Super-analysis, in this case, represents the sum of static structure analysis, which explores the stress of support continuum. The analyses were performed for 12 named standards situations and 5 extra combinations of external actions on the vehicle. The foundation of the definition of external influence is based on Technical conditions No. 12 together with exploit limitations. Service pull vehicle is not classical locomotive because it is not for permanent pull function. In this sense, the extreme requests are limited by the project task itself since there are no adequate regulations. As the projector wanted to know what the capacity (limits of load) of the construction is, all the analysis according to Technical conditions No. 12 were performed [6]. The basic quality in CAD-FEA design is the development of numerical discrete model by which the characteristics of the model may be tested, torsion and flexion rigidness with the objective of additional adjustment of performances by changing of joints in structure. This is one of the additional targets of supper-analysis. The Chair for Transport Technology and Logistics of the Mechanical Faculty in Niš performed the described super-analysis for quality estimation and improvement of technical performances of the vehicle. The structure analysis was performed by the finite elements method, based on linear theory of deformations. The design is more valuable if its geometrical model is true copy. That is why its geometrical modeling was performed by software SolidWorks 2005. Discrete modeling was performed by FEMAP program. For algebra system of equations solving SSAP V.4 was used. Post processing of the design was also performed by FEMAP program [3]. Scientific aim of every analysis is the identification of possibilities of present available software-hardware resources, the maximal size of the model according to number of degrees of freedom and overall finite elements number. Additional aim of examination is the efficiency of application of new types of finit elements, type-tetrahedron.


Abstract: The paper describes analysis which proffing the success of construct design of supporting structure of pull railway vehicle. For this proofing type method the finite elements is chosen and it is used in this paper. The construction of model is described, criteria of quality control of the model and solution. The paper is program base of model development for similar categories of supporting structures. Key words: Structural analyse, FEM, railway vicle.

When top quality firms develop new projects, they check their technical solution by asking for expert analysis with independent consulting firms. Those firms technically estimate the quality of the product. Comparing the ordered project with their own project, they make demanded safety of the design and then they achieve the quality of the product. Lokomotiva a.d MIN- NIŠ performed the Development Project of railway vehicle DHD 200 DK classified as diesel hydraulic dolly. The power of operating aggregate of the vehicle is 209 kW, capacity Q= 8 tons, gross mass 28 t .The vehicle is for pull service of railway cars and is equiped with an crane for hydraulic unloading of the cargo. This is the objective of the realization of FEM expert analysis, which deals with the base construction of the vehicle from the aspect of strenght in order of improving of stress-strain state of the support. The investor demanded quality investment technical documentation, which proves the design success expressed in technical measures – standards [6, 7]. The other reason of interest for the support analysis, which producers always have, is improvement of their own products. In that way, after each analysis there was performed the correction of structure shortages, rearrangement of support positions, adding or reduction of the mass, change of constructing joints design.

2.1. Analysis structure descriptiion
The starting demands defined the structure as welded spacey frame form, made of thick sheet metal and hot rolled open supporters. The support carries all vehicle subsystems: hydraulic and pneumatic equipment, operating motor, power transmission, cabin, crane, loaded container, brake levers and cylinders, cooling system, hydraulic system for unloading. The support structure receives all dynamic forces during driving. Supporters are in the frame of the support structure arranged along and transversely, almost symmetrically [10]. Supporters are made of strong constructing still Fe275 group. The support is made of four parallel along U240 supporters, front and back frontal plates and several transversal opened supporters UNP200, UNP100, in combination with plates for enforcement of structure head. All elements of the support are connected by welding. The support dimensions are 8760x2800x1415mm. Pre analytic mass of the support is 4725 kg.

2.2. Static action on the suppoprt
Analysis in accordance to technical conditions [6] and Regulations V2.005 are performed according vertical, 1

Second – analysis of the connection area for elevation. p specific wind pressure N/m2. crane forces and work forces.4. Marking criterion σper. Bends are empirically marked. № 01 02 03 Analysis characteristics: Support analysis under action of vertical forces 1 Fv Marking criterion σper. That is reason because the finite elements method analysis is chosen. pull and brake forces. The geometry was true modeled. A is the 9.longitudinal and transversal loading of pull railway vehicle with the following content: Tab. This discretely shown mass in points made it possible to use the same model for solving several dynamic tasks defined in Table 1. Static model kd·Fv+1·FIN (5g). by coefficient of welding strength k. Dynamic factor of vertical forces kd=1. For mentioned tasks realization.2 surface exposed to wind) + Fc ( centrifugal force) + FNAD (force because of the height of one rail in the curve)+ Fr (reactive force axial operation at pull). Static model Fv+µ·Gv (µ =0. Support analysis under action of inertia forces in length way.2 shows the arrangement of masses on support with schematically shown rigid joints of their focuses with support.33 athesion quotient.1 Static model: From vertical forces 1·Fv. forces. Construction modeling was performed by using the 10-node solid finite element of tetrahedron. Support marking criterion ReH. 10.2) which define comparative (permitted) stresses. The main part of deforming work is spent on geometry shape change. because the design is achieved by many different analysis. Marking criteria of construction ReH.1 Marking criterion of construction σper.3 shows elements of analysis 9.1 shows the one arrangement of outer forces (case of vertical dynamic). 1. radius.081. Pulling of the cars over pull. Marking criterion σper. Horizontal forces are inertial of all masses (M·3g) Marking criterion of construction ReH.145/1). Obviously that quality and good construction of supporter comprises the ability of static endurance for various different influences. 8. Three basic cases of loading were monitored with safety coefficient (ν=1. are defined according to JUS U. By it. do not respond to efficient design. Check of placing pillar elevator Model of loading 1·MKR + 1·GKR. 2.1 3. Driving situation with several cars. centrifugal 2 . Permitted stresses refer to loading from extension. Dynamic factor of vertical forces kd=1.E7.5⋅Fu on bumpers. which included the holes. Local checking of tension of fillet welding is performed in from JUS U.150 and coefficient of safety ν of fillet welding defined according to standard JUS U.30.33/1. τper.75⋅Fu on bumpers. Marking criteria of construction ReH. τper. with its low velocity and limits only on assumed critical crossing (not by computing procedures).Gv vehicle weight) +Frp (reactive axial force in power shaft operation) 9. Front hitting with bumpers. extension of supporters and transitional profile geometry. Static model kd·Fv+Fpull (pull force at speed in the curve) + FN (p·A.3. Static model kd·Fv+1·FIN (3g). In the direction of 10. Von Mises hypotheses (Henky-Huber-Mises). This is the quotient of span and elastic deflection. Support analysis under action of inertia forces in length way.5⋅Fv+1. Marking criterion of welding σweld.2 driving and under right angle on that direction Marking criterion σper. Support analyses under action of only vertical forces 2⋅Fv (double g).E7. σweld. by rigidity control: C= LMAX/YMAX. welds. For stress analysis state the comparing Von Mises tension and maximal tangent tension were used. pressure and bending. the linear static FEM analysis was used together with program combination FEMAP/SSAP V. the rigidity is required within limits of C=300÷759 (lower-upper). Figure 2. numerical computing procedure was taken out by using only one (discrete) model for all combinations of loading. inertia forces. 04 05 06 07 8.E7. Choice of Analysis Method The vehicle exploitation was conditioned by firmness checking for several characteristic combinations of static loadings. wind forces. Support analysis at elevating (hoisting) of vehicle Vehicle stays at 4 positions 11. With still supporters of transport machines. Horizontal forces are inertial of all masses (M·5g) Marking criterion of construction ReH. Support analysis under action 1⋅Fv+1⋅Fu on bumpers Marking criteria of construction ReH. Checking Criteria of Construction Strenght The strenght of construction still defined according EN10025 is regulated.5·Fv+0. Dynamic factor of vertical forces kd=1.30. Marking criterion σper. τper.E7. Classical analysis by deformation method of line bending supporters. The maximal comparative stresses of structure are defined by nodes in center of all model finite elements. Permitted tensions for local checking of frontal welding joint for typical loading cases.1 Two cases – position of the analysis.2 Two analysis: First: whole model analysis. σweld. τper. The choice of comparative stress was performed according to stress category in elastic domain of support strain. σweld. Activities are worked out separately from all inbuilt weights.5·Fu on diagonal bumpers. 11. Analysis of support while passing trough curve and side wind pressure. τper. τper. Power of pressure in automatic clutch Support analysis under action 1⋅Fv+2⋅Fu on automatic clutch. σweld.E7. ANALYSIS 3.30.2 where was monitored the vehicle passing through curve with height H and wind of specific pressure w. The other important criterion is model development which processing was acceptable from the aspect of time performance of modern computer. Static checking of tension in constant continuum profiled supporters was performed in standard JUS U.150.2 Analysis at starting moment of the vehicle at maximal pull force.1. Diagonal pressure trough bumpers Support analysis under action 1. Marking criterion ReH. forces in bumpers (when hitting).5/1. σweld. Figure 2.145 (as well as JUS U. Support analysis under action 1. Support analysis 1⋅Fv+ 0. Figure 2.

04⋅(VE)0. Number of elements in transversal direction NB comes from the quotient of vehicle width B=2800mm and size of average element a: NB=3⋅(187÷204). Model is elastically leaned over SPRING elements by which the elasticity of vehicle hanging was described.5.33=1. The volume of average finite element (VE) is defined by quotient of total volume of support (defined SolidWorks Vp=0.2 3. This number of elements is in PC domain of realisation and is limited by time of numeric realization. ribs. Out of this frame the topology of finite elements frame is mapped.37÷1. The discrete model is looked for in range Ne=1.2.106 of finite elements. Figures 3. The leanings of the support (on work wheels.0. 3 .106÷2. so the type choice of finite elements is looked for in smaller (discrete) geometry domain – solids.6m3=600. Base for this is the spacey stress state of real constructions which is best interpreted by solids.1 – 3. Generated number of elements in direction of the support length is defined by quotient of length L=8760 and average size of elements geometry: NL=3⋅(585÷640).2.Fig. ANALYSIS 8. Case of forces arrangement ANALYSIS-2 Fig. Limits in meshing are conditioned by physical size of the model. engine.2 show the details of discrete model. Tetrahedron of side responds to this volume a=2. and welded joints. cabin. Concentrated masses of crane. Development frames of CAD-FEA models The condition of support developing is good understanding of its stress–strain state. the correct geometry structure.2.40 cm3.30+0. Developed mesh describes the continuum up to the level of holes.50 cm (size of element). cm3) and planed number of elements: VE=Vp/ Ne =0. It enabled introduction of inertia forces by giving only one common vector – acceleration vector.000.2 Model of mass arrangement that inertial forces come from Case of hitting vehicle in front. bumper leaning) are connected with support by RIGID finite elements which is precisely defined model rotation. transmitions and loading container are linked with the construction with rigid elements.1. roundness. Number 3 is empirical coeficient.

it is sure that there will be corrections of initial geometry structure design.1. m/m.0 kN/cm2. 5.858. Allowed boundary stress (RE) are not exceeded RE = 41.760/0. The analysis results of the highest stress influenced the extreme loading zones to redesign. Since the number of request are numerous. zMAX = 0.1. In case when introduced criteria can not be fulfilled.87 kN/cm2 and maximal tangent tension τMAX = 20. several vertical and horizontal ribs are placed. Discrete model of the vehicle (front detail) Number of elements: 1.0204m. Details of the lower part – support of the crane Fig. in order to eliminate places of material fatigue and possible damage that can come later.0203 = 431.3.4 show the analysis result.1. 4 . Such a procedure of firmness is implemented in all analysis. there has to started new design.0030 m. Deformations of the model are in driving direction on front bumpers. Figure 4. That is why area of front of support (forward/backward). figure 3. translation: yMAX = -0. τE = 24.4. CONCLUSION In such a way performed the group of super-analysis enabled to define whether the strenght of support on all actiones was achieved by designing.859. the maximal tension was gained σVON MISES = 38.4.0203 m.19 kN/cm2. Number of nodes: 620016. RESULTS OF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS Lets look at some of analysis results: In case of vehicle hitting into another one (CASE 8. (Case 8-2) The maximal translation of the whole construction (mostly because of the deflection of the springs on the shafts) is 0.1-4. Fig. The corrections may be performed also in order to reduce the greatest equalize stresses of mass allocate of material along of the construction.2.3·Fv+FH·(5g).5 kN/cm2.2) where was implemented the total of outer impacts upon form: 1.3. The produced translations are within normal rigidity of construction: C = LMAX/yMAX = 8. Fig.

2 (Case 8-2) Maximal Solid Von Mises stress (388.4.4.1) Elastic deformations ( bending) while hoisting the vehicle (factory service operation).432. MFN 2008 Fig.4 (Case 11.3 (Case 8-2) Look on the lower central part of the support. N/m2) is in the area of connection of main supporters and front plate.4.0165 m 5 . The greatest deflection are in the middle 0.Fig. The picture presents high fidelity of FEM model with real physical construction MFN 2008 Fig.762.

Machine design. A.1 Photography of DHD 200 DK Fig. Voronez. Beograd 1996. [4] JOVANOVIĆ. McGraw-Hill.02-03. 2007. Aproximate contact models of the rolling suports. MILIĆ. Structural CAE Identification of Boundary Loads of Excavators. 2008. pp. Figure 5. MILIĆ.d. P. Inc. Pat No: 540.ni. 89-92. 14068. Structural analysis of railway vehicle support DHD 200 DKLokomotiva a. pp. D. University of Niš Faculty of Mechnical Engineering Chair of Transport tec.d. 2004. MIN Nis. 2004. P. Pittsburgh. D. [2] TIMOSHENKO S. University of Niš Faculty of Mechnical Engineering Chair of Transport tec. Redizajn optimalna geometrija nosača. Project Nr.2 Support of the vehicle DHD 200DK Model correction: Pat No: 540.1978. MIN Niš. P. REFERENCES [1] ZIENKIEWICZ O. Eng. [7] ŠARIĆ J.ni. M. BGD. [5] JOVANOVIĆ. quality of shape function At that time the greatest translations have to stay small and number of degenerated elements controlled. [8] JOVANOVIĆ. M. Niš. 1956. FTN NS. Enhancing tehnology of geometry shape container design. Part II. Vučena vozila.. A. 69 .. specially if there is symmetrical structure and symmetrical loading. Zavod za udžbenike.82. Maj 2002. There may be the proof of model convergence. Series Mechanical Engineering. M.. IV Rev. London 1971. International Conference Interstroimech 2004.ACKNOWLEDGMENT This paper is financially supported by the Ministry of Science and Technological Development of Republic of Serbia.rs Predrag MILIĆ. Development Project No. M. N° 1. COD-2002. Russia.12. Fig. Strength of Materials. Medvedeva 14 18000 Niš. B. and Logistics Str. M. Part No 440.rs . 612-22-168-2/08. 1991. MILIĆ. ADEKO FTN Novi Sad. Final Raport. MIJAJLOVIĆ. 6 CORRESPONDENCE Miomir JOVANOVIĆ.01-70 (horizontal rib on the middle vertical supporters). [9] JOVANOVIĆ. Interactive Systems.Sc. Office for development and explotation. Yugoslav railway union. which make the creation of valid products.1 shows the stage in assembly the equipment on support of pull railway vehicle HD 200 DK made in Lokomotiva a. P.Sc. P. [6] Technical norm №. Facta Universitatis. Medvedeva 14 18000 Niš. The Finite Element Method in engineering science. and Logistics Str. This support is gratefully acknowledged. Vol 2.. JANOSEVIĆ. Eng. MILIĆ. [10] JOVANOVIĆ.02-03. . D..C. MARINKOVIĆ. Serbia miomir@masfak. KΟΖΙĆ. D. Serbia pmilic@masfak. New Jersey.5.ac.ac.401 Supergen.5. Novi Kneževac.01-71 (horizontal rib on side vertical supporters) During every analysis there has to be taken care of the quality (design) of the discrete model: Correctness of type choice and enough number of finite elements. In this way defined results of group structures of analysis enabled to reach the decision from the design about new one. Prof. Figure 5.2 shows details of performed changes in the middle part of construction by which is increased the strenght of structure over diagonal impact. Mechanical Faculty of Niš. [3] MSC NASTRAN 2004.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful