You are on page 1of 6



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 Ni 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.


Miomir JOVANOVI Predrag MILI

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- NI 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

longitudinal and transversal loading of pull railway vehicle with the following content: Tab. 1.
01 02 03

Analysis characteristics:
Support analysis under action of vertical forces 1 Fv Marking criterion per, per, weld, Support analyses under action of only vertical forces 2Fv (double g), Marking criterion ReH, Driving situation with several cars. Support analysis 1Fv+ 0.75Fu on bumpers. Marking criterion per, per, weld, Front hitting with bumpers. Support analysis under action 1Fv+1Fu on bumpers Marking criteria of construction ReH. Pulling of the cars over pull. Support analysis under action 1.5Fv+1.5Fu on bumpers, Support marking criterion ReH. Power of pressure in automatic clutch Support analysis under action 1Fv+2Fu on automatic clutch, Marking criteria of construction ReH. Diagonal pressure trough bumpers Support analysis under action 1.5Fv+0.5Fu on diagonal bumpers, Marking criteria of construction ReH. Support analysis under action of inertia forces in length way. Static model kdFv+1FIN (3g). Dynamic factor of vertical forces kd=1.30. Horizontal forces are inertial of all masses (M3g) Marking criterion of construction ReH. Support analysis under action of inertia forces in length way. Static model kdFv+1FIN (5g). Dynamic factor of vertical forces kd=1.30. Horizontal forces are inertial of all masses (M5g) Marking criterion of construction ReH.

forces, crane forces and work forces. Figure 2.2 shows the arrangement of masses on support with schematically shown rigid joints of their focuses with support. This discretely shown mass in points made it possible to use the same model for solving several dynamic tasks defined in Table 1. Figure 2.3 shows elements of analysis 9.2 where was monitored the vehicle passing through curve with height H and wind of specific pressure w.

2.3. Checking Criteria of Construction Strenght

The strenght of construction still defined according EN10025 is regulated. Static checking of tension in constant continuum profiled supporters was performed in standard JUS U.E7.145 (as well as JUS U.E7.145/1). Three basic cases of loading were monitored with safety coefficient (=1.5/1.33/1.2) which define comparative (permitted) stresses. Permitted stresses refer to loading from extension, pressure and bending. Permitted tensions for local checking of frontal welding joint for typical loading cases, are defined according to JUS U.E7.150, by coefficient of welding strength k. Local checking of tension of fillet welding is performed in from JUS U.E7.150 and coefficient of safety of fillet welding defined according to standard JUS U.E7.081. Bends are empirically marked, by rigidity control: C= LMAX/YMAX. This is the quotient of span and elastic deflection. With still supporters of transport machines, the rigidity is required within limits of C=300759 (lower-upper).



06 07


3. ANALYSIS 3.1. Choice of Analysis Method

The vehicle exploitation was conditioned by firmness checking for several characteristic combinations of static loadings. Obviously that quality and good construction of supporter comprises the ability of static endurance for various different influences. Classical analysis by deformation method of line bending supporters, with its low velocity and limits only on assumed critical crossing (not by computing procedures), do not respond to efficient design, because the design is achieved by many different analysis. That is reason because the finite elements method analysis is chosen. By it, numerical computing procedure was taken out by using only one (discrete) model for all combinations of loading. For mentioned tasks realization, the linear static FEM analysis was used together with program combination FEMAP/SSAP V.4. Construction modeling was performed by using the 10-node solid finite element of tetrahedron. The geometry was true modeled, which included the holes, radius, welds, extension of supporters and transitional profile geometry. The other important criterion is model development which processing was acceptable from the aspect of time performance of modern computer. For stress analysis state the comparing Von Mises tension and maximal tangent tension were used. The choice of comparative stress was performed according to stress category in elastic domain of support strain. The main part of deforming work is spent on geometry shape change, Von Mises hypotheses (Henky-Huber-Mises). The maximal comparative stresses of structure are defined by nodes in center of all model finite elements.


Analysis at starting moment of the vehicle at maximal pull force. Static model Fv+Gv ( =0.33 athesion quotient,Gv vehicle weight) +Frp (reactive axial force in power shaft operation) 9.1 Marking criterion of construction per, per. Marking criterion of welding weld. Analysis of support while passing trough curve and side wind pressure. Static model kdFv+Fpull (pull force at speed in the curve) + FN (pA, p specific wind pressure N/m2, A is the 9.2 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). Dynamic factor of vertical forces kd=1.30. Marking criterion per, per, weld. Check of placing pillar elevator Model of loading 1MKR + 1GKR. 10.1 Two cases position of the analysis. In the direction of 10.2 driving and under right angle on that direction Marking criterion per, per, weld. Support analysis at elevating (hoisting) of vehicle Vehicle stays at 4 positions 11.1 Static model: From vertical forces 1Fv. 11.2 Two analysis: First: whole model analysis. Second analysis of the connection area for elevation. Marking criterion per, per, weld.

Figure 2.1 shows the one arrangement of outer forces (case of vertical dynamic). Activities are worked out separately from all inbuilt weights, inertia forces, pull and brake forces, forces in bumpers (when hitting), wind forces, centrifugal 2

Fig.2.1. Case of forces arrangement ANALYSIS-2

Fig.2.2 Model of mass arrangement that inertial forces come from Case of hitting vehicle in front, ANALYSIS 8.2

3.2. Development frames of CAD-FEA models

The condition of support developing is good understanding of its stressstrain state, so the type choice of finite elements is looked for in smaller (discrete) geometry domain solids. Base for this is the spacey stress state of real constructions which is best interpreted by solids. Limits in meshing are conditioned by physical size of the model. The discrete model is looked for in range Ne=1.5.1062.0.106 of finite elements. This number of elements is in PC domain of realisation and is limited by time of numeric realization. The volume of average finite element (VE) is defined by quotient of total volume of support (defined SolidWorks Vp=0.6m3=600.000, cm3) and planed number of elements: VE=Vp/ Ne =0,30+0,40 cm3. Tetrahedron of side responds to this volume a=2.04(VE)0.33=1.371.50 cm (size of element). 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(585640). Number of elements in transversal direction NB comes from the quotient of vehicle width B=2800mm and size of average element a: NB=3(187204). Number 3 is empirical coeficient. Out of this frame the topology of finite elements frame is mapped. Developed mesh describes the continuum up to the level of holes, roundness, ribs, and welded joints, the correct geometry structure. Figures 3.1 3.2 show the details of discrete model. Model is elastically leaned over SPRING elements by which the elasticity of vehicle hanging was described. The leanings of the support (on work wheels, bumper leaning) are connected with support by RIGID finite elements which is precisely defined model rotation. Concentrated masses of crane, cabin, engine, transmitions and loading container are linked with the construction with rigid elements. It enabled introduction of inertia forces by giving only one common vector acceleration vector. 3


Lets look at some of analysis results: In case of vehicle hitting into another one (CASE 8.2) where was implemented the total of outer impacts upon form: 1.3Fv+FH(5g), the maximal tension was gained VON MISES = 38,87 kN/cm2 and maximal tangent tension MAX = 20,19 kN/cm2, translation: yMAX = -0.0203 m, zMAX = 0.0030 m. Allowed boundary stress (RE) are not exceeded RE = 41,5 kN/cm2; E = 24,0 kN/cm2. The produced translations are within normal rigidity of construction: C = LMAX/yMAX = 8.760/0.0203 = 431, m/m. The analysis results of the highest stress influenced the extreme loading zones to redesign. That is why area of front of support (forward/backward), several vertical and horizontal ribs are placed, figure 3.1. Such a procedure of firmness is implemented in all analysis, in order to eliminate places of material fatigue and possible damage that can come later. Figure 4.1-4.4 show the analysis result.

Fig.3.1. Discrete model of the vehicle (front detail) Number of elements: 1.858.859. Number of nodes: 620016.

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. Since the number of request are numerous, it is sure that there will be corrections of initial geometry structure design. The corrections may be performed also in order to reduce the greatest equalize stresses of mass allocate of material along of the construction. In case when introduced criteria can not be fulfilled, there has to started new design.

Fig.3.2. Details of the lower part support of the crane

Fig.4.1. (Case 8-2) The maximal translation of the whole construction (mostly because of the deflection of the springs on the shafts) is 0.0204m. Deformations of the model are in driving direction on front bumpers.

Fig.4.2 (Case 8-2) Maximal Solid Von Mises stress (388.762.432, N/m2) is in the area of connection of main supporters and front plate.

MFN 2008

Fig.4.3 (Case 8-2) Look on the lower central part of the support. The picture presents high fidelity of FEM model with real physical construction

MFN 2008

Fig.4.4 (Case 11.1) Elastic deformations ( bending) while hoisting the vehicle (factory service operation). The greatest deflection are in the middle 0.0165 m 5

This paper is financially supported by the Ministry of Science and Technological Development of Republic of Serbia, Project Nr. 14068. This support is gratefully acknowledged.

[1] ZIENKIEWICZ O.C., The Finite Element Method in engineering science, McGraw-Hill, London 1971. [2] TIMOSHENKO S., Strength of Materials, Part II, , New Jersey, 1956. [3] MSC NASTRAN 2004, Interactive Systems, Inc, Part No 440.401 Supergen, Pittsburgh, 1991. [4] JOVANOVI, M., MILI, P, MIJAJLOVI, D, Aproximate contact models of the rolling suports, Facta Universitatis, Series Mechanical Engineering, Ni, Vol 2, N 1, 2004. pp. 69 - 82, [5] JOVANOVI, M, MARINKOVI, D, Redizajn optimalna geometrija nosaa, COD-2002, FTN NS, Novi Kneevac, Maj 2002, [6] Technical norm .12, Yugoslav railway union, Office for development and explotation, IV Rev.1978. BGD. [7] ARI J., Vuena vozila, Zavod za udbenike, Beograd 1996. [8] JOVANOVI, M, MILI, P, Enhancing tehnology of geometry shape container design, ADEKO FTN Novi Sad, Machine design., 2007, pp. 89-92. [9] JOVANOVI, M, JANOSEVI, D, MILI, P, Structural CAE Identification of Boundary Loads of Excavators, International Conference Interstroimech 2004, Voronez, Russia, 2004. [10] JOVANOVI, M, K, P, MILI, P, Structural analysis of railway vehicle support DHD 200 DKLokomotiva a.d. MIN Ni, Development Project No. 612-22-168-2/08, Final Raport, Mechanical Faculty of Ni, 2008.

Fig.5.1 Photography of DHD 200 DK

Fig.5.2 Support of the vehicle DHD 200DK Model correction: Pat No: 540.02-03.01-70 (horizontal rib on the middle vertical supporters), Pat No: 540.02-03.01-71 (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, quality of shape function At that time the greatest translations have to stay small and number of degenerated elements controlled. There may be the proof of model convergence, specially if there is symmetrical structure and symmetrical loading. Figure 5.1 shows the stage in assembly the equipment on support of pull railway vehicle HD 200 DK made in Lokomotiva a.d. MIN Nis. 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. In this way defined results of group structures of analysis enabled to reach the decision from the design about new one, which make the creation of valid products. 6

Miomir JOVANOVI, Prof. D.Sc. Eng. University of Ni Faculty of Mechnical Engineering Chair of Transport tec. and Logistics Str. A. Medvedeva 14 18000 Ni, Serbia Predrag MILI, B.Sc. Eng. University of Ni Faculty of Mechnical Engineering Chair of Transport tec. and Logistics Str. A. Medvedeva 14 18000 Ni, Serbia