Professional Documents
Culture Documents
JRC2006-94038
• Surface 1 and 2 are always in contact, and N 1( 4(i −1) + k ) ⋅ µ if Vr ≥ ε
• Surface 1 and 2 are in sliding situation (e.g. friction is (3)
‘saturated’ on both surfaces).
In which Vr is relative velocity between bolster and
The second assumption is consistent with that used in sideframe, µ is the friction coefficient of wedge, and ε is the
many publications [19]-[23]. According to above assumptions,
relative velocity magnitude (5 ~ 7 mm/s) above which the
u 4(i −1)+ k and w4(i −1)+ k satisfy the following sliding constraints: coefficient of friction becomes definitively constant.
wagon subsystem, and FWT is the wheel-rail interface force vertical displacement of rail at the contact point, ww is the
vector consisting of the wheel-rail normal contact forces, vertical displacement of wheel at the contact point, and µ (x )
tangent creep forces and creep moments about normal direction is the function representing the track geometry irregularity.
in the wheel-rail contact plane.
20
at different frequencies for the wagon bounce mode only, i.e., v Friction Coe. of 0.1
70
Vertical Suspension Force (kN)
Bogie Bounce 60
µ (x )
40
10
a
µ (x ) = {1 − cos[2π (x − x0 ) λ ]} (7) 0
1
1 2 K se
( = 2.3 Hz in which mc - wagon car body
2π 0.5mc + mb
0.8
0.6
0.4
Friction Coe . of 0.1 mass, mb - bolster mass, and K se - stiffness coefficient of
Friction Coe . of 0.2
0.2
Friction Coe . of 0.3
secondary suspension set) and the friction coefficient on the
wedge surfaces is 0.1, the suspension is in severe resonance so
0
0.6 1.6 2.6 3.6 4.6 5.6 6.6
that the suspension force is quickly expanding as shown in Fig.
Time (s) 3 (a), leading to the wheel lifting off the rail as shown in Fig. 3
(b) Wheel Dynamic Load (b) and the simulation terminated. It means that the friction
Fig. 4 Dynamic Responses at 3 Hz wedge with friction coefficient of 0.1 does not sufficiently
control and limit the resonance of wagon car body. It can be
75
also seen that when the wedge friction coefficients are 0.2 and
70
0.3 respectively, the friction on wedge surfaces can restrict the
wagon car body resonance because it seems large enough to
Vertical Suspension Force (kN)
1.2 for example, to 6 Hz, the dynamic responses are just the
converse to those at 3 Hz. The high wedge friction (e.g. 0.3)
1.0
causes the larger suspension force and dynamic wheel load as
shown in Fig. 5 (a) and (b) than those by the low wedge friction
0.8
(e.g. 0.1). From Fig. 5 (b), it can be seen that a higher
0.6
frequency component superimposed upon the basic frequency
component of 6 Hz for the time history of dynamic wheel load.
0.4 The wedge friction force also shows this high frequency
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
component as shown in Fig. 5 (c). This frequency at
Time (s)
approximately 22 Hz is very close to the natural frequency of
(b) Wheel Dynamic Load 1 Kw
wedge mass-spring system without damping ( = 21
20 2π mw
15
Hz in which mw - wedge mass and K w - stiffness coefficient
of wedge spring). This means that at a high track input
Vertical Friction Force (kN)
10
1.9
It can be also seen that after 4 Hz, the larger friction
1.8
Friction Coe. of 0.1 coefficients on wedge surfaces cause the larger dynamic wheel
1.7 Friction Coe. of 0.2 loads at higher frequency inputs. For example, the dynamic
Dynamic Force Factor
1.6
Friction Coe. of 0.3
force factors for the wedge friction coefficients of 0.1 and 0.3
1.5
are 1.17 and 1.29 at 6 Hz with the increase of 10.3%, and 1.40
1.4
and 1.60 at 10 Hz with the increase of 14.3% respectively.
1.3
1.2 6. CONCLUSIONS
1.1 Comprehensive wagon-track modelling for simulating the
1.0 dynamic behaviors of three-piece bogie suspension system with
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Input Frequncy (Hz)
friction wedges has been presented. The effect of wedge
friction conditions and wedge mass on the dynamic wheel load
(a) Dynamic Force Factor has been investigated for a geometry irregularity with short
1.0 wavelength.
0.9