PAPER

Safety Criteria for Evaluation of Railway Vehicle Derailment

Vehicle
Hiroaki ISHIDA
Manager, Vehicle Dynamics Lab., Fundamental Research Dept.

Masaki MA TSUO
MATSUO
Senior Chief Engineer, Engineer Dept., TESS Co. Ltd.

Criteria for evaluating safety of railway vehicles concerning derailment are reviewed.
In the case of quasi-static wheel climb derailment, the safety criteria in current use are
available. Recently oscillatory wheel load fluctuations of considerable amplitude have been
observed on Shinkansen vehicles running at high speeds, but there were no established
evaluation methods for the dynamic derailment under such a specific condition. Based on a
study on these dynamic phenomena through computer simulation, we propose to use the
time duration of Y/Q in order to assess the safety against derailment. Moreover, the neces-
sity to control the right to left static wheel load unbalance ratio and its limit value on assem-
bling bogies are suggested in this paper with field data obtained from turnout running tests.

Keywords : Derailment, Safety Criteria, Turnout, High-speed Train, Wheel Load Fluctua-
tion, Derailment Quotient, Time Duration

1. Introduction
The safety criteria for railway vehicle derailment were
established in the 1960s after theoretical analyses and ex-
periments for several years, and running safety has been
evaluated based on these JNR criteria in Japan. Concern-
ing the derailment quotient Y/Q, the limit value according
to the wheel flange angle has been allowed to use only in
the field tests of conventional lines since 1993 1). Recently,
oscillatory wheel load fluctuations of considerable ampli-
tude have been observed on Shinkansen vehicles running
at high speeds. The frequency is approximately 70 Hz at
300 km/h. It is estimated that these fluctuations are gener-
ated through the small vertical irregularities on the rail
surface, whose wavelength is about 1.2 m. In the case of
conventional lines, the same phenomena have been observed
at the rail joints and rails with corrugation as well. When
the wheel load decreases due to this oscillatory fluctuation,
the derailment quotient Y/Q sometimes momentarily ex-
ceeds the standard value mentioned above.
We researched the running safety of railway vehicles
under these conditions, and investigate suitable parameters
and criteria for the evaluation. Safety must be secured by
means of established evaluation methods without fail, but
it is also important in practical use to exclude overstate-
ment to judge non-climbing of flange or other safe situa-
tions as dangerous. At first, the safety criteria in general
use are surveyed in this paper. Then the wheel load fluc-
tuations observed on Shinkansen and the results of com-
puter simulation on the derailment of wheelset are described
especially in the case of running on rails with corrugation.
Regarding the safety criteria, the field data obtained from
turnout running tests and the factors of derailment are also
shown in this paper.
2. Safety criteria of incipient derailment 2) 3)
The forces acting on a wheel tread when a vehicle runs
on rail are divided into three components as shown in Fig.1.
European notations are used here. The wheel load is ex-
pressed as P in Japan and V in the United States. The
lateral force is expressed as Q in Japan and L in the U.S.A.
In order to evaluate the running safety of railway vehicles,
the wheel/rail contact forces are measured in field tests
and several parameters are calculated using these forces.
The parameters for evaluation in current use are as fol-
lows:
(1) Derailment quotient Y/Q
(2) Wheel load reduction ratio ∆Q/Q0
(3) Axle sum Y/Q ratio Σ |Y/Q|
Y, Q and Q0 represent the lateral force, the wheel load
and a half of the static axle load, respectively. Σ |Y/Q| is
the sum of right and left Y/Q absolute values, known as
Weinstock's criterion 4). In all countries, the derailment
quotient (1) is used to evaluate running safety as a basic
parameter. The wheel load reduction ratio (2) and the axle
sum Y/Q ratio (3) are auxiliary indexes, and (3) is used only
in the United States. The theoretical limit values of these
parameters are calculated by the following equations.
Y  tanα − µ
 Q  = 1 + µ tanα ………………………………………(1)
  lim
where α represents the wheel/rail contact angle and µ
the frictional coefficient between wheel and rail.
 ∆Q  λL − λR FY 2
 Q  = λ + λ − W λ + λ …………………………(2)
  lim L R L R
tanα L − µ L tanα R + µ R
λL = , λR =
1 − µ L tanα L 1 − µ R tanα R
where Fy represents the lateral force acting at the axle
mass center and W the axle load. The suffix L and R show
the left and right wheel, respectively, and the equation (2)
expresses the case where the left wheel flange climbs the
rail.

18 QR of RTRI, Vol. 40, No. 1, Mar. ’99

 2


tanα − µ mW iWX φW =
(∑ Y /Q )lim = + µ ……………………………(3)
1 + µ tanα
QL1 (bL1 + rL1φW ) + QL 2 (bL 2 + rL 2φW )
The equation (1) is called Nadal's formula. The equa-
tion (2) when Fy = 0 is called Kunieda's formula 1). As is − QR 1 (bR 1 − rR 1φW ) − QR 2 (bR 2 − rR 2φW )
evident from these equations, the limit value of every index + YL1 (rL1 − bL1φW ) + YL 2 (rL 2 − bL 2φW )
is influenced by the wheel/rail contact angle α and the fric-
tional coefficient µ. The frictional coefficient µ also changes + YR1 (rR1 + bR1φW ) + YR 2 (rR 2 + bR 2φW )
depending on the attack angle of wheel and the longitudi-
nal creep force between wheel and rail. − X L1 rL1ϕW − X L 2 rL 2ϕW
Concerning the derailment quotient Y/Q, the sliding − X R 1 rR 1ϕW − X R 2 rR 2ϕW + M x ……………………(6)
mean value on base of two meters window advanced by in-
2

crements ∆s of 0.5 m is used in Europe 5), while the maxi- mW iWX ΩW =
mum instantaneous value is used in other countries. This
subject will be discussed later. QL1 rL1θ L1 + QL 2 rL 2θ L 2 + QR 1 rR 1θ R 1 + QR 2 rR 2θ R 2
− YL1 rL1φW − YL 2 rL 2φW − YR 1 rR 1φW − YR 2 rR 2φW
3. Wheel climb derailment − X L1 rL1 − X L 2 rL 2 − X R 1 rR 1 − X R 2 rR 2 ……………(7)

3. 1 Simulation results on safety criteria
3.1.1 Simulation model and equations of motion
The simulation model is a rigid wheelset running at a
constant velocity. Outer forces act on the wheelset as shown
in Fig.1.
Here, we assume the following calculation conditions.
(1) Constant loads Fz and Fy act at the wheelset mass
center.
(2) The moment about y-axis My is equal to zero, that is,
the frictional resistance of axlebox bearing is negli-
gible and the rotating torque is zero.
(3) The yawing angle of the wheelset ψw is constant.
(4) The direction of rail agrees with the x-axis.
Then, we obtain the following equations of motion.
mW

yW = YL + YR + FY …………………………………………(4)
where symbols mean the following, respectively.
b : Distance between wheel/rail contact point and center of
wheelset,
r : Radius of wheel at the wheel/rail contact point,
mw : Mass of wheelset, iwx, iwy: Radius of inertia about x-
and y-axis,
Suffix L : Left wheel, Suffix R: Right wheel,
Suffix 1 : Contact point of wheel tread,
Suffix 2 : Contact point of flange
The forces X, Y and Q acting at the wheel/rail contact
point can be divided into the normal force and tangential
forces. The tangential forces are creep forces induced by
rolling contact. When a wheel derails and the flange con-
tacts the rail, we have to consider the nonlinear creep force
because of large creepage.

mW Z

W = QL + QR + FZ ………………………………………(5)
3.1.2 Critical condition of quasi-static derailment
In the case of quasi-static derailment, the flanging wheel
z
contacts the rail at one point and the terms of inertia forces
z㩾 in the equation (4) through (7) are eliminated. Thus, the
Ǿw critical condition of derailment can be obtained by solving
nonlinear simultaneous equations. The calculation results
Ǿw y㩾
10.0 100
O
Wheel load reduction ratio ∆ Q / Q 0 (%)

Ȁw y
Ȁw
9.0 90
x
x㩾
8.0 80
Derailment quotient Y / Q

F y = 0 kN
7.0 70
Fz 6.0 60
F y = 25 kN
5.0 50

QR Ω 4.0 40 F y = 50 kN

Fx 3.0 30
θR Fy
QL
YR 2.0 20
XR 1.0 10
θL
0.0 00
v YL −50 −30 −10 0 1020 30 40 50 −50 −30 −10 0 1020 30 40 50
XL Angle of attack Ȁw (mrad) Angle of attack Ȁw (mrad)

Fig. 1 Outer forces acting on a wheelset and Fig. 2 Calculation results on the limit of quasi-static
co-ordinate system derailment

QR of RTRI, Vol. 40, No. 1, Mar. ’99 19


1.8 FASTSIM
a 㧩 60q㧘r 㧩 0.439 m
1.6
Ǵ 㧩 0.3 㧘N 㧩 30000 N
1.4
Y/Q
Ȁw 㧩㩷0 mrad
1.2
1.0 Ȁw 㧩㩷2 mrad
Ȁw 㧩㩷10 mrad
0.8
Nadal㩾s results
−0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4
X/Q
Fig. 3 Relation between X/Q and Y/Q that cause
flange climbing
on a Shinkansen wheel, whose flange angle is 70 degrees
and inclination of wheel tread is 1/40, are shown in Fig.2.
The dotted lines in the graph of Y/Q are values obtained
from Nadal's formula (1) and those in the graph of ∆Q/Q0
are values from the equation (2). The nonlinear creep forces
are calculated using J.J.Kalker's theory 6). The following
facts are recognized from Fig.2.
(1) The limit value of derailment quotient Y/Q is a func-
tion of the attack angle ψw, but Y/Q is not influenced
by the lateral force Fy acting on the wheelset. On the
other hand, however, the wheel load reduction ratio
∆Q/Q0 at incipient derailment is greatly influenced
by Fy.
(2) When the attack angle ψw becomes zero and there is
no lateral creep, the limit value of Y/Q is less than
Y/Q = tanα, that is obtained from the equation (1),
as the frictional coefficient µ is equal to zero. The
reason of this fact is that the lateral force induced by
spin creep at the flange/rail contact area causes the
wheel to rise and derail.
In the case of typical conventional vehicle whose flange
angle is 60 degrees, the value of Y/Q ratio must not exceed
0.8, and the ∆Q/Q0 must not be greater than 0.6 in Japan.
The latter limit value of quasi-static ∆Q/Q0 was derived from
the equation (2) at α L = 60 degrees, α R = 1/20, µ = 0.2 and
Fy=0. So, there is no room left for safety limit in ∆Q/Q0 =
0.6, and safety assessment must be performed together with
evaluation of Y/Q 7).
The tangential forces on the flanging wheel are also
the functions of attack angle ψw and longitudinal creep.
When a vehicle is driving or braking, the longitudinal
creep force X increases and the creep force in the contact
area will saturate in spite of small lateral creep. Figure
3 shows the calculation results of the relation between
the limit value of Y/Q and the X/Q ratio that represents
the influence of the longitudinal creep. The value of Y/Q
becomes minimum when ψw=10 mrad and X/Q= 0 (Fig.3).
Moreover, the limit value of Y/Q becomes greater as the
X/Q ratio increases, and it is constant when X/Q is greater
than 0.6. The X/Q ratio will reach the value of 0.8, which
is the product of 1/cos α and the ratio of longitudinal to
normal force X/N .
20
3. 2 Field test running through turnouts No.8 8)
3.2.1 Test conditions
The field tests were carried out in order to investigate
the cause of derailment accidents running through turnout
No.8 in sidings. The structure of the turnout No.8 which
has a straight tongue rail is shown in Fig.4. The test condi-
tions are as follows:
(1) Vehicles : 211 EMU and 167 EMU, whose flange
angles are 60 degrees.
(2) Running velocity : 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 km/h
(3) Turnouts : Two types of frog no.8 for sidings and main
0.6 tracks
(4) Running direction : Trailing (Fig.4)
(5) Right to left static wheel load ratio K : 1/1, 1/1.7, 1/
2.5
The same test was performed previously, and it has al-
ready been clarified that the unbalance between the right
and left static wheel loads has a great influence on the flange
climbing derailment. In this test, the right wheel became
the outer wheel with a decreased load when the vehicle ran
on a leading curve of the turnout. The wheel load unbal-
ance of the leading wheelset was given by inserting liners
in the axlebox suspension and changing the height of air
suspensions. The wheel/rail contact forces X, Y and Q and
the vertical displacement between the wheel tread and rail
were measured in this test.
Trailing
2㫦4㩾39㩾㩾 Leading
R = 100.701m R = 100.701m
Straight
Lead rail
tongue
8.868m
4.0m
0.862m
2.234m 3.31m
0.904m 10mm
Ј
㧖 Side view
Fig. 4 Turnout No.8 for sidings
3.2.2 Test results
The wheelsets of test vehicles started to climb the rail
at a position one meter before the tongue rail end (at the
point * in Fig.4). Figure 5 shows the test results on the
relation between the running distance from the starting to
the maximum point of flange climbing, and the height of
wheel rise. Figure 6 plots the same data of 211 EMU in
Fig.5, whose x- and y- axis are altered to mean velocities
that are calculated from the distance divided by the time
duration of wheel rise. The lines in Fig.6 indicate simula-
tion results using one-vehicle model running through a turn-
out No.8. These results suggest the following.
(1) The running distance while the wheel is rising de-
pends on the track condition, vehicle characteristics
and the right to left static wheel load ratio K.
(2) The larger the wheel load ratio K is set, the higher
the speed of flange climbing becomes. The test ve-
hicle derailed while running one or one and a half
meters from the point * in Fig.4, when the wheel load
QR of RTRI, Vol. 40, No. 1, Mar. ’99
 unbalance K was set at 1/2.5.
30 (3) The mean velocity of flange climbing when K=1/1.5
Height of wheel rise z (mm)

is almost the same as that when K=1/1, when ve-

hicles run through the turnout No.8 at a speed lower
20 than 25 km/h.
Since the static wheel load unbalance gives the roll
moment about x-axis and increases the lateral force at the
10 non-flanging wheel/rail contact point, it causes the wheel
to rise and derail. As a result, it is clarified that the static
wheel load unbalance ratio K has to be within 1.5 in order
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 to secure running safety. A computer simulation of
Running distance x (m) Shinkansen vehicles running at the maximum speed of
350km/h has also been made to investigate the influence of
ٌ㧦211, K = 1/1, siding ˜㧦167, K = 1/1, siding wheel load unbalance on running stability and safety on
٠㧗㧦211, K = 1/2.5, siding ‫غ‬㧦211, K = 1/2.5, main track track irregularities 9). The results indicate that the wheel
load unbalance has little influence on running stability, and
Fig. 5 Height of wheel rise and running distance that the resonance to track irregularities has no problems
(field test) when the value of K is within 1.5. The maintenance and
adjustment of assembling bogies should be performed with
this wheel load unbalance ratio K taken into consideration.
ٌ㧦211, K = 1/1, Simulation Some parameters for safety assessment calculated us-
Mean velocity z/t (m/s)

0.10 ٠㧦211, K = 1/2.5, (K = 1/1) ing running test data are shown in Fig.7 in comparison with
0.08
˜㧦167, K = 1/1, the distance to climb. All parameters tend to increase their
Simulation values according to the height of wheel rise within 6 mm.
0.06 (K = 1/2.5) Derailment The limit values of these parameters obtained only from
these test data are as follows:
0.04 (1) Derailment quotient : Y/Q ＜ 1.1
Simulation
0.02
(2) Sliding mean value of Y/Q with 2 m-window :
(K = 1/1.5)
(Y/Q)smv ＜ 0.8
0 (3) Axle sum Y/Q ratio : Σ |Y/Q| ＜ 1.4
0 10 20 30 40
Running speed v (km/h)
(4) Time duration of Y/Q : t 0 ＜ 150 msec
Time duration of Y/Q means the time while the value of
Fig. 6 Mean velocity of wheel rising and running speed Y/Q exceeds 0.8 continuously. In the case of running through
(field test) a turnout with a sever curve, the axle sum Y/Q known as

30 30
Height of wheel rise z (mm)
Height of wheel rise z (mm)

25 25

20 20

15 15

10 10

5 5

0 0
0 2 4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2
Y/Q (Y/Q)smv

30 30
Height of wheel rise z (mm)
Height of wheel rise z (mm)

25 25

20 20

15 15
: 211
10 10
: 211 (Rain),
5 5
: 167
0 0
0 200 400 0 1 2 3
t 0 (msec) в | Y/Q |
Fig. 7 Height of wheel rise and maximum value of parameters measured in field test running through turnouts

QR of RTRI, Vol. 40, No. 1, Mar. ’99 21

 50kN Lateral force Y
200kN Wheel load Q
1.0 Derailment quotient Y/Q
Axlebox vertical acceleration
200 m/s2
Fig. 8 Example chart of field test data at 340 km/h
Weinstock's criterion does not show its feature, because the
attack angle of wheelset ψw is large. If we use 0.8 as the
limit value of Y/Q, the sliding mean value with 2 m-window
is more practical than the instantaneous value.
The main factors of derailment at turnouts are the wheel
load unbalance, the frictional coefficient between wheel and
rail and the mass of a carbody and unsprung mass. The
results of running tests and vehicle dynamics simulation
are described in detail in the reference 8).
4. Dynamic derailment
4. 1 Wheel load fluctuation at high frequencies
An example of field test data on a Shinkansen vehicle
running at 340 km/h is shown in Fig.8. Figure 8 is a time
chart of lateral force Y, wheel load Q, derailment quotient
Y/Q and axlebox vertical acceleration measured with newly-
developed measuring device 10). The wheel/rail contact force
less than 100 Hz can be measured accurately by using this
new device. In this case, Y/Q reaches 1.5 momentarily due
to the wheel load reduction induced by the wheel load fluc-
tuation at high frequencies that correlates with the axlebox
vertical acceleration. It is well known that this phenom-
enon is often observed when railway vehicles run at high
speeds on rails with corrugations.
The main subject of this research is to evaluate run-
ning safety and establish an evaluation method when the
phenomena mentioned above are observed.
4. 2 Simulation on dynamic derailment of wheelset
The simulation model is almost the same as that of the
wheelset shown in Fig.1. In order to express jumping of
wheel, a rail model supported elastically with suspensions
and dampers in the vertical and lateral directions is used
as shown in Fig.9 11).
22
1 sec
Q
N
Wheel
T
Y
α
kGy
Rail
CGy
kGz CGz
Fig. 9 Model of elastically suspended rail
4.2.1 Influence of wheel load fluctuation on flange climb
derailment 12)
Figure 10 shows the results of simulation when a con-
stant lateral force Fy=50 kN acts at the axle mass center
and the roll moment about x-axis Mx gradually increases.
Figure 10-(a) is the case without wheel load fluctuation, and
Fig.10-(b) is the case with the wheel load fluctuation at 50
Hz caused by the vertical irregularities on rail surface. The
results of this simulation indicate the following.
(1) The amplitude of roll moment Mx when a wheel starts
to climb is almost independent of the vertical irregu-
larities.
(2) The threshold Y/Q value of incipient derailment un-
der wheel load fluctuation is almost the same as that
of the quasi-static derailment without fluctuation.
(3) The value of Y/Q after the wheel starts to climb gradu-
ally increases according to the distance to climb, be-
cause the wheel/rail contact angle α also increases.
QR of RTRI, Vol. 40, No. 1, Mar. ’99
 120.0 200.0

Q (kN)
100.0
Q (kN)

80.0
60.0 100.0
40.0
20.0
0.0 0.0
120.0 120.0
100.0 100.0
Y (kN)

∆ Q /Q0
80.0 80.0
60.0 60.0
40.0 40.0
20.0 20.0
0.0 0.0
3.0 3.0
2.0 2.0

Y/Q
Y/Q

1.0 1.0
0.0 0.0
∆ Q /Q0

100.0 100.0
50.0

Y (kN)
50.0
0.0
0.0 −50.0
−100.0
−50.0 −150.0
0.030 0.030
Z (m)

Z (m)
0.020 0.020
0.010 0.010
0.000 0.000
Mx (kN䊶m)
Mx (kN䊶m)

120.0 120.0
100.0 100.0
80.0 80.0
60.0 60.0
40.0 40.0
20.0 20.0
0.0 0.0
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00
Time (sec) Time (sec)
㩿a㪀 Without wheel load fluctuation 㩿b㪀 With wheel load fluctuation
Fig. 10 Influence of wheel load fluctuation on derailment (simulation)

(4) When the height of flange climbing exceeds about 10
mm, the wheel flange loses its effect to resist derail-
ing. Then, the value of Y/Q decreases, but the wheel
continues to climb higher.
Since the time duration while the wheel load decreases
is less than 0.01 seconds under 50 Hz fluctuation, the wheel
which starts to climb is retracted immediately by the in-
creased wheel load and does not easily derail.
4.2.2 Safety criteria hypothesis on dynamic derailment 13)
In order to get more information with regard to dy-
namic derailment acting large inertia forces, derailment
simulations have been performed in a number of cases
where a wheel comes into collision to rail with a constant
attack angle and jumps while running on a rail with a
sine-shaped protuberance. Calculation results of
ing and jumping.
(3) If the time duration while the wheel load continues
to be zero because of jumping is added to the time
while Y/Q exceeds the limit value before jumping, the
sum of time duration correlates with the height of
wheel rise.
An example of simulation results is shown in Fig.11. In
this case, the limit value of Y/Q is set at 1.0, and the time
duration of Y/Q includes the time while the wheel load is
zero, that is, the condition of no wheel load is defined as the
100
50 Q 0 = 58.5 kN
Height of wheel rise z (mm)

Shinkansen wheelset with different static wheel loads, 10

running speeds, wheelset angles of attack, frictional co-
efficients, the amplitudes of lateral force and the heights 5
of protuberance indicate the following.
(1) When a wheel does not jump, the distance to climb
correlates with the time duration while the Y/Q ratio 1
exceeds a limit value continuously. The longer the ٨ : 300km/h
duration of Y/Q is, the higher the wheel climbs. 0.5
٠ : 400km/h
(2) When a wheel jumps due to an impulsive lateral force,
‫ع‬ : 500km/h
the wheel load Q becomes zero immediately, and the
Y/Q ratio comes to be undefined. The height of wheel 0.1
jumping has relation with the amplitude of lateral 0.001 0.01 0.1 0.5 1
force pulse. However, the maximum value of Y/Q and
Time duration of Y/Q t 0 (sec)
the time duration while Y/Q exceeds the limit value
before the wheel jumps do not correlate with the Fig. 11 Height of wheel rise and time duration of
height of wheel rise that is the sum of flange climb- Y/Q (simulation)

QR of RTRI, Vol. 40, No. 1, Mar. ’99 23

 Ȁ0.5q
0.5 sec
Y 0.04
0.4 kN
Q
0.5 kN
X 0.00
0.5 kN
t 0 㩿Y/Q㻢0.8㪀
Y/Q
1.0
Z (mm)
1 mm
Fig. 12 Chart of experiments using 1/5 scale model
excess of the Y/Q limit value. As the results from the same
arrangement of various calculated data, it is found that the
height of wheel rise is less than 1 mm, when the time dura-
tion of Y/Q is less than or equal to 15 msec. The duration
from the start of flange climbing to derailment of the wheel
is larger than 30 msec under the actual and severe running
conditions.
This suggests that the following hypothesis is applicable
as a criterion to evaluate the safety against the dynamic
derailment.
(1) The limit value of Y/Q is set at 1.0 in the case of
Shinkansen wheel whose flange angle is 70 degrees.
(2) If the time duration while the value of Y/Q continues
to exceed 1.0 is equal to or less than 15 msec, the
vehicle is evaluated to be safe against derailment.
(3) The time duration of Y/Q includes the time while the
wheel load Q is equal to zero.
In the case of typical conventional line vehicles whose
flange angles are 60 degrees, the same criterion holds for
setting the limit value of Y/Q at 0.8. This is confirmed by
computer simulations and experiments using a 1/5 scale
model of wheelset as well 13) 14). An example of measured
data in the experiments using a 1/5 scale model is shown in
Fig.12. The new safety criterion has been used tentatively
with the Y/Q criterion for six years in Japan setting the
limit value of Y/Q at 0.8 in running tests of both Shinkansen
vehicles and conventional vehicles in order to secure room
for safety at high speeds. So far, no problems have hap-
pened on the safety assessment.
4.2.3 Sliding mean value of Y/Q
It was found that a momentary large value of Y/Q did
not cause the wheel to derail. This fact suggests that the
high frequency fluctuations of Y/Q and wheel load can be
ignored, that is, the value of Y/Q filtered through a low pass
filter may be applicable to practical safety evaluation. The
sliding mean value of Y/Q used in Europe is basically the
24
0.05
Effective time duration (sec)
0.03
0.02
٨ : Q 0 = 78.0 kN
ً : Q 0 = 58.8 kN
0.01
‫ع‬ : Q 0 = 39.2 kN
0 100 200 300 400 500
Running speed (km/h)
Fig. 13 Effective time duration (simulation)
same as filtering in a sense. The subject is whether the
distance or time is suitable for the window. In the case of
wheel climb derailment like an accident at a turnout, the
sliding mean value of Y/Q using 2 m-distance window can
be used for assessment as already described. However, it is
unknown whether the same evaluation method is available
or not when a vehicle runs at a high speed and derails dy-
namically.
We did simulations to investigate this subject under the
following conditions, which seems to be severe but probable
in actual operation.
(1) Static wheel load reduction ratio ∆Q/Q0 =0.4 ～ 0.5
(2) Lateral force acting on wheelset Fy = W×0.3～0.4 ,where
W is the axle load.
(3) Maximum angle of attack ψw =20 mrad
(4) Static wheel load Q0 =39 ～ 78 kN
As a wheel starts to climb, the value of Y/Q increases
gradually according to the distance to climb and reaches a
maximum value, but Y/Q decreases after the wheel rises
higher than a certain displacement. The wheel flange re-
sists effectively only while the value of Y/Q increases, so we
investigate the time for this process, which we call the ef-
fective time duration. The simulation results are shown in
Fig.13. This indicates that the effective time duration is in
proportion to the running velocity lower than 150 km/h ap-
proximately, but that it becomes constant over 150 km/h.
This fact shows that the criterion hypothesis using the time
duration of Y/Q that we proposed is correct for the evalua-
tion of safety at high speeds. Moreover, it is thought that
the time window should be used rather than the running
distance window, if the filtered Y/Q value is applied to the
evaluation. The concrete length of the window as a stan-
dard will have to be determined and confirmed by collect-
ing field test data in quantities from now on.
5. Conclusions
Field tests running through turnouts indicate that the
right to left static wheel load unbalance ratio K is impor-
tant to assure safety against derailment, and that the value
of K should be less than 1.5. The derailment quotient Y/Q
is generally used for safety assessment. This method is
applicable to the wheel climb derailment, but there were no
QR of RTRI, Vol. 40, No. 1, Mar. ’99
criteria for the evaluation of dynamic derailment due to
wheel load fluctuations at high frequencies caused by ir-
regularities on rail surface. We propose the following crite-
ria based on the simulation results in order to evaluate these
dynamic phenomena accurately.
(1) The limit value of Y/Q is set according to the wheel
flange angle.
(2) If the time duration, while the value of Y/Q contin-
ues to exceed the limit value, is equal to or less than
15 msec, the vehicle is evaluated to be safe from de-
railment.
(3) The time duration of Y/Q includes the time while the
wheel load Q is equal to zero.
This new safety criterion has already been used tenta-
tively with the Y/Q criterion setting the limit value of Y/Q
at 0.8 in Japan. It seems that the filtered value of Y/Q like
the sliding mean value of Y/Q is also available, but it is nec-
essary to measure and collect plenty of field test data at
high speeds in order to define the most suitable filter and
standard.
Acknowledgement
Field tests described here were performed by JR-East.
We would like to thank Mr. Tezuka and researchers of Ve-
hicle Dynamics Laboratory in RTRI for helpful discussions
and joint efforts in the field tests.
References
1) RTRI: “Manual for Speed-up Tests of Conventional Lines
(in Japanese)”, pp.78-96, 1993
2) Elkins, J. A., Carter, A.: “Testing and Analysis Tech-
niques for Safety Assessment of Rail Vehicles: The State-
of-the-Art”, Vehicle System Dynamics, 22, pp.185-208,
QR of RTRI, Vol. 40, No. 1, Mar. ’99
1993
3) Ishida,H.: “Derailment Phenomena and Safety Criteria
for Evaluation”, JSME P-SC253 Rep.(in Japanese),
pp.19-22, 1997
4) Weinstock, H.: “Wheel Climb Derailment Criteria for
Evaluation of Rail Vehicle Safety”, ASME paper, #84-
WA/RT-1, pp.1-7, 1984
5) ORE Rep.: Question C138, No.9(Final), 1986
6) Kalker, J. J.: “On the Rolling Contact of Two Elastic
Bodies in the Presence of Friction”, Doctoral Thesis,
University of Delft, 1967
7) Kunieda, M.: “Several Problems about Rolling Stock
Which Can Run on Curves at High Speed”, Quar. Rep.
of RTRI, 13, 1, pp.1-7, 1972
8) Ishida, H.: “Evaluation of Railway Vehicle derailment
when Passing Switch and Crossing”, RTRI Rep. (in Japa-
nese), 10, 5, pp.13-18, 1996
9) Ishida, H., Matsuo, M.: “Influence of Static Wheel Load
Unbalance on Running Safety of High Speed
Shinkansen”, JSME J-Rail’97 Conference (in Japanese),
97-13, pp.487-488, 1997
10) Ishida, H., et. al.: “A New Continuous Measuring Method
of Wheel/Rail Contact Forces”, Quar. Rep. of RTRI, 35,
2, pp.105-111, 1994
11) Miyamoto, T., et. al.: “Running Safety of Railway Ve-
hicle as Earthquake Occurs”, Quar. Rep. of RTRI, 38, 3,
pp.117-122, 1997
12) Matsuo, M., et. al.: “Derailment under Oscillatory Wheel
Load Fluctuation”, RTRI Rep. (in Japanese), 4, 6, pp.8-
15, 1990
13) Ishida, H., et. al.: “Safety Criteria for Evaluation of the
Railway Vehicle Derailment”, RTRI Rep.(in Japanese),
9, 8, pp.49-54, 1995
14) Ishida, H., et. al.: “Experiment on Derailment Using a
1/5 Scale Wheelset and Roller-rigs”, JSME J-Rail'94
Conference (in Japanese), 940-57, pp.203-206, 1994
25