22 7 Lateral Stability of Vehicles on Tangent Track restoring force due to coned or profiled wheels can result in the vehicle truck following a sinusoidal path on tangent track. This phenomenon, commonly known as hunting, becomes apparent first as a lightly damped response to track irregularities and then as a dramatic increase at a threshold speed known as the critical speed, a point at which a limit cycle with flange contact will result The critical speed condition, which can accut at speeds even as low as 30 mph with empty or light cars, contributes to wear and fatigue of parts. Critical speed depends on such factors as vehicle suspension characteristics, weight distribution, rail surface contaminants, effective conicity of the wheel- sets, and tractive or braking effort at the rail interface. It often is a limiting factor to high-speed operation. To prevent hunting, a well-designed vehicle must have a critical speed that is comfortably above the operating speed. Two different modes of hunting behavior are frequently observed: body hunting and truck hunting. Body hunting, or primary hunting, ischaracterized by extreme car body lateral and yaw oscillations, This hunting mode occurs over a limited speed range, with both upper and lower bounds, and is usually initiated when the frequency of the truck lateral or yaw oscillations coincides with one of the cat body natural frequencies. Primary hunting may thus be thought of as resonance behavioc and can be controlled by proper damping of the truck suspension system. If the car body motion is sufficiently damped, body hunting can be eliminated. completely. Truck hunting, or secondary hunting, is inherent in the vehicle design. This type of hunting is characterized by severe oscillations of the truck or wheel-axle set relative to the car body. Once truck hunting starts, it continues to worsen as the vehicle speed increases, The critical speed at which. hunting occurs may, however, be increased, to lie outside of the vehicle's operating speed range, by the proper selection of wheel tread profile, suspen- sion characteristics, and truck geometry. 7.3. Freight Car Lateral Stability Model Eleven principal masses form the four-axke freight car model. Included are the car body with integral lading, two truck bolsters, four side frames, and four wheelsets. The model's degrees of freedom are given in Table 7.1. The convention] North American three-piece freight car (see Figs. 7.1 and 10.1) has a characteristically low parallelogramming stiffness, i.e, resistance to longitudinal displacement of the truck side frames relative to one another, and ahigh interaxle yaw stiffness. The dominant truck hunting oscillation is thus an in-phase yaw of the leading and trailing wheelsets. This characteristic is modeled ty assigning the side frame a longitudinal degree of freedom in lieu of a yaw degree of freedom.228 7 Lateral Stability of Vehicles on Tangent Track Torsional damping of primary suspension Vertical damping of primary suspension Longitudinal damping of side bearing Lateral damping of side bearing Vertical damping of side bearing Longitudinal damping of secondary suspension Lateral damping of secondary suspension Torsional damping of secondary suspension Vertical damping of secondary suspension Height of bolster center of gravity above wheelset center of gravity Height of car body center of gravity above wheelset center of gravity Vertical distance from side frame center of gravity to center cf primary suspension Lateral distance from side frame center of gravity to center of primary suspension Vertical distance from wheelset center of gravity to center of primary suspension Lateral distance from side bearing center of gravity to center of secondary suspension Vertical distance from wheelset center of gravity to center of secondary suspension Vertical distance from wheelset center of gravity to center of side bearing spring Creep and gravitational force Lateral creep coefficient Lateral-spin creep coefficient Spin creep coefficient Longitudinal creep coefficient Bolster roll moment of inertia Bolster yaw moment of inertia body roll moment of inertia Car body yaw moment of inertia Wheelset pitch moment of inertia Wheelset yaw moment of inertia Longitudinal stiffness of primary suspension Lateral stiffness of primary suspension Torsional stiffness of primary suspension Vertical stiffness of primary suspensiou Longitudinal stiffness of side bearing Lateral stiffness of side bearing Vertical stiffness of side bearing Longitudinal stiffness of secondary suspension232 ‘7 Lateral Stability of Vehicles oa Tangent Track in creep forces and moments. According to linear creep theory, creep forces and moments are proportional to the product cf the relative linear and angular velocities (slips) of the wheel and rail at the point of contact and proportional to the inverse of the wheel's forward velocity. Kalker's linear creep theory, described in Subsection 4.6.4, is used here. Forces arising from longitudinal, lateral, and spin creep are all taken into consideration, and a summation of the gravitational and creep forces and moments yields [1] lol se nft-2) 4 AR + ra) _ Valve 4 a aro (7.4) and 4d 1 - 1 My= af Pata Dhaai bat fas + ety + faa] ; 4 Vay 4 we Valve dt 15) + Wang, + T° >) where i= 1, 2,...,4 and {= 16, 17,..., 19 and ¢ is defined as the rate of change of the contact plane slope with respect to the lateral displacement of the wheelset and is given as 7 (75a) where « is the wheel conicity angle. The wheel effective conicity 2 is the rate of change of a rolling radius with respect to the lateral displacement of the wheelset and is given as Ra . a= RoR (7.5b) Applying Lagrange’s equation of motion to the system's kinetic, potential, and dissipative energies and the external forces with the 25 generalized coordinates {a} = Loa. Yas ¥35 V4: Yors Yoos Vos Yots Ya2s Baas Yass Xoo Nn Mea Xa Wa Or» Was Vas Wor: Vo2 Por: Poa Yo» Pol” yields the equations of motion for the front truck components, rear truck components, and car body. The 25 second-order differential equations that describe freight car lateral stability are given as follows,234 7 Lateral Stability of Vehicles on Tangent Track 1,2) Mp Spi + UCu + Coo) Sri + 2Ker + Keoidtvi ~ 2Cera Jin + Keri te) — CaulSai + Faur2yt — Kala + Yaurayt + 2Oue - Du) X (Cou by + Kearbo) + 2£Cau(Dye ~ Dav) — CDny ~ Doc) by + 2LKyu(Dis — Dav) — Kuan — Dss)1Ov: F 21{Caw Ue + Kavi) — 0. (7.12) 5. Bolster lateral yy; 6. Bolster roll gy (i = 1, 2) For Ooi # Ss ue + Sober + Ss Soc + Sod + Cu(Day — Dud X {hut Paws art + Ka(Daw — Oss) {¥ei + Vat zr} — Deg ~ Ova * (Coot So + Kensie) + So Gy + Si0bs F 27D ~ Duy) * (Coot hy + Kepithe) = 0, (7.13) where Ss = ACulS ~ Dep)? + CaDey ~ Deo)? + Coo + Cot(Dis — Se = AKolS ~ Dep)? + Ku (Dan ~ Dal? + Kew Se + Key ~ Dy)? S35 = 2[Cro(Dre ~ Paw) ~ Cu(Diy ~ Doe)]- Ss = WAKyolDy ~ Dy) ~ Ku Puy ~ Do) (7.14) So = ACyDis — Dre) (Dne — Pu) — Covv Si], Sto = 2LKsu(Dys — Div) (Dye ~ Dis) ~ Ksov55]. 7. Bolster yaw Wy (i = 1,2) oy Dia + Sora + Satie + Cals — Das) Oar = Suen} Cur Ue + Keel = 0, (7.15) + Kals — Dy) — Xuerait — 256 where Sa = 2Cyl -- Dy? 4 Cu + Cone), (7.16) Sa = 2K ys — Day)? + Kor + Kaveh 8. Car body lateral yy, me Fy + (Coos Se + Kaw ts) — 20CuUina + Jou) + Kavi'er + Yeo! = ADs — Dw CCovitGu2 + boi) + Kewloz + Ged] = Dye = Ds) (Cari Os + Kast o) = 0. (7.17)236 7 Lateral Stability of Vehicles on Tangent Track Chapter 1. A characteristic equation that is based on the preceding linear equations of motion and isa function of vehicle velocity has been developed. A computer program has been written to calculate the complex roots (eigen- values) and the corresponding normalized mode shapes (eigenvectors) of the characteristic equation [1]. The program determines the critical sped at which the oscillation becomes unstable and provides information about the mode shapes and frequencies of the oscillations. System stability depends on the sign of the damping exponents If at least one of the eigenvalues has a positive real part, the system isunstable, Its, important that the damping ratio be sufficient, Even if the vehicle's critical speed is beyond the operating range, the damping ratio in the dominant modes of oscillation may be small, which leads to an unsatisfactory dynamic re- sponse on poor track. 1.3.3 Comparison of Theoretical Model and Field-Test Results Theoretical results were compared with field data obtained from the tests performed with an 80-ton open-top hopper car equipped with type A-3 ride- control trucks. For the field-testing details, data acquisition, and reduction, refer to Darien [2, 3] and Tse et al. [4]. The car and truck parameter input data used in the simulation have been given by Hussain et al. [1]. Because the freight car is a complex nonlinear system, the linear analysis is intended to provide only a qualitative understanding of the hunting phenomenon. Simulations were performed at various speeds that ranged from 30 to 80 mph at S-mph intervals. The results are plotted in Fig. 7.2. At each speed, the damping percentage ratio of the least-damped mode and the associated frequency are given for the model and field tests. Asan example, at 35 mph the model predicted a 12°% damping ratio, butan8% damping ratio was measured in the field tests, The associated frequencies for the model and the field tests were 0.97 and 1.0 Hz, respectively. By assuming a linear relationship between the damping ratio and speed and extrapolating the field results, one obtains a hunting speed of 75mph, whereas the model predicted 80 mph. The car used in the field tests was equipped with new wheelsets of standard AAR profile (with an effective conicity of 0.05). Similar tests were performed on a cat equipped with Canadian National type A profile wheels. This wheel profile has a smoothly tapered transition between the tread and the flange, and thus it approximates the characteristics ofa worn profile, As shown in Fig, 7.3, the damping percentage predicted by the model for 25 and 35 mph is 5.2 and 2.1, respectively, whereas the field-test data show them to be 6.5 and 4.0, respectively. When a finear refationship between damping ratio and speed is assumed, the field test results show a critical speed of 48 mph, while the model indicates a hunting speed of 45mph.238 7 Lateral Stability of Vehicles on Tangent Track % (a) 30 PERCENT DAMPING RATIO 0 0 2 30 4 50 60 70 80 SPEED (MPH) 35 (b) 30| (2) 25 20 FREQUENCY os 7 1. _____._J 00 100 200 309 400 $00 600 700 800 900 SPEED (MPH) Fig. 7.3, Comparison between test and model results of a freigh: car with CN (ype A profiles and nominal fubrication. (a) Damping ratia versus speed, (b) frequency versus speed, (©, ©, test; A. linear hunting model.) (Redrawn trom Tse ei al [4],)240 7 Lateral Stability of Vehicles on Tangent Track hy Vertical distance of truck frame center of gravity to secondary sus- pension Vertical distance of car body center of gravity to secondary suspension 1, Car body yaw moment of inertia I, Truck frame yaw moment of inertia I, Wheelset yaw moment of inertia Jy Car body roll moment of inertia J, ‘Truck frame roll moment of inertia Ky Vertical secondary stiffness per truck side K,, Vertical primary stfiness per truck side Ky Longitudinal primary stiffness per axle K,, Lateral secondary stifiness per truck K,,, Lateral primary stiffness per axle Ky, Roll secondary stiffness per truck Koy Roll primary stiffness per truck Ky, Yaw secondary stiffness per truck Ky. Yaw primary stiffness per axle L_ Half of distance between bolster centers my Car body mass m, ‘Truck frame mass im, Wheelset mass Nominel wheel radius Locomotive velocity Axle load Centered wheelset contact angle Wheel-rail contact geometry parameter Wheel effective conicity wok SSS 7.4.2 Equations of Motion for a Four-Axle Locomotive The equatiors uf motion are derived for two locomotive models: the 17= degree-of-freedom model for a four-axle locomotive and the 21-degree-of freedom model for a six-axie locomotive. A condensed derivation of the equations of motion will be presented, followed by the actual equations of motion for both systems. The locomotive models are linear and are hased on the simplifying assumptions presented previously in Section 5.6. The nomen- lature used here for both models was presented in Subsection 7.4.1. In contrast to the model in Section 6.3, bounce and pitch motions of the trucks and car body are neglected, The wheelsets are assumed to follow the track perfectly in the vertical direction; this assumption removes the need for wheelset bounce and roll degrees of freedom. Nonlinearities arising from.242 7 Lateral Stability of Vehicles on Tangent Track Table 72 Four-Axle Locomotive Lateral Stability Modet Degrees of Freedont ‘Type of motion ‘Component Lateral Roll Yaw Front truck leading wheelset ys, - Front truck trailing wheelset —y2 ve Rear truck leading wheelset Ys — vs Rear truck trailing wheelset yg Ve Front truck Ja on Wa Rear truck da ba en Locomotive cat body ws te We suspension stops, wheel-flange, contact, dry friction in the suspension elements, and adhesion limits between wheel and rail are neglected. The 17 degrees of freedom for the model are given in Table 7.2. ‘A schematic representation of a four-axle locomotive is shown in Fig. 7.4, The displacement vectors {Us}, {U1}, and {U2}, defined with respect to a fixed coordinate system, of the car body and the leading and trailing trucks are {Up} = De by Yel" (7.22) Wa = Ou da val (7.23) {W2}= (2 be vel” (7.24) The relative displacements for the secondary suspension between the car body and the two trucks in the lateral and vertical directions are given by the vectors {U,} and {U2}, where (U,)} = CAHU yg — CHAU = 1,2 (7.25) The transfer matrices [7] and [7,,] are =hy —b; (m= (7.26) oe (Tod = 0 0 0 0. A, 0 A L (727) 0. ooo 1 >244 7 Lateral Stability of Vehicles on Tangent Track where [K,] and [K,.] are the diagone! secondary and primary suspension stiffness matrices for the suspension stiffness in the lateral and vertical directions. The dissipated energy Ey of the system is B= 3[L crores + Sermatea} 39 where [D,] and [D,] are the diagonal secondary and primary suspension damping matrices for the suspension damping in the lateral and vertical directions, By using the generalized displacement vector for the system fae) = Dis Yas Vas Yas Was War Was Was 1 Yaar bear Pras Warr Haas Yor Pow Hod” and applying Lagrange'sequation (see Fig, 7.1) to each generalized coordinate, ‘we obtain the equations of motion for the four-axle locomotive system, which tare expressed in matrix form as (MY (8) + (C18) + UT = [Sh 739 iQ. where LM],[C’J,and [K’Jare 17 x. 17 square matrices representing the mass, damping, and stiffness of the system, respectively, and {Q} is an eight-element vector representing the generalized forces acting between the wheels and rails, ‘The expressions for these forces are (Q} = KU} - [C1 (0. (7.38) where [K,] and [C,] are the wheel-rail interaction stiffness and damping diagonal matrices, respectively. The elements of these matrices contain the effect of gravity and creep forces resulting from the difference in strain rates of wheel and rail in the contact region: [kl 0 Ce] 0 (] Le] kK . = [k,] ° tka [c.] ° a] Ue] lel (7.39) For a single wheelset, matrices [k,] and [¢,] are (see Garg et al. [5)) Fy 2h (7.40)246 7 Lateral Stability of Vehicles on Tangent Track 3. Truck lateral y, (i= 1. j = 1:4 im, Si — Kywl¥j + Yys1y = 2G + Ow] + Kyl — hibu F Life — ha dy ~ yo] = 0. (7.45) In Eqs. (7.45) and (7.46), which follows, the upper sign is used for the front truck (j = 1) and the lower sign corresponds to the rear truck (i = 2). 4. Truck roll $4 (i= 1,7 = 1,1 = 2,j = 3) Iida t Kew bu + Kalba ~ $e) — by Kylti — hidu F Ly — had, — Ys) — WKywLis + Yury ~ 200 + Aba] = 0. (7.46) 5. Truck yaw Wy G = Li = Vii 3) TV — Koel; + Wis 0) ~ Qed ~ bK ys — Yy4 0) — 2bWcd t+ Ky(Wai — Wo) = 0. (747) 6. Car body lateral yy, my I — Kyl(a + Jez) — Albu + G2) — Ahoy + Yo) = 0. (7.48) 7. Car body roll by Jude ~ Kalu + di ~ 264) — KyhaDu + vez — Gu + bea) ~ Ahr dy + WI] = 0. (7.49) 8. Car body yaw, Tyo — KelWar + Yea ~ 2) ~ LKwDu ~ vir = hi(Ga ~ $a) ~ 2LY] = 0. (7.50) nd = 3) 7.43. Equations of Motion for a Six-Axle Locomotive In this subsection, the equations of motion for a six-axle locomotive hunting model are developed. The six-axle locomotive is shown schematically in Fig. 7.5. As discussed earliet in this section, the six-axle locomotive is assigned 21 degrees of freedom (Table 7.3). A condensed derivation of the equations of motion will be presented, followed by the actual equations of motion, The relative lateral, roll, and yaw displacements between the car body and the two trucks can be written for i = 1 or 2as (refer to Fig. 7.5) ai = Ya — hidu — Orv + Ly + faded, bu bos (7.51) Ya — We248 7 Lateral Stability of Vehicles on Tangent Track Table 7.3, Six-Axle Locomotive Latera( Stability Model Degrees of Freedom Type of motion Component Later Koll Yaw From truck, axk 1 n - Front truck, axle 2 Bo Front truck, axle 3 wo = ws Reor truck, axle 4 moo Rear truck, axle 5 Js — Ms Reer truck, axke 6 % ve Front truck en Reer truck a ne Locomotive car body yy The upper sign is used for the front truck (i = 1), while the lower sign cor- responds to the rear truck (i = 2). Similarly, the relative lateral and yaw displacements between the trucks and the wheelsets are =~ Ou t atta + hoa 1,2,3, (7.52) = Vi — Oe £ athe + hide), 45,6, (7.53) = be ~ ye =1,2....6 (1.54) In Eqs, (7.52) and (7.53), the upper sign is used for the first two axles of the front and rear trucks (i = 1, 2,4, or 5), while the lower sign corresponds to the rear axles (i = 3 or 6). In Eq.(7.54),j = 1 fori = 1 or 2or3 andj = 2 for i=4or5or6. The expression for the kinetic energy Ex of the system is given by B= $ [Ei st + hei + Sth #85 +d) + Um, vo + Ty WE + Jy «| (7.55) The potential energy £, of the entire system is given by [Eien + Ky, oF} int + Y (Kyu + Kyog + Ko 8% + Knot (7.56)250 7 Lateral Stability of Vehicles on Tangent Track forces are given in full. The equations of motion for the wheelsets, the truck frames, and the locomotive car body are the following: 1. Wheelset lateral y, (j = 1,1 = 1,2, 01 3;7 = 2,4 = 4,5, of 6) My Je F Ky (Vi ~ Vg F aithy — eu) hath _ v + aol a | +t 0 (rey The upper sign is used for i = 1, 2.4, and 5, while the lower sign corresponds toi=3or6. 2. Wheelset yaw Wi, (j = 1,1 = 1,2, 0r 3; = 2,1 = 4 5, or 6) 4 Tyr + Kyulhi — ty) + 2st: tt ro iad ey a uf 2 | — My (7.62) 3. Truck lateral y, (i= 1k = 1;i= 2k = 4) ma Ju Kf E Ya ~ 300+ hide) ~ Wales + a — «| = Kyla — Ye — hide ~ Nady F Lag] = 0. (703) The upper and lower signs in Eq. (7.63) are used for the front (i = {and rear trucks (i = 2), respectively. 4, Truck roll (i = 1,f = 1ii= 2, = 4) IB + Kow hu + Kalu — 0) ~ by K yOu — Ys — habe F Le — bib) = haf Sy, — 30u +h The upper sign is used for the front truck (i = 1), while the lower sign cor responds to the rear truck (i = 2). 5. Truck yaw yu (i= Li Vlas + a2 — «| =0 (7.64) 2i=2f=4) 1a ~ Koa( Svs ha) + Kalo Ud — A Ky (Vi ~ Ye ~ Gite = Neu) F a2 Ky Vjrr ~ Yu aaa — hybud tas Ky (Vis. Ya + asthe — Os) = 0. (7.63) The equations of motion for the six-axle locomotive car body in lateral, rolland yaw motion are the same as those for the four-axle locomotive and are252 7 Lateral Stability of Vehicles on Tangent Track TRUCK LATERAL soo TRUCK ROLL os | WHEELSET LATERAL e0oy LATER, iso 6 ve "20 LOCOMOTIVE SPEED. (MPH Fig. 7.6. Damping ratios of six-axle locomotive response modes. critical speed. Figure 7.10 indicates that an increase in the lateral damping in the primary suspension will also improve the stability. A variation in primary damping from 200 to 600 Ib sec/in. results in an increase cf the critical speed from 113 to 128 mph, Lateral response, however, appears to be insensitive to variations in the secondary lateral damping. Figure 7.11 demonstrates that the locomotive stability is not infinenced hy the car hoy massand moment at inertia parameters. An increase of 100%, in the car body yaw moment cf inertia decreases the critical speed by only 2.°%. Figure 7.12 shows that the locomotive critical speed is more sensitive to the truck inertial parameters. An. increase in the yaw moment of inertia hy $0% decreases the-critical speed from, 121.5 to 106 mph. The truck mass and roll moments of inertia do not have a significant effect on the critical speed. A $0°% increase in the wheelset yaw: moment of inertia decreases the critical speed from 121.5 to 116 mph. The effect of the longitudinal and lateral creep parameters is shown in 7.13. An increase in the lateral creep coefficient from 2 to 6 million 1b results in a corresponding increase in the critical speed from 109 to 121.5mph. A similar variation in the longitudinal creep coefficient reduces the critical speed trom 152 to 110 mph. It can be concluded that wheelset effective conicity and wheelset fateral suspension stiffness are the design parameters of greatest significance forCRITICAL SPEED (UPK) coniricaL SPEED. (MPH) 254 160 0 20 109 0 7 Lateral Stability of Vehicles un Tangent Track 008 (008. olo 80 v0 tho WHEELSET EFFECTIVE cONICITY + 78. Critical speed versvs wheels effective conicity 016 vob 2000 +4000 6000 PRIMARY LATERAL STIFFHESS (LB/N) Fig. 7.8. Critical speed versus primary lateral stifiness. ‘2000CRITICAL SPEED. (MPH CRITICAL SPEED (MPH) 140 120 60 160 120 PERCENTAGE OF BASE VALUE Fig. 7.12. Critical speed versus truck and wheelset inertial parameters, (1) Mass of truck frame, (2) moment of inertia of truck frame in yaw, (3) moment of inertia of wheelset in yaw, (4) moment of inertia of truck in roll =-—— Larera Lost uownat, ° 2 4 . e CREEP COEFFICIENT PER WHEEL x 10° (LB) Fig. 7.13. Critical speed versus longitudinal and lateral creep coefficients.258 7 Lateral Stability of Vehicles on Tangent Track os WHEELSET LATERAL / YAW 00 ———p| Ro5 TRUCK/WHEELSET LATERAL i AR ROLL é on 00 100 200 ‘300 "sco SPEEU (MPH) Fig.7.14. Damping ratios of passenger cur lateral response modes. (Redrawn ftom Hedrick eval. (9}) when evaluated at 391 mph, yields a kinematic frequency of $.26 Hz. The low car body mode natural frequencies indicate that the secondary suspension stiffness and damping effectively attenuate the higher-frequency truck lateral oscillations. It has already been stated that the high critical speed was partially the result of the stiff primary suspension and that a parameter varia- tion was performed to investigate the effect of the longitudinal and lateral primary stiffness. The longitudinal stiffness will restrain the yaw mations af the wheelset, while the lateral suspension controls the lateral displacement. The primary longitudina! stiffness has a majer influence on the critical speed, as demonstrated in Fig. 7.15. Critical speed is reduced by a factor cf two with a 25% reduction in the base-line longitudinal stiffness. For small values of the longitudinal stffiness, the critical speed approaches the operating speed range. At low stiffness values, the wheelset acts as an unconstrained wheelset, with a resulting critical speed of zero. At high values of longitudinal stiffness, the truck becomes rigid, and the critical speed is determined by the stabilizing effect of the secondary suspension. An optimal value is found at a stiffness of approximately 1 million Ibjft. This value, however, may be unacceptably high, because it can restrict the wheelset from assuming a radial position while curving The effect of the primary lateral stiffness on the critical speed is shown in Fig. 7.16. An increase in the lateral stiffness beyond 10,000 lb/ft initially improves the critical speed substantially. At values above 100,000 Ib/ft, however, the system becomes relatively insensitive to this parameter. As can be seen from Fig. 7.16, the base-line lateral stiffness is already beyond an optima] value. At low values of the lateral stiffness, the unstable oscillation changes into a wheelset lateral mode. Wheelset and truck lateral oscillations260 7 Lateral Stability of Vehicles on Tangent Track 500 = 400 5 5 s00 lease Line L i 200 2 3 z 5 z 3 1 0 Cf 10? SEUUNUANY SUSPENSION. YAW STIFFNESS (FT Le/ RADI ig. 7.17, Critical speed versus secondaty suspension yaw stitinese. (Redrawn trom Hedrick eval. [9}) ure decoupled us the lateral stiffness decreases. With high values of lateral stiffness, the wheelset and truck lateral coupling are increased. In thiscase, the rigid truck configuration is again reached, and the hunting oscillation is controlled by the secondary suspension, To investigate the effect of truck yaw oscillations on car body motion, another parameter variation was performed to investigate the secondary suspenston yaw stitiness and damping, Thesecondary suspenston yawsstitiness 600 = 500 & & 400 ese Line 300 1 1 L 2 5 2 8 2 8 2 8 we oe 04 108 we SECONDARY SUSPENSION YAW OAMPING (FT LS SEC/RAO) Fig. 7.18. Critical spee¢ versus secondary suspension yaw damping. (Redrawe from Hedrick ei al. £91.)262 7 Lateral Stability of Vehicles on Tangent Track lateral stability of a passenger car on tangent track. Parametric studies and results were also presented for the lateral stability of this type of passenger car. The models employed were primarily linear and thus useful for estab- lishing qualitative results. For a highly detailed analysis of vehicle lateral stability, nonlinear models would be more appropriate, References |. $.M,A, Hussain, 8, P. Singh, and V. K, Garg. Technical Documentation for the Freight Car Linear Hunting Model, Research Report R-460, Association of American Railroads, Chicago (December 1980) N. J. Darien, Field Test for Truck Hunting Model Validation, Research Report R-378, Association of Americen Railroads, Chicage (January [980) N. K. Darien, Measurement Methodology and Instrumentation for Freight Car Dynamic Model Validation Field Test, Research Report, Association of American Railroads, Chicago (1976). 4. ¥.H. Ise, V. K. Garg, und A, Lo, Validation ol the Freight Car Hunting (Non-Linear/Linear) Model, Research Report R-324, Association of American Railtoads, Chicage (May 1979) 5. V. K. Garg, G. C. Martin, P, W. Hartmann, and J. G, Tolomei, Technica’ Documentation forthe Locomotive Truck Hunting Model, Research Report R-219, Association of American Railroads, Chicago (1976), 6. P. W. Hartmann and V. K, Garg, Programming Manual for Locomotive truck Hunting, Research Report R-278, Association of American Railroads, Chicago (September {977), 7, BL. King, An Assessment tu the Contaet Conditions betwee Worn Tytts and New Rails in Straight Track, Research Report DYN/42, British Railways, Derby, England (December 1966). 8. B.L. King, An Evaluation of the Contact Conditions between a Pair of Worn Wheels and Worn Raiis in Straight Track, Research Report DYN/37, Brtist Railways, Derby, England (September 1966}. 9. J.K. Hedrick. D.N. Wormley, A. K, Kar, W. Murray, and W. Baum, Performance Limits of Rail Passenger Vehicles: Evaluation and Optimization, Report DOT-SPA-DPB-50-79-32, US. Department Transportation, Washington, D.C. (December 1979). 2 & Additional References G.R. Doyle and R. H. Prause, Hunting stability of rail vehicles with torsional tlexible wheet- sets, J ng. Ind. 98, 10-17 (1977). F, Lind, Truck and Car Body Characterization, Research Report R-186, Association of ‘Americeui Railroads, Chicage (March 1976) TT, Matsudaira. Hunting problem of high-speed railway vehicle with special reference to bogie design for the new Takaide line, Proc. Inst. Meck. Eng. 180 (part 3F} (1903-1900) 1. Matsudaira, N. Matsui, S, Arai, and K. Yokose, Problems of hunting of ratiwas vehicle on test stand, J. Eng. Ind. 91, 879-890 (1969). AH. Wickens, The dynamics of railway vehicles un straight tracks: Fundamental considerations of lateral stability, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. 180 (part 3F) (1965-1966).