英汉对照-不同结构的径向转向架与普通转向架之理论比较_英文

This article was downloaded by: [Southwest Jiaotong University]On: 06 June 2015, At: 17:29Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UKVehicle System Dynamics: International Journal ofVehicle Mechanics and MobilityPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:/loi/nvsd20Theoretical Comparison Between DifferentConfigurations of Radial and Conventional BogiesJ.F. Garcia , X. Olaizola , L.M. Martin & J.G. GimenezPublished online: 09 Aug 2010.PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLEŽ.Vehicle System Dynamics,332000,pp.233–2590042-3114r 00r 3304-0233$15.00q Swets &ZeitlingerTheoretical Comparison Between DifferentConfigurations of Radial and Conventional Bogies J.F.GARCIA ),X.OLAIZOLA ),L.M.MARTIN)and J.G.GIMENEZ ))SUMMARY This article compares the dynamic behaviour of different configurations of radial and conventional two-axle bogies.In general,the design parameters for a better curve negotiation are not compatible with those for good stability.As the main target of this article is to compare the curving performances of different bogies under the same design basis,several bogie configurations with the same level of stability,obtained by choosing proper primary suspension stiffnesses,have been used.The comparison includes a conventional bogie and three radial bogies with differing self-steering and forced-steering principles in three different passenger services:High Speed,Regional and Mass Transit.The analysis has been concentrated on parameters such as stability,lateral wheel-track forces in curve and wheel wear indices.The results show that the radial bogie configurations studied do not make significant contributions in general applications with regard to a conventional bogie.It is only under specific running conditions and types of service that some radial bogie configurations provide advantages with respect to the conventional bogie. 1.INTRODUCTION In the last few years new radial bogie applications have emerged for services from freight transportation to high-speed transit and intercity services.Some technical w x authors emphasise improved stability with this type of solutions 1.Others claim improved behaviour with regard to the vehicle curving ability properties:axle-track w x forces and both wheel and rail wear 2.Although many technical papers have been written on this topic emphasising the advantages of this type of bogies,it has not been possible to find a surveywhich has carried out an exhaustive comparison of the advantages and disadvan-tages of this type of bogies with respect to conventional bogies.In general,the surveys available provide results which are not comparable on a common basis of performance with regard to stability,wheel wear or type of service.)Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles,S.A.,P.O.Box.2,20.200Beasain,Spain.))Escuela Tecnica Superior de Ingenieros Industriales.Universidad de Navarra,P.O.Box.1555,´20.009San Sebastian,Spain.And Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles,S.A.,P.O.Box.2,20.200Beasain,Spain.D o w n l o a d e d b y [S o u t h w e s t J i a o t o n g U n i v e r s i t y ] a t 17:29 06 J u n e 2015J.F.GARCIA ET AL.234In recent years theoretical work has been carried out on the steering ability of a number of bogies.There have been various approaches to their analysis.Wickens w x w x 3–5and De Pater 6approached the problem from a synthetic point of view,using a mathematical model as their starting point and moving towards the design of a bogie with this steering ability.Other authors have started with the premise of existing bogie configurations and have made theoretical deductions regarding their steering ability.For example,this analysis has been carried out by Dukkipati,w x w x w x Swamy and Osman 7,Scheffel,Frohling and Heyns 8and Frederich 9in the ¨Žfield of unconventional solutions one-wheelset bogies,Independently Rotating .Wheels bogies .Some of these analyses have given rise to experimentation and development of bogies with steering ability based on a variety of strategies.Apart from two-axle self-steering bogies,based solely on the use of soft primary suspension stiffnesses,which are in common use,we could mention the following types:bogies with w x adaptive primary suspension stiffnesses 10;bogies with kinematic joints between w x the axles 11,bogies with kinematic joints between axles and between bogies and w x w x w x carbody 12,locomotive bogies 13,14and bogies without frame 15.Some self-steering bogies are used commercially and others are still undergoing experimentation.With regard to the results obtained,the technical literature provides little comparative data concerning either:improved reduction of lateral wheel-rail forces and reduction of wheel and rail wear.In a bid to collect Žcomparative data from various bogie-steering strategies,the ORE Office de Recherches et d’Essais de l’Union Internationale des Chemins de Fer -The .International Rail Union’s Research and Tests Office and subsequently the ERRI Ž.European Rail Research Institute ,carried out a comparative survey of a number w x of self-steering bogies 16.The results of the tests are difficult to assess,since the bogies did not run under the same conditions during the experimental period,a period of time which must be lengthy in order to obtain appreciable results.The same is true of the experimental results obtained from other self-steering bogies,for which a comparative survey with conventional ones cannot be carried out since neither operating conditions nor the design criteria were not the same.In view of the technical data available for the radial bogies and the advantages Žthese could provide regarding improved stability increased speed on tangent .Ž.tracks ,less wheel-rail loads increased speed on curves and less wear to wheels Ž.and rails lower maintenance costs and less noise ,the decision was made to carry out a theoretical comparison of the performances for various types of steering mechanisms.The comparison has to be made applying the different bogie configu-rations to the same vehicle,under the same operating conditions.The same design specifications have to be used to define some specific parameters that determine stability and curving behaviour.Moreover the results are compared with those of a conventional bogie.In particular,the use of the same dynamic stability requirements for all the different bogie designs compared is important.It is well known that a reduction of the primary longitudinal stiffnesses leads to an improvement of the curving D o w n l o a d e d b y [S o u t h w e s t J i a o t o n g U n i v e r s i t y ] a t 17:29 06 J u n e 2015COMPARING DIFFERENT CONFIGURATIONS OF BOGIES 235performances of the vehicle,but in general,under an optimum value,such a reduction provokes a loss of dynamic stability.In this way,a comparison of curving performances,in which the stability performance requirement is not the same for all the bogie configurations,does not reach any valid assessment of their relative advantages and disadvantages.Due to this,the first phase of the strategy followed for the comparison of different basic designs consists of determining the minimum value of the longitu-dinal primary stiffness compatible with a common required dynamic stability and Ž.other vehicle performances brake,maximum lateral displacements and traction .The main purpose of this paper is to compare the curving behaviour of different basic radial bogie designs satisfying the same stability requirements.Bearing in mind that the results may vary depending on the area of application,the study has been established for three different areas:High Speed,Regional and Mass Transit services.The parameters used for comparison of the curving performance are the difference between the axle lateral forces of the wheelsets of the same bogie and the wear of the leading outer wheel.Modern current dynamic simulation tools allow us to model the dynamic behaviour of the vehicle to a degree of accuracy which is sufficient to ensure the validity of the comparative survey.The comparative survey analysed in this article w x was carried out with the SIDIVE dynamic simulation program 17.A summary of w x the main features of this program can be found in Ref.18.The correctness of the w x results was checked in a VSD Benchmark 19,20.2.CONFIGURATIONS STUDIED We have reduced the various radial bogie designs found in the bibliographical revision to the four configurations covered in this section.They all start with the same vehicle design,to which the specific components of each configuration have been adapted.For simulations,no account has been taken of increased vehicle weight due to the added components of each particular kinematic configuration and the imposed constraints are ideal.It can be assumed that the behaviour of a real implementation will be intermediate between the results shown in this paper and those of a conventional bogie.The following is a brief explanation of each configuration.2.1.Configuration 1ØDefinition :conventional 2-axle bogie as shown in Figure 1.ØPrinciple outline :see Figure 1.ØDegrees of freedom of each bogie :ØDX1,DX2and DXb absolute longitudinal displacements of both wheelsets and bogie,respectively.D o w n l o a d e d b y [S o u t h w e s t J i a o t o n g U n i v e r s i t y ] a t 17:29 06 J u n e 2015J.F.GARCIA ET AL.236Fig.1.Conventional Bogie.ØDY1,DY2and DYb absolute lateral displacements of both wheelsets and bogie,respectively.ØGZ1,GZ2and GZb yaw rotations of both wheelsets and bogie,respectively.2.2.Configuration 2ØDefinition :bogie with 2crossed bars connecting both wheelsets.The bars are rigid and their mass has been considered negligible.The bars are not connected in its mid point.See Figure 2.ØPrinciple outline :ØKinematic constraints :DY1-S )GZ1s DY2q S )GZ2;DX1sDX2Fig.2.Bogie with two crossbars connecting both axles.D o w n l o a d e d b y [S o u t h w e s t J i a o t o n g U n i v e r s i t y ] a t 17:29 06 J u n e 2015COMPARING DIFFERENT CONFIGURATIONS OF BOGIES237Fig.3.Bogie configurations equivalent to that of the Fig.2.For small movements,this configuration is kinematically equivalent to those shown in Figures 3a and 3b:2.3.Configuration 3ØDefinition :conventional bogie in which the axle boxes for the same side are joined by 2bars hinged onto an equalising bar which has its centre articulated on bogie frame.The bars are rigid and their mass has been considered negligible.ØPrinciple outline :see Figure 4Ž.ØKinematic constraints :GZb s GZ1q GZ2r 2;Ž.DXb s DX1q DX2r2Fig.4.Schematic representation of configuration 3.D o w n l o a d e d b y [S o u t h w e s t J i a o t o n g U n i v e r s i t y ] a t 17:29 06 J u n e 2015J.F.GARCIA ET AL.238Fig.5.Schematic representation of a configuration similar to 3.The results obtained for this kinematic configuration are similar to those obtained for the configuration shown in Figure 5.In this case the two kinematic chains are joined by an additional rigid bar.If the chain of one side brings the axle boxes near a certain distance,the chain of the other side moves the other axle boxes away the same distance.An additional constraint has to be consider for this configuration.The equation is DX1s DX2,which exerts no practical influence over the results,and for this reason it has not been considered as a different configuration.2.4.Configuration 4ØDefinition :forced-steering bogie.This is similar to that used in configuration 3,but with a kinematic linkage to the car body.The relative bogie r car body rotation creates a proportional relative rotation between the axles.ØPrinciple outline :see Figure6Fig.6.Schematic representation of configuration 4.D o w n l o a d e d b y [S o u t h w e s t J i a o t o n g U n i v e r s i t y ] a t 17:29 06 J u n e 2015COMPARING DIFFERENT CONFIGURATIONS OF BOGIES 239Ž.ØKinematic restrictions :GZ1s GZb )1q K y GZc )KŽ.GZ2s GZb )1y K q GZc )KDX1s DX2s DXb s DXcK s S r ScWhen K s S r Sc and the vehicle is within a curve of constant radius the orientation of the axles and of the bogie becomes radial.3.METHODOLOGYAs mentioned above,SIDIVE program has been used as a vehicle dynamic simulation tool.The modelling of the vehicles takes into account several types of non-linearities:suspension elements,wheel-rail contact geometry and contact forces.The geometry of the wheel-rail contact has been modelled on the YZ plane Ž.plane perpendicular to the track axis .The relationship between contact forces w x w x and creepage is based on the simplified theory of Kalker 21.In the Ref.22a description of the geometric modelling and the wheel-rail forces calculation used in SIDIVE program is shown.The dynamic stability analysis included in this paper has been carried out by linearizing the non-linear equations of the vehicle model around the equilibrium position.The analysis of the curving behaviour is obtained by calculating the quasi-static equilibrium position of the non-linear model when negotiating curves.A description of the corresponding equations of the curving negotiation are w x included in Ref.23.As cited in Section 2,a VSD Benchmark shows the correctness of the stability and curving results of this program.The vehicle model used for all simulations consists of a car body and two powered bogies.Air springs and anti-roll bars are used as secondary suspension.The secondary suspension does not apply any Z-axis torque between the carbody and the bogies.No traction forces are considered.Anti-yaw dampers are not installed.The data corresponding to the most important parameters are included in the annex.Three areas of application in accordance with speeds and type of service have been considered.These areas are as follows:ØHIGH-SPEED :intercity rail service with maximum speeds between 200Km r h and 300Km r h.These vehicles must be designed to run on high-speed railway lines and also on conventional tracks with small-radius curves.ØREGIONAL :rail service for journeys between 150and 500Km,as back-up to the intercity routes.The speeds attained do not exceed 160Km r h,and the lines contain a high percentage of curves with radii greater than 250m.ØMASS TRANSIT :this denomination includes rail service for Mass Transit transport in cities and city suburbs.It also includes local train services and underground rail systems.Speeds do not exceed 80Km r h and,in general,the percentage of line curves is high.D o w n l o a d e d b y [S o u t h w e s t J i a o t o n g U n i v e r s i t y ] a t 17:29 06 J u n e 2015J.F.GARCIA ET AL.240The same model described above has been used for each area of application,with the peculiarities of each service as shown in the annex.In most practical applications,radial bogies have been used for improving curving behaviour while maintaining an acceptable level of stability.In this study we will compare the curving performances of several bogie configurations with design parameters assuring the same level of stability.This is why the first phase of the methodology followed consists of a selection of the values of the primary suspension stiffnesses for each configuration and area of application,compatible with the proposed stability criterion.In the second phase of the methodology the curving performances of each configuration are calculated and compared.The analysis of each type of bogie and each service has been divided into two phases:3.1.Phase 1:Selection of primary suspension stiffnesses Kx1,Ky1Ž.The goal of this phase is to determine the pair of values Kx1,Ky1with the least stiffness Kx1assuring a common pre-specified level of stability for each of the 4configurations:As an example of optimisation of primary suspension stiffnesses,Figure 7Ž.shows the stability maps for the conventional bogie model configuration 1in the Ž.MASS TRANSIT service.These maps show the percentage %of damping for the least-damped vibration mode as a function of primary suspension stiffnesses Kx1and Ky1for two equivalent conicities:0.05which simulates new wheel profiles,and 0.4for extremely worn profiles as required for many European w x Administration and suggested by some authors 24.In this case,the values selected for Kx1and Ky1were 3.2MN r m and 7.5MN r m respectively.Those values correspond to a point of the stability maps in which Kx1is the minimum Žvalue compatible with the required stability damping ratio 10%for this applica-.tion .In general,a high value of Ky1allows to reduce the Kx1.In this particular case,it has been considered that a value of 7.5MN r m for Ky1is high enough so that any additional increase of it only gives very small improvements of stability.On the other hand,the practical implementation of higher values of Ky1may originate some difficulties.For the chosen values of the primary stiffnesses,the minimum damping percentage is over 10%for both extreme conicities.3.2.Phase 2:Analysis of curving behaviourThis phase is devoted to the analysis of the curving behaviour of the four bogie Žconfigurations.Wear indices and the difference between the lateral forces H .forces difference of both axles corresponding to the same bogie are used for comparison between different configurations.We will call axle lateral force or ‘‘H force’’the sum of the lateral forces acting on both wheels of the same axle and we will call ‘‘H forces difference’’the difference between the H forces of both axlesD o w n l o a d e d b y [S o u t h w e s t J i a o t o n g U n i v e r s i t y ] a t 17:29 06 J u n e 2015COMPARING DIFFERENT CONFIGURATIONS OF BOGIES241Ž..Fig.7.Damping ratio %of the least damped vibration mode.MASS TRANSIT service.a Equiva-.lent conicity:0.05.b Equivalent conicity:0.4.corresponding to the same bogie.The ranges of curve radii considered in the studyare different for each area of application:80to 1200m for MASS TRANSIT service,250to 1200m for REGIONAL service and 250to 4000for HIGH SPEED service.For the HIGH-SPEED and REGIONAL services,the operating conditions Žconsidered are for a tilting train with a cant deficiency additional cant to be added .to the actual cant of the track to balance the lateral centrifugal force of 276mm Ž2.uncompensated lateral acceleration of 1.8m r s .For the MASS TRANSIT-type Žservice cant deficiency is 153mm uncompensated lateral acceleration of 1.02.m r s .Thus it is ensured that the sum of H forces of all the vehicle’s axles is the same for all curve radii under consideration.D o w n l o a d e d b y [S o u t h w e s t J i a o t o n g U n i v e r s i t y ] a t 17:29 06 J u n e 2015There is an allowable limit H ,called Prud d’Homme limit,for the axle lim Ž.w x lateral force ‘‘H forces’’25.The total lateral force per bogie must be equal to the sum of these H forces on both axles.The longitudinal friction forces at the wheel-rail contact create a moment on the vertical axis of the bogie that is compensated by unbalancing the axle lateral forces,H forces,of both axles.In this way,the H force in one of the axles increases,approaching the Prud d’Homme limit.The optimum situation shall be when these forces are equal for both axles of the same bogie,i.e.,when H1y H2s 0.The representation of forces difference,H1y H2,thus helps us to analyse the level of aggression of the vehicle on the track.Figure 8shows by way of example the H forces difference between the first Ž.Ž.axle H1and the second axle H2for the case of the conventional bogie Ž.configuration 1for MASS TRANSIT-type services.Figures of this type show at least two differentiated zones.One of these is for high curvature radii,in which the lateral force in the rear axle is greater than that Ž.of the front axle H1-H2negative .For these curve radii the axles rotate with respect to the bogie frame at a wider angle than that demanded to adopt a radial position,and the bogie adopts a negative attack angle relative to the track.In the other zone,for small curvature radii,the loads in the front axle are greater than those borne by the rear axle.In these cases,the longitudinal forces of friction are insufficient to make the axles rotate with respect to the bogie frame at the angle necessary to attain the radial position.Thus the bogie adopts a positive attack angle,creating greater forces in the front axle than in the rearaxle.Ž.Fig.8.Difference of axle lateral forces H1y H2for the conventional bogie and MASS TRANSIT-service train.D o w n l o a d e d b y [S o u t h w e s t J i a o t o n g U n i v e r s i t y ] a t 17:29 06 J u n e 2015The wear performance associated to each type of bogie is analysed by a wear w x index WI according to the expression 26:)w 2x WI s T g r A N r mm whereT:friction force g :creepage A:contact area.This wear index is shown in graphs plotted for the same range of curve radii as the axle lateral loads.Figure 9shows an example of this graph for a conventional bogie used in MASS TRANSIT services.We can also appreciate two differenti-ated zones:one with moderate wear for wide curve radii,and another with a Ž.notable increase in wear severe wear for smaller curvature radii.The separation between the two zones approximately coincides with the change in sign of the H forces difference H1-H2observed in Figure 8.A move to severe wear at the contact areas can also be associated with insufficient friction forces to steer the axles to the position radial to the curve.As the radius of the curves becomes smaller the longitudinal displacement of the primary suspension required to assure a position of the axles radial to the curve becomes greater.Under a specific curve radius,friction forces at the wheel-rail contact are not enough to overcome the longitudinal stiffness of the primary suspension.This curve radius establishes the border between two clearly differentiated curving behaviours of the vehicle.4.RESULTSIn this section,the aforementioned 3areas of applications are analysed following Žthe methodology explained in Section 3.Curving performances defined bybothFig.9.Wear index calculated at the attack wheel of the conventional bogie for MASS TRANSITservice versus curve radius.D o w n l o a d e d b y [S o u t h w e s t J i a o t o n g U n i v e r s i t y ] a t 17:29 06 J u n e 2015.H y H and wear index of different bogie configurations are compared.The 12same data have been used for all bogie configurations,except the proper kinematic constraints of each configuration and the primary suspension stiffnesses Kx1and Ky1.For each bogie configuration,the values of Kx1and Ky1are chosen to reach Ž.a common dynamic stability performance damping ratio .The selection of Kx1and Ky1is a previous step carried out in the analysis of each configuration and type of service.The following sections show the curving results corresponding to each type of service and bogie configuration,also including the criteria followed to select Kx1and Ky1stiffnesses.4.1.HIGH-SPEED serviceIn HIGH SPEED service,the main design criterion is to guarantee the dynamic w x stability of the vehicle.According to different authors 1,radial bogies have potential advantages regarding the dynamic stability so that they could find in the HIGH SPEED service an important area of application.It also is of great interest checking both,if radial bogies improve really the dynamic stability as compared with conventional bogies,and whether this improvement of the stability is not accompanied of an important loss of the curving performances,as occurs for conventional bogies.4.1.1.Selection of primary suspension stiffnessesRegarding the HIGH-SPEED service,the criterion followed for selection of primary suspension stiffnesses Kx1and Ky1is to obtain the lowest value of Kx1assuring a damping ratio of greater than 0%under the following two conditions:Øequivalent conicity of 0.05.Øequivalent conicity of 0.35.The speed used in the calculation was 300Km r h,currently the maximum speed of revenue service in Europe.The required damping value is low in comparison to the value sought in the case of the MASS TRANSIT service,since the vehicles used in this service have anti-yaw dampers which improve stability.These dampers have not been included in our analysis since their marked non-linear character makes their results extremely dependent on the specific conditions of the calculation carried out.On the other hand,in HIGH SPEED service,the wheel and track maintenance is more strict so that the equivalent conicity range used in this study has been shortened to the range 0.05–0.35.Table 1.Primary suspension stiffnesses for HIGH-SPEED service.()()ConfigurationKx1MN r m Ky1MN r m 111.420.02 5.0 2.039.020.0477.56.7D o w n l o a d e d b y [S o u t h w e s t J i a o t o n g U n i v e r s i t y ] a t 17:29 06 J u n e 2015The application of these criteria to the four bogie configurations resulted in the selection of the Kx1and Ky1values shown in Table 1.Some remarks have to be made regarding the figures shown in Table 1.Apart Ž.from the results corresponding to the conventional bogie configuration 1,in the rest of cases different kind of problems have arisen:.The values selected for the radial bogie configuration 2correspond to a critical point.Any increase in Ky1with respect to the value shown in this table makes the bogie unstable for worn profiles.Bearing in mind that the selected value of Ky1is extremely low,in practical solutions it only conserves this low stiffness for very low lateral forces.In this way,a situation of high limit cycle oscillation could be reached in which the effective resultant value of Ky1is higher than the nominal one,and this could lead to unstable vibrations,despite the fact that the design values are nominally stable..In the case of the radial bogie configuration 3,it proved impossible to find a point which complied with the proposed stability criterion.In any case a pair of values was taken for Kx1and Ky1providing damping for the least-damped Ž.vibration mode of y 1.4%,running with new profiles equivalent conicity of 0.05..Ž.For the forced-steering bogie configuration 4,dynamic stability could only be reached using an extremely high value for the stiffness Kx1,as may be observed in Table 1.In addition to the inconveniences associated with selection of high stiffness values,it must be said that the vehicle becomes unstable when running at speeds between 40Km r h and 80Km r h with conicities bordering on 0.05.The previous Table shows that using kinematic constraints corresponding to the Ž.radial bogies configurations 2and 3allows to use primary suspension stiffnesses Ž.softer than those in the conventional case configuration 1.4.1.2.H forces difference:H1-H2Figure 10shows the difference of H forces corresponding to the axles of the first Žbogie for the various configurations.Data for the forced-steering bogie configura-.tion 4have not been included since they are out of range with regard to wear and to H forces difference,due to the high value of longitudinal stiffness Kx1.For comparison and in order to check the influence of the Kx1value on the Ž.wheel-rail forces,the results for a conventional bogie configuration 1with extremely high stiffness Kx1have been added to the graphs.The stiffnesses considered for this bogie are:Kx 1s Ky 1s 100MN r mThis bogie-reference is called ‘‘stiff bogie’’.Analysis of Figure 10produces the conclusion that differences between the bogie configurations and also between them and the stiff bogie are of little relevance.Ž.It should be said of this Figure that the H forces difference H -H is 12substantially higher in wide-radius curves than in small radius curves.In spite ofD o w n l o a d e d b y [S o u t h w e s t J i a o t o n g U n i v e r s i t y ] a t 17:29 06 J u n e 2015。