Comparison of numerical and computational aspects between two constraint-based contact methods in the description of wheel/rail contacts
Yu, Xinxin; Aceituno, Javier F.; Kurvinen, Emil; Matikainen, Marko K.; Korkealaakso, Pasi; Rouvinen, Asko; Jiang, Dezhi; Escalona, José L.; Mikkola, Aki (2022-01-24)
Yu, X., Aceituno, J.F., Kurvinen, E. et al. Comparison of numerical and computational aspects between two constraint-based contact methods in the description of wheel/rail contacts. Multibody Syst Dyn 54, 303–344 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11044-022-09811-6
© The Author(s) 2022. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe2022053139902
Tiivistelmä
Abstract
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.
Kokoelmat
- Avoin saatavuus [34516]
