wheel interaction contact force when the rail
surface is perfectly smooth
200 dB. Also shown are contact
force spectra when the rail has a roughness level of Technical
Specifications for Interoperability + 3 dB, and 10 dB below that.
(colour online).
Figure 8. Contact force spectrum for time- (thick line) and
frequency-domain (thin line) models (Nordborg and Koh, 2016).
The frequency domain model has the same rail/wheel parameters
as the time-domain model, but the rail/wheel interaction force is
only a function of the roughness spectrum and the stationary point
receptances of rail and wheel.
frequency-domain model (Nordborg and Koh, 2016). The
interpretation of the plots is discussed in the next section.
4. Discussion
4.1. Rail/wheel Green’s functions
The plot of the vertical rail point receptance (Figure 2)
shows three maxima caused by system resonances: the first
caused by the vibration of the mass of the rail and sleepers
on the ballast stiffness, the second caused by vibrations of
the rail mass on the pad stiffness and the third, distinct one
around 1.1 kHz, is the pinned–pinned frequency, where the
Figure 9. Rail and wheel response vibration levels for the time-
domain model (thick line) and the frequency-domain model (thin
line) (colour online).
Figure 10. Sound power level spectrum (narrow bands) of rail
noise radiation for the time-domain model developed in this study
and for the frequency-domain model (Nordborg and Koh, 2016).
rail vibrates with a bending wavelength equal to two sleeper
spans, with nodes at the sleeper positions. The calculated
point receptance curves at midspan and on a sleeper po-
sition exhibit a striking resemblance with measured ones
(Nordborg and Verhelst, 2019). The receptance through
a sleeper span varies substantially due to the stiff pads, with
consequences for rolling noise generation, as discussed
below. The moving impulse response function of the rail
(Figure 3) contains a clearly visible contribution of the
pinned–pinned frequency, superimposed on the lower fre-
quency vibrations caused by vibrations of rail and sleeper
masses on pad and ballast stiffnesses. The forward velocity
leads to a splitting of the pinned–pinned frequency
(Nordborg, 2002) (Figure 4).
What is striking from the rotating impulse response
function (Figure 5) and receptance plot (Figure 6) of the
wheel is the beating of the vibration amplitude in the time
Nordborg
domain and splitting of resonance peaks in the frequency
domain. The distance between the two peaks corresponds to
the rotational speed and wheel diameter.
In changing the dynamic behaviour of the wheel re-
sponse, amplitude and frequency of the wheel resonances,
it is important to include the rotation, in particular at
high frequencies for high-speed trains. However, below
1500 Hz, where rail vibrations around the pinned–pinned
frequency are important, the frequency response for the
wheel is flat, where a lumped mass model of the wheel
probably also would work fine.
4.2. Rail/wheel interaction and rolling noise
generation
When the wheel rolls over a perfectly smooth rail, para-
metric excitation (Nordborg, 1998a, 2002) due to varying
rail receptance through the sleeper spans gives rise to peaks
at the sleeper-passing frequency fs = v/l (around 140 Hz)
with harmonics, dominating the contact force spectrum
(Figure 7). This peak is also present in the contact force
spectrum for a rail with surface roughnesses. There are
broadband contributions to the excitation around frequen-
cies where the rail/wheel system has resonances: wheel–
ballast resonance, rail–pad–sleeper resonance and the
pinned–pinned frequency. These results are obtained with the
time-domain model. The frequency-domain model would
yield no response at all for a wheel rolling over a perfectly
smooth rail. Parametric excitation can be seen also in the
spectra for the rough rails, as an increased contact force
around the pinned–pinned frequency (just above 1 kHz).
At first glance at Figure 7, it appears as if the peaks at the
sleeper-passing frequency fs = v/l (around 140 Hz) with
harmonics are the most important and interesting contri-
bution of parametric excitation caused by the periodic track
stiffness due to the periodic rail supports. This excitation at
discrete frequencies has been thoroughly investigated in
other studies, for example in Nordborg (1998a, 2002), but
broadband parametric excitation has not been addressed
before. However, in this study, we focus on broadband
contributions to the excitation, which, for example can be
seen in the plot for the perfectly smooth rail in the frequency
region 800–1800 Hz. This excitation is also caused by the
periodic rail stiffness – that is – it is an effect of parametric
excitation. It cannot be modelled properly by a linear model in
the frequency-domain model because the process is non-
stationary. This is why the calculated contact force is about
10–15 dB higher for the time-domain model than for the
frequency-domain model in this frequency region in Figure 8.
The frequency-domain model, not including parametric
excitation, underpredicts the contact force and rail vibration
levels below 1500 Hz (Figures 8 and 9). The error is around
10 dB in a broad region around the pinned–pinned fre-
quency, which occurs at 1.1 kHz in these simulation
calculations. The reason for the underprediction of rail
7
vibration levels is that the frequency-domain model cannot
include the effects of parametric excitation and the feedback
coupling mechanism between wheel/rail response and
contact force, which on the other hand, the time-domain
model automatically does. Rail (and wheel) deflections
(Figure 3 and 5) due to vibrational response to the excitation
force have the same effect on the contact force as the surface
roughnesses, in equation (7); so, they are effectively taking
part in the excitation process. In this way, a feedback from
response to excitation force arises. At the pinned–pinned
frequency, the rail vibrates with large amplitudes. Through
the feedback coupling, the pinned–pinned mode thus
strongly takes part in the excitation around the pinned–
pinned frequency, explaining the big difference in vibra-
tion levels obtained with the two different (time- and
frequency-domain) models. Stiff pads make the pinned–
pinned mode more pronounced and increase the modula-
tion around the pinned–pinned frequency, which increases
noise radiation (Nordborg, 1998a, 2002).
After having multiplied, the force level spectrum
(Figure 8) with the ESD1 of the rail, the sound power
spectrum (equation (9) and Figure 10) is obtained. For the
rail on stiff pads in this calculation example, the difference
in noise radiation between the time- and the frequency-
domain models is greater than 3 dB (after A-weighting)
because the frequency-domain model fails to capture the
effects of parametric excitation. However, other sources
also contributing to wayside railway noise (e.g. lateral rail
vibration and aeroacoustic noise) may reduce the impor-
tance of rail noise near the pinned–pinned frequency, in
particular, given the high speed (300 km/h) used in the
simulation calculations in this study. Nevertheless, in ad-
dition to rail surface roughnesses, parametric excitation and
the feedback coupling mechanism between wheel/rail re-
sponse and contact force can be important excitation
mechanisms and should be accounted for.
5. Conclusion
When a railway wheel rolls over a perfectly smooth sleeper-
supported rail, the rail and wheel are excited into vertical
vibration. Parametric excitation and modulation due to
varying rail receptance through the sleeper spans and in-
teraction feedback coupling between rail/wheel response
and contact force determine the excitation contact force
spectrum. For a stiffly padded rail with surface roughnesses,
these effects contribute to the total A-weighted rail/wheel
rolling noise generation with amounts that cannot be ne-
glected. A proper modelling requires a time-domain model.
Acknowledgements
Thanks to Torsten Kohrs, Bombardier Transportation, Hyoin Koh,
Korea Railroad Research Institute and to Katja Stampka, Tech-
nische Univesität Berlin for help and support.
8 Journal of Vibration and Control 0(0)
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, au-
thorship and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Anders Nordborg  https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3961-9890
References
Dalenbring M (1995) A study of the effect of track parameter
changes on vertical rail vibrations. Technical Report no
TRITA-FKT 9506. Stockholm: Department of Vehicle Engi-
neering, Kungl Tekniska Högskolan.
Klaus C (2019) Einfluss von radparametern auf rollgeräusche bei
schienenfahrzeugen. Master’s Thesis, Technische Universität
Berlin, Germany.
Lundberg OE, Nordborg A and Lopez Arteaga I (2016) The in-
fluence of surface roughness on the contact stiffness and the
contact filter effect in nonlinear wheel-track interaction.
Journal of Sound and Vibration 366: 429–446.
Mazilu T (2007) Green’s functions for analysis of dynamic re-
sponse of wheel/rail to vertical excitation. Journal of Sound
and Vibration 306: 31–58.
Nayfeh AH and Mook DT (1979) Nonlinear Oscillations. New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
Nordborg A (1998a) Vertical rail vibrations: pointforce excitation.
Acta Acustica 84(2): 280–288.
Nordborg A (1998b) Vertical rail vibrations: parametric excitation.
Acta Acustica 84(2): 289–300.
Nordborg A (1999) Rail/wheel parametric excitation: laboratory
and field measurements. Acta Acustica 85(3): 355–365.
Nordborg A (2002) Wheel/rail noise generation due to nonlinear
effects and parametric excitation. The Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America 111(4): 1772–1781.
Nordborg A and Koh HI (2016) Comparison of two different
models describing railway noise generation and radiation. In:
Inter-noise congress and conference proceedings, Hamburg,
Germany. INCE.
Nordborg A and Kohrs T (2015) Ein Zeitbereichsmodell Zur
Beschreibung der Rollgeräuschentstehung. In: DAGA con-
gress and conference proceedings, Nurnberg, Germany.
Nordborg A and Verhelst W (2019) Validation and Comparison
with Measurements at Infrabel of a Time Domain Model
Describing Railway Noise Generation. In: IWRN13 congress
and conference proceedings, Ghent, Belgium.
Pieringer A (2014) A numerical investigation of curve squeal in
the case of constant wheel/rail friction. Journal of Sound and
Vibration 333: 4295–4313.
Remington PJ (1987a) Wheel/rail rolling noise, I: theoretical
analysis. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 81:
1805–1823.
Remington PJ (1987b) Wheel/rail rolling noise, II: validation of
the theory. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 81:
1824–1832.
Sheng X, Xiao X and Zhang S (2016) The time domain moving
green function of a railway track and its application to wheel-
rail interactions. Journal of Sound and Vibration 377: 133–154.
Thompson D (2009) Railway Noise and Vibration. Oxford:
Elsevier.
Wu TX and Thompson DJ (2004) On the parametric excitation of
the wheel/track system. Journal of Sound and Vibration 278:
725–747.
Wu TX and Thompson DJ (2006) On the rolling noise generation
due to wheel/track parametric excitation. Journal of Sound and
Vibration 293: 566–574.