Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison between quasi-static and multibody dynamic simulations for wheel-rail contact analysis

  • Research
  • Published:
Multibody System Dynamics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Rails experience contact with a range of wheel profiles that pummel their surface at different points and with different intensities. This work compares two methods for evaluating pummeling analyzes for the wheel-rail interaction: simplified quasi-static model and multibody dynamics simulations. The first is solved with the GIRAFFE program and simulates the interaction of a single wheelset with the rail in a quasi-static approach. In the second, the full dynamics of a railway wagon on a track layout are evaluated using the multibody dynamics simulation programs SIMPACK® and VAMPIRE®. The proposal for a quasi-static model is to reduce the time and computational effort to perform a pummeling analysis and quickly evaluate thousands of cases of wheel-rail contact. Track parameters and vehicle loads of a heavy haul railway are considered for the simulations. The results showed that the quasi-static model has a good correlation with the dynamic models on tangent track sections. For the curved sections, differences were observed in the distribution of pressures due to the absence of creep forces in the quasi-static model. The comparison between the models also showed slightly different results due to the different calculation of contact in each approach. The quasi-static approach reduced the time consuming by at least 73.4% over the multibody approach. Notwithstanding, the proposed model shows to be promising in replacing complete dynamic analysis for time-consuming tasks such as pummeling.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

References

  1. Hiensch, M., Steenbergen, M.: Rolling contact fatigue on premium rail grades: damage function development from field data. Wear 394, 187–194 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2017.10.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Huang, L., Li, Z., Li, L., An, Q.: Methods to calculate accurate wheel/rail contact positions and static contact stress levels. In: Proc IMechE Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit, vol. 230, pp. 138–150 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1177/0954409714530912

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Magel, E., Kalousek, J.: The application of contact mechanics to rail profile design and rail grinding. Wear 253, 308–316 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1648(02)00123-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Magel, E., Kalousek, J., Caldwell, R.: A numerical simulation of wheel wear. Wear 258, 1245–1254 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2004.03.033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bruni, S., Meijaard, J.P., Rill, G., Schwab, A.L.: State-of-the-art and challenges of railway and road vehicle dynamics with multibody dynamics approaches. Multibody Syst. Dyn. 49, 1–32 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11044-020-09735-z

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Pombo, J.C., Ambrósio, J.A.: Application of a wheel–rail contact model to railway dynamics in small radius curved tracks. Multibody Syst. Dyn. 19, 91–114 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11044-007-9094-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Meli, E., Ridolfi, A.: An innovative wheel–rail contact model for railway vehicles under degraded adhesion conditions. Multibody Syst. Dyn. 33, 285–313 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11044-013-9405-4

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Yu, X., Aceituno, J.F., Kurvinen, E., Matikainen, M.K., Korkealaakso, P., Rouvinen, A., Jiang, D., Escalona, J.L., Mikkola, A.: Comparison of numerical and computational aspects between two constraint-based contact methods in the description of wheel/rail contacts. Multibody Syst. Dyn. 54, 303–344 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11044-022-09811-6

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Ebersöhn, W., Trosino, M., Magel, E., El-Sibaie, M.: Managing wheel/rail performance on Amtrak’s Northeast corridor. In: AREMA, Washington (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Higa, D.N., Kina, E.J., Neto, A.G.: Wheelset rail mechanical model for a steady-state dynamic condition and prediction of rolling contact fatigue locci. Veh. Syst. Dyn. 60(1), 281–308 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1080/00423114.2020.1814960

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Neto, G., Pimenta, P.M., Wriggers, P.: A master-surface to master-surface formulation for beam to beam contact. Part I: frictionless interaction. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 303, 400–429 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cma.2016.02.005

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  12. Sá, T.L., Ramos, P.G., Pacheco, P.A.P., Viana, M., Santos, G.F.M., Junior, A.A.S., Neto, A.G.: Comparison between dynamic and quasi-static model to evaluate wheel-rail contacts. In: V Simpósio de Engenharia Ferroviária, Campinas (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ekberg, A., Åkesson, B., Kabo, E.: Wheel/rail rolling contact fatigue – probe, predict, prevent. Wear 314, 2–12 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2013.12.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lima, E.A., Baruffaldi, L.B., Manetti, J.L.B., Martins, T.S., Santos, A.A.: Effect of truck shear pads on the dynamic behaviour of heavy haul railway cars. Veh. Syst. Dyn. 60(4), 1188–1208 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1080/00423114.2020.1858120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kalker, J.J.: On the Rolling Contact of Two Elastic Bodies in the Presence of Dry Friction [Doctoral]. Technische Hogeschool (1967)

  16. Kalker, J.J.: Wheel-rail rolling contact theory. Wear (1991). https://doi.org/10.1016/0043-1648(91)90018-P

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kalker, J.J.: A fast algorithm for the simplified theory of rolling contact. Veh. Syst. Dyn. 11(1), 1–13 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1080/00423118208968684

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hossein-Nia, S., Sichani, M.S., Stichel, S., Casanueva, C.: Wheel life prediction model – an alternative to the FASTSIM algorithm for RCF. Veh. Syst. Dyn. 56(7), 1051–1071 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/00423114.2017.1403636

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Santos, F.C.: Análise do contato roda-trilho e suas influência na vida em serviço de rodas ferroviárias. Master degree thesis (2000)

  20. Simpack: FASTSIM. In: Simpack User Assistance, Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kalker, J.J.: Three-Dimensional Elastic Bodles in Rolling Contact, vol. 2, 1st edn. pp. XXVI. Springer, Dordrecht (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7889-9

    Book  Google Scholar 

  22. Marques, F.M.H., Liu, B., Pombo, J., Flores, P., Ambrósio, J., Piotrowski, J., Bruni, S.: On the generation of enhanced lookup tables for wheel-rail contact models. Wear 434–435 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wear.2019.202993

  23. Vampire: Wheel rail creep laws. In: Vampire Help Manual, pp. 757–791 SNC-Lavalin (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Silva, L., Gay Neto, A.: Geometry reconstruction based on arc splines with application to wheel-rail contact simulation. Eng. Comput. 40, 1889–1920 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1108/EC-11-2022-0666

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Neto, G.: GIRAFFE Platform (2022). [Online]. Available: http://sites.poli.usp.br/p/alfredo.gay/#giraffe-section [Accessed 12 December 2022]

  26. Johnson, K.L.: Contact Mechanics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1985). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139171731

    Book  Google Scholar 

  27. Wang, Q.J., Zhu, D.: Hertz theory: contact of ellipsoidal surfaces. Encycl. Tribol. (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-92897-5_492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Sichani, M.S., Enblom, R., Berg, M.: An alternative to FASTSIM for tangential solution of the wheel–rail contact. Veh. Syst. Dyn. 54(6), 748–764 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1080/00423114.2016.1156135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Zaazaa, K.E., Schwab, A.L.: Review of Joost Kalker’s wheel-rail contact theories and their implementation in multibody codes. In: 7th International Conference on Multibody Systems, Nonlinear Dynamics, and Control, Parts A, B and C, vol. 4, pp. 1889–1900 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2009-87655

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Vollebregt, E.: Detailed wheel/rail geometry processing with the conformal contact approach. Multibody Syst. Dyn. 52, 135–167 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11044-020-09762-w

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This project is grateful for the support of Vale S.A. through the Wheel-Rail and Wagons Chairs and the CNPq (National Council for Scientific and Technological Development) under grants 304321/2021-4 and 315304/2018-9.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departament of Railway, Federal Institute of the Southeast of MG, Técnico Panamá street 45, 36246-311, Santos Dumont, Brazil

    P. A. P. Pacheco

  2. School of Mechanical Engineering, Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Rua Mendeleyev, 200, 13083-872, Campinas, Brazil

    P. A. P. Pacheco, P. G. Ramos & A. A. Santos

  3. Polytechnic School, University of São Paulo, Avenue Prof. Luciano Gualberto, 380, 05508-010, São Paulo, Brazil

    T. L. Sá & A. Gay Neto

  4. School of Mechanical Engineering, Federal University of Espírito Santo, Goiabeiras street, 29075-053, Vitória, Brazil

    G. F. M. Santos

Authors
  1. P. A. P. Pacheco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P. G. Ramos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. T. L. Sá
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. G. F. M. Santos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A. Gay Neto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. A. A. Santos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

P.A.P. Pacheco and T.L. Sá developed the models and wrote the first version of the main manuscript. P.A.P. Pacheco and P.G. Ramos developed the dynamic models and run the simulations; T.L. Sá and A. Gay Neto developed the quasi-static modelling; G.F.M. Santos and P.A.P. Pacheco developed the models and analyzed the contact region for dynamic simulation; A.A. Santos and A. Gay Neto defined the objectives and methodology for the research. All authors reviewed the manuscript. A.A. Santos, G.F.M. Santos, and A. Gay Neto are the project managers for this research in their own institutions.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. F. M. Santos.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pacheco, P.A.P., Ramos, P.G., Sá, T.L. et al. Comparison between quasi-static and multibody dynamic simulations for wheel-rail contact analysis. Multibody Syst Dyn (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11044-024-09979-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11044-024-09979-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation