0
Research Papers

Comparison of Methods Analyzing Bifurcation and Hunting of Complex Rail Vehicle Models

[+] Author and Article Information
Oldrich Polach1

 Bombardier Transportation, Zuercherstrasse 39, CH-8401 Winterthur, Switzerlandoldrich.polach@ch.transport.German Aerospace Center (DLR) Oberpfaffenhofen,  Institute of Robotics and Mechatronics, Department of System Dynamics and Control, Muenchner Strasse 20, D-82234 Wessling, Germanyoldrich.polach@ch.transport.

Ingo Kaiser

 Bombardier Transportation, Zuercherstrasse 39, CH-8401 Winterthur, SwitzerlandIngo.Kaiser@dlr.deGerman Aerospace Center (DLR) Oberpfaffenhofen,  Institute of Robotics and Mechatronics, Department of System Dynamics and Control, Muenchner Strasse 20, D-82234 Wessling, GermanyIngo.Kaiser@dlr.de

1

Corresponding author.

J. Comput. Nonlinear Dynam 7(4), 041005 (Jun 13, 2012) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4006825 History: Received October 28, 2011; Accepted May 04, 2012; Published June 13, 2012; Online June 13, 2012

The stability assessment is an important task in the mechanical design of railway vehicles. For a detailed model of a railway passenger coach, the hunting behavior depending on the running speed, on wheel-rail contact conditions, and on different model configurations is analyzed using two different methods: The path-following method based on a direct computation of limit cycles enables an automatic computation. However, due to the direct computation, which exploits the periodicity of the solution, this method is restricted to strictly periodic behavior. In the brute-force method, an initial disturbance limited to a certain time interval is applied to the model. This method allows the analysis of the behavior independently from the type of the solution, but requires manual intervention. The comparison of the results obtained with both methods shows a good agreement and thereby the reliability of the results and the methods.

Copyright © 2012 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Characteristics of the different yaw dampers used in the vehicle model

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Without yaw dampers (noYD), profiles 06A: Brute-force results versus path-following results for hunting of the front bogie

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Yaw dampers YD6, profiles 06A: Brute-force results versus path-following results for hunting of the front bogie

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Yaw dampers YD12, profiles 06A: Brute-force results versus path-following results for hunting of both bogies

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Yaw dampers YD12, profiles 06A: Brute-force results versus path-following results for hunting of the front bogie

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Yaw dampers YD18, profiles 06A: Brute-force results versus path-following results for hunting of both bogies

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Yaw dampers YD18, profiles 06A: Brute-force results versus path-following results for hunting of the front bogie

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Yaw dampers YD12, profiles 06B: Brute-force results versus path-following results for hunting of both bogies

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

All yaw damper variants, profiles 06B: Bifurcation curves obtained with the brute-force method

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 18

Yaw dampers YD12, profiles 06B, v0=250  km/h: Phase diagram for the lateral displacement of the wheelsets of the trailing bogie

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 19

Yaw dampers YD12, profiles 06B, v0=250  km/h: Phase diagram for the lateral displacement of the carbody

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Bifurcation diagram for a generic wheelset

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Multi-body model of the double-decker coach

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Without yaw dampers (noYD), profiles 06A, v0=250  km/h: Phase diagram for the lateral displacement of the wheelsets of the leading bogie

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Without yaw dampers (noYD), profiles 06A, v0=250  km/h: Phase diagram for the lateral displacement of the wheelsets of the trailing bogie

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Without yaw dampers (noYD), profiles 06A, v0=250  km/h: Phase diagram for the lateral displacement of the carbody

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Without yaw dampers (noYD), profiles 06A, v0=250  km/h: Phase diagram for the yaw angle of the carbody

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Yaw dampers YD12, profiles 06B, v0=250  km/h: Time histories for the lateral displacement yCB and yaw angle ψCB of the carbody

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

Yaw dampers YD12, profiles 06B, v0=250  km/h: Phase diagram for the lateral displacement of the wheelsets of the leading bogie

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In