See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/326448938

Pre-load on the guiding/stabilizing wheels and the critical lateral force of a

straddle-type monorail vehicle

Article  in  Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part F Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit · July 2018
DOI: 10.1177/0954409718785292

CITATIONS READS

6 3,087

3 authors, including:

Yuanjin Ji Lihui Ren

Tongji University Tongji University
36 PUBLICATIONS   51 CITATIONS    31 PUBLICATIONS   76 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Research on acceleration algorithm based on GPU View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Yuanjin Ji on 31 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Original Article

Proc IMechE Part F:

J Rail and Rapid Transit
Pre-load on the guiding/stabilizing 2019, Vol. 233(2) 160–169
! IMechE 2018

wheels and the critical lateral force of Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

a straddle-type monorail vehicle DOI: 10.1177/0954409718785292

journals.sagepub.com/home/pif

Rang Zhang, Yuanjin Ji and Lihui Ren

Abstract
The anti-overturning ability of a straddle-type monorail vehicle is influenced by the contact status between the guiding
and stabilizing wheels and the track beam; therefore, an initial pre-load is required for the stabilizing and guiding wheels
to enhance the anti-overturning ability of the straddle-type monorail vehicle. Determining the reasonable pre-load for
the stabilizing and guiding wheels is a significant problem in the operation of a straddle-type monorail vehicle.
D’Alembert’s principle has been adopted to transform the dynamic problem that straddle-type monorail vehicle runs
on curve segment to the statics problem. The formula describing the relationship between the critical lateral force of the
vehicle and the pre-load of the stabilizing wheels is derived from the lateral roll equation of the straddle monorail vehicle
and is verified using the multibody dynamics software UM. Subsequently, the reasonable pre-load for the stabilizing
wheels is analyzed from the perspectives of comfort and safety based on the formula of critical lateral force. Finally, the
maximum and minimum speed limits on a curve for a straddle-type monorail vehicle are discussed based on the
aforementioned analysis.

Keywords
Straddle-type monorail vehicle, pre-load on stabilizing tyre, critical lateral force, ride quality

Date received: 20 January 2018; accepted: 26 May 2018

monorail vehicle. The stabilizing wheel is in contact

Introduction
Straddle-type monorail vehicles are a new mode of
urban rail transit that is based on an elevated track.
The vehicle straddles and runs on a track with a rect-
angular cross-section. The track beam of the straddle-
type monorail vehicle is also a bearing structure and is
usually constructed of a precast concrete track beam.
It provides support and stabilizing and guiding func-
tions for the straddle-type monorail vehicle, as shown
in Figure 1.1,2
The straddle-type monorail vehicle is different from
the normal railway vehicle that uses a steel wheel/rail
system in that the bogies of the former have rubber
tyres. Figure 2 shows the schematic of the bogie of
the Bombardier straddle-type monorail vehicle. The
rubber tyres come in three different types. The run-
ning wheels travel on the top surface of the track and
transfer the vehicle load on to the track beam. The
guiding wheels are in contact with the upper part of
the side face of the track beam, steering the travel of
the vehicle along the track. However, the transverse
span of the running wheels is extremely small, provid-
ing very limited anti-roll stiffness. For this reason,
stabilizing wheels are needed for the straddle-type
with the lower part of the side face of the track beam,
and a certain vertical distance is maintained between
the stabilizing and guiding wheels. Thus, the stabiliz-
ing and guiding wheels work together to form an anti-
roll torque to prevent overturning of the vehicle.
The dynamics problems of the straddle-type mono-
rail vehicle mainly focused on two aspects. One is the
coupling vibration between the vehicle and the track
beam,1,3–5 and the other is the curving performance
and anti-overturning stability of the vehicle.6–8
The vehicle undergoes lateral movement and roll
motion under the action of lateral force due to the
cross-wind or centrifugal acceleration on the curve.
When the external force disappears, the vehicle
restores the equilibrium position under the action of
the restoring force and torque of the suspension
devices. This property of the vehicle is called the
Rail Transit Institute of Tongji University, Shanghai, China
Corresponding author:
Yuanjin JI, Rail Transit No. 4800, Cao’an Road, Jiading District, Shanghai
201804, China.
Email: jiyuanjin@tongji.edu.cn
Zhang et al.
Figure 1. The track and the vehicle of a straddling monorail transit.
Figure 2. The bogie of a straddling monorail vehicle. 1: track
beam; 2: bogie frame; 3: running tyre; 4: guiding tyre; 5: stabi-
lizing tyre; 6: air spring.
anti-overturning ability. However, if the vehicle
fails to restore the equilibrium position and
maintains the overturning tendency, it may finally
lose the anti-overturning stability on the spring. This
situation goes contrary to the safety requirement of
the vehicle.
Since the lateral span of the running wheel on the
straddle-type monorail vehicle is very small, the anti-
overturning ability of the straddle-type monorail is
mainly provided by the stabilizing wheels and guiding
wheels. When a straddle-type monorail vehicle travels
on a curve segment at an imbalanced speed, the cen-
trifugal force will result in considerable changes in the
radial force of the guiding and stabilizing wheels, and
161
the stabilizing wheels or guiding wheels may leave the
track in some extreme cases. So an initial pre-load is
needed for the stabilizing and guiding wheels to clamp
to the track beam tightly and ensure a good anti-over-
turning ability for the straddle-type monorail vehicle.
The next question is how to determine the pre-load
value for the stabilizing and guiding wheels. Ren
et al.9 show that the bogie has sufficient stability
only when the guiding tyres and the stabilizing tyres
are attached to the track beam at the same time and
the radial stiffness reaches a certain value. If this pre-
load is too small, some of the stabilizing and guiding
wheels come off the track when running on a curve
segment. The significant reduction in the antiover-
turning ability of the vehicle has a direct impact on
safety and comfort. If the pre-load is too large, it
increases the initial stress of the bogie frame and usu-
ally brings about a negative impact on the fatigue
strength of the bogie frame. Some researchers1,6 dis-
cussed the method for determining the pre-load value
for stabilizing wheels using the dynamic simulation
technology. However, a simple analytical approach
for engineering design is not yet available.
This study demonstrates the effect of contact status
between the stabilizing or guiding wheels and the
track beam on the anti-overturning ability of the
straddle-type monorail vehicle. Subsequently, a for-
mula describing the relationship between the critical
lateral force on the car body and the pre-load of the
stabilizing or guiding wheels is derived. Next, the rea-
sonable pre-load value of the stabilizing wheels is
determined from the view of comfort and safety
based on the formula of critical lateral force.
Finally, the maximum and minimum limit speeds
on the curve of the straddle-type monorail vehicle
are discussed.
162 Proc IMechE Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 233(2)

Anti-overturning stability Russian railways that hm must be higher than hc at

The anti-overturning stability of a vehicle is usually
measured by the height of the buoyancy centre.
The height of the buoyancy centre is a method
proposed by Russian scientists, who assessed
the anti-overturning stability of the car body on the
spring by modelling on the buoyancy centre of
the ship. According to the theory of the buoyancy
centre, the height of the buoyancy centre for a sus-
pended vehicle on the spring is given by
b2 4kpz b2
hm ¼ ¼ ð1Þ
fst mc g
where b is half of the transverse span of the suspen-
sion, fst is the static deflection of the spring, kpz is the
vertical stiffness of suspension (each side of the bogie),
mc is the weight of the car body, and g is the gravita-
tional constant.
If the vehicle belongs to the primary and secondary
suspension, the height of the centre of buoyancy of
the vehicle is
8k k b2 b2
hm ¼  2pz sz 1 2 2  ð2Þ
mc g 2b1 kpz þ 2b2 ksz
where kpz, ksz is the vertical stiffness of the primary and
secondary suspension (each side of the bogie), respect-
ively, and b1, b2 is half of the transverse span of the
primary and secondary suspension, respectively.
By setting hm as the height of the buoyancy centre
of car body, and hc as the height of the gravity
centre of car body, the car body possesses the anti-
overturning stability when hm > hc, and loses the
anti-overturning stability when hm < hc; it reaches a
critical state when hm ¼ hc. It was specified by the
least 2 m to ensure sufficient anti-overturning stability.7
The height of the buoyancy centre of the monorail
vehicle is calculated using equation (2) under different
states of the bogie (see Table 1 for the parameters).
In the absence of stabilizing wheels, the height of the
buoyancy centre is only 0.51 m. As mentioned earlier,
this is because the transverse span of the running
wheels is quite small for the monorail vehicle and
that the anti-roll ability provided by the running
wheels is also quite small. Therefore, stabilizing
wheels are necessary for the straddle-type monorail
bogie, and a sufficient anti-roll torque can be provided
by both guiding and stabilizing wheels to prevent
overturning. When both the guiding and stabilizing
wheels are in contact with the track beam, the
height of the buoyancy centre is 4.5 m. When there
is strong crosswind or when the vehicle is traveling
on a curve at a high unbalanced or under-balanced
speed, it is possible that one side’s guiding wheels and
the opposite side’s stabilizing wheels leave the track
beam. Under such condition, the height of the buoy-
ancy centre is 3.2 m, indicating a dramatic decrease in
anti-overturning ability under the aforementioned
conditions by approximately 50%.
As indicated by the height of the buoyancy centre,
the anti-overturning ability of the straddle-type
monorail vehicle depends on the contact status
between the guiding and stabilizing wheels and the
track beam. When both the guiding and stabilizing
wheels are in contact with the track beam, the strad-
dle-type monorail vehicle possesses the highest anti-
overturning ability. But when one side’s guiding
wheels and the opposite side’s stabilizing wheels
come off the track beam, the anti-overturning ability
decreases substantially. Therefore, an initial pre-load

Table 1. Vehicle parameters.

Parameters Definition Values

G1 Vehicle body gravity 210 kN

G2 Bogie gravity 48 kN
Kpz Running wheel radial stiffness 1.4 MN/m
Ksz Secondary suspension vertical stiffness 0.43 MN/m
Ksy Secondary suspension lateral stiffness 0.086 MN/m
Kg Guiding wheel radial stiffness (one side of bogie) 2  0.625 MN/m
Kst Stabilizing wheel radial stiffness 0.625 MN/m
h1 Height of the vehicle body gravity centre to track surface 0.59 m
h2 Height of the secondary spring upper supporting surface to track surface 0.15 m
h3 Height of the bogie gravity centre to track surface 0.0 m
h4 Height of the guiding wheel centre to the track surface 0.14 m
h5 Height of the stabilizing wheel centre to the track surface 0.92 m
b1 Half of the running wheel lateral distance 0.15 m
b2 Half of the secondary spring centre line lateral distance 1.00 m
rd Drive wheel radius 0.50 m
Zhang et al. 163

is needed for the stabilizing and guiding wheels to
ensure sufficient anti-overturning ability of the strad-
dle-type monorail vehicle, so that both wheels are in
reliable contact with the track beam.
Critical lateral force and verification
Roll equation of the vehicle
Figure 3 shows the force diagram of the straddle-type
monorail vehicle under lateral force Fc. A reference
coordinate system YOZ is established using the
central line of the track beam and the horizontal line
across the upper surface of the track beam. The model
consists of the following degrees of freedom: lateral
movement yb and roll b of the bogie, and lateral move-
ment yc and roll c of the car body. Here both the lat-
eral movement and roll angle are measured relative to
the intersection of the central line across the upper sur-
face of the track beam and the central line of the hori-
zontal wheel. Since the mass of the bogie is far smaller
than that of the car body, the lateral force is completely
exerted on the centre of mass of the car body.
When the car body tilts under the lateral force Fc,
the variation of gravity in the Z direction is

G ¼ G(1  cos), where G is the weight of the car
body or bogie, a second-order quantity. Thus, the
changes in the bounding motion of the car body and
bogie can be neglected. The secondary suspension of
the vehicle is simplified into transverse and vertical
stiffness, and the lateral stiffness of the secondary sus-
pension on the two sides is combined into one central
lateral stiffness. For static analysis, wheels are simpli-
fied into springs with radial stiffness, and the frictional
force between the wheels and track beam and the lat-
eral force of running wheels is neglected. For the
whole vehicle, the lateral force generated by the run-
ning wheels of the front and rear running parts on the
circular curve is basically balanced, and it has little
effect on the roll balance equation of the car body.
According to the force diagram in Figure 3, when
both the guiding and stabilizing wheels are in contact
with the track beam, the static balance equations for
the vehicle under lateral force Fc can be derived.
The meanings of the symbols in the equation are
shown in Table 1.
Lateral movement equation of the car body
4Ksy ðyc  yb Þ  Fc ð1  b Þ  G1 b ¼ 0 ð3Þ
Roll equation of the car body
4Ksz b22 ðc  b Þ
 
 4Ksy ðyc  yb Þ þ G1 ðc  b Þ þ Fc ð1  c þ b Þ
 ðh1  h2 Þ ¼ 0
ð4Þ
Lateral movement equation of the bogie
G2 b þ 2Ksy ðyc  yb Þ  2Kg ½yb  ðh3 þ h4 Þb 
 2Kst ½yb  ðh3 þ h5 Þb   0:5ðG1 þ 2G2 Þb þ 2Fpgl
 2Fpgr þ Fpstl  Fpstr ¼ 0
ð5Þ
Roll equation of the bogie
0:5G1 ðyc  yb Þ þ 2Ksz b22 ðc  b Þ þ 2Ksy ðyc  yb Þh2
þ 2Kg ½yb  ðh3 þ h4 Þb h4 þ 2Kst ½yb  ðh3 þ h5 Þb h5
 2Kpz b22 b  ½0:5ðG1 þ 2G2 Þb rd þ G2 yb
   pre
pre 
 2Fpre pre
gl  2Fgr h4  Fstl  Fstr h5 ¼ 0
ð6Þ

In equations (5) and (6), Fpre pre

gl , Fgr are the pre-loads
acting on the left and right guiding wheels, respectively
and Fpre pre
stl , Fstr are the loads acting on the left and right
stabilizing wheels, respectively. For the sake of con-
venience, it is generally assumed that Fpre pre
gl ¼ Fgr ¼
pre pre pre
Fstl ¼ Fstr ¼ F in engineering practice.
The earlier equation can be written in the form of a
matrix
2 32 3 2 3 2 3
a11 a12 a13 a14 yb yb b1
6a 7 6 7 6 7 6 7
6 21 a22 a23 a24 76 yc 7 6 yc 7 6 b2 7
6 76 7 ¼ A6 7 ¼ 6 7
4 a31 a32 a33 a34 54 b 5 4 b 5 4 b3 5
a41 a42 a43 a44 c c b4
ð7Þ
where

a11 ¼ 4Ksy , a12 ¼ 4Ksy , a13 ¼ 0, a14 ¼ G1

a21 ¼ 4Ksy ðh1  h2 Þ, a22 ¼ 4Ksy ðh1  h2 Þ,
a23 ¼ G1 ðh1  h2 Þ  4Ksz b22 ,
Figure 3. Force analysis model of the straddling monorail
vehicle roll. a24 ¼ 4Ksz b22  G1 ðh1  h2 Þ,
164 Proc IMechE Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 233(2)

 
a31 ¼ 2 Ksy þ Kg þ Kst , a32 ¼ 2Ksy , the track beam and the anti-overturning ability of the
a33 ¼ G2 þ 2Kg ðh3 þ h4 Þ vehicle decreases by about one half.
Let Fpre be the pre-load on the stabilizing wheel
þ 2Kst ðh3 þ h5 Þ  0:5ðG1 þ 2G2 Þ, a34 ¼ 0,
and Fccr the critical lateral force. When one stabilizing
a41 ¼ 2Kg h4 þ 2Kst h5  2Ksy h2  0:5G1 , wheel just separates from the track surface, the pre-
a42 ¼ 2Ksy h2 þ 0:5G1 , load term of this stabilizing wheel disappears in equa-
a43 ¼ 2Ksz b22 þ 2Kg h4 ðh3 þ h4 Þ tion (8), and the equation becomes

þ 2Kst h5 ðh3 þ h5 Þ þ 2Kpz b21 2 3 2 3

yb Fccr
þ 0:5ðG1 þ 2G2 Þrd , a44 ¼ 2Ksz b22 , 6y 7 6 F ðh  h Þ 7
6 c7 6 ccr 1 2 7
6 7 ¼ A1  6 7 ð10Þ
b1 ¼ Fc , b2 ¼ Fc ðh1  h2 Þ, 4 b 5 4 Fpre 5
 
b3 ¼ 2 Fpre pre
þ Fpre pre c Fpre  h5
gl  Fgr stl  Fstr ,
   pre pre 
b4 ¼ 2 Fpre pre
gl  Fgr h4 þ Fstl  Fstr h5 According to equation (10), the lateral movement
and roll angle of the bogie are calculated when the
Matrix (7) is solved, and the lateral movement and stabilizing wheel has just separate from the track surface
roll of the vehicle under lateral force Fc are obtained
2 3
Fccr
2 3 2 3
yb b1  6 7
6 Fccr ðh1  h2 Þ 7
6y 7 6b 7 ybcr ¼ a011 a012 a013 a014 6 7
6 c7 6 27 4 Fpre 5
6 7 ¼ A1  6 7 ð8Þ
4 b 5 4 b3 5 Fpre  h5
c b4 ð11Þ
2 3
The displacements of the left and right guiding and Fccr
stabilizing wheels relative to the side face of the track  6 7
6 Fccr ðh1  h2 Þ 7
beam are given by bcr ¼ a031 a032 a033 a034 6 pre 7
4 F 5
 Fpre  h5
yg ¼ h4  b  yb
ð9Þ ð12Þ
ys ¼ h5 b  yb

Since h5 4 h4 , the lateral displacement of the stabiliz-
ing wheel is larger than that of the guiding wheel, indi-
cating that the stabilizing wheel comes off the track beam
earlier than the guiding wheel. The force change of the
guiding wheel is considered in equations (5) and (6),
including pre-load of guide wheel and the force change
caused by the lateral displacement of a guide wheel.
where a011 a012 a013 a014 are the elements in the first
row of matrix A1 ; a031 a032 a033 a034 are the elem-
ents in the third row of matrix A1 .
Let Kst be the radial stiffness of a single stabilizing
wheel. Then, the critical lateral movement is calcu-
lated as follows when the stabilizing wheel has just
left the track surface

yscr ¼Fpre =Kst ð13Þ

Critical lateral force
When the vehicle travels on a curve at above or below According to equation (9), there is
the balanced speed, the car body tilts inward or out-
ward the curve under the centrifugal force. As the Fpre =Kst ¼ h5 bcr  ybcr ð14Þ
speed keeps increasing or decreasing, the tilt angle
of the car body increases gradually. The centrifugal Substituting equations (11) and (12) into equation
force is defined as the critical lateral force when it (14) yields
increases to the level at which one stabilizing wheel   
has just left the track surface and exerts zero load on 1  a034 h5 þ a033  a014 h5  a031
the track surface. Fccr ¼  0    Fpre
a32 h5  a012 ðh1  h2 Þ þ a031 h5  a011
Critical lateral force reflects the variation in the roll
ð15Þ
motion state of the straddle-type monorail vehicle.
When the lateral force of the car body is smaller than
the critical lateral force, stabilizing wheels of both sides Let
are in contact with the track beam, and the maximum   
anti-overturning ability as well as operational safety is 1  a034 h5 þ a033  a014 h5  a031
guaranteed. When the lateral force is larger than the n ¼  0   ð16Þ
a32 h5  a012 ðh1  h2 Þ þ a031 h5  a011
critical lateral force, stabilizing wheels on one side leave
Zhang et al.
Then
Fccr ¼ n  Fpre ð17Þ
Equation (17) indicates that the critical lateral
force is linearly related to the pre-load of the stabiliz-
ing wheel. The critical lateral force depends only on
the pre-load of the stabilizing wheel and the param-
eters of the vehicle itself. The greater the pre-load of
the stabilizing wheel, the higher the critical lateral
force. This means as the pre-load of the stabilizing
wheel increases, the straddle-type monorail vehicle
can withstand the greater critical lateral force and
the maximum anti-overturning ability is maintained.
By introducing the parameters of the straddle-type
monorail vehicle given in Table 1, it is calculated that
n ¼ 1.986.
Dynamic simulation-based verification
A dynamic model of straddle-type monorail vehicle is
established using the parameters in Table 1 and multi-
body dynamics software UM. The running wheel,
guiding wheel, and stabilizing wheel were modeled
using the Fiala tyre model. As shown in Figure 4,
the formula is verified by dynamic simulation, which
exerts the lateral force slowly at the mass centre of the
car body. The vehicle travels on tangent segment at a
low speed of 1 m/s to reduce the effect of speed.
Figure 5 shows the excursion in the radial force of
the guiding and stabilizing wheels when lateral force
of 9.7 kN and 9.8 kN is respectively applied onto the
car body with a 5 kN pre-load on the guiding and
stabilizing wheels. It can be seen from the figure
that at 9.7 kN lateral force, the radial forces of the
stabilizing and guiding wheels outside the track are
above zero when traveling on curve segment. This
indicated that both the stabilizing and guiding
wheels are in contact with the track beam. When the
lateral force of 9.8 kN is exerted, the radial force of
Figure 4. Dynamics model of a straddling monorail vehicle.
165
the guiding wheel is above zero, whereas that of the
stabilizing wheel outside the track reduces to zero.
This indicates that the stabilizing wheel has come off
the track beam, whereas the guiding wheel is still in
contact with the track beam. Simulation experiment
indicates that when the pre-load is set to 5 kN for the
stabilizing and guiding wheels, the critical lateral force
varies between 9.7 and 9.8 kN, the value being very
close to that estimated by equation (17).
Table 2 shows the calculated critical lateral forces
by dynamic simulation at different pre-loads of the
stabilizing wheel versus the calculations using equa-
tion (17). A high agreement can be observed between
the results using the two methods, and the errors are
very small.
Discussion on the determination of
pre-load of the stabilizing wheel
Critical value of unbalanced centrifugal acceleration
The vehicle tilts outward the curve due to unbalanced
centrifugal acceleration when traveling on the curve
segment, and the load exerted by the stabilizing wheel
on the inside of the curve decreases. As the unba-
lanced centrifugal acceleration increases, the angle of
outward tilt of the car body increases gradually, and
the load exerted by the stabilizing wheel on the inside
of the curve decreases. When the unbalanced centri-
fugal acceleration increases to a certain level, the sta-
bilizing wheel on the inside of the curve leaves the
track surface, and this unbalanced centrifugal acceler-
ation is the critical value.
If the critical lateral force is caused by the unba-
lanced centrifugal force on the car body, then there is
Fccr ¼ mc  accr ð18Þ
where mc is the mass of the car body.
According to equation (17), the critical value of the
unbalanced centrifugal acceleration has the following
relationship with the pre-load of the stabilizing wheel
nFpre
accr ¼ ð19Þ
mc
Table 3 shows the critical values of unbalanced
centrifugal acceleration under different pre-loads of
the stabilizing wheel calculated using equation (19).
The lower the pre-load, the lower the critical value
of unbalanced centrifugal acceleration. Under a
fixed pre-load of the stabilizing wheel, if the speed
of the vehicle traveling on curve segment is too high
and the unbalanced centrifugal acceleration exceeds
the critical value accr , the stabilizing wheel comes off
the track surface with the load decreasing the zero. In
that case, the operational safety of the vehicle travel-
ing on the curve segment cannot be ensured.11,12
Therefore, a limit should be imposed on the traveling
166
Figure 5. Results of the radial force simulation for the guiding and stabilizing wheels. (a) Lateral force of 9.7 kN. (b) Lateral force
of 9.8 kN.
Table 2. Critical lateral force on the carbody.
Critical lateral force (kN)
Calculation result of
Pre-load (kN) equation (17)
4 7.9
5 9.9
6 11.9
7 13.9
8 15.9
9 17.9
10 19.9
speed of the vehicle under a given pre-load for the
stabilizing wheel. Only by this way will the unba-
lanced centrifugal acceleration of the vehicle be smal-
ler than the critical value accr and all stabilizing and
guiding wheels are in contact with the track surface
when traveling on the curve segment.
To ensure operational safety, the pre-load of the
stabilizing wheel should be more. This can ensure
a large critical value of unbalanced centrifugal
Proc IMechE Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 233(2)
Table 3. Critical value of the centrifugal acceleration.
Critical value of the unbalance
Pre-load (kN) centrifugal acceleration (g)
Simulation
result 4 0.039
5 0.048
7.6
6 0.058
9.8
7 0.067
12.1
8 0.077
14.3
9 0.087
16.5
10 0.096
18.7
20.9
acceleration when traveling on a curve segment.
But from the view of passenger comfort, the pre-
load of the stabilizing wheel does not need be too
high, but only enough to make the critical unbalanced
lateral acceleration higher than the level necessary to
ensure passenger comfort.
Many railway experiments and practice in many
countries have found the following relationship
between the imbalanced centrifugal acceleration ac
and passenger comfort. When ac < 0.04 g, passengers
did not report apparent awareness related to
Zhang et al.
imbalanced centrifugal acceleration; when ac ¼ 0.05 g,
most passengers report certain awareness related to
imbalanced centrifugal acceleration but no apparent
discomfort; when ac ¼ 0.077 g, most passengers can
withstand the imbalanced centrifugal acceleration
for a long time; when ac ¼ 0.1 g, most passengers can
withstand the infrequent occurrences of imbalanced
centrifugal acceleration. It is specified by the many
railway standards across the world that ac 4 0.05 g
to ensure passenger comfort on the curve segment.9
Therefore, the pre-load of the stabilizing wheel should
not be too high but enough to satisfy passengers’
needs for comfort. If the pre-load of the stabilizing
wheel is too high, it not only increases the initial
stress on the bracket of stabilizing wheel, which is
detrimental to the structural strength of the bogie
frame, but also increases the operational resistance
to the vehicle. According to equation (19), if it is
required that accr ¼ 0.05 g, then the critical pre-load
of the stabilizing wheel should be 5.19 kN.
Critical super-elevation ratio of the track beam
For a vehicle that stops on the track beam with super-
elevation, it tilts inward the track due to gravitation,
and the load exerted by the stabilizing wheel on the
outside of the track decreases. As the super-elevation
ratio of the track beam increases, the angle of inward
tilt of the car body increases, and the load exerted by
the stabilizing wheel on the outside of the track curve
decreases. When the super-elevation ratio of the track
beam increases to a certain level, the stabilizing wheels
on the outside of the track curve just leave the track
surface. And this super-elevation ratio of the
track beam is the critical value.
When the critical lateral force of the car body is
caused by the super-elevation of the track beam,
there is
Fccr ¼ mc  g   ð20Þ
where  is super-elevation ratio of track beam.
According to equation (17), the critical super-
elevation ratio of the track beam is related to the
pre-load of the stabilizing wheel in the following way
nFpre
cr ¼ ð21Þ
mc g
In equation (21), for a given pre-load of the stabi-
lizing wheel, a critical super-elevation ratio of the
track beam can be estimated. When the actual
super-elevation ratio of the track beam is below this
critical value, it is ensured that all the guiding and
stabilizing wheels of a vehicle that stops on the
track beam are in contact with the track beam. If
the super-elevation ratio of the track beam is fixed,
the critical pre-load of the stabilizing wheel can be
reversely derived. When the actual pre-load is above
167
this critical value, it is ensured that all the guiding and
stabilizing wheels of a vehicle that stops on the track
beam are in contact with the track beam. Table 4
shows the calculated critical super-elevation ratio of
the track beam under different pre-loads of the stabi-
lizing wheels of the straddle-type monorail vehicle.
A high super-elevation ratio of the track beam
should be used to improve the traveling speed of the
vehicle on a curve segment. However, the vehicle may
stop on the curve segment during operation, and con-
sidering the relationship between the centrifugal accel-
eration of the car body and passenger comfort, the
super-elevation ratio of the track beam should not
be too high. If it is required that accr ¼ 0.05 g,
then the super-elevation ratio of the track beam
should be 5%.
Speed limits on a curve segment
When the straddle-type monorail vehicle passes the
curve segment, the radial force of the guiding wheels
and the stabilizing wheels will change greatly because
of the existence of the super-elevation, the centrifugal
force and the track irregularity.13 If the speed of the
vehicle traveling along a curve segment is above the
balanced speed, there is an outward tilt of the vehicle
and an outward unbalanced acceleration is generated.
If the speed is below the balanced speed, there is an
inward tilt of the vehicle due to a super-elevation that
of the track beam and an inward under-balanced
acceleration is generated. A limit on the traveling
speed of the vehicle on the curve segment should be
ensured, so that the imbalanced centrifugal acceler-
ation is below the level needed for passenger comfort.
A centrifugal force is generated for the vehicle travel-
ing along the curve segment, and a counterbalance
force is needed. Therefore, the vehicles may have the
following two states: the excess super-elevation and
the deficient super-elevation. There should be limits
on the maximum and minimum speed of the vehicle
traveling on curve segment.
For a vehicle traveling on a curve segment, the lat-
eral imbalanced acceleration ac, curve radius V, speed
Table 4. Critical value of the super-elevation rate of the track
beam.
Super-elevation rate
Pre-load (kN) critical value/%
4 3.9
5 4.8
6 5.8
7 6.7
8 7.7
9 8.7
10 9.6
168 Proc IMechE Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 233(2)

R and super-elevation ratio of the track beam  have stabilizing wheel, the higher the maximum speed
the following relationship limit and the lower the minimum speed limit.
Tables 5 and 6, respectively, show the calculations
V2 of the maximum and minimum speed limits under
ac ¼ g ð22Þ different super-elevation ratios of the track beam
R
and different curve radii when the pre-load is 7 kN
Considering that the vehicle’s unbalance acceler- for the stabilizing and guiding wheels. When the
ation may be positive (caused by deficient super- super-elevation ratio of the track beam is 9%, the
elevation), or it may be negative (caused by surplus minimum speed limits of the vehicle under different
super-elevation), while Fpre is positive, so the max- curve radii are above zero. This means that when the
imum speed limit and the minimum speed limit can vehicle travels at a speed that is lower than the min-
be obtained. Substituting equation (19) into equation imum speed limit or stops on curve segment, the sta-
(22) yields the relationship between speed limits, pre- bilizing wheels leave the track beam. When the pre-
load of the stabilizing wheel, super-elevation ratio of load is set to 7 kN for the guiding and stabilizing
track beam and curve radius wheels, the maximum super-elevation ratio of the
track beam should be 6% to ensure operational
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
s
 ffi
nFpre safety and passenger comfort.
Vmax, min ¼ g  R ð23Þ
mc
Conclusions
In equation (23), for a given pre-load of the stabi- Under the action of the lateral force, there is a reduc-
lizing wheel, the higher the super-elevation ratio of the tion of load for the stabilizing wheels on one side and
track beam with the same curve radius, the higher the for the guiding wheels on the opposite side. As this
maximum speed limit. But for the same curve radius, lateral force increases to a certain level, one-side stabi-
the higher the super-elevation ratio of the track beam, lizing wheels will first leave the track beam. The status
the higher the minimum speed limit. For the same where the stabilizing wheels just separate from the
super-elevation ratio of the track beam and the track surface is defined as the critical state, and the
same curve radius, the higher the pre-load of the lateral force acting on the car body under the critical
state is defined as the critical lateral force. On this
basis, the formula describing the relationship between
the critical lateral force and pre-load of the stabilizing
wheel has been derived based on the roll equation of
Table 5. Maximal curve limit speed when the pre-load on the
stability wheel is 7 kN/km/h. the straddle type monorail vehicle and is subsequently
verified by simulation using multi-body dynamics soft-
Curve super-elevation rate ware UM. The formula shows that the critical lateral
Curve
force is determined by the parameters of the vehicle
radius (m) 3% 6% 9% 12%
and the pre-load of the stabilizing wheel, and is pro-
50 24.9 28.4 31.6 34.5 portional to the pre-load of the stabilizing wheel.
100 35.2 40.3 44.7 48.8 Based on the derived relationship between the critical
150 43.1 49.3 54.8 59.8 lateral force and the pre-load of the stabilizing wheel,
200 49.8 56.9 63.3 69.0 the reasonable value of the pre-load of the stabilizing
250 55.7 63.7 70.7 77.2 wheel is discussed. It is suggested that the pre-load of the
stabilizing wheel is set to the value that corresponds
300 61.0 69.7 77.5 84.6
to the unbalanced centrifugal acceleration that the pas-
senger can accept required for passenger comfort.
Meanwhile, the super-elevation ratio of the track
beam of the straddle-type monorail vehicle should not
Table 6. Minimal curve limit speed when the pre-load on the
stability wheel is 7 kN/km/h. be excessively high to ensure passenger comfort on curve
segment, and the 6% is commended. Moreover, limits
Curve super-elevation rate should be imposed on the maximum and minimum
Curve
speeds of the vehicle traveling on the curve segment.
radius (m) 3% 6% 9% 12%
The formula describing the relationship between speed
50 0 0 12.0 18.3 limits, pre-load of the stabilizing wheel, super-elevation
100 0 0 16.9 25.8 ratio of the track beam and curve radius is obtained.
150 0 0 20.7 31.6
200 0 0 23.9 36.5 Declaration of Conflicting Interests
250 0 0 26.8 40.9 The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of
300 0 0 29.3 44.8
this article.
 Zhang et al.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial
support for the research, authorship, and/or publication
of this article: This study was supported by the Ministry
of Science and Technology under the National Science
and Technology Support Program project (grant no.
2015BAG19B02).
ORCID iD
Yuanjin Ji http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0787-7553
References
1. Xing J-h, Song Y-x and Yang Q-s. Dynamic response
research of straddling monorail traffic system. Sci Tech
Engg 2007; 7: 2724–2726.
2. Hun LC, Woo KC, Kawatani M, et al. Dynamic
response analysis of monorail bridges under moving
trains and riding comfort of trains. Eng Struct 2005;
27: 1999–2013.
3. Ji Y and Ren L. Anti-overturning capacity and critical
roll angle of straddling monorail vehicle. Proc IMechE,
Part C: J Mech Eng Sci 2018; 232: 4420–4429.
4. Ji Y, Ren L and Wang H. The influence of wheel/rail
gap and rotating mechanism on dynamic performance
of APM. J Mech Sci Technol 2017; 31: 5245–5256.
5. Lee CH, Kawatani M, Kim CW, et al. Dynamic
response of a monorail steel bridge under a moving
train. J Sound Vib 2006; 294: 562–579.
View publication stats
169
6. Kenjiro G, Nishigaito T, Hiraishi M, et al. A curving
simulation for a monorail car. In: Proceedings of
the 2000 ASME /IEEE Joint Railroad Conference,
Newark, NJ, USA, 6 April 2000, paper no.6684986,
pp.171–177. IEEE.
7. Ren L, Zhou J and Shen G. Dynamics model and simu-
lation study of a straddling monorail car. China Railw
Sci 2004; 25: 26–31.
8. Zhang J, Huang Y, Li F, et al. Research on the pre-
pressure of the guiding tyre and stabilizing tyre of a
straddling monorail car. Railw Locomot Car 2011; 31: 48.
9. Ren L, Zhou J, Shen G, et al. Hunting stability of
straddle-type monorail car based on equation eigen-
value. J Tongji Univ 2003; 31: 469.
10. Yan J and Fu M. Railway vehicle engineering. 3rd ed.
Beijing: Chinese Railway Publishing House, 2010, p.277.
11. Huang Y-h and Ding J-j. Research on evaluation
indexes of the curve negotiation performance of a strad-
dle-type monorail car. Electr Locomot Mass Transit
Vehicle 2013; 36: 1–4.
12. Du Z and Liang Z. Study on the curve performance
evaluation indexes system of the straddle-type monorail
vehicle. Railw Locomot Car 2014; 34: 75–78.
13. Du Z and Yang X. On the curve speed limitation of
straddle-type monorail vehicle based on genetic algo-
rithm. Urban Rail Transit Res 2015; 18: 38.