Norma Pitch Bounce

Shock and Vibration in Rail and other
Transport Modes
William C. Shust
2007
OBJECTIVE ENGINEERS, INC.
Acknowledgements
AAR / TTCI
ASF-Keystone, Union Pacific
FRA
Chicago Transit Authority
Norfolk Southern
Monsanto Company
International Truck & Engine
2007
No, No,
No
That
regular
rock.
Me need
Phillips.
Bills
2007
Broad overview of shock & vibration
issues in railroading
Vibration issues
Typical mechanical shocks
Various industry test standards
Mitigation techniques
Brief comparison of other transport modes to
the rail shipping environment.
Technical conclusions
Future trends for S&V in railroading
2007
SHOCK & VIBRATION ISSUES
Overall car stability
Component strength
Human comfort
Cargo damage
2007
A closer look at the railcar
environment: dynamic excitations
Vehicle
Vehicle
Bogie and
Unsprung Mass
Bogie and
Unsprung Mass
Irregular running surfaces of wheel and rail
[Wheelflats, out-of-round wheels, wheel corrugation,
rail corrugation, dipped welds and joints, shelling, etc]
Irregular running surfaces of wheel and rail
[Wheelflats, out-of-round wheels, wheel corrugation,
rail corrugation, dipped welds and joints, shelling, etc]
Track components
[Rail bending, railpads, tie bending,
ballast and subgrade]
Track components
[Rail bending, railpads, tie bending,
ballast and subgrade]
Wheel/rail noise
[Rolling and impact noises from irregularities on
wheel and rail, and squeal from stick-slip vibration]
Wheel/rail noise
[Rolling and impact noises from irregularities on
wheel and rail, and squeal from stick-slip vibration]
0 - 20 Hz
0 - 20 Hz
0- 500 Hz
0- 500 Hz
0 - 1500 Hz
0 - 1500 Hz
0 - 1500 Hz
0 - 1500 Hz
0 - 5000 Hz
0 - 5000 Hz
2007
At the low frequency end:
rigid carbody motions
Pitch & bounce, yaw & sway, twist & roll,
lateral huntingall under 4 Hz
2007
60 Wavelength
Right Rail
Vertical
Position
Left Rail
Vertical
Position
0.75 Amplitude
Roll Input for AAR Chapter XI spec.
(Left and right track vertical profiles)
2007
0
1
2
3
4
5
0 20 40 60 80
Simulated operating speed (mph) over repeated 3/4-inch twist and
roll perturbations
M
a
x
.

P
e
a
k
-
t
o
-
p
e
a
k

C
a
r
b
o
d
y

r
o
l
l

(
d
e
g
r
e
e
s
)
60ft D.C.
32ft Flatcar
0.6 Hz resonance -- Carbody roll
(constant amplitude cross-level deviations)
2007
Typical Twist & Roll resonance
(generic tank car, 18 mph, 39 cusps)
2007
More low freq. behavior ~ 2 Hz
Wheelset Lateral Hunting
2007
At the high frequency end -- potential
fatigue of & on circuit boards
Small mechanical
fittings on a high
frequency source
(100-200 Hz)
PC Board bending
(70-150 Hz)
Tiny cantilevered
components
(up to 1500 Hz if
small enough)
2007
A few peculiarities related to certain
car types
Covered hoppers high CG, car rock-off
Tank Cars tors. stiff, track twist sensitive
Conversion of 89 flats to early car haulers
Heavy duty span bolster cars (8+ axles)
Lighter weight coal cars
2007
Example project A: Infrequent top
chord yielding of coal cars
Suspension bottoming, or
component strength?
2007
-5000
-4000
-3000
-2000
-1000
0
1000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Train Speed (mph)
M
i
n
i
m
u
m

S
t
r
a
i
n

i
n

1
0
-
S
e
c
o
n
d

B
u
r
s
t
6000 miles later; several dozen data
bursts in 5 general groups
-3500ue
Design
Limit
2007
Vertical Bounce Detail ~ 1.9 Hz:
Strain, neg(Accel.), Spring Deflection
Time (Secs)
4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-1.2
-1.4
V
e
r
t

C
B

A
c
c
e
l

1
7
3
6
1

(
G
s
)
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
-1.5
-2
V
e
r
t

M
o
t
i
o
n

a
t

A
R

2
6

(
I
n
c
h
e
s
)
-800
-1000
-1200
-1400
-1600
-1800
-2000
-2200
-2400
-2600
S
t
r
a
i
n

A
R

T
o
p

C
h
o
r
d

(
u
)
2007
Vibration issue: Over time, a little bounce
leads to more bounce
2007
Quasi-static event: Rotary Car Dumper
Coal Unloading ~ highest strains of test
2007
Example project B: Development of a
test spec. for aftermarket hardware
A
B
C
D
TOR nozzle location at end of sand bracket
Truck frame
Electrical control cabinet
Compressor room floor
(Note: Locations
vary slightly with
locomotive type)
2007
1
10
100
1000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Correlation with Field Environment
C
o
s
t

/

C
o
m
p
l
e
x
i
t
y
-1 . 5
-1
-0. 5
0
0. 5
1
1 . 5
0 1 2 3
Lab tests are always a compromise
between reality and cost
Over-the-Road
Simulation,
Whole Vehicle
Sine Sweep
or Dwell,
Single Axis
Multiple Axes,
Shaped Random
Single Axis,
Shaped Random
Single Axis,
Shaped Random
0 500 1000 1500 2000
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
810F Min. Integrity = 7.6 grms
MIL-STD-810F and IEC61373 Vibration Spectra
Frequency (Hz)
V
i
b
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g
*
g
/
H
z
)
810F Rail 0.49 grms
IEC bogie long. 2.0 grms
IEC bogie lat. 3.8 grms
IEC bogie vert. 4.3 grms
Single Shaker,
Random Flat PSD
2007
Mid-cost & moderately real: Random Shaker
Input With Same Frequency Content As Field
time (secs)
232 233 234 235 236 237
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
S
i
d
e
F
r
a
m
e

A
c
c
e
l
.

(
g
)
CD12_072 Y
time (secs)
70 71 72 73 74 75
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
S
i
d
e
F
r
a
m
e

A
c
c
e
l
.

(
g
)
CD3_072 Y
time (secs)
215 216 217 218 219 220
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
S
i
d
e
F
r
a
m
e

A
c
c
e
l
.

(
g
)
CD6_121 Y
97
th
Percentile Data Records
Random shaker drive file with
similar energy distribution; similar
but more frequent peaks
6
6
72 . 0
80 . 1
250

=
field RMS
lab RMS
g
g
5 second segment
0
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
S
h
a
k
e
r

A
c
c
e
l
.

(
g
)
Random Vibration with similar Energy Distribution as SideFrame
(e.g. Time Compression 250X)
2007
Data collection on locomotive type A:
Sander Bracket
Tri-axial access. on
sander bracket:
at side frame
(upper)
at free end
(lower)
2007
Data collection on locomotive type B:
Sander Bracket
2007
Revenue Service Routes
for Locomotive Vibration Tests
2007
Overall Comparison Peak
Accelerations versus Location
1
10
100
1000
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
r
F
r
o
n
t

P
l
o
w
L
u
b
e

R
e
s
.
S
i
d
e

F
r
a
m
e
S
a
n
d
e
r

R
e
s
p
s
.
J
o
u
r
n
a
l

B
o
x
M
a
x
.

A
c
c
e
l
.

(
g

p
e
a
k
-
t
o
-
p
e
a
k
)
2007
Field Data to Lab Test
Conversion Process
Reduce field data
Using all valid files, compute aggregate (damage-
equivalent) side frame RMS accelerations
Envelope resulting shape of severe PSDs (power
spectral densities)
Simplify PSD envelope, amplify to compress shake
table time
Select 10-20 breakpoints for PSD shape
Scale for 250:1 time compression vs. field
Augment 8-hour shaker period (per axis) with
brief segments achieving similar g level extremes as
found in field data
2007
Locomotive Bearing Box
Raw Vibration
time (secs)
327.4 327.5 327.6 327.7 327.8
120
80
40
0
-40
-80
-120
time (secs)
327.4 327.5 327.6 327.7 327.8
120
80
40
0
-40
-80
-120
251. g peak-to-
peak, vertical
direction
Almost all energy
around 500 Hz
Estimated 0.01
double amplitude
displacement
2007
Locomotive Bearing Box
Same data in freq. domain (PSD)
Block length = second
Bandwidth = 2 Hz
N=144 blocks
Frequency (Hz)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
10
1
10
0
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10
-4
(
(
g
)
)
Frequency (Hz)
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
10
1
10
0
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10
-4
(
(
g
)
)
2007
Most Severe Spectra from 2 loco. types
and two service routes
Frequency (Hz)
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
10
0
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10
-4
10
-5
A
c
c
e
l
.

(
(
g
^
2
)
/
H
z
)
Lateral Spectra (Auto Parts Service)
10
0
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10
-4
10
-5
10
0
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10
-4
10
-5
10
0
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10
-4
10
-5
10
0
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10
-4
10
-5
10
0
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10
-4
10
-5
10
0
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10
-4
10
-5
10
0
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10
-4
10
-5
10
0
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10
-4
10
-5
10
0
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10
-4
10
-5
10
0
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10
-4
10
-5
10
0
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10
-4
10
-5
Frequency (Hz)
25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250
10
0
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10
-4
10
-5
A
c
c
e
l
.

(
(
g
^
2
)
/
H
z
)
Lateral Spectra (Coal Service)
10
0
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10
-4
10
-5
10
0
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10
-4
10
-5
10
0
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10
-4
10
-5
10
0
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10
-4
10
-5
10
0
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10
-4
10
-5
10
0
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10
-4
10
-5
10
0
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10
-4
10
-5
10
0
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10
-4
10
-5
10
0
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10
-4
10
-5
10
0
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10
-4
10
-5
10
0
10
-1
10
-2
10
-3
10
-4
10
-5
2007
PSD Envelope of Many Field Spectra
and simplified shake table Breakpoints
200 400 600 800 1000
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
g
*
g
/
H
z
Freq. (Hz)
Overall lateral ampl. using breakpoints: 1.8 g RMS
200 400 600 800 1000
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
g
*
g
/
H
z
Freq. (Hz)
200 400 600 800 1000
10
-4
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
g
*
g
/
H
z
Freq. (Hz)
2007
Summary of Shake Table Amplitudes
(compared to MIL & Euro. specs)
Location
120-day Simulations Brief Field Extremes
Cab Vertical 0.26 1.32
0.81
Compressor Vertical 0.52 1.31
0.81
Plow Longitudinal 0.26 1.44
0.40
Sideframe Lateral 1.80 4.32
3.77
Unsprung Vertical 10.5 44.5
30.6
MIL-STD-810F Rail
Transport
0.49
MIL-STD-810F
"Minimum Integrity"
7.7
Proposed Shake Table Vibration
(g RMS)
IEC 61373
"Long Life"
2007
Finally Add Representative Thermal
Cycling (-40 to 130 F)
0
1
2
3
4
5
V
i
b
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
g

R
M
S
)
0
30
60
90
120
150
Time
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
Lateral
Day 1
Long.
Day 2
Vert.
Day 3
Lat.
Day
4
Record Vibr. and
Sample Spray
2-Minute Field Extremes
2007
Proof of test: freezing, shaking & baking a
locomotive rail friction-modifier nozzle.
Electro-magnetic shaker with
15000 pounds of force
Heating/cooling source
2007
Collection Grid Pans to check Spray
Pattern and Application Amount
2007
Final product: AAR spec. of minimum
performance, before fleet installations
Clean nozzle After build-up
2007
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
10
-3
10
-2
10
-1
10
0
Human Comfort Issues ISO-2631
(empirical weighting of spectra)
Original Signal
0.83 g rms
Energy
Spectrum
Weighting
Values
Final Area 0.63 g
weighted
0 30 Hz
V
e
r
t
.

A
c
c
e
l
.

(
g
)
0

1
0
0
%
g
*
g
/
H
z
Time (sec)
PSD
Similar process for noise dBA
2007
TYPICAL SHOCKS
Car coupling
In-train forces (slack action)
Wheel imperfections
Suspension bottoming out
Rattling pieces
2007
Coal Car Project A -- revisited
Zero Speed Yard Data, Unattended (unexplained)
0.2
0
-0.2
-1
-1.2
-400
-1000
-1600
-2200
Time (Secs)
993600 10
6
1.02*10
6
10
5
0
Vertical
Car Body
Accel.
Vert.
Spring
Defl.
Top Chord
Strain
Train
Speed
1 4 1 5 1 6
- 1 6 0 0
- 2 0 0 0
- 2 4 0 0
- 2 8 0 0
- 3 2 0 0
- 3 6 0 0
-4328 ue for 1/15th
sec, then 2 hours at
2000 ue before
relaxing
2007
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
x 10
4
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Accel
Shock events produce accelerations
with energy into higher frequencies
2007
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
x 10
4
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Strain Gage
But unlike car bounce, the shock accelerations
are not scaled duplicates of strains
2007
And thus, a common 4g Design spec. will
be exceeded by high-freq. accel. data
2007
One coupling shock: accel. filtered at
4 freqs., and coupler load cell trace
2007
Similar sampling/filtering questions for
various impacts related to passing wheels.
_ _ _

Collection Time(secs)
20 40 60 80 100 120
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
Filter_010.sif - timehist1@RailSG4.RN_1.f.f

20 40 60 80 100 120
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
Original Data Lowpassed at 333Hz=f
c
After instead applying 10 Hz Lowpass filter
Revenue Train Sampled at 1000 Hz
2007
Zoom in on only 6 seconds
Original Data 333Hz=f
c
Filter_010.sif - timehist1@RailSG4.RN_1.f.f

60 61 62 63 64 65 66
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
After applying 10 Hz Lowpass filter
_ _ _

60 61 62 63 64 65 66
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
2007
Rail Strain Gage with various lowpass filtering
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Filter cutoff Frequency (Hz)
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

w
i
d
e
b
a
n
d

v
a
l
u
e
Max
Min
RMS
Max is 95%
Min is 41%, Whats going on?
2007
Answer found by again zooming in on
the original data

60.00 60.25 60.50 60.75 61.00
R
a
i
l
S
G
4
(
m
i
c
r
o
s
t
r
a
i
n
)
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
Different
frequency
content !
2007
A SAMPLING OF INDUSTRY
STANDARDS (S&V and related issues)
Car body stability & health
Track health
Car component health
Cargo stability & health
Longitudinal shock
Human stability & comfort
Locomotive specific issues
FRA 213 Track Geometry
AAR Chapter XI, and M-
976 specs
Wheel Impact Detectors
AAR S-4200 ECP brake
spec
pending AAR brake beam
work
IEC-61373
AAR Dam. Prev. Stds.
MIL-STD-810
ISO-2631 ride comfort
AAR on-board rail
lubricator vibration spec
2007
Another recent example, AAR S-4200
ECP brake spec
Design to withstand:
Vibrations 0.4 g rms 1-150 Hz (with +/-3 g
peaks)
Half-sine shocks of 10g peak (20 50 msec)
If on car strength members, local
resonances can raise levels to:
15g (100-150 Hz)
50g (200-500 Hz)
2007
S & V MITIGATION TECHNIQUES
Limit input energy available
Track geometry standards
Wheel flat limits, wheel impact detectors
Interrupt transmission paths
Spring/elastomer isolators
between car components
between loco. structure & crew
track to ground
Add damping, stiffness, mass
2007
Limit the dynamic excitations to cars
via geometry or speed limits
2007
Title 49 CFR, Part 213
Track Safety Stds. (track geometry specs.)
2007
WILD Detectors: maintain wheels based on
revenue track impacts
2007
Transmission and reflections of rail
vibration are highly site dependent
from Transit Noise and Vibration Impact
Assessment, Hanson, Towers, and
Meister, Fed.Transit.Admin. 2006
2007
Earth vibration due to freight trains
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
0 10 20 30 40 50
Distance from Track (m)
G
n
d
.

V
i
b
.

(
f
r
e
i
g
h
t
,

V
e
l
.

d
B

r
e

1
e
-
6

i
p
s
)
2007
Noise, Squeal and Corrugation
(A human perception problem)
Potential Solutions
Grinding to remove
corrugation
Improve curving via
W/R profile
Lubrication
Reduce surface
roughness of wheel
turning and rail
grinding
Structural or surface changes to wheel (block or cut
sound transmission path)
2007
Chicago Transit Authority:
Wheel screech damper
2007
More costly transit N&V mitigation
2007
Example project C: (rarely) we come
across a beneficial use of vibration
Civil engineers brought us dynamic track
stabilization for after tamping operations
Essentially a combination of
adding stiffness/strength via aggregate material
change
delaying the time when small bounces will
beget bigger bounces
2007
Ballast Stabilization
(Use of vibration to control track settlement)
2007
Track stabilization worth about 10-20
trains of otherwise slow ordered traffic
2007
Thus, the desired vibration lessens chances
of this: Lateral Track (Panel) Shift
2007
Another potential beneficial use
From this campus, Dr. Weavers
research on rail neutral temperature
Wavelength of high frequency rail
vibrations changes with longitudinal
stress on the rail
Goal: Non-destructive determination of
rail neutral temperature.
2007
RAIL VIBRATION
COMPARED TO
OTHER TRANSIT
MODES
(Example projects C & D)
2007
First
some
antique
video
footage
2007
Moving Cargo, Containers and Operators
2007
Evolved from two projects involving
weld failures on ISO tank containers
2007
Unattended Container Shock Record
(Does/does not exceed 4g Design Std?)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
-30
-20
-10
0
10
L
o
g
g
e
d

E
v
e
n
t

V
a
l
u
e
s

(
g
)
SN 13392 Event 39, Long.
Original extremum value: 20.4
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
-10
-5
0
5
F
i
l
t
e
r
e
d

V
a
l
u
e
s

(
g
)
Time (sec)
8.6 = extremum after 90 Hz lowpass
3.5 = " " 40 Hz "
2.5 = " " 30 Hz "
1.3 = " " 16 Hz "
-20.4 g raw data?
-2.5g after 30 Hz lowpass filter
2007
Well then, this is a much lower
frequency event, surely it is abusive
-30.0
-22.5
-15.0
-7.5
0.0
+7.5
+15.0
+22.5
+30.0
0.0 0.1 0.199 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
g
Seconds
g gg
X Y Z
Integrating the accel. signal yields
a velocity change of 102 mph in
1/3 second. Invalid data!
2007
Vibration
for many
vehicles
compared
(Bob Fries,
N.Cooper-
rider 1993)
2007
TECHNICAL OBSERVATIONS
The highway truck environment is generally more
harsh on cargo & humans than rail. Shipboard
environment is generally less harsh than rail. Ship
environment is more like a factory floor.
Low frequencies (<15 Hz) strains ~ accels.
Less true as frequency content increases
Not true for raw shock data
Field data is incomparable to any other criteria or
test without knowing the sampling & filtering
Ground borne vibrationsrules of thumb
Twice the train speed ~ twice the vibration
Twice the distance from track ~ half the vibr.
2007
Observed & periodic opportunity for
engineering confusion
Car
Model
+V
A
Load Measuring Axle
+Y
+L
B
+L
A
+T
+V
B
+Z
+X
+T
2007
Another test risk:
small populations
Four strain gages at
same locations on
cantilever beam
next to fixed end.
(22 long,
3 wide,
1/16 thick)
2007
Strain variations, even with careful
attention to similar gage placement
Time (secs)
25.3 25.4 25.5 25.6 25.7
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
g
a
g
e
3

(
m
i
c
r
o
s
t
r
a
i
n
)
4 gages at 1st bending freq. ~ 3 Hz
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
g
a
g
e
4

(
m
i
c
r
o
s
t
r
a
i
n
)
13%
Variation in
Peak-to-
peak
g3 = 543ue
g4 = 502ue
g7 = 477ue
g8 = 521ue
2007
What about variations on a railcar?
Structural member strains, Left vs. Right

time(secs)
245 250 255
-200
-100
0
100
200
300

50% difference in
amplitude.
2007
Final reminder:
accelerations vs. strains
CB_VT_SQBURST.SIF Channel 4

-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
CB_VT_SQBURST.SIF - Channel 5

-200
-100
0
100
200
300
CB_VT_SQBURST.SIF - Channel 6

time(secs)
245 250 255 260 265
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
Low freq. correlation, but not at high freqs.
L
t
.
S
t
r
a
i
n

R
t
.

S
t
r
a
i
n

A
c
c
e
l
.
2007
Wrap-up: industry trends relating to
S&V
Perfect engineering specification
would fail 100.0% of latent bad designs or processes,
while passing 100.0% of the good.
Actual specifications tended to promote certain
dimensional tolerances, minimum design strengths,
or perfunctory initial performancenot perfect.
For about a decade, advances in technology
have gradually begun to provide operational
feedback, largely due to monitoring shock
and/or vibration (or close cousins).
2007
Implementation risks
This monitoring of S&V (or close cousins) can be
infinitely more complex than the old visual
inspection. Thus, there is much concern about the
false positives or negatives.
Fortunately, the industry is gradually moving ahead:
Wheel Impact Monitors
Acoustic Bearing Signatures
Excessive Railcar Bounce
Peak Wheel Forces
Yard Coupling Shocks, or desired lack thereof
etc.
2007
Two opinions about S&V work in
railroading
PLUS: In an otherwise mature industry,
further exploiting shock and vibration to assist
business decisions holds great opportunity for
rail engineers.
MINUS: Fostering adoption of these
technologies requires great patience and
persistence. (Railroads, suppliers, shippers,
car owners, and the FRA have a complicated
and symbiotic relationship. In some cases,
these newer and more effective specifications
redistribute costs. This may be unpopular.)
2007
Example project E: 1994 brake beam tests.
Adoption of standards is still in-process
2007
Give an engineer just a simple request
2007
And the engineer will aim to please
2007
2007
Engineering Information
is not the same thing as
test (or analysis) data
Like Dilbert, we need to
provide information, not just
data, Here is $7.14, you owe
me five & a quarter.

Norma Pitch Bounce

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Norma Pitch Bounce

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Shock and Vibration in Rail and other

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen