A new approach has been developed to determine the dynamic amplification factors of railways. This approach employs a traditional multi-body dynamic model of vehicle–track interaction and a 3D explicit finite element model of wheel–rail rolling contact to treat the low- and high-frequency dynamics, respectively. Excitations are considered by contact surface unevenness and more specifically, by the power spectrum density of track irregularity for the low-frequency analysis and by the critical wheel flat, weld, and rail corrugation for the high frequency. For the 40-tonne axle load heavy haul railway simulated in this work, it has been found that the optimum fastening stiffness should be 150–200 MN/m; the dynamic amplification factors of the wheel–rail contact, fastening, and ballast forces are 1.94, 2.0, and 1.67, respectively, if the fastening stiffness of 200 MN/m is applied. Finally, new dynamic amplification factor formulae that include key parameters such as the fastening stiffness, speed, and axle load are proposed for the heavy haul railway design.
Ludlow TJ. The journey to 40 TAL – the FMG experience. In: Proceedings of the 2011 International Heavy Haul Association conference, Calgary, Canada, 19–22 June 2011.
2.
Baoshuan T and Wei W. Chinese exported heavy axle-load freight cars. In: Proceedings of the 2011 International Heavy Haul Association Conference, Calgary, Canada, 19–22 June 2011.
3.
Scramm G. Permanent way technique and permanent way economy (English translation by Hans Lange), Otto Elsner Verlagsgesellschaft Darmstadt 1961.
4.
Office of Research and Experiments (ORE): stresses in rails, question D71, stresses in the rails, the ballast and the formation resulting from traffic loads. Report No. D71/RP1/E, International Union of Railways, Utrecht, Netherlands, 1965.
5.
EisenmannJ. Germans gain a better understanding of track structure. Railway Gazette Int1972; 128: 305–305.
6.
DoyleNF. Railway track design: a review of current practice, Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1980.
7.
JenkinsHStephensonJClaytonGet al.The effect of track and vehicle parameters on wheel/rail vertical dynamic forces. Railway Eng J (January)1974; 3: 2–16.
8.
Manual of recommended practice. Washington, DC: American Railway Engineering Association (AREA), 1978, pp.2–6.
9.
Sato Y. New track mechanics (section 6.2). Beijing: China Railway Publishing House, 2001 (in Chinese).
10.
Li Z. Study on the vertical load transmission through the track structure and the characteristics of subgrade dynamic stresses, PhD Thesis, China Academy of Railway Sciences, 2000 (in Chinese).
11.
ShinECKimDHDasBM. Geogrid-reinforced railroad bed settlement due to cyclic load. Geotech Geol Eng2002; 20: 261–271.
12.
EsveldC. Modern railway track, 2nd ed. Zaltbommel, the Netherlands: MRT-productions, 2001.
Van Dyk BJ, Edweards JR and Dersch MS. International concrete crosstie and fastening system survey – final results. Report of RailTEC, University of Illinois at Urbana, Champaingn, May 2012.
15.
ZhaoXLiZLiuJ. Wheel–rail impact and the dynamic forces at discrete supports of rails in the presence of singular rail surface defects. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit2012; 226: 124–139.
16.
ZhaoXWenZWangHet al.Transient wheel–rail rolling contact at corrugations and corrugation development. J Zhejiang Univ Sci A2014; 15: 946–963.
17.
FermérMNielsenJCO. Vertical interaction between train and track with soft and stiff railpads – full-scale experiments and theory. J Rail Rapid Transit1995; 209: 39–47.
18.
GrassieSLElkinsJA. Rail corrugation on North American transit systems. Veh Syst Dyn1998; 28: 5–17.
19.
EganaJIVinolasJSecoM. Investigation of the influence of rail pad stiffness on rail corrugation on a transit system. Wear2006; 261: 216–224.
20.
IliasH. The influence of railpad stiffness on wheelset/track interaction and corrugation growth. J Sound Vibration1999; 227: 935–948.
21.
Li W, Wang H, Wen Z, et al. An investigation into the mechanism of metro rail corrugation using experimental and theoretical methods. J Rail Rapid Transit 2016; 230: 1025–1039.
22.
KnotheKLGrassieSL. Modelling of railway track and vehicle/track interaction at high frequencies. Vehicle Syst Dyn1993; 22: 209–262.
23.
ChaarNBergM. Simulation of vehicle–track interaction with flexible wheelsets, moving track models and field tests. Vehicle Syst Dyn2006; 44: 921–931.
24.
BaezaLFayosJRodaAet al.High frequency railway vehicle–track dynamics through flexible rotating wheelsets. Vehicle Syst Dyn2008; 46: 647–662.
25.
ZhongSXiongJXiaoXet al.Effect of the first two wheelset bending modes on wheel–rail contact behavior. J Zhejiang Univ Sci A2014; 15: 984–1001.
26.
ZhaiWMCaiCBWangQCet al.Dynamic effects of vehicle on tracks in the case of raising train speeds. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit2001; 215: 125–135.
27.
JinXSXiaoXBWenZFet al.Effect of sleeper pitch on rail corrugation at the tangent track in vehicle hunting. Wear2008; 265: 1163–1175.
GrassieSLKalousekJ. Rail corrugation: characteristics, causes and treatments. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit1993; 207: 57–68.
30.
Lundgren JR, Martin GC and Hay WW. A simulation model of ballast support and the modulus of track elasticity, Civil Engineering Studies, Transportation Series No. 14, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, 1970.
31.
CarrascalIACasadoJAPolancoJAet al.Dynamic behaviour of railway fastening setting pads. Eng Failure Anal2007; 14: 64–373.
