Upload
others
View
10
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Railway Dynamics with Flexible Tracks
Extended Abstract
João Pedro Marçal Neves Costa Instituto Superior Técnico – Universidade de Lisboa
Abstract
When studying the dynamic behaviour of the railway vehicle, a meticulous description of the vehicle is
made using a multibody system formulation whilst the track is modelled, generally, as a rigid structure
comprising only the rails. The problem with railway dynamic analyses, from a mechanical point of view, is
that railway track exhibits in fact some flexibility. This fact has implications on the vehicle performance
and should not be disregarded. When studying the dynamic behaviour of the track the vehicle loading is
generally taken as a constant moving load. However, the loading from the vehicles is neither constant neither
with a vertical component only.
In response to the necessity of more realistic railway models a finite element generation tool for tracks
is presented here. The tracks are built using two sets of inputs: a MATLAB structure, containing the spatial
geometry of the track and an excel file, containing the material and geometric properties necessary for the
finite element methodology. For rigid tracks, used in conventional railway dynamic analysis, the
geometrical description is enough to generate the complete track geometry. For flexible tracks, used in
conventional railway track dynamics, the geometric properties are enough to describe straight tracks. The
innovation of this work is the ability to model general flexible railway tracks for railway dynamics. A case
study is presented, with the purpose to compare the dynamic behaviour of the track with two loading
scenarios. The first loading scenario considers vertical prescribed moving loads, as a standard procedure,
while the second scenario considers realistic vehicle loads extracted from the wheel-rail contact mechanics
using a multibody system simulation. It is concluded that, for realistic tracks, the multibody wheel-rail
interaction loading should always be used instead of the unrealistic prescribed loading, being the issue of
major importance in the presence of curves.
Keywords
Railway Dynamic, Track Dynamics, Finite Element Methodology, Multibody System, Track Modelling.
1 Introduction
When considering the vehicle-track interaction problem, there are two approaches for railway dynamic
analysis. The dynamic analysis of railway vehicles is usually made considering the track as a rigid structure.
The track is composed only by the rails, which may include deviations from the nominal geometry known
as imperfections. This model is widely used in analysis for technological developments and yields good
results. However, this simplification is not realistic, for specific types of analysis, because the track exhibits,
in fact, some flexibility. The flexibility of the track is not only due to the rail being a deformable structure,
but also because of the underlying structure, comprising the rail pads, sleepers and foundation. On the other
hand, the approach used in the dynamic analysis of the track, is to model the whole track, considering all
the elements and their respective flexibilities. As the vehicle is typically not included in this type of analysis,
prescribed moving loads are used to represent the vehicle loading. Although this approach is not as realistic
as it can be with current knowledge, it is representative and used as a research standard. Recent
developments using these two approaches are overviewed here.
The dynamic analysis of a multibody system involves the study of its motion and forces transmitted
over a time period, as functions of the initial conditions, external forces and/or prescribed motions [1]. A
multibody system consists in a set of rigid and/or deformable components interconnected by joints and/or
force elements. The joints, also known as kinematic constraints, define the relative motions between the
bodies. The force elements can be organised in two types: passive force elements, such as springs and
2
dampers, and active force elements, like actuators. Generally, a multibody model of a railway vehicle
comprises one carbody, two bogie frames, four wheelsets and one axle box for each wheel. Both the primary
suspensions, connecting the wheelsets to the bogie frames, and the secondary suspensions connecting the
bogie frames to the carbody are modelled by sets of force elements while the motion between the pairs
wheelsets/axle boxes and carbody/bogies is imposed by kinematic constraints [2].
There are several works related with the track dynamic analysis, especially in the field of civil
engineering. Zhai presents in his work [3] a two-dimensional numerical model that simulates the vertical
dynamic interaction between the vehicle and the track. It consists on a model where the carbody and bogies
are considered lumped masses and the four wheelset are unsprung masses. The wheels are connected to the
bogie, which in turn is connected to the carbody, by springs and dampers representing the primary and
secondary suspensions, respectively. The rail is modelled as an infinitely long beam discretely supported at
rail/sleepers junctions by a series of springs, dampers and masses representing the elasticity of the rail pads,
ballast and subgrade. The interaction between the wheelsets and rail is accomplished by using non-linear
Hertzian theory. More recently, Varandas [4] has developed a more complex model for two dimensional
analysis of the railway track. In this model the rail is assumed to follow the Euler-Bernoulli beam theory on
a Winkler foundation, the stiffness of the sleeper is considered non-linear and increases with the increasing
deformation of the sleeper contacting the ballast, the sleepers may be hanging allowing contact to be lost/re-
established during dynamic loading. In the work of Almeida [5], a methodology to find the equivalent
properties between a foundation modelled as three-dimensional solid finite elements and a foundation using
two-dimensional spring/dampers finite elements is presented.
Regarding the use of multibody formulation and finite element modelling Shabana proposes a non-
linear finite element formulation for modelling the rail and track flexibility [6, 7]. This method can be used
to systemically couple finite element computer programs with flexible multibody system codes, allowing
the development of track models that include rail, tie, and fastener flexibility as well as soil characteristics.
More recently, Pombo and Almeida proposed a tool [8, 9] to automatically generate straight tracks, based
on the FEM, that includes rails, rail pads, sleepers and foundation as flexible elements.
The objective of this work is to develop a tool to build FEM models of railway tracks, with arbitrary
geometry, that can be used with realistic railway vehicle models. The FEM model includes the rail, with or
without imperfections, and a simplification of the underlying structure of the track. This new approach
builds on the dynamic analysis of railway vehicles, by borrowing elements from the dynamic analysis of
railway tracks, allowing more realistic railway structural design and track degradation evaluation.
2 Railway Track Geometry and Structure
The railway track is composed by the rails, rail pads, sleepers and foundation, as outlined in Figure 1. The
rails are supported, through the rail pads, by the sleepers, which in turn are supported by the foundation.
The term foundation is used to refer to the ballast and substructure. The ballast is formed by a layer of coarse
granular material while the substructure is a prepared earthworks comprising the sub-ballast, the form layer
and the subgrade. Since the performance of railway vehicles is strongly dependent on the track conditions
an accurate characterization of the track is essential. The nominal railway track model is composed by
several segments that define the profile of the track centreline. Each segment is characterised by: length,
horizontal curvature, cant and grade. While curving, railway vehicles are subjected to centrifugal forces,
acting away from the centre of the curve, tending to overturn the vehicle. The sum of the vehicle weight and
centrifugal forces produces a resultant force directed toward the outer rail. To counteract this force the outer
rail is raised [10-12]. The height difference between the two rails is called cant, ht. The track grade is the
vertical profile of the track and represents the ascending or descending slope of the track. Changes in
curvature, cant and grade are accomplished by transition segments in order to guarantee continuity of the
variables without geometric singularities.
3
Figure 1: Railway track
For modelling purposes this description of the track is insufficient and a geometric reconstruction of
the track is necessary. The goal of the geometric reconstruction is to transform the values of curvature and
grade into points with coordinates xyz, along the track centreline, and associate to each of these points the
respective cant angle. For the plane reconstruction of the track centreline the method presented by Iverson
[13] is used. The reconstruction of the left and right rail is achieved using the method proposed by Pombo
[1].
3 Finite Element Railway Track Modelling
The track model is achieved by using linear finite elements. The rails and sleepers are modelled using
3D beam elements, based on Euler-Bernoulli theory, with six DOF per node, allowing shear/axial forces
and bending/torsion moments. For the 3D Euler-Bernoulli beam proportional damping is used [14].
Damping assumes a crucial role in the structural dynamics of the track due to the implications of the rail
dynamic response on the wheel-track interaction forces. The rail pads and the foundation are modelled as
massless spring-damper elements that connect to the nodes of the finite elements representing rails, sleepers
and foundations. The foundation is modelled considering two types of massless spring-dampers, below
sleepers and between sleepers, as depicted in Figure 2 and Figure 3.
Figure 2: Cross-section view of the track model
Figure 3: Longitudinal view of the track model
The vertical foundation, depicted in Figure 2, is represented by the vertical elements below de sleepers
and accounts for the flexibility of the foundations directly below the sleeper. The horizontal foundation,
depicted in Figure 3, is represented by the horizontal elements connecting the sleepers and accounts for the
fact that the track supporting layers should behave as continuum. A displacement of a sleeper’s node should
also cause a displacement field in the vicinity of that node, and consequently the surrounding sleepers. To
Flexibility of
the Foundation
Flexibility of
Rail Pad
Sleeper
Elements
Rail
Element
Fixed
FixedFlexibility of the
Foundation
Flexibility of Rail
PadSleeper
Element
Rail
Elements
Flexibility of the
foundation between
sleepers
4
avoid the elastic wave reflection in the end of the rail track, massless spring-damper elements are added in
the beginning and in the end of the track, and constrained in the opposite ends.
To model correctly a 3D realistic track a considerable amount of information is required to define the
position of the nodes, and consequently, the elements. The spatial geometry of the track centreline and rails
can be fully characterized by the arc length, s, the Cartesian coordinates, (x,y,z), and the moving frame,
(t,n,b) of each of these components, as shown in Figure 4. The information necessary for the centreline and
both rails is stored in a MATLAB structure in order to be used in the mesh generation tool. Aside from the
spatial geometry of the track, the geometric and material properties of the track components, i.e., sleepers,
rails, pads and foundation, are also necessary to complete de data for the FEM formulation. This information
is provided in a pre-formatted Excel file.
Figure 4: Parametric representation of a railway track with rails
The whole track is generated based in track centreline arc length. The left and right rail positions and
moving frames’ are interpolated over the track centreline, leading to the data structure specified in Table 1.
With Table 1, and the refinement level of the mesh and the distance between sleepers, provided by the Excel
input file, the computational tool assesses the track arc length placing the nodes in the correct position. To
achieve this positioning there are two options, if the arc length corresponds to a sleeper, nodes for the rails,
sleepers and foundations are created, if the arc length does not correspond to a sleeper only rail nodes are
created.
sc xc tc nc bc xLr tLr nLr bLr xRr tRr nRr bRr
0.0 … … … … … … … … … … … …
1.0 … … … … … … … … … … … …
… … … … … … … … … … … … …
Table 1: Geometric data necessary to automatically generate the mesh
Besides the rail coordinates, connectivity and properties tables necessary for a FEM formulation, the
mesh generation tool builds an auxiliary table for the rail-wheel contact force model used in the dynamic
analysis. This table, shown as Table 2: Table for wheel-rail contact in the dynamic analysis, comprises, for
each rail, the element numbers, ne, nodes i and j of the element, and the arc length of nodes i and j, si and sj,
respectively.
ne i j si sj
0.0 … … … …
1.0 … … … …
… … … … …
Table 2: Table for wheel-rail contact in the dynamic analysis
Rn
Rt Rb
LL RL
z
y
x
Ln
Lt
Lb
Lg
Rg
5
A mesh generated using this tool, serving only as a demonstrative example of the computational tool,
is shown in Figure 2. The track consist in two straights segments of 100 m, connected by a semi-circular
segment with a 50 m radius.
Figure 5: Example of a mesh generated using the tool
4 Case Study with Realistic Operation Scenarios
4.1 Vehicle Multibody Model
Generally, a multibody model of a railway vehicle comprises one carbody, two bogie frames, four
wheelsets and one axle box for each wheel, as shown in Figure 6. Both the primary suspensions, connecting
the wheelsets to the bogie frames, and the secondary suspensions connecting the bogie frames to the carbody
are modelled by a set of springs and dampers placed in parallel, as depicted in Figure 6.The constraints used
between the pairs wheelset/axle box and carbody/bogie are revolute joints and cylindrical joints with
bushing, respectively. In this work, the vehicle multibody models have their dynamics analysed for given
railway tracks. The interaction forces are retrieved and used, later on, as loading forces for the flexible track.
Figure 6: General multibody model of a railway vehicle
4.2 Track of a Suburban Railway Line
For the dynamic analysis of the track, two approaches are explored. In the first, the wheel-rail contact forces
are retrieved from DAP-3D dynamic analysis with the railway track to be analysed here. This loading case
referred to as realistic loading. The second approach considers a loading condition where eight prescribed
vertical loads represent the vehicle’s weight moving along the rails, deemed here as prescribed loading. The
wheel-rail contact forces are extracted from the MBS simulation considering the vehicle moving at a
Attaching Points of the:
Carbody
Bogie Frame
Wheelset
Primary Suspension
Secondary SuspensionBogie Frame
Wheelset
2CG
3CG
3
332
2
2
x
y
z
1
1
11CG
Carbody
6
constant velocity of 67.5 km/h. There are two areas of interest depicted as dots in Figure 7. For each dot,
control nodes are placed, in both the left and right rail, between two consecutive sleepers. The vertical and
lateral displacements of the track resulting from the dynamic analysis are presented as well as their velocities
and accelerations. The lateral component of the displacement is defined as the component perpendicular to
both, the rail longitudinal tangent and the vertical normal direction.
Figure 7: Top view of the track
4.3 Track Dynamic Analysis
The vertical displacement of the control rail nodes in the second curve is presented in Figure 8. The vertical
displacement of the left rail is similar for both loading scenarios with the realistic loading being responsible
for a slightly larger deformation upon passage of the last wheelset. For the right rail the shape of the vertical
displacement is similar for the realistic and prescribed loading, with the latter being responsible in general
for larger deformations. The difference between the vertical displacement of the left and right rail, for each
loading case, is due to the cant angle of the curve. In the case of the lateral displacement there is no similarity
between the loading cases for both rails. For the realistic loading, the left rail deforms outward with the first
wheelset causing larger deformations than the first. The behaviour of the deformations is the same for both
bogies. In the case of the right rail node, for each bogie, the deformation caused by the first wheelset is
outward followed by deformation inward upon passage of the second wheelset. The displacement of the
prescribed forces shows the same behaviour for both rails, deforming them in the positive direction of the
axis, i.e., toward the centre of the curve.
(a) (b)
Figure 8: Displacement of the control rail nodes in the 2nd curve: (a) vertical displacement; (b) Lateral
displacement
-20.00
-15.00
-10.00
-5.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
98.50 99.50 100.50 101.50
Dis
pla
ce
me
nt [
10
-5m
]
Time [s]
LR Realistic uz
LR Prescribed uz
RR Realistic uz
RR Prescribed uz
-20.00
-15.00
-10.00
-5.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
98.50 99.50 100.50 101.50
Dis
pla
ce
me
nt [
10
-5m
]
Time [s]
LR Realistic ul
LR Prescribed ul
RR Realistic ul
RR Prescribed ul
7
The vertical velocity and acceleration of the right rail node in the second curve are presented in Figure
9. The shape of the vertical velocities induced by the prescribed loading is in agreement with the velocities
induced by the realistic loading. The velocity profile due to the prescribed loading shows a smooth behavior
while the profile due to the realistic loading presents an oscillatory behavior. The oscillatory behaviour
increases upon passage of the first wheelset and decreases upon the passage of the second.
There is no resemblance between the shapes of the accelerations induced by both loading scenarios.
The acceleration due the realistic loading presents an oscillatory behavior, reaching higher values, while the
acceleration due the prescribed loading presents a smooth behavior.
(a) (b)
Figure 9: Kinematics of the control node in the 2nd curve for the right rail: (a) vertical velocity; (b) vertical
acceleration
The lateral velocity and acceleration of the right rail node in the second curve are presented in Figure
10. There is no similarity between the shape of the lateral velocities induced by the realistic and the
prescribed loading. The realistic loading produces higher velocities and presents an oscillatory behaviour
that increases before the passage of the first wheelset and decreases after the passage of the second wheelset.
Figure 10 (b) shows how poorly the prescribed loading simulates the actual accelerations felt by the
rail. The acceleration due to the prescribed loading presents a smooth behaviour and is almost negligible
when compared with the highly oscillatory behaviour of the accelerations due to the realistic loading.
(a) (b)
Figure 10: Kinematics of the control node in the right rail: (a) lateral velocity; (b) lateral acceleration
-4.00
-3.00
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
98.50 99.50 100.50 101.50
Veclo
city [
10
-3m
/s]
Time [s]
Realistic vz
Prescribed vz
-40.00
-30.00
-20.00
-10.00
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
98.50 99.50 100.50 101.50
Accele
ration [
10
-3g]
Time [s]
Realistic az
Prescribed az
-4.00
-3.00
-2.00
-1.00
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
98.50 99.50 100.50 101.50
Velo
city [
10
-3m
/s]
Time [s]
Realistic vl
Prescribed vl-210.00
-160.00
-110.00
-60.00
-10.00
40.00
90.00
140.00
98.50 99.50 100.50 101.50
Accele
ration [
10
-3g]
Time [s]
Realistic al
Prescribed al
8
5 Conclusion and Future Work
The computational finite element model initialization and dynamic analysis tool developed in this work
comes as a response to the demand of more realistic railway track analysis. Track flexibility has implications
in the vehicle performance and should not be disregarded. The development of this tool allows to build any
FEM track model, as long as the geometry and properties are provided. The automatic mesh generation tool
allows creating tracks, with different segments and/or properties. For instance, a straight segment with twin-
block sleepers over a ballasted foundation, followed by a curved segment with mono-block sleepers on a
concrete foundation can be built. The development of this tools is also done taking into account that the
FEM models built are to be used in a co-simulation procedure, which is left for future work.
Vertical prescribed forces are used as an industry standard for homologation purposes and structural
design of tracks. Both cases studies presented here demonstrate this to be a conservative approach, leading
to slightly larger displacements and velocities than considering realistic loads, only if the track is considered
straight, which is unrealistic. For curved segments, either with a high or small curvature, the displacement,
velocities and accelerations of the rail nodes, caused by the prescribed loading do not agree with the ones
caused by the realistic loading. While traveling in a straight track, considering that there are no
imperfections, the lateral forces, which are responsible for keeping the vehicle on rails, are not significant
and the standard approach is viable. On the other hand, while negotiating a curve the lateral forces become
more significant and the standard approach is not enough to predict the dynamic behaviour of the track. The
prescribed loading also fails to describe the oscillating behaviour of the velocity and acceleration, especially
present in the curve’s outer rail.
In this work, the dynamic analyses of the vehicle and track are decoupled. The dynamic analysis of
the vehicle is performed, using MBS formulation, and considering only rigid bodies. Then, the dynamic
analysis of the track is performed, using FEM formulation, and considering the dynamic loads extracted
from the MBS simulation. By decoupling the dynamic analyses an important aspect of real phenomena is
left out of the analysis. The flexibility of the track should influence the performance of the vehicle, and vice
versa. To realistically model the interaction between the track and the vehicle a co-simulation procedure
should be developed, allowing the two codes to exchange information. This is not a trivial task since the co-
simulation procedure requires the wheel-rail contact to be evaluated by the finite element dynamics.
For the foundation and rails pads, modelled as massless spring-dampers, a linear behaviour is
considered. However, some authors [3, 4] consider the foundation as non-linear elements. Considering the
foundation springs/dampers as non-linear element would allow studying other interesting cases, for instance
the influence of hanging sleepers on the vehicle’s performance, or stiffness transitions.
Since the method presented in this work is not a standard, for either vehicle or track analyses, there
is little information available about the elastic and damping properties of the foundation. Therefore, some
of the properties of the foundation used in this work are arbitrary. Experimental data about the displacement
and velocity fields would allow to validate the tool, find more accurate values of these properties and
consequently, more reliable results.
The track includes rails that form curves and straight sections which are continuous and smooth.
Modelling the rails with two noded linear beam elements does not allow the correct representation of the
geometric smoothness. Therefore, the use of curved beam elements with three or more nodes must be
explored for the models of the rails, in particular when a co-simulation of the vehicle track interaction is
implemented.
The realistic loading of the track is achieved, in this work, by using the wheel-rail interaction loads
obtained with the vehicle analysis tool. Appropriate filters for these forces, which fulfil the applicable
norms, can be explored for application to the force loading histories.
References
[1] J. Pombo, "A Multibody Methodology for Railway Dynamics Applications," PhD Dissertation,
IDMEC/Department of Mechanical Engineering, Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisbon, Portugal,
2004.
9
[2] H. Magalhães, J. F. A. Madeira, J. Ambrósio, and J. Pombo, "Railway Vehicle Performance
Optimization Using Virtual Homologation," Vehicle System Dynamics, 2015.
[3] W. Zhai and Z. Cai, "Dynamic Interaction Between a Lumped Mass Vehicle and a Discretely
Supported Continuous Rail Track," Computers and Structures, vol. 63, pp. 987-997, 1997.
[4] J. Varandas, P. Hölscher, and M. Silva, "Dynamic Behaviour of Railway Tracks on Transitions
Zones," Computers and Structures, vol. 89, pp. pp. 1468-1479, 2011.
[5] T. Almeida, "Modelação Numérica de Entrada em Ponte Ferroviária," Master Thesis, Universidade
Nova de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal, 2015.
[6] A. A. Shabana, R. Chamorro, and C. Rathod, "A Multibody System Approach for Finite Element
Modeling of Rail Flexibility in Railroad Vehicle Applications," Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, Part K: J. Multi-body Dynamics, vol. 222, pp. pp. 1-15, 2008.
[7] A. A. Shabana and G. Sanborn, "An Alternative Simple Multibody System Approach for Modelling
Rail Flexibility in Railroad Vehicle Dynamics," Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part K: J.
Multi-body Dynamics, vol. 223, pp. pp. 107-120, 2009.
[8] T. Almeida, "Development of Flexible Track Models for Railway Dynamics Applications," Master
Thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisbon, Portugal, 2013.
[9] J. Pombo, T. Almeida, H. Magalhães, P. Antunes, and J. Ambrósio, "Development of a Finite
Element Methodology for Flexible Track Models in Railway Dynamics Applications," in 3rd
International Conference on Recent Advances in Railway Engineering (ICRARE-2013), Tehran,
Iran, 2013.
[10] V. K. Garg and R. V. Dukkipati, Dynamics of Railway Vehicle Systems. New York, New York:
Academic Press, 1984.
[11] E. Andersson, M. Berg, and S. Stichel, Rail Vehicle Dynamics, Fundamentals and Guidelines.
Stockholm, Sweden: Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), 1998.
[12] T. Wayne, Roller Coaster Physics - An Educational Guide to Roller Coaster Design and Analysis
for Teachers and Students. Charlottesville, Virginia, 1998.
[13] W. Iverson. (1974, May/June). Analysis of the Reconstruction of Rail Geometry from Curvature
Data. IA-10.
[14] K. J. Bathe, Finite Element Procedures. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1996.