Research Papers

Rolling Condition and Gyroscopic Moments in Curve Negotiations

[+] Author and Article Information
Ahmed A. Shabana

e-mail: shabana@uic.edu

James J. O’Shea

Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering,
University of Illinois at Chicago,
842 West Taylor Street,
Chicago, IL 60607

Contributed by the Design Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF NONLINEAR AND COMPUTATIONAL DYNAMICS. Manuscript received February 20, 2012; final manuscript received April 11, 2012; published online July 23, 2012. Assoc. Editor: José L. Escalona.

J. Comput. Nonlinear Dynam 8(1), 011015 (Jul 23, 2012) (10 pages) Paper No: CND-12-1034; doi: 10.1115/1.4006818 History: Received February 20, 2012; Revised April 11, 2012

In vehicle system dynamics, the effect of the gyroscopic moments can be significant during curve negotiations. The absolute angular velocity of the body can be expressed as the sum of two vectors; one vector is due to the curvature of the curve, while the second vector is due to the rate of change of the angles that define the orientation of the body with respect to a coordinate system that follows the body motion. In this paper, the configuration of the body in the global coordinate system is defined using the trajectory coordinates in order to examine the effect of the gyroscopic moments in the case of curve negotiations. These coordinates consist of arc length, two relative translations, and three relative angles. The relative translations and relative angles are defined with respect to a trajectory coordinate system that follows the motion of the body on the curve. It is shown that when the yaw and roll angles relative to the trajectory coordinate system are constrained and the motion is predominantly rolling, the effect of the gyroscopic moment on the motion becomes negligible and, in the case of pure rolling and zero yaw and roll angles, the generalized gyroscopic moment associated with the system degrees of freedom becomes identically zero. The analysis presented in this investigation sheds light on the danger of using derailment criteria that are not obtained using laws of motion and, therefore, such criteria should not be used in judging the stability of railroad vehicle systems. Furthermore, the analysis presented in this paper shows that the roll moment, which can have a significant effect on the wheel/rail contact forces, depends on the forward velocity in the case of curve negotiations. For this reason, roller rigs that do not allow for the wheelset forward velocity cannot capture these moment components and, therefore, should not be used in the analysis of curve negotiations. A model of a suspended railroad wheelset is used in this investigation to study the gyroscopic effect during curve negotiations.

Copyright © 2013 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Goldstein, H., 1950, Classical Mechanics, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.
Greenwood, D. T., 1988, Principles of Dynamics, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Roberson, R.E., andSchwertassek, R., 1988, Dynamics of Multibody Systems, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Shabana, A. A., 2010, Computational Dynamics, 3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, West Sussex.
Shabana, A. A., 2012, “Nadal’s Formula and High Speed Rail Derailments,” ASME J. Comput. Nonlinear Dyn. (submitted).
Shabana, A. A., Zaazaa, K. E., and Sugiyama, H., 2008, Railroad Vehicle Dynamics: A Computational Approach, Taylor & Francis/CRC, Boca Raton, FL.
Rathod, C., and ShabanaA. A., 2006, “Rail Geometry and Euler Angles,” ASME J. Comput. Nonlinear Dyn., 1(3), pp. 264–268. [CrossRef]
Gilchris, A. O., 1998, “The Long Road to Solution of the Railway Hunting and Curving Problems,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng., F, J. Rail Rapid Transit, 212, pp. 212–219.
Iwnicki, S., 2006, Handbook of Railway Vehicle Dynamics, CRC/Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, FL.
Nishimura, K., Terumichi, Y., Morimura, T., and Sogabe, K., 2009, “Development of Vehicle Dynamics Simulation for Safety Analyses of Rail Vehicles on Excited Tracks,” ASME J. Comput. Nonlinear Dyn., 4(1), pp. 1–9. [CrossRef]


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Curve geometry and body configuration

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Wheelset lateral displacement

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Wheelset normal forces at right contact ( 6-DOF-WG, 6-DOF)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Wheelset normal forces at left contact ( 6-DOF-WG, 6-DOF)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Suspended wheelset/track model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Track S-curve lateral position

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Components of the wheelset gyroscopic moments ( X, Y, Z)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Difference between the wheelset resultant and gyroscopic moments ( X, Y, Z)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Magnitude of the wheelset gyroscopic moment ( 4-DOF, 6-DOF)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Wheelset lateral displacement ( 6-DOF, 4-DOF, 6-DOF-WG)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Wheelset yaw rotation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Components of the wheelset resultant force vector ( X, Y, Z)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Components of the wheelset resultant moments ( X, Y, Z)



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