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

net/publication/356208866

SIMULATION METHODS FOR PANTOGRAPH-CATENARY DYNAMIC

INTERACTION

Chapter · January 2016

CITATIONS READS

2 135

2 authors:

Paweł Zdziebko T. Uhl

AGH University of Science and Technology in Kraków AGH University of Science and Technology in Kraków
27 PUBLICATIONS 94 CITATIONS 476 PUBLICATIONS 4,999 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Paweł Zdziebko on 15 November 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 SIMULATION METHODS FOR
PANTOGRAPH-CATENARY
DYNAMIC INTERACTION

PAWEŁ ZDZIEBKO1, TADEUSZ UHL1

1
Katedra Robotyki i Mechatroniki AGH
Al. Mickiewicza 30, budynek D-1, 30-059 Kraków
zdziebko@agh.edu.pl, uhl@agh.edu.pl,

ABSTRACT

In this paper authors present three different approaches for the numerical
analysis of the pantograph-catenary dynamic interaction, including simplified
model, catenary model based on the Modal Superposition and the pure Finite
Elements catenary model. Results comparison of above mentioned methods
was performed according to the European Standard EN 50318.

1. Introduction

Adequate interaction of components of high-speed trains and the railway

infrastructure is a crucial factor for reliability and safety of railways [1]. One
of the important railway subsystems is a pantograph-catenary interface. A
pantograph mechanism is mounted on a roof of a train and is involved in
conduction of the electric energy from the overhead contact line (OHL) to a
train. The most basic form of the catenary consists of three important
components: a contact wire, a messenger wire and droppers. Scheme of this
subsystem is presented in the Fig. 1. When operating speeds of trains are still
increasing, there are more aspects crucial in the view of this phenomenon,
which are not that important for conventional-speed trains (e.g. wave
propagation in the catenary structure and aerodynamic forces exerted on the
pantograph). Thus, there is a need for analysis and adjustment of the
pantograph-catenary system to guarantee constant contact between the contact
strip of the pantograph and the contact wire for high-speed trains. Therefore,
many researchers focus on numerical models of this phenomenon, that could
1
help to determine the contact force in this vibrating subsystem. Numerical
models help to determine the contact force and other output parameters (like
uplift of contact wire), which are difficult and expensive to measure in real
runs.

Messenger wire
Span
Dropper

Catenary

Contact wire
Pantograph

Fig. 1. The pantograph-catenary system.

In this paper three methods for simulating the pantograph-catenary dynamic

interaction of varied complexity were compared: the simplified model of the
pantograph-catenary system, the catenary model based on the modal
superposition with the lumped parameters model of the pantograph, and the
catenary model based on Finite Elements and the lumped parameters model of
the pantograph. Due to the lack of experimental results, the validation was
carried out according to the PN EN 50318 European Standard, which describes
the reference model of the pantograph-catenary system and results ranges to be
met for this model. The simplified model was commonly presented in the
literature, e.g. [2][3][4], because it is computationally efficient. The Finite
Element Method (FEM) was adopted to solve this nonlinear, transient system
in the most recent papers, e.g. [5][6][7]. The Superposition Method (SM) was
also presented in the literature recently, e.g. [8][9]. The goal of this work is to
compare above mentioned simulation methods for simulating the pantograph-
catenary dynamic interaction with high speed runs. The paper is organised in
the following way; chapter 2 describes the validation procedure according to
the PN EN 50318 European Standard, chapters 3-5 describe simulation
methods adopted in this comparison, chapter 6. presents results and chapter 7.
summarizes and concludes the paper.

2. Validation of simulation methods

The comparison of selected simulation methods for the pantograph-catenary

dynamic interaction was carried out for the reference (exemplary) pantograph

2
and catenary presented by the European Standard EN50318:2002. This
document was released by the European Commission in the reference to the
Interoperability Directive 96/48/EC. The EN50318 Norm describes the
validation of the simulation of the dynamic interaction between pantograph
and OHL. The first step of validation consists of assessment of results obtained
in the adopted simulation approach for the reference pantograph-catenary
model, which is described in this norm. It takes into account one dimensional,
lumped parameters model of the pantograph and a multidimensional model of
catenary spans with appropriate mechanical parameters. The adopted model of
pantograph consists of two lumped masses connected with spring-damper
elements. The static contact force exerted by the collector strip of the
pantograph on the contact cable is equal to 120N. Aerodynamic forces are
neglected. OHL consists of the messenger wire, 9 droppers per each span,
single contact wire and registration arms. 10 identical spans should be
modelled including the stagger (±200mm) of the OHL. The contact wire is
lifted by droppers and registration arms. Nonlinear character of droppers
should be taken into account in the model (slackening of droppers). Precise
description of the reference model is provided by the European Standard [10].
Simulations shall be carried out for two speeds of the pantograph run:
250km/h and 300km/h. Obtained results of the contact force and uplift at
support have to be within the reference ranges presented in Tab. 1.

Tab. 1. Reference ranges of results for the reference model [10].

Speed (km/h) 250 300

Mean contact force [N] 110-120 110-120
Standard deviation of contact force
26-31 32-40
[N] σ
Statistical maximum of contact
190-210 210-230
force:
Statistical minimum of contact
20-40 (-5)-20
force:
Actual maximum of contact force
175-210 190-225
[N]
Actual minimum of contact force
50-75 30-55
[N]
Maximum uplift at supports [mm] 48-55 55-65
Percentage contact loss [%] 0 0

If the results obtained for the adopted simulation approach are not within the
reference ranges given in [10], then the simulation method shall be rejected.

3
 3. Simplified model

The simplified model of the pantograph-catenary dynamic interaction

simplifies the catenary influence on the pantograph to the stiffness which is
varying in time (represents the pantograph run along spans of the catenary).
The pantograph and the catenary were modelled as a discrete mass-spring-
damper lumped models. In this type of model, it is usually considered that the
pantograph head does not disconnect from contact line. The scheme of adopted
simplified model is presented in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2. Simplified pantograph-catenary model.

Above mentioned system is described by following equations of motion

(Equation 1).

(1)

Above system of equations was derived with the use of the Matlab/Simulink
software. To determine the stiffness variation, authors decided to build the
Finite Element (FE) model of the catenary structure After building the model
of the initial configuration of the catenary, its stiffness variation was
determined. The stiffness was calculated as the relationship between the force
(F=120N) exerted on the contact wire and the displacement of the contact wire
under the action of this force. This procedure was repeated for each nodes (60
points) along the middle span (to reduce the impact of boundary conditions) to
get the stiffness variation along one span (60m). The Fig. 3 presents the
stiffness variation along the span, which was used to design vectors of stiffness
variability with respect to speeds 250km/h and 300km/h - .

4
 Fig. 3. Stiffness along the span.

4. Model based on the Modal Superposition Method

The simulation approach based on the Modal Superposition Method (MSM) to

represent the pliancy of the catenary structure was discussed by Authors in
[8][9]. In brief, in this approach only several vibration modes are taken onto
account to represent vibrations of spans induced by the passing pantograph.
The adopted algorithm for preparing the model of the pantograph and catenary
system adopted for this approach is presented in the
Fig. 4.

Finite Element Model of Modal analysis Modal Neutral File

the catenary according to of the catenary
PN EN 50318:
-geometry
-pretension Import as Flexible
-gravity
Body
MSC.Adams
MultiBody Model of the Execution of the
pantograph according to Import pantograph–catenary
PN EN 50318 dynamic simulation

Fig. 4. Algorithm adopted for MSM.

5
The software for FE analysis (MSC.Nastran) was used here to determine
normal modes of the catenary span, which were important to import catenary
spans into the Multibody Dynamics System software (MSC.Adams) as the
flexible structure. Above mentioned approach reduces the number of degrees
of freedom in comparison with the pure FE model of the pantograph-catenary
system, which reduces the computation time.

5. Model based on the Finite Element Method

In this approach, pantograph and catenary were represented by FE. The model
presented here was solved with the use of MSC.Nastran Sol400 solver. To
reduce number of degrees of freedom, 1-D elements were used. Force exerted
by the collector strip of the pantograph introduces a bending moment in the
contact wire, therefore beam elements (CBEAM) were used to model the
contact wire. In spite of the fact, that the bending component can be neglected
in the messenger wire (which mainly operates in tension), beam elements were
also used for the messenger wire modelling. Gap elements were used to model
droppers, which connect contact and messenger wire (CGAP). Slackening of
droppers was also introduced, so they have high stiffness for tension and
almost zero for compression (nonlinear behaviour). Gap elements allow for
shortening of elements, which is necessary to determine the initial equilibrium
of the catenary structure (this was done in the iterative procedure), to provide
zero pre-sag – iterative static steps were calculated to achieve appropriate
initial state of the catenary.

1. Building the FE model of the catenary Droppers

STATIC

2. Static analysis including: length

a. Pre-tension tuning
b. Gravity
3. Is the pre-sag value appropriate?
YES NO

4. Pantograph rise up, Fstatic=120N STATIC

5. Analysis of the pantograph run with DIRECT

TRANSIENT
the seed of 250km/h and 300km/h
RESPONCE

Fig. 5. Algorithm of the Finite Element analysis.

6
Rod elements (CROD) were used to model registration arms. Length of
elements used for the catenary modelling is an important factor in terms of
obtained results. Detailed description of above mentioned elements is
presented in the reference [11]. In the adopted simulation model, elements
with the length of 500-650mm were used to model carrier and contact wires,
and single elements were used for droppers and registration arms. The
interaction between the pantograph strip and the contact wire was
implemented by means of the beam-to-beam contact which is available in the
MSC.Nastran solver (see [12]). The view of the prepared FE model is
presented in the Fig. 6. To solve equations of motion of this dynamic system
(in the Direct Transient Responce step), the Generalized Alpha Operator
algorithm was adopted here, with the spectral radius s = 0.5 (see [12]). The
step size equal to 0.001s was implemented in the transient step of the
simulation.

Fig. 6. The view of the FE pantograph-catenary model.

7
 6. Results

In order to compare selected simulation methods for the pantograph-catenary

dynamic interaction, appropriate numerical models were prepared. All of them
represented the same reference pantograph-catenary system, whose parameters
were consistent with the PN EN 50318 European Standard. Derived signals of
the contact force were low-pass filtered with the cut off frequency of 20Hz
according to the PN EN 50318. The statistical analysis of the contact force was
limited to two middle spans (span no. 5. and 6.). Following figures present the
contact force signals (actual and filtered) for the pantograph run with the speed
of 250 and 300 km/h, which were designated from FEM model.

Fig. 7. Contact force and uplift at supports, V=250km/h.

8
 Fig. 8. Contact force and uplift at supports, V=300km/h.

On the basis of above figures (Fig. 7 and Fig. 8), some typical trends of the
variability of the contact force can be noticed. Starting from the first support
inside the analysis section (at the level where the Support 1 reaches
maximum), the contact force reaches its minimum in about ¼ of the length of
the span and then gradually increases while the pantograph passes along the
span, then reaches a maximum value in about ¾ of the length of the span.
Next, the contact force again decreases progressively and pantograph reaches
the next registration arm and starts the run along another span, and the cycle
starts again. It can be observed also, that maximum of uplifts at supports are
placed exact when the pantograph passes the supports. The model includes the
wave propagation phenomenon, as demonstrated by the vibrations of
Support 1,2 and 3, which were noted before the pantograph passes these
points.

9
 Tab. 2. Comparison results, speed V=250km/h.

Reference Simplified Superposition FEM

Speed (km/h) 250
Mean contact force
[N] 110-120 119.7 115.9 119.2

Standard deviation of
contact force [N] 26-31 23.5 22 27.3
σ
Statistical maximum
of contact force: 190-210 190.2 182 201.2

Statistical minimum of
contact force: 20-40 49.1 49.8 37.4

Actual maximum of
175-210 171.5 188.3 182.5
contact force [N]
Actual minimum of
50-75 67.2 68.5 61.0
contact force [N]
Maximum Support 1 20.1 39.2 50.2
uplift at Support 2 48-55 20.1 39.3 49.4
supports
[mm] Support 3 20.1 39.3 52.4
Percentage contact
0 0 0 0
loss [%]

Tab. 2 and Tab. 3 present the comparison results of selected simulation

methods and reference ranges of results. The sign  indicates that the
parameter is within the reference ranges. It can be easy noticed, that all
parameters fulfil the reference ranges for the FEM model. The simplified
model generates loo low uplifts at supports comparing to reference ranges.
Also some of other parameters are outside the reference values for this model.
For the SM model observations are similar, but uplifts at supports are ca. 2
times greater, but still below reference values. For all models, in the simulation
with the speed of 300km/h higher values of uplifts at supports were observed
comparing to the run with the speed of 250km//h.
To sum up, the FEM model was recognized as the most accurate model and
only one, which fulfils all reference ranges of the PN EN 50318 for reference
model.

10
 Tab. 3. Comparison results, speed V=300km/h.

Reference Simplified Superposition FEM

Speed (km/h) 300
Mean contact force
[N] 110-120 119.7 115.8 119.0

Standard deviation of
contact force [N] 32-40 35.2 32.0 34.6
σ
Statistical maximum
of contact force: 210-230 225.4 211.9 222.8

Statistical minimum of
contact force: (-5)-20 14.0 19.7 15.2

Actual maximum of
190-225 186.9 215.1 210.5
contact force [N]
Actual minimum of
30-55 48.4 32.6 44.4
contact force [N]
Maximum Support 1 21.3 52.2 61.0
uplift at Support 2 55-65 21.2 52.9 60.7
supports
[mm] Support 3 21.2 52.0 58.9
Percentage contact
0 0 0 0
loss [%]

7. Conclusion

The goal of this work was to compare simulation methods for simulating the
pantograph-catenary dynamic interaction with high speed runs. In this paper
three methods of varied complexity were compared: simplified model of the
pantograph-catenary system, catenary model based on the modal superposition
with lumped parameters model of the pantograph, and the catenary model
based on the FE and lumped parameters model of pantograph. In this
comparison, catenary and pantograph parameters were adopted according to
the European Standard PN EN 50318:2002, which describes also reference
ranges of results. Fulfilment of results with acceptance ranges presented in
50318 European Standard were observed only for the FEM model, which has
been recognized as the most accurate. The model based on the Modal
Superposition takes into account much less degrees of freedom comparing
with the FEM model, therefore uplifts at supports are not within the reference

11
range (as some other parameters of the contact force). Similar observations
were noted for the simplified model, which generates even less uplifts at
supports ( ca. 21mm), which may be due to the fact that in this model only
static stiffness variability is taken into account.

8. Acknowledgements

This work has been performed within the project no. INNOTECH-
K3/IN3/5/225857/NCBR/14 which is partially supported by The National
Centre for Research and Development and The European Union. This support
is gratefully acknowledged.

References

[1] A. Kumaniecka, J. Snamina, „Dynamics of the catenary modelled by

a periodical structure,” Journal of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics
46, pp. 869-878, 2008.
[2] G. Poetsch, J. Evans , R. Meisinger, W. Kortum, W. Baldauf, J. Veitl,
J. Wallaschek, „Pantograph/catenary dynamics and control,” Vehicle
System Dynamics 28, pp. 159-195, 1997.
[3] O. Lopez-Garcia, A. Carnicero, J. Marono, „Influence of stiffness and
contact modelling on catenary–pa ntograph syste m dynamics,” Journal
of Sound and Vibration 299, pp. 806-821, 2007.
[4] M. Kaniewski, „Model matematyczny odbieraka prądu i sieci jezdnej,”
Prace Naukowe Politechniki Warszawskiej. Transport 95, pp. 209-220,
2013.
[5] J. Jimenez-Octavio, A. Carnicero, C. Sanchez-Rebollo, M. Such,
“A moving mesh method to deal with cable structures subjected to
moving loads and its application to the catenary-pantograph dynamic
interaction,” Journal of Sound and Vibration 349, pp. 216-229, 2015.
[6] P. Jönsson, S. Stichel, C. Nilsson, “CaPaSIM statement of method,”
Vehicle System Dynamics 53, pp. 341-346, 2015.
[7] N. Zhou, Q. Lv, Y. Yang, W. Zhang, „<TPL-PCRUN> Statement
of methods,” Vehicle System Dynamics 53, 2015.
[8] P. Zdziebko, T. Uhl, “The Use of the Modal Superposition Method
in Simulating Pantograph-Catenary Dynamic Interaction,” Proceedings
of the Third International Conference on Railway Technology: Research,
Development and Maintenance, 2016.
[9] P. Zdziebko T. Uhl, „Modelling and simulating the pantograph-catenary
interaction,” w Projektowanie mechatroniczne : zagadnienia wybrane :

12
 praca zbiorowa pod red. Michała Mańka., Kraków, Akademia Górniczo-
Hutnicza. Katedra Robotyki i Mechatroniki, 2015.
[10] PN EN 50318, „Validation of simulation of the dynamic interaction
between pantograph and overhead contact line.”.
[11] MSC.Nastran, “Reference Manual,” 2004.
[12] MSC.Nastran, „Nonlinear User’s Guide SOL400,” 2014.

13
14

View publication stats