To improve the efficiency and competitiveness of railway transport, passenger and freight trains should travel faster and have increased payload, without losing the necessary levels of running safety and ride comfort, as well as assuring low aggressiveness on track and minimising the life cycle costs. Hence, the manufacturer’s challenge consists of improving the dynamic performance of the railway vehicles and reducing the loads on the track as well as on the rolling stock components. These objectives can be achieved through optimizing the design of the vehicle, while taking into consideration that the characteristics of the vehicle and of the track may change over time and space, and that they depend on the maintenance conditions of the vehicle and of the infrastructure. This work proposes a computational methodology to study how the varying vehicle component characteristics, on normal and degraded conditions, impact on the vehicle/track interaction loads and on the track damage. The purpose of this study is to trace a path towards a realistic definition of a load mission profile for the structural fatigue dimensioning of the vehicle components. The assessment criteria and the evaluated quantities are defined according to the EN14363 regulation.
AllotaBContiRMeliEet al.Railway vehicle dynamics under degraded adhesion conditions: an innovative HIL architecture for braking tests on full-scale roller-rigs. Int J Railway Technol2013; 2: 21–53.
2.
HölscherP. The dynamics of foundations for high speed lines on soft soils. Int J Railway Technol2012; 1: 147–166.
3.
IwnickiSBevanA. Damage to railway wheels and rails: a review of the causes, prediction methods, reduction and allocation of costs. Int J Railway Technol2012; 1: 121–146.
4.
MagalhãesHAmbrósioJPomboJ. Railway vehicle modelling for the vehicle-track interaction compatibility analysis. Proc IMechE, Part K: J Multi-body Dynamics2016; 230: 251–267.
5.
PomboJAmbrósioJPereiraMet al.Influence of track conditions and wheel wear state on the loads imposed on the infrastructure by railway vehicles. Comput Struct2011; 89: 1882–1894.
6.
ShabanaAA. Absolute nodal coordinate formulation geometry to railroad vehicle system dynamics. Int J Railway Technol2012; 1: 221–230.
7.
StichelSJönssonPCasanuevaCet al.Modelling and simulation of freight wagon with special attention to the prediction of track damage. Int J Railway Technol2014; 3: 1–36.
8.
VarandasJHölscherPSilvaM. Dynamic behaviour of railway tracks on transitions zones. Comput Struct2011; 89: 1468–1479.
9.
EN15827. Railway applications – requirements for bogies and running gears, 2011.
10.
AnderssonEBergMStichelS. Rail vehicle dynamics, fundamentals and guidelines, Stockholm, Sweden: Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), 1998.
11.
PomboJAmbrósioJ. An alternative method to include track irregularities in railway vehicle dynamic analyses. Nonlinear Dyn2012; 68: 161–176.
12.
VollebregtESteenbergenM. A methodology for assessing track irregularities with respect to rail damage. Int J Railway Technol2015; 4: 85–105.
13.
NikraveshPE. Computer-aided analysis of mechanical systems, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1988.
14.
BruniSVinolasJBergMet al.Modelling of suspension components in a rail vehicle dynamics context. Veh Syst Dyn2011; 49: 1021–1072.
15.
FloresPAmbrósioJClaroJet al.Kinematics and dynamics of multibody systems with imperfect joints: models and case studies, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer, 2008.
16.
ShabanaAA. Dynamics of multibody systems, 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
KukaNAriaudoCVerardiR. Modelling and simulation of tilting vehicles. Int J Railway Technol2013; 2: 63–82.
19.
QazizadehAPerssonRStichelS. Preparation and execution of on-track tests with active vertical secondary suspension. Int J Railway Technol2015; 4: 29–46.
20.
EickhoffBEvansJMinnisA. A review of modelling methods for railway vehicle suspension components. Veh Syst Dyn1995; 24: 469–496.
21.
PiaoMLiangSWeiHet al.Novel stability theory based on absorbing-band anti-hunting mechanism of high-speed bogies. Int J Railway Technol2013; 2: 1–33.
22.
PomboJAmbrósioJ. Influence of pantograph suspension characteristics on the contact quality with the catenary for high speed trains. Comput Struct2012; 110–111: 32–42.
23.
AmbrósioJVerissimoP. Improved bushing models for general multibody systems and vehicle dynamics. Multibody Syst Dyn2009; 22: 341–365.
24.
FacchinettiAMazzolaLAlfiSet al.Mathematical modelling of the secondary airspring suspension in railway vehicles and its effect on safety and ride comfort. Veh Syst Dyn2010; 48: 429–449.
25.
LiXLiT. Research on vertical stiffness of belted air springs. Veh Syst Dyn2013; 51: 1655–1673.
26.
AlonsoAGuiralAGimenezJG. Wheel rail contact: theoretical and experimental analysis. Int J Railway Technol2013; 2: 15–32.
27.
IgnestiMInnocentiAMariniLet al.Development of a model for the simultaneous analysis of wheel and rail wear in railway systems. Multibody Syst Dyn2014; 31: 191–240.
28.
MeliERidolfiA. An innovative wheel–rail contact model for railway vehicles under degraded adhesion conditions. Multibody Syst Dyn2015; 33: 285–313.
29.
PomboJAmbrósioJ. Application of a wheel-rail contact model to railway dynamics in small radius curved tracks. Multibody Syst Dyn2008; 19: 91–114.
30.
PomboJAmbrósioJSilvaM. A new wheel-rail contact model for railway dynamics. Veh Syst Dyn2007; 45: 165–189.
31.
ShabanaAABerzeriMSanyJR. Numerical procedure for the simulation of wheel/rail contact dynamics. J Dyn Syst Meas Control2001; 123: 168–178.
32.
SichaniMEnblomRBergM. Non-elliptic wheel-rail contact modelling in vehicle dynamics simulation. Int J Railway Technol2014; 3: 77–96.
33.
SugiyamaHYadaMYamamotoHet al.Wheel and rail profile wear on small radius curved tracks and its effect on derailment coefficients: measurement and simulation. Int J Railway Technol2013; 2: 85–98.
MagalhãesHPomboJAmbrósioJet al.Rail vehicle design optimization for operation in a mountainous railway track. Inn Infrastruct Solut2017; 2. . DOI: 10.1007/s41062-017-0088-1.
42.
PolachOEvansJ. Simulations of running dynamics for vehicle acceptance: application and validation. Int J Railway Technol2013; 2: 59–84.
43.
WillsonNFriesRWitteMet al.Assessment of safety against derailment using simulation and vehicle acceptance tests: a worldwide comparison of state-of-the-art assessment methods. Veh Syst Dyn2011; 49: 1113–1157.
44.
EN14363. Railway applications – testing for the acceptance of running characteristics of railway vehicles – testing for running behaviour and stationary tests, 2005.
45.
Kuka N, Verardi R, Ariaudo C, et al. The influence of the maintenance state of track and bogie components on the track-vehicle interaction and loads. In: Pombo J. (ed.) Proceedings of the second international conference on railway technology: research, development and maintenance. Stirlingshire, UK: Civil-Comp Press, 2014, paper 269. DOI: 10.4203/ccp.104.269.
AEA Technology plc. VAMPIRE user manual – V 4.32, Derby, UK: AEA Technology plc, 2004.
48.
Research British-Rail. Introduction to VAMPIRE, London, UK: AEA Technology plc., 1997.
49.
DeltaRail Group Ltd. VAMPIRE Pro User Manual – V 5.02, Derby, UK: DeltaRail Group Ltd., 2006.
50.
LewisRDwyer-JoyceROlofssonUet al.Mapping railway wheel material wear mechanisms and transitions. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit2010; 224: 125–137.
51.
PomboJAmbrósioJPereiraMet al.A railway wheel wear prediction tool based on a multibody software. J Theoret Appl Mech2010; 48: 751–770.
52.
PomboJAmbrósioJPereiraMet al.A study on wear evaluation of railway wheels based on multibody dynamics and wear computation. Multibody Syst Dyn2010; 24: 347–366.
53.
PomboJAmbrósioJPereiraMet al.Development of a wear prediction tool for steel railway wheels using three alternative wear functions. Wear2011; 271: 238–245.
54.
Pombo J, Quost X, Tassini N, et al. A railway wheel wear prediction tool based on multibody software. In: Proceedings of VSDIA 2008 – 11th mini conference on vehicle system dynamics, identification and anomalies, Budapest, Hungary, 10–12 November 2008.
55.
Quost X, Tassini N, Lewis R, et al. Predicting railway wheel wear starting from multibody analysis: a preliminary study. In: Proceedings of 2008 IEEE/ASME joint rail conference (JRC 2008), Wilmington, DE, USA, 22–24 April 2008.
56.
Tassini N, Quost X, Lewis R, et al. A numerical model of twin disc test arrangement for evaluating railway wheel wear prediction algorithms. In: Proceedings of the STLE/ASME international joint tribology conference (IJTC 2008), Miami, FL, USA, 20–22 October 2008, pp.469–471.
57.
TassiniNQuostXLewisRet al.A numerical model of twin disc test arrangement for the evaluation of railway wheel wear prediction methods. Wear2010; 268: 660–667.
58.
DukkipatiRVAmyotJR. Computer-aided simulation in railway dynamics, New York: M. Dekker Inc., 1988.
59.
GargVKDukkipatiRV. Dynamics of railway vehicle systems, New York: Academic Press, 1984.
60.
IwnickiS. Handbook of railway vehicle dynamics, London, UK: Taylor & Francis, 2006.
61.
Bruni S, Belforte P, Mancini G, et al. Experimental investigation of yaw damper performances: an improved and harmonised testing methodology developed within modtrain EU project. In: Proceedings of the 8th world congress on railway research, Seoul, Korea, 8–22 May 2008.
62.
FloresP. Modeling and simulation of wear in revolute clearance joints in multibody systems. Mech Mach Theory2009; 44: 1211–1222.
63.
Evans J. The modelling of railway passenger vehicles. In: Sauvage G (ed.) Proceedings of the 12th IAVSD symposium dynamics of vehicles – international association for vehicle system dynamics, Lyon, France, August 1991.
64.
BoltonPJClaytonP. Rolling-sliding wear damage in rail and tyre steels. Wear1983; 93: 145–165.
65.
BraghinFLewisRDwyer-JoyceRet al.A mathematical model to predict railway wheel profile evolution due to wear. Wear2006; 261: 1253–1264.
66.
JendelT. Prediction of wheel profile wear – comparisons with field measurements. Wear2002; 253: 89–99.
