2019
DOI: 10.1007/s11044-019-09708-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Railway multibody simulation with the knife-edge-equivalent wheel–rail constraint equations

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

4
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Relative-longitudinal dynamic is ignored. Wheel-rail contact interaction is based on the equivalent conicity concept, the knife-edge contact assumption [ 6 , 28 ], and Polach’s rolling contact theory. In addition, flange contact and two-point contact scenarios are considered using an elastic penetration-based contact approach using a Hunt-Crossley model [ 29 ] that considers an elastic lateral force based on the flange and rail surfaces penetration and penetration rate.…”
Section: Dynamic Modellingmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Relative-longitudinal dynamic is ignored. Wheel-rail contact interaction is based on the equivalent conicity concept, the knife-edge contact assumption [ 6 , 28 ], and Polach’s rolling contact theory. In addition, flange contact and two-point contact scenarios are considered using an elastic penetration-based contact approach using a Hunt-Crossley model [ 29 ] that considers an elastic lateral force based on the flange and rail surfaces penetration and penetration rate.…”
Section: Dynamic Modellingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are a large number of references in the scientific literature concerning this subject and addressing it from different perspectives. One example is the work of Escalona et al [5][6][7] which analyses the dynamics of the vehicle while interacting with the track from a theoretical point of view. Other works [8] combine theory and experiments trying to achieve a more precise estimation of wheel-rail contact forces from the inertial response of the vehicle.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The 3D kinematics used for the geometry measurements considers a general track design geometry, and the assumed kinematic approximations and simplifications are fully described. As a result of the background of the authors in on the development of multibody dynamics models for railway simulations [14][15][16], the presented kinematic equations follow the multibody formalism. The kinematic equations used for the computer vision are adapted to this formalism.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The results of this program are now compared with the reference value of the irregularities that were obtained with the method described in the previous section. Figures [16][17][18][19] show the comparison between the reference geometry measurement explained in the previous section and the measurement of the TGMS developed in this investigation. The experiment was done with the vehicle shown in Figure 14 at a forward velocity of 2.5 m/s, that, considering the scale, it is equivalent to 25 m/s = 90 km/h of a real train.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The contact detection methodologies to handle the wheel-rail contact can be categorized into two main groups, namely the constraint approach and the elastic formulation. The constraint approach involves the definition of nonlinear kinematic contact constraints between the wheel and rail, being the contact point determined during the resolution of the equations of motion [36][37][38][39][40]. This approach considers the contact fully rigid and reduces to five the number of degrees-of-freedom of the wheel relatively to the rail.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%