Wear 265 (2008) 14651471

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Wear
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wear

High-frequency vertical wheelrail contact forcesValidation

of a prediction model by eld testing
Jens C.O. Nielsen
CHARMEC/Department of Applied Mechanics, Chalmers University of Technology, SE-412 96 Gothenburg, Sweden

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Accepted 21 February 2008
Available online 23 May 2008
Keywords:
Vehicle-track interaction
Instrumented wheelset
Wheel at
Rail corrugation
Vehicle/track modelling

a b s t r a c t
The computer program DIFF, which is being developed at CHARMEC since the late 1980s, is used to simulate
vertical vehicletrack interaction at high frequencies, from about 20 Hz to at least 2000 Hz. Measured
results from two eld test campaigns are used to validate the vehicletrack interaction model. The rst
test case involves impact loads from a wheel at, while the other case studies the inuence of a corrugated
rail on dynamic vertical wheelrail contact forces. Four vehicle models and two visco-elastic track models
are compared. The track models are calibrated versus test data from laboratory and eld tests. Input data
on rail and wheel roughness are taken from eld measurements. Good agreement between calculated
and measured vertical contact forces is observed, both with respect to magnitude and frequency content,
for most frequencies below 2000 Hz. The best agreement is obtained when using a vehicle model that
accounts for both wheelsets in a bogie, instead of using a single wheelset model.
2008 Jens C.O. Nielsen. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Small amplitude undulations (roughness, waviness) with a
broad spectrum of wavelengths are present on the running surfaces
of wheels and rails. Such roughness leads to a broadband relative
displacement excitation of wheel and rail, inducing high-frequency
vertical wheelrail contact forces together with vibrations and
rolling noise. Wheel corrugation due to tread braking with cast
iron brake blocks, and rail corrugation that for example may
develop in situations with uniform trafc in track sections where
high levels of traction are present, will increase the excitation
level [1]. In Sweden, dominating wavelengths for corrugation on
tangent tracks are usually in the interval 48 cm, see Fig. 1. Amplitudes of the corrugation are in the order of 10 m. Cast iron
tread brakes lead to similar wavelengths and amplitudes on the
wheels.
Wheel ats and insulating rail joints are examples of discrete irregularities leading to severe impact loads with signicant
force contributions at high frequencies. Such loads exacerbate
deterioration of wheelset and track components and lead to
increased maintenance costs. The high-frequency contents of vertical wheelrail contact forces generated by these different forms
of wheelrail irregularities are often of signicant magnitudes and
must not be ignored [2]. Common examples of associated damage

Tel.: +46 31 772 1500; fax: +46 31 772 3827.

E-mail address: jens.nielsen@chalmers.se.

mechanisms are irregular wear leading to rail corrugation, rolling

contact fatigue of wheel treads, and plastic deformation of crossings and insulating joints. Neglect of contact force contributions
from higher frequencies is often a consequence of using a measurement technology that is based on static calibration methods that
require low-pass ltering of the measured force signals, or using a
simulation model where such excitation is not properly accounted
for.
There is a trend towards higher speeds for passenger trains and
higher axle loads for freight trafc. An optimization of the compound traintrack system is necessary to meet these demands.
To achieve this, the use of a tool for simulation of dynamic
vehicletrack interaction has several advantages compared to
eld testing. Parametric studies are straight-forward and provide controlled testing conditions at low cost, and they lead to a
signicantly increased understanding of the complex interaction
between train and track. However, before such a model can be
used with condence, an extensive validation versus eld tests is
required.
In the present study, measured results from two eld test campaigns are used to validate the vehicletrack interaction model
in DIFF [3]. The computer program DIFF, which is being developed at CHARMEC since the late 1980s, is used to simulate vertical
vehicletrack interaction at high frequencies, from about 20 Hz to at
least 2000 Hz. At lower frequencies, more detailed models of vehicle dynamics and ground vibration may be necessary. At higher
frequencies, cross-sectional deformation of the rail may become
important.

0043-1648/$ see front matter 2008 Jens C.O. Nielsen. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.wear.2008.02.038

1466

J.C.O. Nielsen / Wear 265 (2008) 14651471

Fig. 2. Strain gauges are glued to the wheel disc. Locations of 16 strain gauges for
measurement of Q-force are shown.

tributions from other wheelset eigenmodes (with or without axle

bending) seem to be smaller and restricted to narrow frequency
bands. The instrumented wheelset technology and the assessment
of contact forces are discussed in detail in the accompanying paper
[4].
3. Vehicletrack interaction model

Fig. 1. Rail corrugation with wavelengths in the interval 48 cm. Photo: Lennart
Lundfeldt, Banverket.

2. Instrumented wheelset technology

Wheelrail contact forces were measured on a high-speed
(up to 200 km/h) X2 trailer bogie operating on the line

StockholmGoteborg.
The extensive test campaign was performed
in October 2002. Measurement wheels from Intereet Technology
Sweden, instrumented with strain gauge bridges on each side of
the wheel disc, were employed, see Fig. 2. The wheels were calibrated for vertical (Q) and lateral (Y) static wheelrail contact forces,
respectively. At measurements in-eld, the signals from the strain
gauge bridges are processed to give the Q- and Y-forces from the
rolling wheel. The signals were recorded on data loggers on board
the train. Also GPS-signals, pulses from reference locations along
the track and train speed were recorded.
The standard approach for data processing used by Intereet
Technology includes a low-pass ltering of the measured signals with cut-off frequency 90 Hz. A major challenge has been to
extend the frequency range in the force measurements. However,
the wheelset has several eigenmodes in the frequency range that
are excited by the short-pitch wheelrail irregularities, and the
inuence of these modes could lead to inaccurate results when
transforming the measured strains to forces in the wheelrail contact. From an experimental modal analysis, it was concluded that
the most signicant source of error is the radial wheel mode
with two nodal diameters at 1712 Hz, see Fig. 3. The error con-

Fig. 4 illustrates the vehicletrack interaction model in DIFF. The

dynamic vehicletrack interaction is solved in the time domain.
The solution is based on an extended state-space vector approach,
and a complex-valued modal superposition for the linear track
model with non-proportionally distributed damping. The equations of motion for vehicle and track, the constraint equations
coupling wheels and rail, and the solution procedure is presented
in detail in Ref. [3]. In the present study, track and vehicle models
are taken as linear. By instead performing a direct time integration
of the complete set of equations (not using the modal superposition approach), both vehicle and track may be treated as non-linear.
This will however increase simulation times considerably.
A non-linear compressive stiffness of the wheelrail contact
(not shown in Fig. 4) is determined by assuming three-dimensional
contact according to Hertz. The contact stiffness coefcient CH
is calculated using the wheel curvature 1/0.44 m1 , transverse

Fig. 3. Vehicle model C is based on an FE model of an X2 trailer wheelset including

brake discs. Shape of radial eigenmode with two nodal diameters is shown.

J.C.O. Nielsen / Wear 265 (2008) 14651471

1467

Fig. 4. Principal sketch of dynamic vehicletrack interaction model in DIFF. Vehicle

model D (two wheelsets) and two different visco-elastic models of the rail pad (A
and B) are shown.

wheel curvature = 0, rail curvature = 0 and transverse rail curvature = 1/0.3 m1 as input data.

3.1. Track model

The discretely supported UIC60 rail is modelled by undamped
RayleighTimoshenko beam nite elements with bending stiffness
EI = 6.4 MN m2 , shear stiffness kGA = 250 MN, mass per unit beam
length m = 60 kg/m and rotational inertia per unit beam length
mr2 = 0.24 kg m. The (half) sleepers are treated as rigid with mass
Ms = 125 kg. The length of the track model is 100 sleeper bays with
sleeper spacing L = 0.65 m and clamped boundaries at the two rail
ends. The track model is here taken as repetitive (all sleeper bays
are of the same length, and all discrete rail supports have the same
dynamic stiffness), but this is not a requirement of the model. The
loading on the track (including wheel and rail irregularities) is taken
as symmetric with respect to a ctive centre line between the two
rails. Only vertical interaction is considered.
Collecting input data to the rail and sleeper models is relatively straight-forward. Determining input data for rail pads and
ballast/subgrade is a more complex task because rubber, ballast
material, clay, etc. have complicated constitutive relations that are
dependent on temperature and the magnitude and frequency of
the applied load. Two track models that include different models
of rail pads and ballast/subgrade are compared in the present study.
In track model A, each rail pad is modelled as a discrete linear elastic spring and a viscous damper in parallel (Kelvin model). In track
model B, each pad is modelled by a three-parameter visco-elastic
model (standard solid model), see Fig. 4. In track model A, the support under each sleeper is modelled by a Kelvin model, whereas in
track model B, a four-parameter visco-elastic model is adopted. The
four-parameter model means two springdamper sets coupled in
series, with each set containing one elastic spring and one viscous
damper coupled in parallel.
For the rail pads, properties corresponding to a static preload of
40 kN were determined based on laboratory measurements on Pandrol studded, nominally 10 mm thick, rubber pads [5]. The dynamic
stiffness calculated by the two visco-elastic models are compared
with the corresponding measured stiffness (data available up to
1000 Hz) in Fig. 5. Good agreement for the stiffness magnitude is
observed for both models. However, the phase of the dynamic stiffness is better represented by the three-parameter model. Input
B =
data for the rail pads are kpA = 120 MN/m, cpA = 25 kN s/m, kp1
B = 240 MN/m, and c B = 80 kN s/m.
240 MN/m, kp2
p

Fig. 5. Magnitude and phase of dynamic rail pad stiffness. Comparison of rail pad
models A and B with data measured in a laboratory.

In Fig. 6, the calculated receptance of the assembled track model

is compared to the corresponding track receptance that was measured in eld. The track was excited by vertical impact excitation
on top of the rail head and acceleration was measured under the
rail head. No static vehicle load was applied. Input data for the
B =
ballast/subgrade models are kbA = 100 MN/m, cbA = 82 kN s/m, kb1
B
B
B
300 MN/m, kb2 = 150 MN/m, cb1 = 6 kN s/m and cb2 = 190 kN s/m.
Note that these data are higher than those corresponding to a track
without vehicle load, cf. [7]. This explains the deliberate mismatch
of measured and calculated receptances at the resonance below
150 Hz.
For track model A, the number of complex-conjugated mode
pairs accounted for in DIFF was 220 (real part of maximum
eigenfrequency was 2900 Hz). Since track model B contains two
degrees-of-freedom per sleeper bay with zero mass (due to viscoelastic models of rail pads and ballast/subgrade), several calculated
eigenmodes are over-critically damped. In this case, the number
of used complex-conjugated mode pairs was 301 (real part of
maximum eigenfrequency was 2700 Hz) while the number of overcritically damped real-valued modes was 198.

Fig. 6. Magnitude and phase of track receptance. Comparison of track models A and
B with data measured in the eld.

1468

J.C.O. Nielsen / Wear 265 (2008) 14651471

(3500 MN/m) and damper cw (155 kN s/m) were selected to match

the receptance of this wheelset model with the corresponding
receptance that was calculated using the FE model of the wheelset.
Most resonances and antiresonances of the wheelset can of course
not be captured by the simplied model D, but the average of the
receptance at frequencies above 1000 Hz is similar for models C
and D. Vehicle model B is of the same type as vehicle model D,
but it contains only one wheelset. Model B (and D) is thus a compromise between a rigid wheelset model (with only the rigid mass
Mw = vehicle model A) and the FE model (vehicle model C). The
calculated receptances for vehicle models AC are compared in
Fig. 7.
The selection of vehicle model may have a signicant inuence
on the calculated wheelrail contact forces at the high frequencies
excited by e.g. wheel ats or short-pitch rail corrugation. Use of the
simplest rigid model (A) may lead to overestimated contact forces,
especially in load cases where the wheel recovers contact with the
rail after a short period of lost wheelrail contact. This is because
the dynamic stiffness of model A is very high at high frequencies,
cf. Fig. 7.
Fig. 7. Calculated direct receptance of vehicle models AC (and including a spring
and viscous damper for the primary suspension). The receptances were determined
for radial excitation in the wheelrail contact.

3.2. Vehicle model

The inuence of the vehicle in the frequency range of interest
(202000 Hz) is modelled by a discretized massspringdamper
system representing one or two wheelsets in a bogie. The vehicle
model is moving with speed v from the left end to the right end of
the track model (so-called moving mass model). Four vehicle models will be compared. Either the wheelset is treated as a rigid mass,
or as exible based on an FE model and calculated CraigBampton
modes (see vehicle model C in Fig. 3) [6]. The load from the part
of the train above the primary suspension is modelled as a static
wheel load W = 66.2 kN, which is corresponding to an axle load of
13.5 tonnes.
In vehicle model D (see Fig. 4), each wheelset model contains
two degrees-of-freedom: two masses, one spring and one viscous
damper. The large mass Mw corresponds to half the wheelset mass
1135/2 kg, whereas the values of the small mass mw (3 kg), spring kw

4. Validation 1: wheel at
Before simulation and measurement are compared for the case
with the X2 trailer wheelset, results from a previous validation exercise will be repeated in brief [7]. Wheelrail impact loads calculated
using the model in Section 3 were compared with loads measured
during a eld test performed in 2000, see [8]. The impact loads
were generated by a wheel at with length 100 mm and depth
0.9 mm. A freight train with axle load 24 tonnes was used and train
speeds were in the interval 5100 km/h. Impact loads were measured using a wheel impact load detector that was based on strain
gauges mounted on the rail web in nine consecutive sleeper bays.
The impact load detector was calibrated against the quasi-static
wheel load that was measured when the train passed the test site
at a speed of 5 km/h.
In the calculations, a vehicle model of type B and a track model
of type A were used. Input data were similar to those used in the
present study [7]. Good agreement between measured and calculated impact loads was observed, see Fig. 8. The solid line was
generated by a numerical curve tting of the measured results to
a third-degree polynomial in order to provide an indication of the
inuence of train speed on measured impact loads. A local maximum is observed for train speed 40 km/h.
5. Rail and wheel roughness

Fig. 8. Impact load versus train speed for a wheel at with length 100 mm and
depth 0.9 mm. Axle load 24 tonnes, unsprung half wheelset mass Mw = 1185/2 kg.
Measured data: *; calculated data: . From Ref. [7].

In connection with the X2 test campaign in 2002, rail roughness

was measured at several sites along the line StockholmGoteborg.

Banverket performed the measurements using the accerelometerbased system Corrugation Analysis Trolley (CAT) [9]. From the
measurement database, the site Vretstorp was selected for the
present investigation. The roughness level spectrum [10] in Fig. 9
shows that the rail is corrugated with dominating wavelengths in
the interval 48 cm.
Roughness on ve X2 trailer wheels was measured by Johansson [11]. Three probes in mechanical contact with the wheel tread
measured the deviation from the mean radius using a technique
developed by the company degaard & Danneskiold-Samse [12].
The deviation was measured with sampling distance 0.5 mm and
amplitude resolution 0.06 m. The centre probe was positioned
at the nominal contact point (70 mm from the ange side of the
wheel), while the other two probes were positioned on each side
of the centre probe and separated by a distance of 2 10 mm. All

J.C.O. Nielsen / Wear 265 (2008) 14651471

1469

Fig. 10. DFT of vertical wheelrail contact force (average from left and right wheel)
measured in Vretstorp at two different train speeds.

Fig. 9. Measured roughness level spectra for corrugated rail in Vretstorp (average
of left and right rails) and X2 trailer wheelset (average of ve wheels). Comparison
with ISO 3095 spectrum (dashed line). Roughness level spectra are evaluated in 1/3
octave bands.

wheels had a minimum travelled distance of 100,000 km. The evaluated wheel roughness level spectrum is shown in Fig. 9. It is
observed that the X2 trailer wheels are very smooth compared
to the rail in Vretstorp (at least in the studied wavelength interval 2250 cm). The inuence of wheel roughness on the combined
wheelrail roughness could therefore be neglected in this validation exercise. A ltering of the roughness prole to account for the
size of the wheelrail contact patch was performed. This leads to
an attenuation of roughness magnitudes for shorter wavelengths.
The adopted contact lter is based on the moving average of the
irregularity that has been summed over the length of the contact
patch. The irregularity prole is assumed to be constant over the
width of the contact patch.

It should be noted that several of the peaks in the DFT spectra are
frequency-constant. This means that these peaks do not shift with
train speed. The so-called P2 resonance (wheelset, rail and sleepers
moving in phase on the sleeper support stiffness) is observed as a
wide peak at around 100 Hz. The other frequency-constant peaks
can be distinguished at around 570, 830 and 1100 Hz. It was concluded in Ref. [13] that these latter peaks are caused by bending
modes in the rail that occur between the two wheels in a bogie. A
comparison with a RayleighTimoshenko beam model of the rail,
with length corresponding to the bogie wheelbase and pinnedpinned boundary conditions, conrm that these modes correspond
to three (570 Hz), four (830 Hz) and ve (1100 Hz) half wavelengths
between the wheels of the bogie. It has also been shown that such
modes are important in the generation of rail corrugation [13,14].
Results (power spectral density, PSD) from simulations of the
conditions in Vretstorp are compared with the corresponding eld
tests in Figs. 11 and 12. Two samples of rail irregularity prole
were generated based on the (narrowband) rail roughness spec-

6. Validation 2: rail corrugation

Results from the instrumented X2 trailer wheelset when passing test site Vretstorp are used in the present validation exercise,
cf. Fig.5. The discrete Fourier transforms (DFT) of the measured vertical (Q) wheelrail contact forces at two different train speeds are
compared in Fig. 10. It is observed that the contributions to the
contact force are signicant in the frequency range 5001350 Hz.
These contributions are caused by the rail corrugation with wavelengths 48 cm. The inuence of train speed can also be observed
by comparing the magnitudes of the DFTs in the frequency interval 5001350 Hz in Fig. 10. The sleeper passing frequency, 68 Hz
at 160 km/h and 84 Hz at 197 km/h, are visible as distinct peaks
in the spectra. The other distinct peaks, which also are speeddependent (see peaks at 127 and 255 Hz for 160 km/h, and 157
and 314 Hz for 197 km/h), are explained by the procedure that processes the Q force by alternatively using information from the strain
gauge bridge on either side of the wheel disc. These latter peaks
are thus not caused by the dynamic traintrack interaction and
should be ignored when comparing measured and calculated contact forces.

Fig. 11. PSD of vertical wheelrail contact force in Vretstorp. Comparison of measured and calculated contact forces along a distance of 100 sleeper bays. Train speed
160 km/h. Vehicle model D.

1470

J.C.O. Nielsen / Wear 265 (2008) 14651471

Fig. 12. PSD of vertical wheelrail contact force in Vretstorp. Comparison of measured and calculated contact forces along a distance of 100 sleeper bays. Train speed
197 km/h. Vehicle model D.

Fig. 13. Maximum of vertical wheelrail contact force in Vretstorp. Inuence of

low-pass ltering with different cut-off frequencies. Vehicle model D.

7. Inuence of vehicle model

trum measured in Vretstorp (covering wavelengths in the interval
2250 cm). The length of each sample prole was 100 sleeper bays
covering the length of the track model. The measured signals were
ltered by applying an inverse transfer function [4] to compensate for the erroneous magnication of signals caused by the radial
wheel eigenmode with two nodal diameters, see Section 2. The
evaluated distance in both simulation and measurement was 100
sleeper bays. However, the simulated response was taken from two
DIFF simulations of vehicletrack interaction in the rst 60 sleeper
bays. The rst 10 sleeper bays in each simulation were eliminated
from the assessment since the response in these bays was affected
by the boundary conditions of the left end of the model. The computation time for one DIFF simulation (vehicle model D travelling
along 60 sleeper bays of track model B with 100 sleeper bays) was
around 40 min on a PC with a Pentium 2.0 GHz processor. If instead
track model A was used, the computation time was reduced to
around 30 min.
Good agreement is observed for most frequencies below
2000 Hz. As discussed above, the spurious peaks in the measured
results below 500 Hz should be ignored. The P2 resonance peak
has a higher magnitude in the simulated response, but it occurs at
a similar frequency. The local rail bending modes are captured well
by the simulation model (vehicle model D).
Another approach to assess simulation and testing is to compare maxima of the low-pass ltered vertical wheelrail contact
forces, see Fig. 13. The measured and simulated contact forces
were low-pass ltered with various cut-off frequencies using a
fourth-order Butterworth lter. Again, it is observed that DIFF
generates a higher contact force at low frequencies. However, for
a cut-off frequency above 1000 Hz the low-pass ltered forces
from simulation and testing are very similar. Note that the contact forces at 160 km/h are here somewhat higher than the
contact forces at 197 km/h. The inuence of contact force contributions from the frequency interval 5001350 Hz is again seen
to be signicant. Neglect of these contributions would lead to
an under-predicted contact force. By observing the relatively low
magnitudes (cf. static wheel load W = 66.2 kN) of the measured
forces in Fig. 13 that were low-pass ltered with 100 Hz, the inuence of vehicle (car body and bogie) resonances on measured
vertical contact forces seems to be small for this loading situation.

The inuence of vehicle model on the calculated vertical contact force is illustrated in Fig. 14. Four different vehicle models are
studied, see Section 3. One of the sample rail irregularity proles
described in Section 6 was used again.
All four vehicle models lead to similar results, but there are some
important differences. The inuence of the local rail bending modes
can only be captured by model D since the other three vehicle models only contain one wheelset. The inuence of several eigenmodes
of the wheelset, which are only covered by vehicle model C, leads
to distinct peaks and troughs in the PSD spectrum. Note that the
inuence of the radial mode with two nodal diameters at 1712 Hz
leads to a reduction in contact force. Vehicle model A generates the
highest contact forces at frequencies above 1000 Hz.
8. Inuence of track model
The inuence of track model on the calculated vertical contact
force is illustrated in Fig. 15. Two different track models are studied,
see Section 3. One of the sample rail irregularity proles described

Fig. 14. PSD of vertical wheelrail contact force in Vretstorp. Train speed 160 km/h.
Inuence of vehicle model.

J.C.O. Nielsen / Wear 265 (2008) 14651471

1471

quency of the applied load. Rail pads and ballast/subgrade have a

large inuence on track dynamics at low frequencies (for a modern Swedish track with resilient rail pads up to about 400 Hz, see
the rst and second resonance in Fig. 6). Thus, it is probable that
results from either simulation or measurement are more accurate
in different frequency intervals.
Based on the good and consistent agreement between measured and simulated vertical contact forces, both with respect to
magnitude and frequency content, it is argued that the computer
program DIFF is a useful tool in investigations of vertical dynamic
vehicletrack interaction at high frequencies.
Acknowledgements

Fig. 15. PSD of vertical wheelrail contact force in Vretstorp. Train speed 160 km/h.
Vehicle model D. Inuence of track model.

in Section 6 was used again. It is observed that the choice of track

model has a negligible effect on calculated contact forces. This is
important since the use of track model A leads to a considerable
reduction in computation time, cf. Section 6. However, track model
B may be a better choice if sleeper vibrations need to be calculated.
9. Concluding remarks
The computer program DIFF for simulation of dynamic
vehicletrack interaction at high frequencies (from 20 Hz to at least
2000 Hz) has been validated versus measured vertical wheelrail
contact forces. Results from two eld tests using two different
approaches to measure contact force, an instrumented wheelset
and a wheel impact load detector, have been used in the assessment.
Both measurement methods were based on strain gauge bridges
that had been calibrated with respect to static loads. In both cases,
the inuence of the unsprung mass between the measurement
position and the wheelrail contact was ignored. For the instrumented wheelset, wheel eigenmodes will inuence the magnitudes
of the measured strains that are transformed into wheelrail contact forces. For the wheel impact load detector, the contact force was
determined from an equation of equilibrium that included the shear
forces in the rail at the two strain gauge positions in one sleeper bay,
but the inertia of the rail between these positions was neglected.
These are examples of circumstances that may lead to reduced
measurement accuracy. On the other hand, setting up a simulation model that fully takes into account the complex interaction
between train and track is not an easy task. For example, deriving
models of rail pads and ballast/subgrade is difcult because rubber,
ballast material, clay, etc. have complicated constitutive relations
that are dependent on temperature and the magnitude and fre-

The work was performed at the Department of Applied

Mechanics, Chalmers University of Technology in Goteborg,

Sweden. It forms part of the activities within the Centre
of Excellence CHARMEC (CHAlmers Railway MEChanics), see
www.charmec.chalmers.se. Measured data were supplied by Intereet Technology Sweden and Banverket.
References
A. Johansson, T. Vernersson, Traintrack interaction
[1] J.C.O. Nielsen, R. Lunden,
and mechanisms of irregular wear on wheel and rail surfaces, Vehicle Syst.
Dynam. 40 (13) (2003) 354.
Inuence of short-pitch wheel/rail corru[2] J.C.O. Nielsen, A. Ekberg, R. Lunden,
gation on rolling contact fatigue of railway wheels, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part
FJ. Rail Rapid Transit. 219 (2005) 177187.
[3] J.C.O. Nielsen, A. Igeland, Vertical dynamic interaction between train and
trackinuence of wheel and track imperfections, J. Sound Vib. 187 (5) (1995)
825839.
[4] P. Gullers, L. Andersson, R. Lundn, High-frequency wheelrail contact
forceseld measurements and inuence of corrugation, in: Proceedings
of the Seventh International Conference on Contact Mechanics and Wear
of Rail/Wheel Systems, Brisbane, Australia, September 2427, 2008, 265,
14721478.
[5] D.J. Thompson, W.J. van Vliet, Measurements of the high frequency dynamic
properties of Swedish rail pads, Technical Report, TPD-HAG-RPT-960066, TNO
Institute of Applied Physics, Delft, The Netherlands, 1996, 40 pp.
[6] R.R. Craig, M.C.C. Bampton, Coupling of substructures for dynamic analysis,
AIAA J. 8 (1968) 13131319.
[7] J.C.O. Nielsen, J.W. Ringsberg, L. Baeza, Inuence of railway wheel at impact
on crack growth in rails, in: Proceedings of the Eighth International Heavy Haul
Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, June 1416, 2005, pp. 789797.
[8] A. Johansson, J.C.O. Nielsen, Out-of-round railway wheelswheelrail contact
forces and track response derived from eld tests and numerical simulations,
Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part FJ. Rail Rapid Transit. 217 (2003) 135146.
[9] S.L. Grassie, M.J. Saxon, J.D. Smith, Measurement of longitudinal rail irregularities and criteria for acceptable grinding, J. Sound Vib. 227 (5) (1999) 949964.
[10] E. Verheijen, A survey on roughness measurements, J. Sound Vib. 293 (35)
(2006) 784794.
[11] A. Johansson, Out-of-round railway wheelsassessment of wheel tread irregularities in train trafc, J. Sound Vib. 293 (35) (2006) 795806.
[12] degaard & Danneskiold-Samse A/S, Wheel and rail roughness measuring
system, www.odegaard.dk, 2006.
[13] A. Johansson, D.J.C.O. Nielsen, Rail roughness growth - inuence of powered
wheelsets with wheel tread irregularities, Wear 262 (2007) 12961307.
[14] A. Igeland, Railhead corrugation growth explained by dynamic interaction
between track and bogie wheelsets, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part FJ. Rail Rapid
Transit. 210 (1996) 1120.