Original Research

Advances in Structural Engineering

2020, Vol. 23(3) 523–537
Dynamic response of vehicle and track Ó The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
in long downhill section of high-speed sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1369433219870573

railway under braking condition journals.sagepub.com/home/ase

Chenxu Lu and Jin Shi

Abstract
The dynamic behaviors of vehicle and track in long and downhill section of high-speed railway are studied under braking condition. A
vehicle–track dynamic interaction model is constructed based on two longitudinal vehicle–track interaction models. In the model, the
vehicle is considered as a 21-degree-of-freedom multi-rigid body system composed of a car body, two bogies, and four wheels; using
the finite-element method, the track is modeled as a Euler beam; the ‘‘circular track’’ method is proposed to reduce the degree of
freedom of the model for the simulation of long-distance track; two longitudinal wheel–rail interaction models are considered: the
Polach creep theory (suitable for simulating condition of large creep resulting from heavy braking) and the longitudinal rigid-contact
theory. The dynamic responses of the substructures during vehicle braking calculated by the models based on the Polach creep model
and longitudinal contact model show little difference, but the Polach creep model can fully consider the motion of the wheels and
large wheel–rail creep in the braking process and can accurately analyze the wheel–rail interface damage. The results of dynamic inter-
action between wheel and rail under different conditions suggest that large braking torque will cause some or all of the wheels to slide
and then cause the damage of wheel–rail interface. The grade will lead to the increase in braking distance and time and also extend
the sliding time of locked wheels, increasing the risk of damage of the wheel–rail interface. The braking torque should be kept below a
reasonable value, so that the braking distance and braking time can be as short as possible without the occurrence of wheel sliding
along the track. A reasonable braking torque under the dry track and wet track conditions should be 7 and 4 kN m respectively,
according to the calculation in this article.

Keywords
braking torque, damage of wheel–rail interface, dynamic response, finite-element method, long-steep grade

Introduction structure and lead to the damage of wheel–rail inter-

With the development of high-speed train in China,
high-speed railways have been built over a large area
in the mountainous areas in central and western
China. Limited by the terrain conditions, long-steep
grades are often used in the construction. For example,
in the QinLing tunnel group (of the XiCheng high-
speed railway), a long grade with gradient of 25& and
length of 46 km is adopted; in three intervals of the
DAXI passenger line (JieXiuDong—LingShiDong—
HuoZhouDong—HongDongXi), downhill sections are
constructed with gradients greater than 20& and the
maximum gradient of 30&, forming a downhill section
with an average gradient of 27.6& and length of
15.6 km. However, a train will inevitably have to brake
and decelerate on the long grade, and braking will lead
to drastic change in longitudinal wheel–rail interaction
and produce additional longitudinal wheel–rail brak-
ing force, which will affect the stability of track
face. Moreover, accumulated rail damage will deterio-
rate the smoothness of the railway line, reducing the
safety of train operation and increasing the amount of
maintenance for the vehicle–track system. These stabi-
lity and safety issues caused by trains running on
grades have therefore drawn more and more attention,
especially the damage of wheel–rail interface which
often occurs recently on long-steep grades.
Scholars have conducted a lot of studies on the
longitudinal dynamic problems associated with run-
ning trains. These problems can be divided into three
main categories:
School of Civil Engineering, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing, P.R. China
Corresponding author:
Jin Shi, School of Civil Engineering, Beijing Jiaotong University, Beijing
100044, P.R. China.
Email: jshi@bjtu.edu.cn
524
1. Longitudinal impulse action of trains. The longi-
tudinal impulse effects caused by train accelera-
tion and deceleration have been investigated
mainly through multi-mass kinematic models.
For example, Geike (2007) constructed a longi-
tudinal dynamic model of train with a linear
coupler and draft gear system and studied the
reasons why the longitudinal hook force is too
large during the operation of a subway vehicle.
Cole and Sun (2006) compared and analyzed
the effects of three different types of hook
devices on the longitudinal dynamic perfor-
mance of the train to examine factors such as
the gap between hooks and the impedance hys-
teresis of the buffer. Based on multi-mass
model, Ansari et al. (2009) comprehensively
studied the longitudinal dynamic responses of a
train and considered the influence of the stiff-
ness and damping of the buffer, the running
speed of the train, and the distribution of empty
and heavy vehicles. Nasr and Mohammadi
(2010) analyzed the effect of braking-system
delay on the longitudinal dynamic performance
of trains, and the results showed that the com-
pressive hook force increases with the increase
in delay, while the tensive hook force decreases
with the increase in delay.
2. Longitudinal dynamic responses of track and
bridge structures under the action of braking
force. In these studies, fine structure models of
track and bridge are often constructed, the
dynamic action of train is simplified as dynamic
load, and the transfer law is focused on the
longitudinal force between track and bridge
under braking force. For example, Fryba
(1974a, 1974b) proposed a quasi-static method
to analyze the braking force and driving force
acting on rail and bridge and constructed the
first model for integrated analysis of bridge–rail
interaction. Toth and Ruge (2001) analyzed the
longitudinal dynamic response of long railway
bridge under the action of train braking. Bose
et al. (2018) studied the response of track under
the action of train braking force using analyti-
cal methods and pointed out that the range of
influence of the longitudinal response of track
is larger than that of the vertical response. Dai
and Liu (2013) studied the effect of small-
resistance fasteners on the longitudinal force
acting on the structures through a finite-
element model of an integrated system com-
posed of spatial track bridge and pier founda-
tion. Ruge and Birk (2007) studied the transfer
Advances in Structural Engineering 23(3)
law of the longitudinal force in welded rails on
bridge using a nonlinear track–bridge interac-
tion model.
3. Longitudinal dynamic problems associated with
vehicle–track interaction. In these studies, a
vehicle–track coupling dynamic model is gener-
ally constructed to analyze the longitudinal
interaction between vehicle and track under
braking condition for a given longitudinal rela-
tionship between wheel and rail. For example,
Zhang et al. (2011) and Cheng et al. (2013) ana-
lyzed a coupled vehicle–structure system under
braking condition based on a model of longitu-
dinal rigid wheel–rail contact. Zhu and Yan
(2017) and Huang et al. (2018) adopted a simi-
lar method to construct a coupled vehicle–
bridge dynamic model to investigate the
dynamic response of bridge with high piers and
curved box girders under braking condition.
Based on a model of longitudinal elastic
vehicle–bridge contact, Ju and Lin (2007) pro-
posed a finite-element model to investigate the
vehicle–bridge interaction (VBI) under the con-
ditions of braking and vehicle acceleration.
Based on the longitudinal creep contact theory,
Tran et al. (2016) studied the response of
multiple-railcar high-speed train under braking
condition and the results revealed significant
interaction between neighboring railcars when
the applied braking torque is between the opti-
mal and critical torques. Yang and Wu (2001)
studied the dynamic characteristics of bridges
during train deceleration using the VBI element
method.
These previous studies considered the dynamic
responses of vehicle or bridge under braking condition
only in flat railway sections. However, according to
the actual operation, trains are more likely to brake on
long grades, which also bring more safety risks. In
such cases, the creep characteristics of wheels, the
mechanism of the damage of wheel–rail interface, and
the effect of grade on longitudinal vehicle–track inter-
action are still unclear.
In this article, based on the longitudinal and vertical
interaction between wheel and rail, a vehicle–track
dynamic model is constructed on a grade. The effects
of braking torque, wheel–rail friction coefficient, line
gradient, rail-surface irregularity, and the effect of flex-
ibility of track structure on wheel–rail interaction in
the braking process are investigated, in the hope of
providing reference for the design and maintenance of
high-speed railway on long grades.
Lu and Shi 525

Dynamic model of vehicle–track 2. Pitching vibration of car body

interaction on a grade
€ c + (2ksz lc 2 + 2ksx h1 2 )uc  2ksx h1 xc + ksz lc zt1
jc u
Vehicle model
+ ksx h1 h2 ut1 + ksx h1 xt1  ksz lc zt2 + ksx h1 h2 ut2
Figure 1 shows a model of typical high-speed railway
vehicle on a grade: the vehicle is regarded as a system + ksx h1 xt2 + (2csz lc 2 + 2csx h1 2 )u_ c  2csx h1 x_ c
composed of interconnected components including a
car body, two bogies, and four wheels. Each compo- + csz lc z_ t1 + csx h1 h2 u_ t1 + csx h1 x_ t1  csz lc z_ t2
nent is assumed to be a rigid body having 3 degrees of + csx h1 h2 u_ t2 + csx h1 x_ t2 = 0 ð2Þ
freedom (DOFs; that is, bouncing vibration, pitching
vibration, and fore-and-aft vibration). In the model, 3. Fore-and-aft vibration of car body
the car body and bogies are connected by secondary
suspension consisting of two vertical spring–damping mc€xc  2ksx h1 uc + 2ksx xc  ksx h2 ut1  ksx xt1  ksx h2 ut2
units (each modeled as a spring (ksz) and dashpot (csz))
and two longitudinal spring–damping units (each mod- ksx xt2  2csx h1 u_ c + 2csx x_ c  csx h2 u_ t1  csx x_ t1
eled as a spring (ksx) and dashpot (csx)); the bogies are
csx h2 u_ t2  csx x_ t2 = mc g  i ð3Þ
connected with the wheels through primary suspension
consisting of four vertical spring–damping units (each 4. Bouncing vibration of bogie
modeled as a spring (kpz) and dashpot (cpz)) and four
longitudinal spring–damping units (each modeled as a mt€ztj  ksz zc + ksz lc uc + (2kpz + ksz )ztj  kpz zwk  kpz zwk
spring (kpx) and dashpot (cpx)). The positions of the  csz z_ c + csz lc u_ c + (2cpz + csz )_ztj  cpz z_ wk  cpz z_ wk =  mt g
secondary and primary vertical spring–damping units
ð4Þ
measured with respect to the center of mass of the car
body and that of the bogies are specified by Lc and Lt, 5. Pitching vibration of bogie
respectively; h1 denotes the vertical distance between
the center of mass of the car body and the positions of € tj + ksx h1 h2 uc  ksx h2 xc + (2kpz lt 2 + ksx h2 2 + 2kpx h3 2 )utj
jt u
secondary longitudinal suspension; h2 denotes the ver-
tical distance between the positions of secondary longi- + (ksx h2  2kpx h3 )xtj + ( 1)k + 1 kpz lt zwk + kpx h3 xwk
tudinal suspension and the center of mass of the
bogies; and h3 denotes the vertical distance between + ( 1)k + 1 kpz lt zwk + kpx h3 xwk + csx h1 h2 u_ c  csx h2 x_ c
the center of mass of the bogies and the center of mass
of the wheels + (2cpz lt 2 + csx h2 2 + 2cpx h3 2 )u_ tj + (csx h2  2cpx h3 )_xtj
The governing equations of the car body, bogies,
and wheels are derived according to the D’Alembert + ( 1)k + 1 cpz lt z_ wk + cpx h3 x_ wk + ( 1)k + 1 cpz lt z_ wk
principle: + cpx h3 x_ wk = 0 ð5Þ

1. Bouncing vibration of car body 6. Fore-and-aft vibration of bogie

mc€zc + 2ksz zc  ksz zt1  ksz zt2 + 2csz z_ c  csz z_ t1  csz z_ t2 =  mc g mt €xtj + ksx h1 uc  ksx xc + (ksx h2  2kpx h3 )utj
ð1Þ
+ (2kpx + ksx )xtj  kpx xwk  kpx xwk + csx h1 u_ c

csx x_ c + (csx h2  2cpx h3 )u_ tj + (2cpx + csx )_xtj

cpx x_ wk  cpx x_ wk = mt g  i ð6Þ

7. Bouncing vibration of wheel

mw€zwk  kpz ztj + ( 1)k + 1 kpz lt utj + kpz zwk  cpz z_ tj

+ cpz lt u_ tj + cpz z_ wk + mw g  Pk = 0 ð7Þ

8. Pitching vibration of wheel

€ wk + Rw Fk  T = 0
jw u ð8Þ
Figure 1. The vehicle model.
526
9. Fore-and-aft vibration of wheel
mw€xwk  kpx (xtj  h3 utj  xwk )  cpx (_xtj  h3 u_ tj  x_ wk )
+ Fk = mw g  i
In these equations, i represents the line gradient; T
represents the braking torque; mc and jc denote the
mass and pitching moment of inertia of the car body,
respectively; mt and jt denote the mass and pitching
moment of inertia of the bogies, respectively; mw and
jw denote the mass and pitching moment of inertia of
the wheels, respectively; zc, uc, and xc are the vertical
displacement, pitching displacement, and longitudinal
position of the car body, respectively; ztj, utj, and xtj
are the vertical displacement, pitching displacement,
and longitudinal position of the jth (j = 1–2) bogie,
respectively; zwk, uwk, and xwk are the vertical displace-
ment, pitching displacement, and longitudinal position
of the kth (k = 1–4) wheel, respectively.
The aforementioned governing equations of the
motion of vehicle are then sorted out and the dynamic
equilibrium equations are established in matrix form
€ v + Cv U_ v + Kv Uv = Fv
Mv U ð10Þ
where Mv, Cv, Kv, and Uv represent the mass matrix,
damping matrix, stiffness matrix, and displacement
vector of the vehicle, respectively; Fv represents the
external force vector acting on the vehicle.
‘‘Circular track’’ model
In general, the foundation of high-speed railway track
structure is relatively stable, so a single-layer track
model is adopted. Figure 2(a) shows a finite-element
model of the rail with finite length. Each node of the
rail beam element has three DOFs, that is, the vertical
displacement (zr), the rotation about the axis normal
to the x–z plane (ur), and the longitudinal
(a)
Figure 2. The track model: (a) traditional track (b) circular track.
Advances in Structural Engineering 23(3)
displacement (xr). The rail is supported discretely by
rail pads whose elasticity and damping properties are
modeled by vertically and longitudinally positioned
spring–damper units.
ð9Þ High-speed trains usually travel at such high speeds
that the braking distance is about 1–2 km. If a track
model is too long, the DOFs of the model will be
greatly increased, and the computational efficiency will
be seriously reduced. In this article, the idea of ‘‘circu-
lar track’’ is proposed to solve this problem.
Because the dynamic action of vehicle will only
affect the response of track structure in a finite length
and the effect is negligible beyond this length, it is
assumed that the range of influence is (2L, L), and the
origin of coordinate is the center of vehicle. In the
model, the length of the track is set to be 2 L, and for
mobile vehicles, the vehicle will gradually approach
the front end of the track and then move away from
the rear end of the track, so the range of influence will
exceed the length of track in the model. In order to
make the running vehicle stay at the center of track
and not reach the boundary ends and also make the
track responses at both ends be identical, a joint ele-
ment is used to connect the two ends of the track, thus
forming a ‘‘circular track’’ model, as shown in
Figure 2(b). The ‘‘ring’’ in the figure is not a real ring,
which is just used to illustrate that the vehicle is run-
ning at the center of the track all the time, and the
responses of the track at both ends are identical.
The dynamic equilibrium equations of the ‘‘circular
track’’ model are assembled with the direct-stiffness
method, and the DOFs of the track at both ends are
constrained by a joint element. The details are as
follows
8
> MU € + Cr U_ r + Kr Ur = Fr
>
< r r
Mr = Mrail + Mjoint
ð11Þ
>
> K = Krail + Kjoint + Kf
: r
Cr = Crail + Cjoint + Cf
i
G
(b)
Lu and Shi 527

2 1 2 3 ... 2n2 2n1 2n 3

where Kr, Mr, and Cr denote the whole stiffness matrix, Er Ar =l 0 0 0 Er Ar =l 0 0 1
6 0 12Er Ir =l3 6Er Ir =l2 0 0 12Er Ir =l3 6Er Ir =l2 7 2
mass matrix, and damping matrix of the track model, 6
6
6 0 6Er Ir =l2 4Er Ir =l 0 0 6Er Ir =l2 2Er Ir =l 7
7
7
3
..
respectively; Krail, Mrail, and Crail denote the overall Kjoint =6
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
7 .
6 7
6 Er Ar =l 0 0 0 Er Ar =l 0 0 7 2n  2
stiffness matrix, mass matrix, and damping matrix of 4 0 12Er Ir =l3 6Er Ir =l2 0 0 12Er Ir =l3 6Er Ir =l 25
2n  1
0 6Er Ir =l2 2Er Ir =l 0 0 6Er Ir =l2 4Er Ir =l 2n
the rail layer, respectively; Kjoint, Mjoint, and Cjoint
denote the stiffness matrix, mass matrix, and damping ð17Þ
matrix of joint element, respectively; the stiffness Cjoint = ar Mjoint + br Kjoint ð18Þ
matrix and damping matrix of the support layer are Kf
and Cf, respectively. Similarly, the overall matrixes of the support layer
The overall matrixes of the rail layer are formed by are formed by assembling all sub-matrixes
assembling all the sub-matrixes
X
n P
n
X
n1 nP
1 nP
1 Kf = kf Cf = cf ð19Þ
i=1
Krail = krail Mrail = mrail Crail = crail i=1
i=1 i=1 i=1

ð12Þ Wheel–rail relationship

where the stiffness sub-matrix and mass sub-matrix of The wheel–rail relationship is the link between vehicle
the rail are as follows and track, so it is also the key to discover the mechan-
2 3 ism of wheel–rail interaction. In the vehicle–track
Er Ar =l 0 0 Er Ar =l 0 0
6 0 12Er Ir =l3 6Er Ir =l2 0 12Er Ir =l3 27
6Er Ir =l 7 model constructed in this article, longitudinal and ver-
6
6 0 6Er Ir =l2 4Er Ir =l 0 6Er Ir =l2 2Er Ir =l 7 tical interactions are considered, which involve the
krail = 6
6 Er Ar =l
7
7
6 0 0 Er Ar =l 0 0 7
4 0 12Er Ir =l3 6Er Ir =l2 0 12Er Ir =l3 6Er Ir =l2 5
wheel–rail relationship in two directions.
0 6Er Ir =l2 2Er Ir =l 0 6Er Ir =l2 4Er Ir =l

ð13Þ Vertical wheel–rail relationship. The Hertz nonlinear con-

2 3
140 0 0 70 0 0 tact model (Zhai and Sun, 1994) is the most classical
6 0 156 22l 0 54 13l 7 and effective model for describing the vertical wheel–
6 7
6 0 22l 4l2 0 13l 3l2 7 rail force, so it is used to determine the wheel–rail con-
mrail = ðm1 l=420Þ6
6 70
7
6 0 0 140 0 0 7 7 tact force in this article
4 0 54 13l 0 156 22l 5
0 13l 3l2 0 22l 4l 2  3
kH Dzk 2 Dzk . = 0
ð14Þ Pk = ð20Þ
0 Dzk \0
where l is the length of the rail beam element, m1 is the Dzk = zrk + rk  zwk ð21Þ
mass of the rail per unit length, Er is Young’s modulus sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
of the rail, Ir is the second moment of inertia of the rail, 2 E2 Rwheel Rrailhead
and Ar is the cross-sectional area of the rail. kH = ð22Þ
3 (1  v2 )2
The Rayleigh damping is applied to define the
damping sub-matrix where Pk is the kth vertical wheel–rail contact force,
zwk is the vertical displacement of the kth wheel, zrk is
crail = ar mrail + br krail ð15Þ the rail displacement at the kth wheel load point, rk is
where ar and br denote the Rayleigh damping the track irregularity at the kth wheel load point, kH is
coefficients. the Hertz contact constant, the value of coefficient
The mass matrix, stiffness matrix, and damping Rwheel and Rrailhead denoting the radius of wheel and
matrix of joint element are as follows railhead are 0.46 m and 0.30 m, respectively, and v is
Poisson’s ratio of the material with the value of 0.3.
2 1 2 3 ... 2n2 2n1 2n 3
140 0 0 0 70 0 0 1
6 0 156 22l 0 0 54 13l 7 2
6
6
7 Longitudinal wheel–rail relationship. Generally speaking,
6 0 22l 4l2 0 0 13l 3l2 7 3
7 .
Mjoint = ðm1 l=420Þ 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 . there are two kinds of methods for describing the long-
6 7 .
6 70 0 0 0 140 0 0 7 itudinal wheel–rail relationship: one is based on the
6 7 2n  2
4 0 54 13l 0 0 156 22l 5 2n  1 wheel–rail creep contact theory and the other is based
0 13l 3l2 0 0 22l 4l2 2n
on the wheel–rail longitudinal rigid-contact theory
ð16Þ (Zhang et al., 2011).
528
1. Polach creep contact theory
The creep characteristics of wheel–rail contact directly
determine the braking performance and affect the run-
ning safety of a vehicle. Many scholars (Kalker, 1990;
Spiryagin et al., 2013; Vermeulen and Johnson, 1964)
have studied this issue, and the simplified algorithm
based on the Kalker theory (Kalker, 1982; the corre-
sponding numerical program is the Fastsim) is now
widely used in the simulation of vehicle dynamics.
However, according to Vollebregt (2014), in this algo-
rithm, the Coulomb friction model with a constant
friction coefficient is used, so the creep force–creepage
characteristic calculated by the Kalker theory does not
agree well with the measured results. Moreover, the
Kalker theory cannot describe the negative slope char-
acteristic of the adhesion curve, so its applicability is
poor for the simulation of large wheel–rail creep result-
ing from vehicle braking.
The Polach theory (Polach, 2005) introduced reduc-
tion factors together with a slip-velocity-dependent
friction coefficient, which decreases with the increase
in longitudinal creepage, so the results are more accu-
rate and the calculation is more efficient than the
Fastsim. Hence, it is more reasonable to simulate vehi-
cle braking using the Polach theory. Based on the
Polach creep contact theory, the longitudinal wheel–
rail force under large creep condition can be calculated
rapidly as follows
 
2mk Pk k A ek 1
Fk =  + tan ðkS ek Þ ð23Þ
p 1 + (kA ek )2
Gpak bk c11
ek = clk ð24Þ
4Pk mk
jx_ k  Rw u_ wk j
clk = ð25Þ
x_ k
where Fk represents the kth longitudinal wheel–rail
force; Pk represents the kth vertical wheel–rail contact
force; ek is the gradient of tangential stress in the longi-
tudinal direction; kA and kS are the reduction factors
in the adhesion and slip areas, respectively; G is the
shear modulus of rigidity; ak and bk are the semi-axes
of the contact ellipse at the kth wheel with the constant
value of 6 3 1023 m; c11 is the Kalker coefficient with
the value of 4.12; clk is the longitudinal creepage of the
kth wheel; and mk is the frictional coefficient between
the kth wheel and rail and can be described by
 
mk = m0 (1  A)eBjx_ Rw u_ wk j + A ð26Þ
In the above equation, A is the ratio of the limit fric-
tion coefficient (mN) at infinite slip velocity to the
maximum frictional coefficient (m0) at zero slip
Advances in Structural Engineering 23(3)
velocity, and B is the coefficient of the exponential
attenuation of friction; constants A and B are acquired
by experiment.
2. Longitudinal rigid-contact theory
The longitudinal rigid-contact theory assumes that the
longitudinal displacements of wheel and rail are equal
at the contact point, that is, the longitudinal DOF of
wheel is not independent; in addition, the DOFs associ-
ated with the pitching movement of wheels can also be
ignored because the pitching movement and the longi-
tudinal movement of wheels are coupled to each other.
According to the assumption of longitudinal rigid con-
tact, the longitudinal wheel–rail force acting on the
track can be calculated as follows
Fk = kpx (xtj  xwk  h3 utj ) + cpx (_xtj  x_ wk  h3 u_ tj )  mw€xwk
ð27Þ
where Fk denotes the kth longitudinal wheel–rail force
acting on the track; xwk , x_ wk , and €xwk represent the
longitudinal position, velocity, and acceleration of the
kth wheel, respectively; xtj and utj represent the longi-
tudinal position and pitching displacement of the jth
bogie, respectively; x_ tj and u_ tj represent the longitudi-
nal velocity and pitching velocity of the jth bogie,
respectively.
According to the longitudinal rigid-contact theory,
the longitudinal response of the wheels can be directly
imported into the vehicle and track subsystem as
known data.
Solving method
Based on the wheel–rail relationships mentioned
above, the kinetic equations of the vehicle subsystem
and the track subsystem are sorted out, and then with
the Newmark-b numerical integration method, the
dynamic responses of the vehicle and track are calcu-
lated through iteration between the vehicle and track
subsystem at each time step. The convergence of itera-
tion requires that the differences between the vertical
wheel–rail contact forces at adjacent steps are less than
100 N. Moreover, a and b are 0.25 and 0.5, respec-
tively; the integration step is 0.0002 s. The procedure
of computation is shown in the following chart
(Figure 3).
Comparison of different longitudinal
wheel–rail interaction models
According to the survey data, the actual speed of a
China Railway High-speed (CRH) vehicle running in
graded areas is in the range of 180–200 km/h. The case
Lu and Shi
Figure 3. The flow chart of calculation procedure.
investigated in this section is a vehicle traveling at the
initial speed of 185 km/h (51.3 m/s), which is deceler-
ated uniformly at a deceleration of 2.55 m/s2 resulting
from emergency braking. This case is simulated by two
different models: the Polach creep model and the long-
itudinal rigid-contact model, and the parameters of the
vehicle and track are shown in Appendix 1.
Figure 4 presents the dynamic responses of the vehi-
cle and track during the braking process. The vehicle
responses calculated by the two models agree well with
each other in trend of variation and values, except for
(a)
Figure 4. Comparison of the two models: (a) the time history of longitudinal wheel–rail force and (b) the time history of
longitudinal displacement of rail.
529
slight differences at the beginning and end of braking.
The creep between wheel and rail is considered in the
Polach model. The result shows that in the initial phase
of braking, the longitudinal wheel–rail creepage
increases gradually, the sliding area expands gradually,
and the longitudinal wheel–rail force increases gradu-
ally, so the time history of vehicle response is flatter; at
the end of braking, the large creep caused by vehicle
impact leads to the occurrence of wheel sliding, and the
frictional coefficient becomes lager with the decrease in
speed, so the longitudinal wheel–rail force increases
suddenly. In contrast, the creep between wheel and rail
is not considered in the longitudinal rigid–contact
model. The result shows that in the initial phase of
braking, the braking force is suddenly applied; at the
end of braking, the braking force is immediately with-
drawn, so significant fluctuation is observed in the
response of vehicle at the beginning and end of brak-
ing. However, the dynamic responses of track calcu-
lated by the two models accord quiet well with each
other.
Comparison of the dynamic responses of vehicle
and track calculated by the two models suggests that
when studying the dynamic response of track and
bridge structure under the condition of vehicle brak-
ing, the longitudinal rigid-contact model can be used
as a fast and effective simulation model. However, it is
hard to reflect the wheel–rail interaction mechanism,
and it can neither describe the movement characteris-
tics of wheels in the braking process and the creep
characteristics between wheel and rail nor be used to
study the damage of wheel–rail interface.
Braking under different operational
conditions
In this section, the Polach creep model is used to simu-
late the braking process and the effects of braking
(b)
530
(a)
(c)
(e)
Figure 5. Time history of wheel angular speed and vehicle speed under various braking torques: (a) 7 kN m, (b) 8 kN m, (c)
9 kN m, (d) 10.5 kN m, and (e) 11 kN m.
torque, line gradient, and rail-surface irregularity are
investigated on the dynamic responses of vehicle and
track. The parameters of the simulated vehicle and
track are shown in Appendix 1.
Braking torque
Under some unexpected situations, vehicles often need
to decelerate and halt when running on a grade.
Usually, depending on the actual situation, various
braking levels may be applied; more specifically, vari-
ous braking torques may be applied to the wheels to
halt the vehicle. In order to simulate various braking
levels, the braking torque is set to be 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10.5,
11, and 13 kN m alternately. The initial braking speed
Advances in Structural Engineering 23(3)
(b)
(d)
of the vehicle is set to be 185 km/h (51.3 m/s), and the
gradient of grade is set to be 5&.
Figure 5 lists the time history of the motion of each
wheel when various braking torques are applied.
Based on the difference between the angular speed of
wheels and the speed of vehicle, the braking torques
can be roughly divided into five intervals: 0–8 kN m,
8–9 kN m, 9–10.5 kN m, 10.5–11 kN m, and 11–
13 kN m). When the braking torque increases gradu-
ally from 0 to 8 kN m (as shown in Figure 5(a), the
angular speed of wheel and the speed of vehicle
decrease proportionally; in this stage, the wheels
remain at the rolling state, and the wheel–rail rolling
friction forces are used to resist the traveling of vehicle.
When the torque continues to increase in the range of
Lu and Shi
(a)
Figure 6. Time history of the longitudinal deceleration of vehicle under various braking torques: (a) 7 kN m and (b) 13 kN m.
8–9 kN m (as shown in Figure 5(b)), the angular speed
of the fourth wheel is reduced to zero quickly owing to
the resistance provided by the torque; however, at this
time, the speed of vehicle is not zero, so the fourth
wheel no longer roll, and begin to be locked and slide
until the halt of vehicle. This wheel sliding will cause
damage to the wheel–rail interface, which will induce
abnormal wheel–rail impact force and exacerbate the
fatigue failure of the vehicle–track structure. When the
braking torque is increased further to the range of 9–
10.5 kN m, 10.5–11 kN m, and 11–13 kN m (as
shown in Figure 5(c) to (e), respectively), the second
pair of wheels, the third pair of wheels, and the first
pair of wheels will successively change from the rolling
state to the sliding state.
Figure 6 presents the time history of longitudinal
deceleration of vehicle when braking torques with vari-
ous levels are applied. When the braking torque is
7 kN m (Figure 6(a)), the wheels have been rolling
during the braking process, and the longitudinal
wheel–rail forces keep basically stable; however, the
longitudinal wheel–rail force is directly related to the
longitudinal response of vehicle, so the longitudinal
Figure 7. The braking distance and time under various braking
torques.
531
(b)
deceleration of vehicle is basically unchanged. When
the braking torque is 13 kN m (Figure 6(b)), the
motion of wheels will change during the braking pro-
cess, leading to the variation in longitudinal wheel–rail
force, which will then affect the longitudinal decelera-
tion of vehicle, so the longitudinal deceleration can be
divided into three stages based on the motion of
wheels: the creep stage, sliding stage, and low-speed
sliding stage. In the creep stage, with the progress of
braking, the wheel–rail creepage increases gradually,
the longitudinal wheel–rail force decreases correspond-
ingly, and the deceleration of vehicle decreases gradu-
ally. In the sliding stage, the frictional coefficient is less
affected by the speed of vehicle, and the sliding friction
force remains stable, so the deceleration of vehicle
keeps basically stable. In the low-speed sliding stage,
the frictional coefficient increases gradually with the
decrease in sliding speed, and the longitudinal wheel–
rail force increases accordingly, leading to gradual
increase in the deceleration of vehicle.
Figure 7 presents the variations of braking distance
and braking time of the vehicle with the level of brak-
ing torque. When the braking torque is small, all the
wheels creep, and the braking distance and braking
time decrease noticeably with the increase of the tor-
que. When the torque is greater than 8 kN m, wheel
sliding occurs; with the increase of torque, the decline
of braking distance and braking time is not salient and
it is noted that any further increase in the torque does
not result in any decrease in the braking distance and
braking time, but will cause the damage of wheel–rail
interface. To ensure the safety of vehicle operation, the
braking distance and braking time should be shortened
as much as possible under the premise that the wheels
will not be locked or slide along the surface of rail.
Based on the results calculated in this section, it is
quite reasonable to set the level of braking torque to
be 7 kN m.
532
(a)
Figure 8. The responses of vehicle under various braking torque under dry/wet track condition: (a) the sliding time (b) the braking
distance.
It is well known that the friction coefficient of the
wheel–rail interface has a great influence on the longi-
tudinal creepage; in order to further study the influ-
ence of the braking torque on the vehicle response
under different friction coefficients, the case of a train
traveling on the dry/wet track before experiencing sud-
den deceleration due to the application of braking tor-
ques is considered. Wheel–rail contact parameters are
shown in Appendix 2. Figure 8 presents the variations
of sliding time and braking distance of the vehicle with
the level of braking torque under both wet track and
dry track conditions; it can be seen that when the
braking torque is less than 5 kN m, there is no occur-
rence of wheel sliding under two kinds of wheel–rail
contact conditions; in this stage, the braking distance
of the vehicle is also equal. When the torque increases
to 5 kN m, here are occurrences of wheel sliding under
wet track condition; at this time, the braking distance
is minimized. When the torque reaches 8 kN m, the
wheel begins to slide under dry track condition and the
braking distance is minimized. On the whole, under
wet track condition, the friction coefficient of the
wheel–rail interface is smaller and the maximum longi-
tudinal wheel–rail force is smaller correspondingly;
therefore, it is easier for the wheel to slide; however,
the sliding time and the braking distance are longer.
Gradient
The maximum gradients of high-speed railway lines
are generally 20&–40&. In order to analyze the effects
of different line conditions on the braking of vehicle, a
grade with gradient of 40& is set in the braking path
of the vehicle. The initial braking speed of the vehicle
is set to be 185 km/h (51.3 m/s), and the braking tor-
que is set to be 7 kN m.
Figure 9 presents the time history of the longitudi-
nal deceleration of the vehicle, longitudinal wheel–rail
Advances in Structural Engineering 23(3)
(b)
force, and longitudinal creepage in the braking pro-
cess. The longitudinal deceleration of the vehicle
remains stable on the flat track; however, when the
vehicle travels to the grade, the longitudinal decelera-
tion suddenly decreases owing to increased load along
the line direction. The sudden change in the longitudi-
nal deceleration of the vehicle on the grade leads to
sudden change in the longitudinal velocity of the
wheels, resulting in sudden change in the longitudinal
creepage of the wheels at the point of gradient jump.
The longitudinal wheel–rail force also changes corre-
spondingly. It should be noted that the damage of
wheel–rail interface is more likely to happen with the
increase in longitudinal creepage.
Next, a long enough grade with gradient of 0, 10&,
20&, 30&, and 40& is set up alternately to investigate
the effect of gradient on vehicle braking in more depth.
The vehicle is decelerated at various braking levels on
the grade.
In view of the fact that the motions of the four
wheels are similar during the process of vehicle braking
(although the fourth wheel begins to slide first with the
increase in torque), Figure 10 only shows the sliding
time of the fourth wheel under various gradients when
braking torques with different levels are applied.
Figure 10 also shows that under various gradient con-
ditions, the maximum braking torque without wheel
sliding is 7 kN m, which is consistent with the result
obtained in section ‘‘Comparison of different longitu-
dinal wheel–rail interaction model.’’ Hence, it can be
concluded that gradient will not alter the reasonable
level of braking torque. However, when the wheel
begins to slide, the sliding time increases gradually
with the increase in gradient, suggesting that the risk
of wheel–rail interface damage is greater when the
vehicle brake is on a grade.
Figure 11 shows the longitudinal deceleration, brak-
ing distance, and braking time of the vehicle on a grade
Lu and Shi
(a)
Figure 9. (a) The time history of longitudinal deceleration of vehicle, (b) the time history of longitudinal wheel–rail creepage, and
(c) the time history of longitudinal wheel–rail force.
Figure 10. The wheel sliding time under various gradient and
torque conditions.
with various gradients, when the wheels are subject to
the braking torque of 7 kN m. With the increase in
gradient, the load along the line direction gradually
becomes larger and the longitudinal deceleration of the
vehicle decreases gradually. The decrease in longitudi-
nal deceleration leads to significantly increased braking
distance and braking time (541 m and 21.3 s on the flat
533
(b)
(c)
track, respectively; 642 m and 25.4 s on the grade with
gradient of 40&, respectively). It can be concluded that
braking on the grade is disadvantageous; in order to
ensure the safety of vehicle operation, it is necessary to
limit the running speed of vehicle on the grade.
Random irregularity
The rail surface cannot be smooth in an actual situa-
tion, and random irregularity is present owing to the
combined effects of many factors such as initial bend-
ing, wear, and damage of track. In order to study the
effect of random irregularity on the dynamic interac-
tion between wheel and track under braking condi-
tions, superimposition of short-wave irregularity over
medium-long-wave irregularity is adopted to simulate
the actual track irregularity. The initial braking speed
of the vehicle is set to be 185 km/h (51.3 m/s), and the
gradient of the grade is set to be 5&.
Figure 12 shows the vertical wheel–rail force of the
first and fourth wheels at two states: on a smooth track
and on a track with irregularity. When the braking tor-
que is applied, the body and bogies pitch downward
and axle-load transfer occur, so the vertical wheel–rail
534
(a)
Figure 11. (a) The longitudinal deceleration of vehicle under various gradient and (b) the braking distance and time under various
gradient.
Figure 12. The time history of vertical wheel–rail force.
force of the first wheel increases significantly and the
vertical wheel–rail force of the fourth wheel decreases
significantly. In the presence of irregularity, high-
frequency fluctuation is found in the vertical wheel–rail
force; the rail surface in contact with the wheels is
prone to fatigue damage under repeated actions of
high-frequency force, reducing the maintenance cycle
and service span of the track. In addition, the short-
wave component of irregularity causes transient impact
vibration of the wheel–rail system, resulting in a sud-
den three to four times of increase in the wheel–rail
contact force and impact damage to wheel–rail system.
Figure 13(a) and (b) presents the time history of
longitudinal wheel–rail force and longitudinal decel-
eration of the vehicle, respectively. Under the influence
of vertical wheel–rail force, violent oscillation is
observed in the longitudinal wheel–rail force in the
presence of irregularity, mostly likely leading to
uneven deformation of rail surface and then wave cor-
rugation. Moreover, vehicle braking is achieved
through the generation of longitudinal wheel–rail force
Advances in Structural Engineering 23(3)
(b)
at the wheel–rail interface, so the fluctuation of longi-
tudinal deceleration is similar to that of the longitudi-
nal wheel–rail force; during braking, the fluctuation is
gradually weakened with the decrease in the speed and
does not disappear until the halt of vehicle.
Figure 13(c) and (d) shows the time history of the
longitudinal deceleration and displacement of the track
at the two states. The response of track reach peaks at
the points of wheel load and the short-wave compo-
nent of track irregularity cause the longitudinal wheel–
rail force to oscillate violently, greatly exacerbating the
longitudinal vibration of track structure. When
the track is smooth, the peaks of the longitudinal
acceleration and longitudinal displacement of track are
0.3 m/s2 and 0.026 mm, respectively, while the peaks
of the longitudinal acceleration and longitudinal dis-
placement of track are 18 m/s2 and 0.033 mm, respec-
tively, in the presence of track irregularity.
Flexible track versus rigid track
In order to analyze the influence of track vibration on
the wheel–rail dynamic response under braking condi-
tions, the rigid track model and the flexible track
model are established, respectively, to investigate the
wheel–rail force under the action of braking torque
(7 kN m). The initial braking speed is 185 km/h
(51.3 m/s), and the track irregularities mentioned in
section ‘‘Random irregularity’’ are used.
Figure 14(a) and (b) shows the time-history and fre-
quency spectrum of the vertical wheel–rail force
obtained by two models: flexible track and rigid track.
It can be seen that due to the excitation of random
track irregularities, the fluctuation of the vertical
wheel–rail force calculated by the flexible track is obvi-
ously lower than that of the rigid track and mainly
reflects in the high frequency, which is due to the
Lu and Shi 535

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 13. The time history of longitudinal response of vehicle and track: (a) longitudinal wheel–rail force, (b) the longitudinal
deceleration of vehicle, (c) the longitudinal acceleration of rail, and (d) the longitudinal displacement of rail.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 14. (a) Time history of the vertical wheel–rail force, (b) frequency spectrum of the vertical wheel–rail force, (c) time history
of the longitudinal wheel–rail force, and (d) frequency spectrum of the longitudinal wheel–rail force.
536
attenuation of the wheel–rail force by the elasticity/
damping of the track structure. In the spectrum, it is
not difficult to find that the vertical wheel–rail force
calculated by flexible and rigid track is basically the
same when the frequency is lower than 30 Hz. In the
frequency range of 30–50 Hz, the vertical wheel–rail
force of the former is slightly higher than that of
the latter. For the high-frequency range exceeding
50 Hz, the vertical wheel–rail force when the track is
flexible is significantly lower than that when the track
is rigid.
Figure 14(c) and (d) shows the time history and fre-
quency spectrum of the longitudinal wheel–rail force.
Similarly, in the presence of the random irregularity,
due to the attenuation effect of track structure on
vibration, the fluctuation of the longitudinal wheel–rail
force of flexible track is also lower than that of the
rigid track. The discrepancy of longitudinal wheel–rail
force calculated by two models mainly reflected in the
high frequency.
Conclusion
In this article, a vehicle–track interaction model on a
grade is constructed based on two longitudinal wheel–
rail interaction models (the Polach creep model and
the longitudinal rigid-contact model), and the dynamic
responses of vehicle and track caused by vehicle brak-
ing on the grade is studied. The following conclusions
are obtained:
1. When the Polach creep model and the longitu-
dinal rigid-contact model are used as the longi-
tudinal wheel–rail interaction model, the
calculated dynamic responses of substructure
show little difference. However, the Polach
creep model can fully consider the motion of
wheels and large wheel–rail creep phenomenon
in the braking process and can accurately ana-
lyze the damage of wheel–rail interface.
2. Large braking torque will cause some or all of
the wheels to slide and then trigger the damage
of wheel–rail interface. The grade will lead to
the increase in braking distance and time and
extend the sliding time of locked wheel, increas-
ing the risk of damage at the wheel–rail
interface.
3. In order to ensure the safety of running, the
braking torque should be kept below a reason-
able value, so the braking distance and time
could be shortened as far as possible without
the occurrence of sliding wheel. According to
the calculation in this article, the braking
Advances in Structural Engineering 23(3)
torque under the dry track and wet track condi-
tions should be 7 and 4 kN m, respectively.
4. In the process of vehicle braking, the car body
and bogie pitch downward, causing increased
load at the front wheel and reduced load at the
rear wheel. The irregularity of rail surface
exacerbates high-frequency fluctuation of the
vertical and longitudinal wheel–rail contact
forces, mostly likely leading to the fatigue dam-
age of wheel–rail and the corrugation of rail.
5. Since the flexible track structure has elasticity
and damping effect, the vertical wheel–rail
force, especially the high-frequency component,
can be effectively buffered and attenuated, and
the longitudinal wheel–rail force will also be
moderated. Thus, the elasticity of the track
structure can improve running stability of the
vehicle under the action of braking torque.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article: The research is sponsored by Beijing Municipal
Natural Science Foundation (Grant No. 8182041) and the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No.
51578054).
ORCID iD
Jin Shi https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2202-0048
References
Ansari M, Esmailzadeh E and Younesian D (2009) Longitu-
dinal dynamics of freight trains. International Journal of
Heavy Vehicle Systems 16(1/2): 102–131.
Bose T, Levenberg E and Zania V (2018) Analysis of track
responses to train braking. Proceedings of the Institution
of Mechanical Engineers, Part F: Journal of Rail and Rapid
Transit 232(7): 1984–1993.
Cheng Q, Zhang N, Xia H, et al. (2013) Dynamic response
analysis of vehicle-track-bridge system considering brak-
ing conditions for high-speed railway. China Railway Sci-
ence 34(1): 8–14.
Cole C and Sun YQ (2006) Simulated comparisons of wagon
coupler systems in heavy haul trains. Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part F: Journal of
Rail and Rapid Transit 220(3): 247–256.
Dai GL and Liu WS (2013) Applicability of small resistance
fastener on long-span continuous bridges of high-speed
Lu and Shi 537

railway. Journal of Central South University 20(5):
1426–1433.
Fryba L (1974a) Response of a beam to a rolling mass in the
presence of adhesion. Acta Technica CSAV 19(6):
673–687.
Fryba L (1974b) Quasi-static distribution of braking and
starting forces in rails and bridge. Rail International 5(11):
698–716.
Geike T (2007) Understanding high coupler forces at metro
vehicles. Vehicle System Dynamics 45(4): 389–396.
Huang XY, Fu CC, Zhuo WD, et al. (2018) Concrete curved
box girders interacted with vehicles in braking or accel-
eration. International Journal of Structural Stability &
Dynamics 18(4): 1850053.
Ju SH and Lin HT (2007) A finite element model of vehicle–
bridge interaction considering braking and acceleration.
Journal of Sound & Vibration 303(1–2): 46–57.
Kalker JJ (1982) A fast algorithm for the simplified theory of
rolling contact. Vehicle System Dynamics 11(1): 1–13.
Kalker JJ (1990) Three-Dimensional Elastic Bodies in Rolling
Contact. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Nasr A and Mohammadi S (2010) The effects of train brake
delay time on in-train forces. Proceedings of the Institution
of Mechanical Engineers, Part F: Journal of Rail and Rapid
Transit 224(6): 523–534.
Polach O (2005) Creep forces in simulations of traction vehi-
cles running on adhesion limit. Wear 258(7–8): 992–1000.
Ruge P and Birk C (2007) Longitudinal forces in continu-
ously welded rails on bridgedecks due to nonlinear track–
bridge interaction. Computers & Structures 85(7–8):
458–475.
Spiryagin M, Polach O and Cole C (2013) Creep force mod-
elling for rail traction vehicles based on the Fastsim algo-
rithm. Vehicle System Dynamics 51(11): 1765–1783.
Toth J and Ruge P (2001) Spectral assessment of mesh adap-
tations for the analysis of the dynamical longitudinal
behavior of railway bridges. Archive of Applied Mechanics
71(6–7): 453–462.
Tran MT, Ang KK and Luong VH (2016) Multiple-railcar
high-speed train subject to braking. International Journal
of Structural Stability & Dynamics 17(7): 1750071.
Vermeulen PJ and Johnson KL (1964) Contact of nonspheri-
cal elastic bodies transmitting tangential Forces. Journal
of Applied Mechanics 31(2): 338–340.
Vollebregt EAH (2014) Numerical modeling of measured
railway creep versus creep-force curves with CONTACT.
Wear 314(1–2): 87–95.
Yang YB and Wu YS (2001) A versatile element for analyz-
ing vehicle–bridge interaction response. Engineering Struc-
tures 23(5): 452–469.
Zhai WM and Sun X (1994) A detailed model for investigat-
ing vertical interaction between railway vehicle and track.
Vehicle System Dynamics 23(Suppl. 1): 603–615.
Zhang N, Xia H, Cheng Q, et al. (2011) Analysis method for
a vehicle structure coupled system under braking force.
Journal of Vibration & Shock 30(2): 138–143.

Appendix 1
Parameters of vehicle and track.

Notation Value Unit Notation Value Unit

mc 1.94 3 104 kg cpz 1.00 3 105 N s/m

jc 9.5 3 105 kg m2 ksx 1.80 3 105 N/m
mt 1100 kg kpx 1.00 3 107 N/m
jt 600 kg m2 csx 2.50 3 106 N s/m
mw 758 kg cpx 1.00 3 105 N s/m
jw 92 kg m2 kz1 3.43 3 107 N/m
lc 8.75 m cz1 3.00 3 104 N s/m
lt 1.25 m kx1 7.50 3 107 N/m
ksz 2.00 3 106 N/m cx1 6.00 3 104 N s/m
kpz 2.08 3 106 N/m i 0–40 &
csz 1.20 3 105 N s/m

Appendix 2
Parameters for wheel–rail contact conditions.

Notation Value
Dry Wet

kA 1.00 0.3
kS 0.40 0.1
A 0.40 0.4
B 0.60 0.2
m0 0.5 0.25