Vehicle System Dynamics

ISSN: 0042-3114 (Print) 1744-5159 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/nvsd20

A Comparison of Alternative Creep Force Models

for Rail Vehicle Dynamic Analysis

Z. Y. SHEN, J. K. HEDRICK & J. A. ELKINS Manager of Test Design

To cite this article: Z. Y. SHEN, J. K. HEDRICK & J. A. ELKINS Manager of Test Design (1983)
A Comparison of Alternative Creep Force Models for Rail Vehicle Dynamic Analysis, Vehicle
System Dynamics, 12:1-3, 79-83, DOI: 10.1080/00423118308968725

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00423118308968725

Published online: 27 Jul 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 772

View related articles

Citing articles: 87 View citing articles

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nvsd20
 IAVSD EXTENSIVE SUMMARIES 79

A Comparison of Alternative Creep Force Models for Rail Vehicle Dynamic Analysis

Z. Y. SHEN*, J. K. HEDRICKa*, and J. A. ELKINS***

Creep (friction) forces play an essential role in determining the lateral dynamic perfor-
mance of rail vehicles. Lateral stability (hunting), ride quality or lading damage, wheel
climb derailments, and wheelhail wear are all directly affected by the creep forces that
occur in the contact patch between the wheel and rail. It is clearly important that any
mathematical model whose aim it is to predict lateral rail vehicle performance have an
accurate creep force representation. The many works of Kalker (summarized in ref. [I])
have laid the groundwork for most steel wheel/steel rail creep force models. Kalker's
theories range from the linear theory (creep force linearly proportional to creepage), to the
simplified theory (tangential displacement difference proportional to the tangential trac-
tion) to the "exact" numerical theories. The linear theory can be expressed as:

where F,, Fyare the longitudinal and lateral creep forces in the contact plane, a, b are the
semi-major and minor axes of the contact ellipse, G is the modulus of rigidity, v,, v,, and 4
are the longitudinal, lateral and spin creepage and C I I ,Cz2,and Cz3are the cr-ep
coefficients that have been tabulated (ref. [I]). Clearly equations (1) and (2) are very
convenient for dynamic analysis but do not include the saturation effect of all friction
forces, i.e., F R I p N . In many situations, e.g., curve negotiation, the inclusion of the
saturation effect is critical. Numerical programs incorporating the simplified theory (e.g.
FASTSIM) are available as are those incorporating the "exact" theory (e.g. DUVOROL).
The question of which creep force model to use for which application has been of interest
to analysts for many years, the trade-off being computation time versus accuracy. Another
issue which confuses the issue is that of experimental verification of the creep force laws.
Excellent agreement between Duvorol and experiment has been reported for uncontamina-
ted surfaces, however, reasonably large discrepancies can exist for contaminated rail [2]
that is usually seen in practice. These discrepancies have led many analysts to reduce the
linear creep coefficients (eq. (1) and (2) by 50% to account for contamination. Ref. [3]
introduces a correction factor of to DUVOROL to make the "creep coefficients" for
small creepages proportional to p (the local coefficient of friction). The great dispersion
of measured "creep coefficients" as well as of measured coefficients of friction has led
many analysts to conclude that the design of a rail vehicle should not be overly sensitive
t o their numerical values. The questions to be addressed by this paper is what is the
simplest "saturation" creep force law that incorporates the essential nonlinear behavior
required to predict the lateral dynamic behavior of rail vehicles.

Southwestern Jiatong University, Emei, Sichuan, China now visiting scholar at MIT.
** Mechanical Engineering Department, MIT, Cambridge. MA USA.
*** Manager of Test Design, Evaluation ans Analysis, AAR, Pueblo, Colorado, USA.
 Z. Y. SHEN. J. K. HEDRICK and J. A. ELKINS

Alternative Models
The following creep force models will be considered:
(I) The "exact" numerical method incorporated in the program DUVOROL [4] has
been placed in table form (for a / b I 10) by British Rail [3].
(2) The simplified theory of rolling contact method incorporated in the program
FASTSIM [5].
(3) A "heuristic" creep force model based on the cubic saturation law of Vermeulen and
Johnson [6]but including the influence of spin [7] can be expressed by:
.
F,, = F, e (3)

FyNL= FY - e (4)
where F,,, Fy, are the nonlinear longitudinal and lateral creep forces and e is given by:

for FA < 3pN

where Fl; is the linear resultant creep force and Nis the normal force to the contact plane.

Numerical Force Comparisons

In order to compare the calculated results on a single graph a normalized creepage factor
was defined to be:

another normalized factor indicative of the amount of spin was defined to be:

F'
Figures 1-3 are plots of L vs T for various ranges of a where FRis the nonlinear resultant
WN
creep force. The numerical results shown in the figures were computed for constant
patch geometry (a = 4mm, b = 2mm), constant wheel load ( N = 55,000N) constant
coefficient of friction (p = .3) and assuming "100%" Kalker values, i.e. the Cv
coefficient were not reduced. Figure 1 shows that for small spin (a < 10%) the maximum
error for r S 3.0 is 10%. F o r the case of intermediate spin (10% < a < 35%) Figure 2
shows that the agreement is within 12% and for the case of severe spin (35% < a < 70%)
Figure 3 shows that the three methods agree to within 18%.

Steady State Curving Analysis.

Figures 1, 2, and 3 clearly show that as the relative amount of spin increases the
differences in the three methods increase. Two interesting questions remain to be
answered:
 1 AVSD EXTENSlVE SUMMARlES 81

0.8-

Heuristic Model (01 -8-

b
2.0

"Duvorol" (A) U = .3

N - 55000 N

2 0
0.2 0.4 0.6

Fig. 1 . Creep Force/Creepage, with a (spin) < 10%

0.8 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
82 Z. Y. SHEN, J . K. HEDRICK and J. A. ELKINS

H e u r i s t i c Model ( 0 )

N = 55000 N

Fig.3. Creep Force/Creepage. with a (spin) > 35%, < 70%.

(1) What range of CI (spin) typically occurs in rail vehicle analyses.

(2) If large a does occur how important are the force discrepancies to the prediction of
typical performance indices, e.g., lateral flange forces, angle of attack and wear indices.
In order to address these questions the three previously described creep force models
will be used to predict these performance indices for a single wheelset in a steady state
curving condition. The equilibrium model described in ref. [8] calculates the lateral
force and yaw moment required to keep the wheelset in equilibrium for specified lateral
and yaw displacement. The model includes both single point two point contact condi-
tions. The numerical results incorporating the three creep force models will be included in
the complete paper.

REFERENCES

1. Kalker, J. J.: "Survey of Wheel-Rail Rolling Contact Theory," Vehicle Sysrem Dynamics 5, 1979, pp. 317-358.
2. Gilchrist, A. 0.:
"The Effect of Surface Condition in Rolling Contact Behavior,'' British Rail Research
Department, Derby, U.K., 1978.
3. Elkins. J. A. and Elckoff. B. M.:. "Advances in Nonlinear Wheel Rail Prediction Methods and Their
Validation," Trans. ASME. Journal of Dynamic Sysrems. Measuremenr and Control, Vol. 104, No. 2,
June, 1982.
4. Kalker, J. J.: "The Computation of Three Dimensional Rolling Contact With Dry Friclion," Int. J. for
Numerical Methods in Engineering. Vol. 14, 1979.
5. Kalker. J . J.: "A Fast Algorithm for the Simplified Theory of Rolling Contact," Vehicle System Dynamics, I I
(1982). pp. 1-13.
6. Vermeulen, P. J , and Johnson, K. L.: "Contact of Nonspherical Elastic Bodies Transmitting Tangential
Forces." J. of Applied Mechanics. Vol. 86. 1964, pp. 338-340.
 I A V S D E X T E N S IV E S U M M A R I E S 83

7. Hedrick, J. K.;Wormley, D . N.; Arslan, A. V, and Chin, R.: "Nonlinear Analysisand Design Tools for Rail
Vehicles: Nonlinear Locomotive Dynamics," A. A. R. Report R-463. December. 1980.
8. Nagurka, M. L.; Bell, C . E.; Hedrick, J. K. and Wormley, D. N.: "Computational Methods for Rail Vehicle
Steady State Curving Analysis," ASME monograph, Computo~ionolMethodsin Ground Transportation
Vehicles, AMD-Vol. 50. 1982.

The Influence of Rail Head Geometry and Cant Angle Variations

on Rail Vehicle Dynamics

NEIL K. COOPERRIDER* and QUIKYONG HE**

Variations in rail head geometry and cant angle along the direction of travel can subject rail
vehicles to strong disturbances. These rail head variations affect the contact points on the
wheel and rail and consequently change the wheel-rail geometric constraint functions and
the wheel-rail force laws. Rolling line offset variations caused by changes in rail head
geometry, for example, can introduce disturbance equal in magnitude to the lateral rail
aligment irregularites [I, 21. In addition, these cross-sectional geometry variations affect the
creep coefficients and the wheelset conicity with consequences for vehicle stability and
curving performance.
Rail head shape and angular orientation variations will cause changes in both the
character and the position of the rolling radius difference, contact angle difference and
wheelset roll angle geometric constraints functions. For symmetric wheelsets and rail head
geometry, these functions will be odd-symmetric with the equilibrium position of the
wheelset centered between the rails. If the rail head geometry on one side varies, the position
of equal rolling radii and equal angles between wheel and rail will, in general, be offset from
the rail centerline. Variation in the rail head geometry will also cause changes in the
wheelset conicity and creep coefficients on left and right wheels.
While the importance of rail head geometry variations has been established in measure-
ments made in Great Britain [I], West Germany [2], and the United States [3], a study to
determine the relative importance of geometry and cant angle has not been undertaken.
The study reported in this paper was designed to answer questions about the influence of
rail head geometry and orientation on rail vehicle dynamic performance.

Approach
The direct effect of rail head variations on the wheel-rail contact mechanics is evaluated
through analysis of the wheel-rail geometric constraints for various rail and wheel geo-
metries. In this study, the following parameters were varied:
1. Rail head cant angles on the left and right were varied over a range from-0.25 toS0.075
radians.
2. Four rail head profile geometries were studied: a new, as specified North American 133

Mechanical a n d Aerospace Engineering Department. Arizone State University, Tempe, Arizona.

** Visiting Faculty Associate, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department, and Research Engineer,
Institute of Locomotives and Vehicles, China Academy of Railway Sciences, Beijing, People's Republic of China.