Comparison of numerical and computational aspects between two constraint-based contact methods in the description of wheel/rail contacts

The numerical and computation aspects of the Knife-edge Equivalent Contact (KEC) constraint and lookup table (LUT) methods are compared in this paper. The LUT method implementation uses a penetration-based elastic contact model for the flange and a constraint-based formulation at the wheel tread. Fo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores: Yu, Xinxin, Fernández Aceituno, Javier, Kurvinen, Emil, Rouvinen, Asko, Matikainen, Marko K., Korkealaakso, Pasi, Jiang, Dezhi, Escalona Franco, José Luis, Mikkola, Aki M.
Tipo de recurso: artículo
Estado:Versión publicada
Fecha de publicación:2022
País:España
Institución:Universidad de Sevilla (US)
Repositorio:idUS. Depósito de Investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla
OAI Identifier:oai:idus.us.es:11441/134549
Acceso en línea:https://hdl.handle.net/11441/134549
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11044-022-09811-6
Access Level:acceso abierto
Palabra clave:Time integration
Lookup table
KEC method
Manchester wagon
Wheel–rail contact
id ES_7e052d4df41695c930c7d75be6845f41
oai_identifier_str oai:idus.us.es:11441/134549
network_acronym_str ES
network_name_str España
repository_id_str
spelling Comparison of numerical and computational aspects between two constraint-based contact methods in the description of wheel/rail contactsYu, XinxinFernández Aceituno, JavierKurvinen, EmilRouvinen, AskoMatikainen, Marko K.Korkealaakso, PasiJiang, DezhiEscalona Franco, José LuisMikkola, Aki M.Time integrationLookup tableKEC methodManchester wagonWheel–rail contactThe numerical and computation aspects of the Knife-edge Equivalent Contact (KEC) constraint and lookup table (LUT) methods are compared in this paper. The LUT method implementation uses a penetration-based elastic contact model for the flange and a constraint-based formulation at the wheel tread. For the KEC method, where an infinitely narrow rail contacts an equivalent wheel, regularization of the tread-flange transition is adopted to simultaneously account for tread and flange contacts using constraints. A comparison between the two methods is carried out using well-known numerical integrators to show the applicability and limitations of both methods. Two fixed-step-size integrators, the explicit Runge–Kutta (RK4) and the predictor–corrector Adam–Bashforth–Moulton (ABM) methods, and two variable-step-size Matlab built-in function integrators, the explicit ode45 and implicit ode15s, were applied to get the numerical solutions to the dynamic problems and study the relative numerical performance of the two contact description methods. To complete the railway vehicle model, both contact methods were implemented for the multibody model of a benchmark railway vehicle (the Manchester wagon 1). Numerical results were obtained for different railway tracks with and without irregularities. Profiles of the S1002 wheel and LB-140-Area rail, which demonstrate the two-point contact phenomenon, were considered. Both methods were implemented in Matlab and validated against commercial simulation software. The kinematic results for both approaches show good agreement, but the KEC method was up to 20% more efficient than the LUT method regardless of integrator used.Business of Finland (SmartTram- LUT project) 6292/31/2018Junta de AndalucíaSpringer Science and Business Media B.V.Ingeniería Mecánica y FabricaciónTEP111: Ingeniería mecánica2022info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttps://hdl.handle.net/11441/134549https://doi.org/10.1007/s11044-022-09811-6reponame:idUS. Depósito de Investigación de la Universidad de Sevillainstname:Universidad de Sevilla (US)InglésMultibody System Dynamics, 54 (3), 303-344.6292/31/2018P18-RT-1772https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11044-022-09811-6info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessoai:idus.us.es:11441/1345492026-06-17T12:51:07Z
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Comparison of numerical and computational aspects between two constraint-based contact methods in the description of wheel/rail contacts
title Comparison of numerical and computational aspects between two constraint-based contact methods in the description of wheel/rail contacts
spellingShingle Comparison of numerical and computational aspects between two constraint-based contact methods in the description of wheel/rail contacts
Yu, Xinxin
Time integration
Lookup table
KEC method
Manchester wagon
Wheel–rail contact
title_short Comparison of numerical and computational aspects between two constraint-based contact methods in the description of wheel/rail contacts
title_full Comparison of numerical and computational aspects between two constraint-based contact methods in the description of wheel/rail contacts
title_fullStr Comparison of numerical and computational aspects between two constraint-based contact methods in the description of wheel/rail contacts
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of numerical and computational aspects between two constraint-based contact methods in the description of wheel/rail contacts
title_sort Comparison of numerical and computational aspects between two constraint-based contact methods in the description of wheel/rail contacts
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Yu, Xinxin
Fernández Aceituno, Javier
Kurvinen, Emil
Rouvinen, Asko
Matikainen, Marko K.
Korkealaakso, Pasi
Jiang, Dezhi
Escalona Franco, José Luis
Mikkola, Aki M.
author Yu, Xinxin
author_facet Yu, Xinxin
Fernández Aceituno, Javier
Kurvinen, Emil
Rouvinen, Asko
Matikainen, Marko K.
Korkealaakso, Pasi
Jiang, Dezhi
Escalona Franco, José Luis
Mikkola, Aki M.
author_role author
author2 Fernández Aceituno, Javier
Kurvinen, Emil
Rouvinen, Asko
Matikainen, Marko K.
Korkealaakso, Pasi
Jiang, Dezhi
Escalona Franco, José Luis
Mikkola, Aki M.
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Ingeniería Mecánica y Fabricación
TEP111: Ingeniería mecánica
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Time integration
Lookup table
KEC method
Manchester wagon
Wheel–rail contact
topic Time integration
Lookup table
KEC method
Manchester wagon
Wheel–rail contact
description The numerical and computation aspects of the Knife-edge Equivalent Contact (KEC) constraint and lookup table (LUT) methods are compared in this paper. The LUT method implementation uses a penetration-based elastic contact model for the flange and a constraint-based formulation at the wheel tread. For the KEC method, where an infinitely narrow rail contacts an equivalent wheel, regularization of the tread-flange transition is adopted to simultaneously account for tread and flange contacts using constraints. A comparison between the two methods is carried out using well-known numerical integrators to show the applicability and limitations of both methods. Two fixed-step-size integrators, the explicit Runge–Kutta (RK4) and the predictor–corrector Adam–Bashforth–Moulton (ABM) methods, and two variable-step-size Matlab built-in function integrators, the explicit ode45 and implicit ode15s, were applied to get the numerical solutions to the dynamic problems and study the relative numerical performance of the two contact description methods. To complete the railway vehicle model, both contact methods were implemented for the multibody model of a benchmark railway vehicle (the Manchester wagon 1). Numerical results were obtained for different railway tracks with and without irregularities. Profiles of the S1002 wheel and LB-140-Area rail, which demonstrate the two-point contact phenomenon, were considered. Both methods were implemented in Matlab and validated against commercial simulation software. The kinematic results for both approaches show good agreement, but the KEC method was up to 20% more efficient than the LUT method regardless of integrator used.
publishDate 2022
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2022
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv https://hdl.handle.net/11441/134549
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11044-022-09811-6
url https://hdl.handle.net/11441/134549
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11044-022-09811-6
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv Inglés
language_invalid_str_mv Inglés
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv Multibody System Dynamics, 54 (3), 303-344.
6292/31/2018
P18-RT-1772
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11044-022-09811-6
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Springer Science and Business Media B.V.
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Springer Science and Business Media B.V.
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:idUS. Depósito de Investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla
instname:Universidad de Sevilla (US)
instname_str Universidad de Sevilla (US)
reponame_str idUS. Depósito de Investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla
collection idUS. Depósito de Investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla
repository.name.fl_str_mv
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1869411706662289408
score 15,300719

Similares en LA Referencia