On non-linear methods of bogie stability assessment using computer simulations

On non-linear methods of bogie stability assessment using computer simulations
复制标题

DOI:
10.1243/095440905x33251
复制
发表时间:
2006-01
期刊:
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part F: Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit
影响因子:
--
通讯作者:
O. Polach
O. Polach
中科院分区:
其他
文献类型:
--
作者:
O. Polach

文献摘要

被引文献

相似文献

摘要轨道车辆的稳定性评估可能是轨道车辆工程中应用最广泛的动力分析形式。使用现代多体仿真工具构建的完全非线性三维车辆模型进行计算机仿真,可以在指定条件下进行详细的非线性稳定性分析。然而,轮轨接触条件的高度敏感性以及力学和铁路实践中对稳定性的不同定义可能导致预测值与实测值之间的显著差异。介绍了可用于工业应用的不同非线性稳定性分析方法,并以高等效锥形轮对/轨道接触几何为例进行了比较。比较表明,接触几何轮对/轨道的线性化可以更好地评估非线性稳定性分析。当等效锥度函数在幅值小于3 mm的范围内减小时,会导致具有较小极限环的超临界∼分叉,从而导致两种方法之间的最大差异。当排除导致超临界Hopf分叉的接触几何时,得到的结果彼此更接近,但仍有高达10%的差异。除了与车辆参数、模型等有关的其他不确定性外,还必须考虑由所用方法引起的稳定性预测中的这种不确定性。
Abstract Stability assessment of rail vehicles is probably the most widespread form of dynamic analysis in railway vehicle engineering. The computer simulations using fully non-linear three-dimensional vehicle models constructed in a modern multi-body simulation tool allow detailed non-linear stability analysis for the specified conditions. However, high sensitivity to the wheel/ rail contact conditions and different definitions of stability in mechanics and in railway practise can lead to significant differences between prediction and the measurement. Different methods of non-linear stability analysis, which may be used in industrial applications, are introduced and compared on selected examples of contact geometry wheel set/track with high equivalent conicity. The comparisons show that the linearization of the contact geometry wheel set/track can enable a better assessment of the non-linear stability analyses. A decreasing equivalent conicity function in the range of amplitudes below ∼ 3 mm leads to supercritical Hopf bifurcation with small limit cycles and consequently to largest differences between the methods compared. When excluding the contact geometries leading to supercritical Hopf bifurcation, the results achieved are closer each other, but still with differences in the range of up to 10 per cent. This uncertainty in the stability prediction caused by the method applied must be taken into consideration, in addition to other uncertainties related to vehicle parameters, modelling, etc.