International Journal of Pavement Engineering

ISSN: 1029-8436 (Print) 1477-268X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gpav20

Simplified and relatively precise back-calculation

method for the pavement excitation of the
monorail

Yongzhi Jiang, Pingbo Wu, Jing Zeng, Sheng Qu, Xing Wang & Shuai Wang

To cite this article: Yongzhi Jiang, Pingbo Wu, Jing Zeng, Sheng Qu, Xing Wang & Shuai Wang
(2019): Simplified and relatively precise back-calculation method for the pavement excitation of the
monorail, International Journal of Pavement Engineering, DOI: 10.1080/10298436.2019.1623401

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2019.1623401

Published online: 17 Jun 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 25

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gpav20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING
https://doi.org/10.1080/10298436.2019.1623401

Simplified and relatively precise back-calculation method for the pavement excitation
of the monorail
a
Yongzhi Jiang , Pingbo Wua, Jing Zenga, Sheng Qua, Xing Wangb and Shuai Wanga
a
State Key Laboratory of Traction Power, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu, People’s Republic of China; bInstitute of Chemistry, National
Institute of Measurement and Testing Technology, Chengdu, People’s Republic of China

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

In order to establish a more accurate model to simulate actual working conditions, a back-calculation Received 28 November 2018
method for road excitation of monorail is introduced and dynamic transcendental equations are set up Accepted 20 May 2019
in this paper. By neglecting the subtle influence of the pitching angle on the vertical acceleration of
KEYWORDS
the bogies, this dynamic model (i.e. the dynamic transcendental equations) is greatly simplified. Back-calculation method;
Besides, the calculation result shall be closer to the measured data. Comparison between the back- transcendental equations;
calculation results of the two vehicles in a monorail proves that this method can be applied to inverse Fourier transform; UM
experiments accurately. Through validating the model by comparing the experiment data and the simulation model;
simulated results, it can be noticed that the simulated result of the acceleration under the action of the experimental data; band pass
back-calculated road irregularities is consistent with the experimental data, which indicates the back- filtering
calculation process is precise enough. Band pass filtering is applied to the measured acceleration data
to get the signals in the frequency range of 0.5–10 Hz as per the standard, which proves that the
model is valid only in low frequencies but good enough for researches of vehicle stability.

1. Introduction To analyse the interaction of the vehicle–bridge coupling

1.1. Background
In order to save time and cost, a model is proposed to simulate
the experimental process. However, no matter how complex
the model is, the simulation results cannot be completely con-
sistent with the experiment data. Besides, the more complicated
the simulation model is, the more parameters are needed to
measure. A small error of the measured parameters will result
in a great difference between the simulation results and the
experimental data.
In order to avoid the complex modelling process of the
vehicle–bridge coupling system, many researchers have selected
a single component as the research object. Finite element model
will be a good choice to analyse the structure of an object. Du
et al. (2017), instead of building a model of the whole vehicle,
built a three-dimensional finite element model of the wheel–
rail contact system; and thus, greatly reduced the complexity
of the modelling process and obtained a relatively precise simu-
lation result of the tire abrasion. There are some other examples
like the FE model of I type beam and bogie frame set up in some
researches (Abdulhameed et al. 2015, Li 2016).
In order to further analyse the interaction of each com-
ponent in the vehicle system, regardless of the structure of
the bridge, the method of multi-rigid body dynamics is intro-
duced. 3D multi-rigid body model is set up by some dynamic
software like RecurDyn (Kim et al. 2008), Simulink (Jiang
et al. 2015, 2017), Simpack (Pu et al. 2015, Xiao et al. 2015),
DADS (Tsunashima 2003) and mathematic calculation pro-
gramme (Muller 1978, Wang and Zhu 2018).
system, the vehicle–bridge coupling dynamics is carried out.
The bridge model was built by grid element (Nassif 2003),
beam element (Choi and Song 2000, Moghimi and Ronagh
2008, Wang et al. 2016, Zhang et al. 2016), shell element
and Bernoulli–Euler beam element (Law and Zhu 2005,
Lombaert and Conte 2012). Bridge FE models of straddle
monorail (Lee et al. 2005, 2006, Kim and Kawatani 2006,
Kim et al. 2013, Naeimi et al. 2015, Guo et al. 2018) and bridge
FE models of suspended monorail (Bao 2016, Cai 2019) are
coupled with the dynamic model of the vehicle for simulation,
respectively.
Because the monorail track beams hang high above the
ground, it is extremely hard and dangerous to measure road
irregularities of the monorail. Because there are no relevant
regulations for monorail pavement, Lee et al. (2005) and Cai
et al. (2019) have measured road irregularities of the straddle
and suspended monorail. However, due to lack of relevant
regulations for monorail pavement, German low disturb spec-
trum (Zhang and Xia 2013), ISO8608 Standard road spectrum
(Wen et al. 2017), U.S. rail spectrum (Zhou 2005) and other
standard track spectrums that bring vehicle vibration closer
to experimental values were chosen to simulate the monorail
road irregularities. In order to better simulate road irregulari-
ties, Zhou (2005) chose various track power spectrums to
serve as the road excitation. By comparing the experimental
and simulated acceleration data, he selected the best track
power spectrum. However, if road irregularities (that is, the
main cause of the vibration of the vehicle) cannot be accurately
simulated, the simulation results of the dynamic model can

CONTACT Yongzhi Jiang 644263958@qq.com; Pingbo Wu wupingbo@163.com

© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 Y. JIANG ET AL.
hardly be consistent with the experimental data. In order to
prove that the abnormal vibration is caused by the wheel eccen-
tricity, Lv et al. (2017) neglected road irregularities in his simu-
lation model. He verified his speculation by comparing the
dominant frequency of the experimental acceleration and
simulated acceleration. However, this calculation process is
not accurate enough. So, he carried out a second experiment.
Lack of road irregularity data made the study very difficult.
With the genetic algorithm, Jiang (2018) scaled the amplitude
and wavelength of road irregularities to make the experimental
data consistent with the simulation data. However, the simu-
lation accuracy is low.
There are many methods to simulate track irregularities.
Based on a spatial and statistical decomposition, taking the
spatial and statistical variability and dependency of the track
geometry into account, Perrin et al. (2013) developed a sto-
chastic model. Xu et al. (2017) provided a probabilistic
model for random track irregularities. In his research, random
field modelling and highly efficient sample selection are devel-
oped. By using an MCM-KLE unification method, Xu et al.
(2018) developed a model to evaluate the dynamic perform-
ance of train-track-bridge systems in random temporal–
spatial fields. Other methods like Improved Grey Model and
PSO-SVM (Ma et al. 2018), Markov-based model (Bai et al.
2015), gray interval prediction model (Wang and Wang
2015), Data Mining and Linear Model (Jia et al. 2013) are
also adopted to simulate track irregularities for the railway
vehicle. However, there are still not many researches of the
monorail.
Similar to the way that was adopted by Wei et al. (2014) to
calculate the wheel–rail forces through the acceleration signals,
this paper is devoted to finding a back-calculation method for
road irregularities. Even if the vehicle is under the same road
excitation, due to differences between the real vehicle structure,
multi-rigid body model and mathematical equations, accelera-
tion results of the simulation and experiment will vary from
each other. If there are too many acceleration parameters in
the back-calculation formula, errors of each acceleration signal
will accumulate into the back-calculation result and make a
large error. This paper is aimed to find a simple but relatively
precise back-calculation formula for the road excitation of the
monorail.
1.2 Objectives
The main objectives of this paper are as follows:
1. Introduction of the inverse Fourier transform. The aim of
this part is to prove that the actual power spectral density
of road irregularities obtained by inverse Fourier transform
is basically consistent with the theoretical value, that is to
say, this calculation process will not result in critical errors.
2. Theoretical verification of the back-calculation method. To
benefit calculation and facilitate the coincidence between
experiment data and theoretical result, some simplification
is made in the back-calculation model. Besides, there are
some differences between the mathematical model and the
3D model in the software. This part is to make sure these
simplifications will not cause big errors.
3. Experimental verification of the back-calculation method.
By comparing road irregularities calculated from the data
of two vehicles, it is proved that the method can be used
in actual measurement.
4. Comparative analysis of the experimental and simulation
results. It is to prove that the simulation model can accu-
rately simulate actual working conditions. By inputting
the back-calculation road irregularities calculated by the
measured acceleration data into the software, the simulated
acceleration signal is obtained. If the measured acceleration
is consistent with the simulated signal, it proves the model
can simulate actual working condition accurately.
2. Inverse Fourier transform
Considering the effect of the non-linear factors such as the
wheel–rail contact factors, the accuracy of the numerical simu-
lation for track irregularities, an important part of the dynamic
research, directly affects the accuracy of the whole study. The
most commonly used numerical simulation methods of road
irregularities are the white noise filtering method, secondary
filtering method, trigonometric series method and the inverse
Fourier transform method (Chen and Zhai 1999).
When the inverse Fourier transform method (Chen and
Zhai 1999) based on the principle of fast numerical algorithm
for the power spectrum is used in the calculation process, com-
pared with the triangular series method, the simulation speed is
greatly improved. It cannot be widely applied because certain
filters have to be designed in order to be able to use the second-
ary filtering method and proper filters have to be designed for
different power spectral density functions. Trigonometric series
method and white noise filtering method regard the road irre-
gularities as a stationary Gaussian stochastic process, which is
obviously not completely consistent with actual road proper-
ties. Lin (1982) proved that road irregularities are not always
the stationary stochastic process. In view of the weaknesses of
the above methods, inverse Fourier transform has the advan-
tages of less errors, faster operation speed and better generality.
Therefore, the inverse Fourier transform is chosen to simulate
road irregularities in this paper.
According to the Blackman–Turkey method for estimating
the power spectrum, road irregularities are set as {xs },
s = 0, 1, · · · , (N − 1). Time range is set as T = ND. D is the
time interval. The time delay of the correlation function is
also the discrete value, namely t = rD. The following equation
is obtained:
⎧
⎪
T
⎪
⎪ 1
⎪
⎨ Rxx (t) = T x(t)x(t + t)dt
⎪
0 . (1)
⎪
⎪  −1
⎪
⎪ 1 N
⎪
⎩ Rr = Rxx (t = rD) = xs xs+r
N s=0
In this equation, r = 0, 1, · · · , (N − 1), xs ; x (sD), Rxx and
Rr are the correlation functions of {xs }.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING 3

Substitute Rxx (t) as Sxx (f ). The following equation can be obtained:

obtained: 
2p 2pfc 2
 2p kAV
 −ik r
1 N−1 V V
Sxx (k) =
1
Sxx f = k
1
= Rr e N . (2)
S(f ) =  2  2  
T T N r=0 2pf 2pf 2pfc 2
(8)
V V V
In this equation, Sxx (k) is the power spectral density function of
{xs }. The following equation can be obtained: kAV fc2 V
= .
2pf 2 (f 2 + fc2 )

 2p
1N −1
1 N
−1
−ik r In this equation, V is the spatial frequency (rad/m); v, the
Sxx (k) = xs xs+r e N
N r=0 N s=0 angular frequency (rad); f , the time frequency(Hz); V, the
⎧ ⎫⎧ ⎫ speed of the vehicle (m/s).
⎨ 1 N−1 2p 2p
 ik s ⎬⎨ 1 N−1  −ik (s + r) ⎬ After obtaining the time-domain power spectrum, it is
= xe N x e N . needed to convert the unilateral spectrum to a bilateral spec-
⎩N s=0 s ⎭⎩N r=0 s+r ⎭
trum Sx (f ).
(3) The simulated time range is Ts . The time interval is D. The
sampling point number is Nr = Ts /D and the frequency-
It is defined j = r + s and the following equation can be domain sampling interval is Df = 1/(Nr D). It is well-known
obtained: that the power spectrum estimated by the periodogram method
is periodic and even symmetric.
2p 2p

N−1
−ik 
(s + r) N−1+s −ik j From Equations (2) and (6), it can be learned that the spec-
xs+r e N = xj e N . (4) tral modulus of time series x(n) is defined as follows:
r=0 j=s

|X(k)| = |DFT[x(n)]| = Nr2 × Sk (k)
Because of the discrete Fourier transform, the time series {xs }  
have been discretized periodically. The period is N. The follow- = Nr Sk (k) = Nr Sk (f = kDf )Df ,
ing equation can be obtained:
(k = 0, 1, · · · , Nr − 1). (9)
2p 2p

N−1+s
−ik j N −1
−ik j
xj e N = xj e N . (5) Because the time series x(n) is a random series, its spectral
j=s j=0 phase must be random. Let jn be a sequence with independent
phase. The mean of each component is zero. Moreover, the
Put Equations (4) and (5) into Equation (3), and the following FFT of a real sequence is a plural sequence (the real part of
equation can be obtained: it is even symmetric and the imaginary part is odd sym-
⎧ ⎫⎧ ⎫ metric). So, jn should be plural. Besides, |jn | = 1. It’s
⎨ 1 N 2p ⎬⎨ N −1 2p ⎬
−1
ik s 1  −ik j defined as follows:
Sxx (k) = xe N xe N
⎩N s=0 s ⎭⎩N j=0 j ⎭ jn = cos Fn + i sin Fn = exp (iFn ). (10)
(6)
1 1 Fn is a series belonging to a uniform distribution at the range
= |DFT[xs ]|2 = 2 [X ∗ (k)X(k)].
N2 N of 0  2p.
Because the real part of X(k) is even symmetric about Nr /2,
In this equation, X(k) is the spectrum of {xs }. and the imaginary part is odd symmetric about Nr /2.
s = 0, 1, · · · , (N − 1), k = 0, 1, · · · , (N − 1). Obviously, it is easy to get X(k), (k = 0, 1, · · · , Nr − 1)
Compared with several PSD functions of road irregularities, according to the symmetric properties, so it is only needed to
Zhou (2005) thought the PSD function of U.S. rail irregularities calculate the value of X(k), (k = 0, 1, · · · , Nr /2). The follow-
could better simulate the monorail rail, which is also proved by ing equation can be obtained:
Jiang et al. (2018, 2019a, 2019b) experimentally.

The existing power spectrums of track irregularities are X(k) = j(k)|X(k)| = Nr j(k) Sx (f = kDf )Df (k
spatial spectrums shown as follows. The spatial spectrum
needs to be transformed into time-domain spectrum (Wang = 0, 1, · · · , Nr /2). (11)
2009). Carry out the IFFT (inverse fast Fourier transform) of X(k) and
the following equation can be obtained:
KAv V2c
S(V) = . (7)
V (V2 + V2c )
2 2pk
1 N
r −1 i n
x(n) = X(k)e Nr (n = 0, 1, · · · , Nr − 1). (12)
Because V = V v, and v = 2pf , it can be obtained as N k=0
2pf
V= . According to the theory of energy conservation, it’s The parameters of Equation (7) are as follows:
V
known S(f )df = S(V)dV, and the following equation can be K = 0.25, Vc = 0.8245
4 Y. JIANG ET AL.

Figure 1. Comparison of the power spectral density of the inverse Fourier transformed USA rail irregularities and the theoretical value: (a) Level 6, (b) Level 5, (c) Level 4.

For the USA rail level of 4, Av = 0.5376. It can be simplified as Equation (14).
For the USA rail level of 5, Av = 0.2095.
For the USA rail level of 6, Av = 0.0339. ††
mb z b = Fz DLF + Fz DLR + Fz DRF + Fz DRR + Fy GLF

The time response×(t) is obtained by the inverse Fourier + Fy GLR + Fy GRF + Fy GRR + Fy SL + Fy SR
transform of the existing power spectrum, then the power spec- − (KS ((zb + wb lS ) − (zc + wc lS )) + KS ((zb − wb lS )
tral density is obtained. As can be seen from Figure 1, the actual † † † †
power spectral density of road irregularities obtained by inverse − (zc − wc lS )) + CS (( z b + wb lS ) − ( z c + wc lS ))
Fourier transform is basically consistent with the theoretical † † † †
+ CS (( z b − wb lS ) − ( z c − wc lS ))
value, which means this calculation process will not produce
large errors. The high simulation accuracy and the satisfactory † † † †
+ CV sin a(( z b + wb lV ) − ( z c + wc lV ))
results proved that both the calculation process for the time
† † † †
response by inverse Fourier transform of the known power spec- + CV sin a(( z b − wb lV ) − ( z c − wc lV ))),
tral density and the calculation process for the power spectral
(13)
density by the known time response will not cause many errors.
 
†† 2sD
3. Back-calculation for the road irregularities mb z b = 2KD (ze (t) − zb ) + 2KD ze t + − zb
V
The calculated result of road irregularities is obtained accord-  
† † † 2sD †
ing to the acceleration signals of the vehicle. Because, as + 2CD ( z (t) − z b ) + 2CD z e t + − zb
shown in Figure 2(a), the driving wheels on both left sides e V
and right sides of the bogie are attached closely; road exci- † † † †
− 2KS (zb − zc ) − 2CS ( z b − z c ) − 2CV sin a( z b − z c )
tation for both the left and the right driving wheels are con-
sidered the same. + Fy GLF + Fy GLR + Fy GRF + Fy GRR + Fy SL + Fy SR .
The parameters of the dynamic model are shown in Table 1: (14)
The dynamic model is shown in Figure 2(b), and the vertical
dynamic equation of the front bogie is shown in Equation (13). According to FIALA tire model, the equation of the tire side
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING 5

Figure 2. Structure of the vehicle: (a) Structure of the bogie, (Zhong 2013) (b) Dynamic structure of the monorail vehicle.

force can be shown as follows. The equation of tire side force (16) and (17) can be com-
bined into one formula as follows:
⎧
⎨ sy = tan u
3mFz . (15)
⎩ s′ = sign(|sy | − s′ ) − 1
Ky
Fy = − mFz (1 − h3 )sign(sy )
2
(18)
Case 1 |sy | , s′ sign(|sy | − s′ ) + 1
+ mFz sign(sy ).
⎧ 2
⎨ h = 1 − Ky |sy |
3mFz . (16)
⎩
Fy = mFz (1 − h3 )sign(sy ) It can be simplified as follows:

Case 2 |sy | ≥ s′ 
sign(|sy | − s′ ) − 1 3
Fy = m Fz h +1 (19)
Fy = mFz sign(sy ), (17) 2

where, u denotes the sideslip angle; m, the coefficient of friction;

Ky , the cornering stiffness; and Fz , the tire radical force. by inputting the parameters into the equation, it can be
6 Y. JIANG ET AL.

Table 1. Parameters and variables of the dynamic system. following equations are defined:
Parameter Description ⎧ †
mc Mass of the car body ⎪
⎪ FGy (u,Dz)= m(KG Dz+CG Dz )
⎪
⎪
mb Mass of the bogie frame ⎪
⎪ ⎡  ⎤
zc Vertical vibration displacement of the point on the floor of the car ⎪
⎪ 3mKG
⎪
⎪ sign |tan u|− −1  3
body above the bogie ⎪
⎪ ⎢ ⎥
zb Vertical vibration displacement of the bogie frame ⎪
⎪ ⎢ K Gy ⎥ 1− K Gy |tan u|
⎪
⎪ ⎣ ⎦ +1
ze Road excitation of the driving wheels ⎪
⎪ 2 m Dz+C
†
Dz
cc Yawing angle of the car body ⎪
⎨ 3 (K G G )
cb Yawing angle of the bogie frame .
wc ⎪ †
Rolling angle of the car body ⎪
⎪ FDy (u,Dz)= m(KD Dz+CD Dz )
wb Rolling angle of the bogie frame ⎪
⎪
fc ⎪
⎪⎡  ⎤
Pitching angle of the car body ⎪
⎪ 3mKD
fb Pitching angle of the bogie frame ⎪
⎪
⎪ sign |tan u |− −1  3
lS Half of the lateral span of the air springs ⎪
⎪ ⎢ KDy KDy |tan u| ⎥
⎪
⎪ ⎢ 1− +1⎥
lD Half of the lateral span of the driving wheels ⎪
⎪ ⎣ 2 † ⎦
lG Half of the lateral span of the tire surfaces of the guide wheels ⎪
⎩ 3m(KD Dz+CD Dz )
lV Half of the lateral span of the hinge point which aritculate the shock
absorber and the bogie
lVc Half of the lateral span of the hinge point which aritculate the shock
(21)
absorber and the car body
sD Half of the longitudinal span of the driving wheels The excitations for the guide wheels and stable wheels on the
sG Half of the longitudinal span of the guide wheels left and right of the bogie are set as zGLe zGRe zSLe ,zSRe . The
sb Half of the longitudinal span of the bogies on a vehicle equations of the radial deformation of the guide wheels and
sc Half of the length of the vehicle
hb Height between the gravity centre of the bogie and the running rail stable wheels are defined as follows:
surface ⎧
hSb Height between the gravity centre of air spring and the gravity centre ⎪
⎪ DzGLF =yb − wb hG − cb sG +zGLe (t)
⎪
⎪ Dz GRF =−yb + wb hG + cb sG +zGRe (t)
of the bogie
⎪
⎪ 
hSc Height between the gravity centre of air spring and the vehicle floor ⎪
⎪
hV Height between the gravity centre of the bogie and the hinge point ⎪
⎪ 2sG
⎪
⎨ DzGLR =yb − wb hG + cb sG +zGLe t+
which aritculate the shock absorber and the bogie V
hVc Height between the vehicle floor and the hinge point which  . (22)
⎪
⎪ 2sG
aritculate the shock absorber and the car boday ⎪
⎪ Dz =−y + w h − c s +z t+
KS Vertical stiffness of the air spring ⎪
⎪
GRR b b G b G GRe
V
KSy ⎪
⎪
Lateral stiffness of the air spring ⎪
⎪ Dz =y + w +z
CS Vertical damping of the air spring ⎪
⎩ SL b
h
b S SLe (t)
CSy Lateral damping of the air spring DzSR =−yb − wb hS +zSRe (t)
CV Damping of the lateral shock absorber
Fz DL Fz DR Radical forces of the left and right driving wheel The vertical vibration movement of the bogie is transformed
Fy GL Fy GR Side forces of the left and right guide wheel
Fy SL Fy SR Side forces of the left and right stable wheel into Equation (23).
 
†† 2sD
mb z b = 2KD (ze (t) − zb ) + 2KD ze t + − zb
transformed into Equation (20) V
 
† † † 2sD †
+ 2CD ( z (t) − z b ) + 2CD z e t + − zb
⎡ 3mFz ⎤ e V
sign(| tan u| − ) − 1 3 † † † †
⎢ Ky Ky | tan u| ⎥ − 2KS (zb − zc ) − 2CS ( z b − z c ) − 2CV sin a( z b − z c )
Fy =m F z ⎢
⎣ 1− + 1⎥
⎦
2 3mFz + FGy (fb , yb − wb hG − cb sG + zGLe (t))
+ FGy ( − yb + wb hG + cb sG + zGRe (t))

 
sign | tan u| − 3mKz Dz −1 2sG
† Ky + FGy fb , yb − wb hG + cb sG + zGLe t +
= m(Kz Dz + Cz D z ) V
2  
2sG
 3  + FGy fb , − yb + wb hG − cb sG + zGRe t +
Ky | tan u| V
× 1− † +1 .
3m(Kz Dz + Cz D z ) + FGy (fb , yb + wb hS + zSLe (t))
(20) + FGy (fb , − yb − wb hS + zSRe (t)).
(23)
Let FGy (u, Dz) and FDy (u, Dz) substitute for the equation of the Another four variables are inputted in this equation, namely,
side force of the guide wheel (stable wheel) and driving wheel, zGLe (t), zGRe (t), , zSLe (t) and zSRe (t). The variables cannot be
respectively. There are two decisive variables, namely Dz, the solved by only one equation. More equations are needed to
radial deformation of the wheel and u, the sideslip angle. The solve these variables.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING 7

The lateral vibration movement of the bogie is shown in † †

† †
Equation (24). The rolling movement of the bogie is shown − hVb 2CV cos a( yc + hVc wc − yb − hVb wb )
in Equation (25). + hG KG [yb − wb hG − cb sG + zGLe (t)]
†† † † †
†
mb y b = FDy (cb , ze (t) − (zb − wb lD + fb sD )) + hG CG [ yb − wb hG − cb sG + z (t))]
  GLe
2sD
+ FDy cb , ze t + − (zb − wb lD − fb sD ) − hG KG [ − yb + wb hG + cb sG + zGRe (t)]
V
† † † †
+ FDy (cb , ze (t) − (zb + wb lD + fb sD )) − hG CG [ −yb + wb hG + cb sG + z (t)]
GRe
    
2sD 2sG
+ FDy cb , ze t + − (zb + wb lD − fb sD ) + hG KG yb − wb hG + cb sG + zGLe t +
V V
  
+ 2KSy (yc + hSc wc − yb − hS wb ) † † † † 2sG
+ hG CG b − wb hG + cb sG + z GLe t +
y
† † † † V
+ 2CSy ( yc + hSc wc − yb − hS wb )   
2sG
† † † † − hG KG −yb + wb hG − cb sG + zGRe t +
+ 2CV cos a( yc + hVc wc − yb − hV wb ) V
− KG [yb − wb hG − cb sG + zGLe (t)]   
† † † † 2sG
− hG CG −yb + wb hG − cb sG + z GRe t +
† † † † V
− CG [ yb − wb hG − cb sG + z (t))]
GLe
− hG KG [yb + wb hS + zSLe (t)]
+ KG [ − yb + wb hG + cb sG + zGRe (t)] † † †
†
− hG CG [ yb + wb hS + z (t)]
† † † SLe
+ CG [ −yb + wb hG + cb sG + z (t)]

GRe
 + hG KG [ − yb − wb hS + zSRe (t)]
2sG †
− KG yb − wb hG + cb sG + zGLe t + † †
+ hG CG [ − yb − wb hS + z (t)] − lD KD [ze (t)
V SRe
 
† † 2sG
† †
−CG [yb − wb hG + cb sG + z GLe t + − (zb − wb lD + fb sD )]
V   
   2sD
2sG − lD KD ze t + − (zb − wb lD − fb sD )
+ KG −yb + wb hG − cb sG + zGRe t + V
V
   + lD KD [ze (t) − (zb + wb lD + fb sD )]
† †
† †
+ CG −yb + wb hG − cb sG + z GRe t +
2sG   
lD
V + lD KD ze t + − (zb + wb lD − fb sD )
†
V
† †
− KG [yb + wb hS + zSLe (t)] − CG [ yb + wb hS + z (t)] † † † †
SLe
− lD CD [ z (t) − ( z b − wb lD + fb sD )]
e
+ KG [ − yb − wb hS + zSRe (t)]   
† lD † † †
† † † − lD CD z e t + − (z b − wb lD − fb sD )
+ CG [ − yb − wb hS + z (t)]. V
SRe
† † † †
(24) + lD CD [ z (t) − ( z b + wb lD + fb sD )]
e
††   
IbX w b = hb FDy (cb , ze (t) − (zb − wb lD + fb sD )) † lD † † †
  + lD CD z e t + − (z b + wb lD − fb sD )
lD V
+ hb FDy cb , ze t + − (zb − wb lD − fb sD )
V − { − lS KS [(zb + wb lS ) − (zc + wc lS )]
+ hb FDy (cb , ze (t) − (zb + wb lD + fb sD )) + lS KS [(zb − wb lS ) − (zc − wc lS )]
  † † † †
lD − lS CS [( z b + wb lS ) − ( z c + wc lS )]
+ hb FDy cb , ze t + − (zb + wb lD − fb sD )
V † † † †
+ lS CS [( z b − wb lS ) − ( z c − wc lS )]
− hSb 2KSy (yc + hSc wc − yb − hSb wb ) † †
† †
† † † †
− lV CV sin a[( z b + wb lV ) − ( z c + wc lV )]
− hS 2CSy ( yc + hSc wc − yb − hSb wb )
8 Y. JIANG ET AL.

† † † †
vibration are omitted. The three equations, namely, Equations
+ lV CV sin a[( z b − wb lV ) − ( z c − wc lV )]} (23)–(25) cannot be solved with five variables. Replace
− lG FGy (fb , yb − wb hG − cb sG + zGLe (t)) yb , zb , wb , fb , cb , t in the Equations (23)–(25) with
2sb
+ lG FGy ( − yb + wb hG + cb sG + zGRe (t) yb2 , zb2 , wb2 , fb2 , cb2 , t + , and the dynamic equations of
  V
2sG the rear bogie in the vehicle could be obtained.
− lG FGy fb , yb − wb hG + cb sG + zGLe t +
V In order to get the acceleration signals of the bogies and car
  body, the acceleration sensors are mounted on the specified
2sG
+ lG FGy fb , − yb + wb hG − cb sG + zGRe t + location in the vehicle, as shown in Figure 3. Sensor c_1 and
V
sensor c2_1 are mounted on the floor of the car body beyond
− lG FGy (fb , yb + wb hS + zSLe (t)) the bogies. Sensor c_2 and sensor c2_2 are mounted on the
+ lG FGy (fb , − yb − wb hS + zSRe (t)). left side of sensor c_1 and sensor c2_1 in the distance of lc12 .
Sensor b_1 and sensor b2_1 are mounted in the centres of
(25)
the front and rear bogies respectively. Sensor b_2 and sensor
In order to avoid inputting longitudinal force variables, b2_2 are mounted on the rear end beam in the bogies, sb12
dynamic equations of pitching, yawing and longitudinal metres away from sensor b_1 and sensor b2_1 respectively.

Figure 3. Mount position of the acceleration sensor: (a) In the vehicle, (b) In the bogie.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING 9

Sensor b_2 and sensor b2_2 are mounted on the left side beam which could be further simplified as Equation (28).
in the bogies, lb13 metres away from sensor b_1 and sensor ††
b2_1. ay senser XX , az senser XX represent the lateral and vertical mb z = KD [ze (t) − (zb − wb lD + fb sD )]
b
acceleration signals measured by sensor XX respectively   
(Figure 3). 2sD
+ KD ze t + − (zb − wb lD − fb sD )
The acceleration in the dynamic equations could be V
obtained as follows: + KD [ze (t) − (zb + wb lD + fb sD )]
  
2sD
+ KD ze t + − (zb + wb lD − fb sD )
⎧ †† ††
V
⎪
⎪ c = ay senser c 1
⎪ y y c2 = ay senser c2 1 †
⎪
⎪
† † †
+ CD [ z (t) − ( z b − wb lD + fb sD )]
⎪
⎪
††
z c = az senser c 1
††
z c2 = az senser c2 1
⎪
⎪ e
⎪
⎪ †† az senser c 1 − az senser c 2 †† az senser c2 1 − az senser c2   
⎪
⎪ wc = w c2 =
2
† 2sD † †
⎪
⎪ + CD z e t +
†
− (z b − wb lD − fb sD )
⎪
⎪ lc12 lc12
⎪ ††
⎪ †† V
⎪
⎪
⎨ b = ay senser b 1
y y b2 = ay senser b2 1
† † † †
††
z b = az senser b
††
z b2 = az senser b2 1 . + CD [ z (t) − ( z b + wb lD + fb sD )]
⎪
⎪ 1 e
⎪
⎪ †† az senser b − az senser b 3 †† a − a   
⎪
⎪ wb =
1
w b2 =
z senser b2 1 z senser b2 3
† 2sD † † †
⎪
⎪ lb13 lb13 + CD z e t + − (z b + wb lD − fb sD )
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ †† az senser b 1 − az senser b 2
†† az senser b2 1 − az senser b2 2 V
⎪
⎪ fb = f b2 =
⎪
⎪ − {KS [(zb + wb lS ) − (zc + wc lS )]
⎪
⎪
sb12 sb12
⎪
⎪ †† a 1 − ay senser b 2 †† ay senser b2 1 − ay senser b2 2
⎪
⎩ c b = y senser b c= + KS [(zb − wb lS ) − (zc − wc lS )]
sb12 b2 sb12
† † † †
(26) + CS [( z b + wb lS ) − ( z c + wc lS )]
† † † † † †
+ CS [( z b − wb lS ) − ( z c − wc lS )] + CV sin a[( z b + wb lV )
† † † † † †
The value of ze , zGLe , zGRe , zSLe , zSRe can be obtained by sol- − ( z c + wc lV )] + CV sin a[( z b − wb lV ) − ( z c − wc lV )]},
ving the six dynamic equations of the two bogies. It’s difficult (27)
to solve these transcendental equations. At the same time, in  
order to solve the dynamic model, 10 sensors should be †† 2sD
mb z = 2KD (ze (t) − zb ) + 2KD ze t + − zb
mounted in the vehicle and 14 acceleration signals should b V
be measured. The error of one acceleration signal will  
† 2sD † (28)
cause the equation results to deviate from the true value. + 2CD z e t + − z b − 2KS (zb − zc )
As the actual car body and bogies are not the rigid bodies V
as defined by the mathematical model, too many acceleration † † † †
− 2CS ( z b − z c ) − 2CV sin a( z b − z c ).
signals will amplify the difference between the actual
measured data and the mathematical calculation results This equation could be solved because there is only one vari-
and, accordingly, make a greater difference between the cal- able in the equation. The signals of the vibration displacements
culated results and the measured data. In this case, it is and velocities can be obtained by integrating the acceleration
insufficient to use this mathematical model in order to signals. It can be seen from the equation, only two acceleration
make the measured value agree with the calculated value. †† ††
signals, namely, z b and z c (calculated by the measured value
More complex models, such as the rigid-flexible coupling az senser c 1 and az senser b 1 ) are needed in this dynamic
model, are needed to make the calculation value coincide model. That means the calculation result could be much closer
with the actual data. However, it will be more difficult to to the measured data. Besides, the calculation process is much
carry out the back-calculation model of road irregularities. simplified.
Due to the difficulty of solution and large error, this dynamic This equation could be transformed into Equation (29):
model needs to be modified.
When the vehicle runs on a straight track, the pitching † 1 ††
z (t) = − { − mb z b + 2KD (ze (t) − zb )
movement of the bogie is relatively small. It exerts little e 2CD
influence on the vertical vibration of the vehicle. Therefore,      
2sD † 2sD †
its effect on the vertical acceleration signal can be neglected. + 2KD ze t + − zb + 2CD z e t + − zb
V V
As for the monorail dynamic system, the value of the side
† † † † †
slip angles of the guide wheels and stable wheels are equal − 2KS (zb − zc ) − 2CS ( z b − z c ) − 2CV sin a( z b − z c )} + z b .
to the pitching angle of the bogie. Because the pitching
(29)
vibration of the bogie is neglected in this paper, the value of
u is 0, which means the values of the side force of guide In Figure 4, integration for the acceleration signals is carried
wheels and stable wheels are 0 in this dynamic model. out to get the signals of velocities and displacements. Mod-
So, Equation (23) can be transformed into Equation (27), ules ‘1-D Look up Table1’ and ‘1-D Look up Table2’ are to
10 Y. JIANG ET AL.

Figure 4. Model of the monorail vehicle: (a) UM simulation model, (b) Topological graph of the UM simulation model.

carry out the linear interpolation for the measured data, It’s defined in Equation (31).
†† ††
1  
z (nDt0 ) and z (nDt0 ), respectively. Acceleration at the
b c ††
time ‘t’ could be obtained through the interpolation shown f (t) = − −mb z b + 2KD (ze (t) − zb )
2CD
in Equation (30).      
if (n − 1)Dt0 , t , nDt0 lD † lD †
+ 2KD ze t + − zb + 2CD z e t + − zb
⎧ †† ††
V V
⎪
⎪ †† †† z b (nDt0 ) − z b [(n − 1)Dt0 ] † †
⎪
⎪ bz (t) = z [(n − 1)Dt ] + − 2KS (zb − zc ) − 2CS (z b − z c )
⎪
⎪
b 0
Dt0
⎪
⎨
[t − (n − 1)Dt], † † †
†† ††
− 2CV sin a(z b − z c )} + z b .
⎪
⎪ z c (nDt0 ) − z c [(n − 1)Dt0 ]
⎪
⎪
†† ††
⎪ z c (t) = z c [(n − 1)Dt0 ] +
⎪ (31)
⎪
⎩ Dt0
[t − (n − 1)Dt]. In this figure, the displacement signal ze (t) is obtained through
†
(30) the integration for z (t). Through the transport delay module,
 e 
Dt0 denotes the sampling interval. The main model in Simulink lD † lD
signals ze t + and z t + could be obtained. Input
is shown in Figure 5(a). The module ‘1-D Look up Table1, 4, 2, V e V
† † †† the three variables into the dynamic Equation (31) and calcu-
3, 6’ export the signals zb zc z b z c z , respectively. The module ‘1-
b late the value of f (t). Then treat f(t) as the input signal ze (t)
D Look up Table5’ exports the force of the shock absorber. and carry out a new process.
Modules ‘Transport Delay1’ and ‘Transport Delay’ delay the
lD
input signal for a time of ; then, signals 4. Validation of the model through comparison of
  V
lD † lD theoretical value and simulated results
ze t + , z t+ are exported from the modules.
V e V
The Simulink main model is shown in Figure 5(b) and the It’s known before that the actual power spectral density of the
Simulink flowchart is shown in Figure. road irregularities obtained by inverse Fourier transform is
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING 11

Figure 5. Simulink model of the back-calculation process: (a) integration of the acceleration signals, (b) Main model of the back-calculation and (c) Flow chart of the back-
calculation.
12 Y. JIANG ET AL.
basically consistent with the theoretical value. The monorail
vehicle model is set up in the UM software as follows. Inverse
Fourier transform is performed on the power spectral density
function Sv0 (V) of the different tracks of the United States,
respectively. The theoretical value of the time response of the
road irregularities ze0 is obtained. By using it as a road exci-
†† ††
tation for the driving wheels, acceleration signals z b and z c
could be obtained. Input them into the back-calculation Simu-
link model and the simulated value of the time response of the
road irregularities ze is obtained. The power spectral density of
the road irregularities ze could be calculated as Sv (V). When the
value Sv (V) is consistent with Sv0 (V), it means the back-calcu-
lation of the road irregularities is successful.
The theoretical value and simulation value of power spectral
density of the track irregularities are shown in Figure 6. From
Figure 6. Comparison of the theoretical value and the simulated result of the track irregularity power spectral density: (a) US rail level 6, (b) US rail level 5, (c) US rail level 4.
the figure, it can be seen that the simulated values of the
power spectral density of the track irregularities are in good
agreement with the theoretical values.
Error analysis:
It can be seen from the figure that there is still a slight difference
between the simulation value and the theoretical value. Because
the process of the inverse Fourier transform will not cause
much error, there are only three possible causes:
1. As mentioned above, the pitching movement of the bogie is
neglected in the back-calculation of the road irregularities,
but it is still taken into account in the UM simulation model.
That difference will result in a slight difference between the
simulation value and the theoretical value.

2. The algorithms of the two software are different. PARK
method is an implicit solver of the second order with vari-
able step size, for stiff ODE (ordinary differential equation)
and DAE (differential algebraic equation) in the UM soft-
ware. RK4 method is the 4th order Runge–Kutta method
with a constant step size used in the Simulink model, but
the solver could not be used for DAE in the UM simulation.
If the equations of motion are stiff, the PARK method is
much more efficient both for ODE and DAE, especially
when the calculation of the Jacobian matrices option is
turned on. However, there is no such algorithm in the soft-
ware of Simulink. That difference between the algorithms
will result in a slight difference between the simulation
value and the theoretical value.
Figure 7. Comparison of the back-calculation result of the two vehicles at different speed: (a) 40 km/h, (b) 50 km/h, (c) 60 km/h, (d) 70 km/h.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING 13
3. The vehicle model set up in the UM software is much more
complicated.
However, the simulated values of the track irregularity
power spectral density are in good agreement with the theoreti-
cal values, which shows the back-calculation for the road irre-
gularities is successful.
5. Validation of the model through comparison of
experiment data
The model shall be proved correct if the track irregularity power
spectrum density calculated through the test data of the adjacent
two vehicles is consistent. According to standard ‘Interim
14 Y. JIANG ET AL.
Provisions on strength design and test identification for railway
vehicles under the speed of 200 km/h and above’ (2001), the fre-
quency range affecting the stability of bogies is 0.5–10 Hz. Band
pass filtering is applied to the measured acceleration data to get
the signals in the frequency range of 0.5–10 Hz. The experimen-
tal vehicles are the head car (motor car) and No. 2 car (trailer).
The values of mb and mc are set to be different in the dynamic
equations of the two vehicles. After the process of the back-cal-
culation in Simulink, theoretical values of the time responses of
the road irregularities according to the test data of the two
vehicles are gotten as ze1 and ze2 . The data of No. 1 car with a
time range of [t1 , t2 ] are selected for comparison. There is a
2sc
time delay of for No 2. car. So, the data of No.2 car with a
V 
2sc 2sc
time range of t1 + , t2 + are selected for comparison.
V V
The power spectral densities of ze1 and ze2 are shown as follows.
As shown in the figures, the back-calculation results of No.1 car
Figure 8. Comparison of the amplitude–frequency response of the simulated and experimental acceleration of the vehicle at different speed: (a) 40 km/h, (b) 50 km/h, (c)
60 km/h, (d) 70 km/h.
agree with that of No.2 car, which means this process is success-
ful (Figure 7).
Error analysis:
As shown in the figures, there are still some differ-
ences between the back-calculation results of two vehicles,
which were supposed to have been caused by the following
factors:
1. The influence of the wheel out of round. Wheel polygon
exists in many vehicles, including the monorail (Lv et al.
2017), which will result in the differences of calculated
data between the two vehicles.
2. Due to aging and wear of the rubber components (Wu
et al. 2015, 2016b), the real values of the parameters (Wu
and Chi 2015) are somewhat different from the theoretical
ones.
3. Measurement error. The acceleration sensor may not be
tightly attached to the surface of the object under test. A
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING 15

tiny crack can also lead to data errors. Because of manual
operation, there are some differences between the actual
mounting position of the acceleration sensor and the theor-
etical position.
4. The actual car body and bogie are not entirely rigid bodies
as shown in the back-calculation model. The vibration pro-
cess is more complicated than that of the back-calculation
model.
5. The process of band pass filtering causes the differ-
ences between the calculation result and the experiment
data.
6. As mentioned above, the pitching movement of the bogie is
neglected in the back-calculation of the road irregularities,
which also contributes to the errors.
Nevertheless, the back-calculation results of No.1 car are
consistent with that of the No.2 car, which proves the validity
of the model by comparing experimental data.
6. Validation of the model through comparison of
the experiment and the simulation
This is the most crucial step. All the errors of the previous steps
will be accumulated in this step, which will result in the great
differences between the simulation result and the experimental
data. No matter how accurate the simulation model is, it cannot
fully represent the actual process. That’s why experiments are
repeated no matter how much they cost. This process is to ver-
ify whether the simulation model can represent the actual
vehicle.
No. 2 vehicle is selected as the research object. Through
back-calculation for the experimental acceleration signals of
the car body and bogie, road excitation for the driving wheels
is obtained. By inputting the road excitation into the UM simu-
lation model, accelerations of the car body and bogie are simu-
lated. When the simulated result of the acceleration is
consistent with the experimental data, it means the back-calcu-
lation is precise enough.

Figure 9. Comparison of the amplitude–frequency response of the simulated and experimental acceleration of the bogie at different speed: (a) 40 km/h, (b) 50 km/h, (c)
60 km/h, (d) 70 km/h.
16 Y. JIANG ET AL.

The experimental sampling frequency is 2000Hz, but the 8. Conclusion

UM simulation model only allows for a sampling frequency
Because the monorail track beams hang high in the air above
of 100 Hz, so it is necessary to resample the experimental
the ground, it is extremely hard and dangerous to measure
data. The resample equation is shown as follows:
road irregularities for monorail. In order to establish a
   more accurate simulation model to reflect the actual working
†† †† (k − 1)f1
z (k) = z round +1 conditions, this paper introduces a back-calculation method
2 1 f2 (32) for road excitation of the monorail. Dynamic equations are
(k = 1, 2, 3 . . . ). set up in this paper. However, there exist many difficulties
in solving these transcendental equations. Besides, in order
††
In this equation, z 1 substitutes for the measured acceleration to solve the dynamic model, 10 sensors are needed to be
†† mounted in the vehicle and 14 acceleration signals need to
data; z 2 , the resampled acceleration data. f1 , f2 represent
be measured. As is known to all, even if the vehicle is
their respective frequency. The function round(x) is the round-
under the same road excitation, due to differences between
ing process for x.
the real vehicle structure, the multi-rigid body model and
In many types of research, the accuracy verification method
the mathematical expressions, acceleration results of simu-
to verify the accuracy of the simulation model is to verify
lation and experiment are different. If there are too many
whether the amplitude–frequency response of the simulation
acceleration parameters in the back-calculation formula,
results is consistent with the experimental data. Comparison
errors of each acceleration signal will accumulate into the
between simulation result and the experimental data of the
†† back-calculation result and make a large error. By neglecting
car body acceleration z c is shown as follows:
the subtle influence of the pitching angle on the vertical accel-
The comparison between simulation result and the
†† eration of the bogies, this dynamic model is greatly sim-
experimental data of the bogie acceleration z b is shown as
plified. Only two acceleration signals are needed in this
follows:
dynamic model, which means the calculation result could
Theoretically speaking, the experiment data and simulation
be much closer to the measured data. Besides, the calculation
data should be the same. However, errors in each step have
process is much simplified.
inevitably resulted in some differences. As can be seen, the
In order to validate the model in the simulation process, the
amplitudes and main frequencies of Figure 8 and Figure 9 are
monorail vehicle model is set up in the UM software. The
similar, which means the simulation is accurate enough. Differ-
inverse Fourier transform, with its advantages of less errors,
ences between the two results could be caused by the following
faster operation speed and better generality over other methods
factors.
like the white noise filtering method, secondary filtering
Error analysis:
method and trigonometric series method, is adopted to get
the simulated road irregularities. The simulated power spectral
1. Differences among the back-calculation model in Simulink,
density of road irregularities could be calculated through the
UM simulation model and the real vehicle structure will
back-calculation for simulated accelerations. In spite of the
result in simulation errors.
differences between the back-calculation model and the UM
2. The resample process will cause errors.
simulation model, differences between the algorithms of the
3. Errors in the process of inverse Fourier transform are accu-
two software and the error of the inverse Fourier transform,
mulated in this step.
the back-calculation result of power spectral density of road
4. Errors in comparing the theoretical value and the simulated
irregularities is consistent with the theoretical value, which
result also exist in this step.
shows the simplification of the back-calculation model doesn’t
5. Errors in comparison of experiment data of different
result in a large error. Through comparing the back-calculation
vehicles also exist in this step.
results of the two vehicles in a monorail, it is proved that this
6. Due to aging and wear of rubber components, real values of
method can be applied to experiments accurately. The final
parameters somewhat differ from theoretical ones.
and the most crucial step is the validation of the model by com-
7. Model application field
paring the experiment and the simulation. All the errors of the
previous steps will be accumulated in this step and result in the
According to the standard Department of Science and
differences between the simulation result and the experimental
Technology Education (2001), the frequency range of
data. Through the back-calculation of the experimental accel-
vibration affecting the stability of bogies is 0.5–10 Hz. Band
eration signals of the car body and bogie, road excitation for
pass filtering is applied to the measured acceleration data
the driving wheels is obtained. By inputting the road excitation
to get the signals in the frequency range of 0.5–10 Hz. This
into the UM simulation model, the accelerations of the car
proves that the model is valid only in low frequencies. How-
body and bogie are obtained. When the simulated result of
ever, as for the vibration in high frequencies, the rigid multi-
the acceleration agrees with the experimental data, it means
body dynamic model is not precise enough. Each component
the back-calculation is precise enough.
of the vehicle needs to be considered as a flexible body. In
Band pass filtering is applied to the measured acceleration
order to get more precise data, a much more complicated
data to get the signals in the frequency range of 0.5–10 Hz
model and more test parameters are needed. In spite of
according to the standard ‘interim provisions on strength
that, this model is good enough for the study of vehicle
design and test identification for railway vehicles under the
stability.

speed of 200 km/h and above’, which shows that the model can
be valid only in low frequencies. However, as for the vibration
in high frequencies, the rigid multibody dynamics model is not
precise enough. Differences between the back-calculation
model in Simulink, UM simulation model and the real vehicle
structure should be taken into account.
It could be noticed in the paper that the deformation of the
girder deformation is excluded, If the girder deformation was
considered, the vehicle–bridge coupling dynamics should be
carried out and the FE model of the bridge should be set up.
With this complicated model set up, there would be too
many more signals to be measured. Errors of each signal will
accumulate into the back-calculation result and make a large
error. In fact, unlike the suspended monorail girder, defor-
mation of the straddle type monorail girder is relatively
small. Theoretically speaking, neglecting the effect of the defor-
mation can somewhat cause errors, though more large errors
could be avoided in actual tests. The effect of other factors
like an earthquake (Wu et al. 2016a) is also neglected.
Nevertheless, this model is accurate enough for researches of
vehicle stability.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This work was supported by National Key R& D Program of China [grant
number 2016YFB1200501, 2017YFB1201304-13
ORCID
Yongzhi Jiang http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7449-2325
References
Abdulhameed, D.O., Abdelrahim, A.B., and Dessouki, A.K., 2015.
Proposed design model for singly-symmetric overhanging monorail I-
beams. Journal of Constructional Steel Research, 115, 346–358.
Bai, L., Liu, R., and Sun, Q., 2015. Markov-based model for the prediction
of railway track irregularities. Proceedings of the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers Part F – Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit, 229,
150–159.
Bao, Y., Li, Y., and Ding, J., 2016. A case study of dynamic response analy-
sis and safety assessment for a suspended monorail system.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,
13, 1121–1138.
Cai, C., et al., 2019. Dynamic interaction of suspension-type monorail
vehicle and bridge: numerical simulation and experiment. Mechanical
Systems and Signal Processing, 118, 388–407.
Chen, G., and Zhai, W., 1999. Numerical simulation of the stochastic pro-
cess of railway track irregularities. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong
University, 34, 138–142.
Choi, C.K., and Song, M.K., 2000. Analysis of high-speed vehicle-bridge
interactions. Computer Engineering, 1240–1247.
Department of Science and Technology Education, 2001. Interim
provisions on strength design and test identification for railway vehicles
under the speed of 200 km/h and above, People’s Republic of China
Railway Ministry, 21, 1–47.
Du, Z., Wen, X., and Zhao, D., 2017. Numerical analysis of partial abrasion
of the straddle type monorail vehicle running tyre. Transactions of
Famena, 41, 99–112.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAVEMENT ENGINEERING 17
Gou, H., Zhou, W., and Yang, C., 2018. Dynamic response of a long-span
concrete-filled steel tube tied arch bridge and the riding comfort of
monorail trains. Applied Sciences-Basel, 8, 1–22.
Jia, C., Xu, W., and Wei, L., 2013. Study of railway track irregularity
standard deviation time series based on data mining and linear
model. Mathematical Problems in Engineering. DOI: 10.1155/2013/
486738.
Jiang, Y., et al., 2018. Comparison of the curve negotiation properties of two
different articulated monorail vehicles. Proceedings of the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers, Part F: Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit.
Jiang, Y., et al., 2019a. Detection and alleviation of the abnormal vibration
of the monorail: based on experiment and simulation. Journal of Low
Frequency Noise Vibration and Active Control, DOI: 10.1177/
1461348419825605.
Jiang, Y., et al., 2019b. Multi-parameter and multi-objective optimisation
of articulated monorail vehicle system dynamics using genetic algor-
ithm. Vehicle System Dynamics, DOI:10.1080/00423114.2019.156655.
Jiang, Y., Wang, Y., and Xie, Q., 2015. Scheme and analysis of a kind of
suspended monorail’s bogie structure. Electric Drive for Locomotives,
6, 56–59.
Jiang, Y., Wang, Y., and Xie, Q., 2017. Analysis of the dynamics and sta-
tionarity of suspend monorail. Urban Mass Transit, 4, 97–100.
Kim, Y.S., et al., 2008. Dynamic model for ride comfort evaluations of the
rubber-tired light rail vehicle. Vehicle System Dynamics, 46, 1061–1082.
Kim, C.W., and Kawatani, M., 2006. Effect of train dynamics on seismic
response of steel monorail bridges under moderate ground motion.
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 35, 1225–1245.
Kim, C.W., Kawatani, M., and Kanbara, T., 2013. Seismic behavior of steel
monorail bridges under train load during strong earthquakes. Journal of
Earthquake and Tsunami, 7, 1–17.
Law, S.S., and Zhu, X.Q., 2005. Bridge dynamic responses due to road sur-
face roughness and braking of vehicle. Journal of Sound and Vibration,
282, 805–830.
Lee, C.H., et al., 2005. Dynamic response analysis of monorail bridges
under moving trains and riding comfort of trains. Engineering
Structures, 27, 1999–2013.
Lee, C.H., Kawatani, M., and Kim, C.W., 2006. Dynamic response of a
monorail steel bridge under a moving train. Journal of Sound and
Vibration, 294, 562–579.
Li, C., 2016. Design of the lower chassis of a monorail personal rapid tran-
sit (MPRT) car using the evolutionary structural optimization (ESO)
method. Structural & Multidisciplinary Optimization, 54, 1–11.
Lin, L., 1982. Track random excitation functions. China Railway Science, 3,
74–112.
Lombaert, G., and Conte, J.P., 2012. Random vibration analysis of dynamic
vehicle-bridge interaction due to road unevenness. Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, 138, 816–825.
Lv, K., et al., 2017. Influence of wheel eccentricity on vertical vibration of
suspended monorail vehicle, experiment and simulation. Shock and
Vibration, 2017, 1–10.
Ma, Z., Dong, Y., and Liu, H., 2018. Forecast of non-equal interval track
irregularity based on improved grey model and PSO-SVM. IEEE
ACCESS, 6, 34812–34818.
Moghimi, H., and Ronagh, H.R., 2008. Development of a numerical model
for bridge–vehicle interaction and human response to traffic-induced
vibration. Engineering Structures, 30, 3808–3819.
Muller, S., 1978. Engineering operation and state of development of the H-
Bahn system. Siemens Review, 45, 523–527.
Naeimi, M., Tatari, M., and Esmaeilzadeh, A., 2015. Dynamic interaction
of the monorail–bridge system using a combined finite element multi-
body-based model. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, Part K: Journal of Multi-body Dynamics, 229, 132–151.
Nassif, H.H., 2003. Model validation for bridge-road-vehicle dynamic inter-
action system. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 8, 112–120.
Perrin, G., Soize, C., and Duhamel, D., 2013. Track irregularities stochastic
modeling. Probabilistic Engineering Mechanics, 34, 123–130.
Pu, Q., et al., 2015. Bogie of hanged-type monorail vehicle. Electric Drive
for Locomotives, 2, 90–93.
Tsunashima, H., 2003. Dynamics of automated guideway transit vehicle
with single-axle bogies. Vehicle System Dynamics, 39, 365–397.
18 Y. JIANG ET AL.
Wang, F., 2009. Vehicle system dynamics. China Railway Publishing House,
15–19.
Wang, L., Kang, X., and Jiang, P., 2016. Vibration analysis of a multi--
span continuous bridge subject to complex traffic loading and vehicle
dynamic interaction. Journal of Civil Engineering, 20, 323–332.
Wang, N., and Wang, F., 2015. Prediction for track irregularity based
on gray interval prediction model. Railway Computer Application, 24,
1–3.
Wang, H., and Zhu, E., 2018. Dynamic response analysis of monorail steel-
concrete composite beam-train interaction system considering slip
effect. Engineering Structures, 160, 257–269.
Wei, L., Zeng, J., and Wu, P., 2014. Indirect method for wheel-rail force
measurement and derailment evaluation. Vehicle System Dynamics,
52, 1622–1641.
Wen, X., et al., 2017. The coupling dynamic model and vibration response
of straddle type monorail vehicle. Journal of Vibration, Measurement &
Diagnosis, 37, 462–468.
Wu, X. and Chi, M., 2015. Parameters study of Hopf bifurcation in railway
vehicle system. Journal of Computational and Nonlinear Dynamics, 10,
031012.
Wu, X., Chi, M., and Gao, H., 2016a. Post-derailment dynamic behaviour
of a high-speed train under earthquake excitations. Engineering Failure
Analysis, 64, 97–110.
Wu, X., Chi, M., and Gao, H., 2016b. Damage tolerances of a railway axle
in the presence of wheel polygonalizations. Engineering Failure
Analysis, 66, 44–59.
Wu, X., Chi, M., and Wu, P., 2015. Influence of polygonal wear of railway
wheels on the wheel set axle stress. Vehicle System Dynamics, 53, 1535–1554.
Xiao, T., et al., 2015. Dynamic simulation of hanged-type monorail vehicle.
Electric Drive for Locomotives, 2, 10–13.
Xu, L., Zhai, W., and Gao, J., 2017. A probabilistic model for track random
irregularities in vehicle/track coupled dynamics. Applied Mathematical
Modelling, 51, 145–158.
Xu L., Zhai, W., and Li, Z., 2018. A coupled model for train-track-bridge
stochastic analysis with consideration of spatial variation and temporal
evolution. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 63, 709–731.
Zhang, L., et al., 2016. The influence of vehicle–tire contact force area on
vehicle–bridge dynamic interaction. Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, 43, 769–772.
Zhang, N., and Xia, H., 2013. Dynamic analysis of coupled vehicle–bridge
system based on inter-system iteration method. Computers & Structure,
114–115, 26–34.
Zhong, J., 2013. The structure and analysis of the turnout of the straddle
type monorail vehicle. Beijing: China Communications Press.
Zhou, J., 2005. Research of Chong Qing straddle-type monorail vehicle’s ride
index. Thesis (Master). Beijing Jiaotong University.