06 Line 5 Final Presentation To MSP 2015-1-13

Transportation Technology Center, Inc.
, a subsidiary of the Association of American Railroads
Final Presentation
MSP Line 5 Cars
Ruben Pea
Stan Gurule
Russ Walker
2015
TTCI/AAR, 2015. filename, p1
Alstom/CAF
Line 5 Car
Objective: Characterize and measure the performance

of the Line 5 fleet and make recommendations for any
necessary changes to optimize suspension
performance.
TTCI/AAR, 2015, Filename p2
Bogie
Arrangement
View
Line 5 Car
Bogie Arrangement Line 5 Car
Method
Characterize the track

Characterize the cars
Truck load equalization (dQ/Q) testing of cars
Test the cars at Capao Redondo yard on the curve and
perturbed tracks installed by MSP for this purpose.
Use computer modeling of the car to estimate wheel
loads and L/V Ratio in a variety of conditions
Performance Criteria
The performance measures selected for the

computer modeling study and tests are based
on:
United States (US) Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
Title 49 Part 213.333 Vehicle Track Interaction safety

limits.
American Public Transit Association Wheel Load
Equalization Requirements APTA SS-M-014-06
Standard for Wheel Load Equalization of Passenger
Railroad Rolling Stock.
Flange climb indicator based on flange contact position
United States (US) Code of

Federal Regulations (CFR)
Title 49 Part 213.333 Vehicle
Track Interaction safety limits.
Wheel L/V ratio safety limit is a
function of flange angle and is

0.95 for the 70-degree flange
used on Line 5 cars.
The net axle lateral L/V ratio
safety limit is a function of axle
load and is 0.61 for the empty
Line 5 car and 0.54 for the
loaded Line 5 car.
APTA Wheel Load Equalization Requirements

Class G - where the track twist is maintained to less than 76.2
mm (3 in) over 8.9 m (62 ft) track length.

35 percent wheel load at 63.5 mm (2.5 in)
No wheel lift at 76.2 mm (3 in).
Class R - where the track twist is maintained to less than 76.2
mm (3 in) over 8.9 m (62 ft) track length and additionally is
limited to no more than 57.2 mm (2.25 in) in 3.0 m (10 ft).
35 percent wheel load at 50.8 mm (2 in)
No wheel lift at 63.5 mm (2.5 in).
These requirements may be too restrictive because MSP
maintains their track to <12 mm track twist in 4 m.
Flange Climb Indicator

The turnout defect simulation data was somewhat unusual.
Normally the single wheel L/V ratio analyzed with the 1.52 m
(5 ft) moving window as specified by the CFR limits is a good
indicator of flange climb derailment potential, but in the case
of these turnout defect simulations it was not.
Because these simulations produced extremely high angle of
attack, and large lateral track displacements occurring over a
very short distance, the simulations sometimes predicted
derailment even when the 5ft window L/V ratio met the
criterion.

Location of steepest
contact point. (60
deg)
Contact below this

point on the flange
indicates likely flange
climb.
UIC 510-2 wheel profile

UIC 60 rail profile
with 60 deg switch
plane angle
Relative
Rolling Radius
= 19 mm
Note: The Wheel L/V Ratio Safety limit for this
condition is only 0.66 because the maximum contact
angle (60 deg) is smaller than the flange angle (70
deg).
Simulation of 1:5 turnout with 1.8m defect (switch embedding) at 34kph. This figure shows the
highest contact angle (60 degrees) at the simulation distance of 53m. The rolling radius at this
location is about 0.019m.
Simulation of 1:5 turnout with 1.8m defect (switch embedding) at 34kph. This figure shows a
flange climb derailment even though the wheel L/V ratio only just reached 0.66 and then for well
less that 1.52 m distance.
Suspension Modification
The car was designed with a 4-point airspring

suspension. To improve performance TTCI suggested it
be modified to a 3-point suspension.
4 Point
Cab End
Leveling Valve
3 Point
60L
Reservoir
60L
Reservoir
60L
Reservoir
No orifice
Leveling Valve
60L
Reservoir
19mm pipe
Non-Cab End
60L
Reservoir
Leveling Valve
60L
Reservoir
19-mm orifice
Equalizing Valve
No orifice
42mm pipe
19-mm orifice
42mm pipe
60L
Reservoir
No orifice
60L
Reservoir
19-mm orifice
42mm pipe
Non-Cab End
Leveling Valve
Equalizing Valve
Equalizing Valve
No orifice
Cab End
19-mm orifice
19-mm orifice
42mm pipe
Peak-to-peak secondary suspension vertical

displacement measurements during twist and roll tests.
The plot legend lists the air spring to reservoir orifice size first,
VerticalDisp.(meters)
followed by the reservoir to reservoir crossover pipe orifice size.

Displacement is much lower for all configurations of the 3-point
suspension than the 4-point suspension.
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
42mm15mm
42mm19mm
25mm19mm
19mm19mm
19mm15mm
4Point
20
40
60
Speed(km/h)
80
Peak-to-peak lateral acceleration on the carbody floor

during twist and roll tests.
Maximum p-p acceleration is lower with the three point car
Above 44 km/h the acceleration is lower for the 4-point car
The 3-point car with 15mm reservoir to reservoir crossover pipe
LateralAccel.(g)
orifice has the highest acceleration above 44 km/h

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
42mm15mm
42mm19mm
25mm19mm
19mm19mm
19mm15mm
4Point
0
Floor
20
40
60
Speed(km/h)
80
Minimum vertical wheel load measured using rail strain

gages during twist and roll tests
3-Point suspension has higher vertical wheel loads for cross
MinimumVertical(Percentof
Static)
pipe dimension of 19 mm
There is a large variation in the different 4-point configurations
shown, possibly due to variations in damper condition.
100%
80%
42mm19mm
60%
19mm19mm
19mm15mm
40%
4PtInstCar2011
4Pt42MM2013
20%
4Pt24MM2013
0%
15
35
55
Speed(km/h)
75
4PtNonInstCar2011
Model Validation
Truck Load
Equalization
The truck must
distribute the load to

the track equally on all
the wheels
This is key to
preventing flange
climb derailment
Flexible body
Stiff Body
Model Validation
Truck Load Equalization Air springs deflated
WheelLoad(%ofNominal)
Simulation predictions match the test results very closely.

Results dont meet APTA class R requirements
200%
150%
100%
R35%
G35% G0%
R0%
50%
Test1L
Test1R
Test2L
Test2R
Model1L
Model1R
Model2L
Model2R
35%WheelLoad
0%
0
20
40
60
Wheel1RHeight(mm)
80
Model Validation
Perturbed Track
Tests
Track geometry
(deviations in the
track) may excite
the car in some
mode of rigid body
vibration
Model Validation
MSP installed test tracks at Capao Redondo yard

Cars F085 and F086 were tested in 2011 (4-point)
MSP modified car F046 to 3-Point for
test purposes in 2013
Bounce
Yaw
Line 1
Line 2
Curve
Roll
All Tests were

performed eastbound
with F086 Leading
Model Validation
Pitch and Bounce

Model displacements match test well at 70 and 80 km/h, but
Displacement(meters)
over estimates the displacements at lower speeds.

Model accelerations match test at speeds below 60 km/h, but
underestimate the acceleration at higher speeds
Acceleration(g)
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
30
TestLead
50
70
Speed(km/h)
TestTrail
ModelLead
90
0.05
TestLeadLeft
0.04
TestLeadRight
0.03
TestTrailLeft
0.02
TestTrailRight
ModelLeadLeft
0.01
ModelLeadRight
ModelTrailLeft
30
50
70
Speed(km/h)
90
ModelTrailRight
ModelTrail
Model Validation
Twist and Roll

Model vertical displacement is higher than the test data,
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
TestLeadLeft
TestLeadRight
0.06
0.05
TestTrailRight
ModelLeadLeft 0.04
ModelLeadRight
0.03
ModelTrailLeft
0.02
ModelTrailRight
0.01
0
although the trend is similar, showing resonance at the correct

speed.
Model lateral displacement is matches the test data closely.
TestTrailLeft
20
40
60
Speed(km/h)
80
20
TestLead
40
60
Speed(km/h)
TestTrail
ModelLead
80
ModelTrail
Turnout Simulations
Statement of Work Requires:

Diverging route simulation of 1:5, 1:9, and 1:12 turnouts
New and worn wheel profiles
New and curve worn rail profiles
Switch embedding defect simulations for 1:5, 1:9, and 1:12
turnouts
Speeds of 20 km/h and 34 km/h for the 1:5 turnout, and
20km/h, 40 km/h, and maximum civil speed for the 1:9 and 1:12
turnouts. Maximum civil speeds are 46 km/h for the 1:9 and 70
km/h for 1:12.
Track and wheelset gage variations
Turnout Simulations
The turnout run

matrix does not
include every
possible
combination,
but examines
the effect of
each parameter
compared to
the base
simulation.
Turnout Simulations
New and worn profiles.

New Wheel
New Rail
uic510-2_1361mmbb_860mmdia-r.whl [1]
uic60140_56-1-2_2013-r.ban [1]
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
-45
-50
-55
-60
-65
-70
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
-70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0
Worn Wheel
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Worn Rail
wrnwheel_1361mmbb_860mmdia-r.whl [1]
curvewornrail-lefthand-extended_1435mm-r.ban [1]
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
-40
-45
-50
-55
-60
-65
-70
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
-70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Turnout Simulations
Track and Wheelset gage Variations

Back to
Back
Min 1360 mm
Nom 1361 mm
Max 1362 mm
Gage
Min 1433 mm
Nom 1435 mm
Max 1445 mm
Turnout Simulation Predictions
The baseline turnout simulations met safety limits

The worst-case wheel force data occurred on the 1:5 turnout,
which has the largest entry angle and the smallest radius
closure curve.

1.0
WheelL/VRatio
The plots show there is

not much variation with
speed or profile
combination.
NewRail,NewWheel
NewRail,WornWheel
WornRail,NewWheel
WornRailWornWheel
Limit
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
15
1:5Turnout
1.0
NewRail,NewWheel
NewRail,WornWheel
WornRail,NewWheel
WornRailWornWheel
Limit
0.2
0.0
15
1:9Turnout
35
55
Speed(km/h)
75
WheelL/VRatio
WheelL/VRatio
0.8
0.4
75
NewRail,NewWheel
NewRail,WornWheel
WornRail,NewWheel
WornRailWornWheel
Limit
1.0
0.6
35
55
Speed(km/h)
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
15
1:12Turnout
35
55
Speed(km/h)
75
Gage Clearance Simulations meet the Safety Limits

1.0
WheelL/VRatio
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
15
1:5Turnout
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.6
NewWhandRaStGaandBB
NewWhandRaNarGaWideBB
WornWhandRaStGaandBB
WornWhandRaWideGaNarBB
Limit
0.4
0.2
0.0
15
1:9Turnout
35
55
Speed(km/h)
NewWhandRaStGaandBB
Limit
0.0
75
WheelL/VRatio
WheelL/VRatio
The plots show there is

not much variation in
performance with gage
clearance except for the
1:12 turnout, where
narrow gage clearance
shows lower L/V ratios.
35
55
Speed(km/h)
75
NewWhandRaStGaandBB
Limit
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
15
1:12Turnout
35
55
Speed(km/h)
75
Turnout Defect Simulations
Switch Embedding Defect Simulations
Defect
Switch Rail
Mainline Stock Rail
Defect Length Varies 0 to 2.1m
Ramp Length = 1m
Turnout Defect Simulation Predictions
The 1:5 turnout is the most sensitive to defect length,

followed by the 1:9 turnout. The 1:12 turnout was not
sensitive to defect length in the range simulated.
The 1:5 turnout has low
likelihood of derailment
for defect lengths of 0.3
m and less
The 1:9 turnouts has a
low likelihood of
derailment for defect
lengths of 1.5 m and
less
The 1:12 turnout has
low likelihood of
derailment for all of the
defect lengths
simulated (up to 2.1 m).
On the 1:5 turnout the
RollingRadius
maximum allowable defect

length increases from 0.3
m to 0.9 m
On the 1:5 turnout the
maximum allowable defect
length increases from 1.8
m to 2.1 m
0.035
0.030
0.025
0.020
0.015
0.010
0.005
0.000
NEW
0.3mDefect
0.6mDefect
0.9mDefect
1.2mDefect
1.5mDefect
1.8mDefect
15
15Turnout
(m,toindicateflangecontactposition)
Speed is an important
factor to consider with
defect length.
At 20 km/h:
RollingRadius

(m,toindicateflangecontactposition)
35
55
Speed(km/h)
75
2.1mDefect
Limit
0.025
NEW
0.020
0.3mDefect
0.015
0.6mDefect
0.9mDefect
0.010
1.2mDefect
0.005
1.5mDefect
1.8mDefect
0.000
19Turnout
15
35
55
Speed(km/h)
75
2.1mDefect
Limit
Although it is out of the scope of this project to simulate

them, there are several options to reduce the wear on
the switch point that leads to this kind of defect. They
are listed here in case MSP chooses to evaluate them in
the future:
Slight superelevation can be installed so that the switch point
for the diverging route movement is elevated slightly.

Preliminary evaluation suggests the use of 12 mm of elevation
ramped in over 6 to10 m.
A standard guard rail may be used just ahead of the switch
point to move the wheelsets to the center of the track before the
point of switch.
(continued on next slide)
(continued from previous slide)

A House Top or Cover Guard can be installed over the
straight switch point to pull the wheelset away from the

diverging switch point.
Installing a FAKOP switch design that uses the alignment of the
stock rail to steer the wheelset away from the switch point.
The cost and performance of these options must be

weighed against the option of simply performing
additional switch point maintenance.
Primary Suspension Stiffness Study
Examine the effect of increasing primary suspension

stiffness on vehicle performance.
Simulations focused on regimes that test the load
equalization performance of the vehicle.
The following inputs were used for primary stiffness

simulations:
Truck load equalization with airbags inflated (cab end and non-
cab end inputs)

Truck load equalization with airbags deflated (cab end only)
Nominal gage and back-to-back spacing, new wheel and rail
profiles
Speeds of 10-30 km/h in 5 km/h increments and 34 km/h
(maximum civil speed). Total of 6 speeds
1:5 turnout
Nominal geometry, a track twist perturbation with amplitude
equal to MSPs track twist limit and a track twist perturbation
with amplitude equal to twice MSPs track twist limit
MSPs Track Twist Limit

Closure curve of 1:5 turnout
2.5 m
4 mm
2.5 m
2.5 m
Outside Rail
8 mm
Inside Rail
Primary Suspension Stiffness
Primary stiffness affects

wheel load equalization
performance
PercentVerticalLoad
G35%
R35% R0% G0%
100%
NominalNew
Tuned
2xIncrease
50%
3xIncrease
35%Wheel
Load
35%Load
0%
0
R35%
100%
G35% G0%
R0%
NominalNew
Tuned
50%
2XIncrease
35%WheelLoad
3XIncrease
35%Load
0%
0
25
50
75
Wheel1LHeight(mm)
CabLead,EmptyAirbagInflated
Limit
PercentVerticalLoad
PercentVerticalLoad
EmptyAirbagDeflated
25
50
75
Wheel1LHeight(mm)
Limit
G35%
G35%G0%
G0%
R35%
R35%
R0%
R0%
100%
NominalNew
Tuned
50%
2XIncrease
3XIncrease
35%Wheel
Load
35%Load
0%
0
25
50
75
Wheel1LHeight(mm)
Limit
CabTrail,EmptyAirbagInflated
Primary Suspension Stiffness
Track twist has a large

effect on performance.
The model predicted
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
5
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.4
NominalNew
2xIncrease
Limit
0.2
TunedModelStiffness
3xIncrease
Tracktwistlimit
15
TunedModelStiffness
3xIncrease
25
Speed(km/h)
35
0.6
0.4
NominalNew
2xIncrease
Limit
0.2
TunedModelStiffness
3xIncrease
0.0
0.0
5
15
PerfectTrack
1.0
0.6
NominalNew
2xIncrease
Limit
0.0
WheelL/VRatio
WheelL/VRatio
derailment at speeds above

20 km/h for the stiffest
suspension running over
over 24mm track twist.
1.0
WheelL/VRatio
25
Speed(km/h)
35
5
Twicetracktwistlimit
15
25
Speed(km/h)
35
Conclusions Suspension Modification
The 3-point suspension improves performance by

reducing vertical secondary suspension displacement
and increasing the minimum vertical wheel loads in the
Twist and Roll zone. These improvements are at the
expense of higher carbody lateral accelerations at
speeds above 44 km/h.
If a small cross pipe orifice size (15mm) is chosen the
performance of the 3-point suspension suffers.
Conclusions Model Validation
Overall the model matches test results reasonably well.

This is demonstrated in conditions that excite the
vehicle vertically, laterally, and on curved track, with the
general trends predicted by the model matching the
trends in the test.
Quasi static truck load equalization simulations match
the test very well, indicating that the model is suitable
for use in parametric studies examining the effect of
primary suspension stiffness on vehicle performance.
Conclusions Turnout Simulations
Simulations using new and worn wheel and rail profiles

show that worn profiles are worse, but all combinations
of wheel/rail profiles meet the FRA 213 safety criteria for
nominal inputs.
Simulations using narrow and wide gage clearance
show that gage clearance has a small effect of vehicle
performance on the 1:5 and 1:9 turnouts. The effect is
larger on the 1:12 turnout. All combinations of gage
clearance meet the FRA 213 safety criteria for nominal
inputs.
Conclusions Turnout Defect Simulations
Simulations show that 1:5 and 1:9 turnouts with defects

longer than 0.3 m and 1.5 m respectively have a
tendency for flange climb derailment. For the 1:12
turnout defect lengths up to 2.1 m (the longest
simulated) do not show a tendency for flange climb
derailment.
Speed has a significant effect on results of turnout
defect simulations. If defects longer than recommended
occur on 1:5 or 1:9 turnouts, the risk of flange climb
derailment could be reduced by applying a speed
restriction of 20 km/h or less.
Conclusions Turnout Defect Simulations
Possible actions to decrease the wear that leads to

turnout defects are:
Installing a small amount of superelevation at the switch point.
Possibly as much as 12 mm ramped in over 6 to 10 m.

Installing guardrails ahead of the switch points.
Installing a Housetop, which is a guardrail at the switch points.
Installing a FAKOP switch design that uses the alignment of the
stock rail to steer the wheelset away from the switch point.
These options were not analyzed as part of this project.

The cost and performance of these options must be
investigated and weighed against the option of simply
performing additional switch point maintenance.
Conclusions Primary Stiffness

Simulations
Simulation predictions show that while primary stiffness

has a significant effect on truck load equalization
results, the effects are smaller for simulations using
track twist perturbations based on the normal MSP track
twist maintenance limit.
Primary stiffness simulations showed that the vehicle
performance is sensitive to track twist perturbations,
even at nominal primary stiffness values. Simulations
of a 1:5 turnout with a 24mm track twist perturbation
predict derailment for the highest primary stiffness at
speeds above 20 km/h
Recommendations
MSP should consider retrofitting the original Line 5 fleet

to the three point suspension using a 19mm air spring
to reservoir orifice and a 19mm reservoir to reservoir
crossover pipe orifice.
Test data showed that the three point modification may produce
higher lateral acceleration at some speeds. This should be

checked by measuring the ride quality of an existing design car
(or cars) and a modified car (or cars) when operated over the
line at normal speeds. Care should be taken to control or
account for other variables that would also affect the ride
quality, such as speed, damper condition, wheel profile, train
direction, and track condition.
MSP should evaluate the clearance envelope of the vehicle with
the three point suspension modification.
Recommendations
The 1:5 turnout, and to a lesser extent the 1:9 turnout

are very sensitive to switch point wear. MSP should
carefully maintain switch points to avoid flange climb
derailments.
The maximum primary stiffness in the worn condition
should be maintained at 1.5 kN/mm or less at each axle
box for Line 5 cars. This is consistent with the stiffness
used in the model to closely match the results
measured in the test of the worn vehicle. To ensure
safety at this stiffness level MSP should continue to
maintain track twist to less than 12 mm in 4 m on all of
their tracks.

06 Line 5 Final Presentation To MSP 2015-1-13

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

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

06 Line 5 Final Presentation To MSP 2015-1-13

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Transportation Technology Center, Inc.

, a subsidiary of the Association of American Railroads

TTCI/AAR, 2015. filename, p1

Objective: Characterize and measure the performance

TTCI/AAR, 2015, Filename p2

TTCI/AAR, 2015, Filename p3

Bogie Arrangement Line 5 Car

TTCI/AAR, 2015, Filename p4

Characterize the track

TTCI/AAR, 2015, Filename p5

The performance measures selected for the

Title 49 Part 213.333 Vehicle Track Interaction safety

TTCI/AAR, 2015, Filename p6

United States (US) Code of

function of flange angle and is

TTCI/AAR, 2015, Filename p7

APTA Wheel Load Equalization Requirements

mm (3 in) over 8.9 m (62 ft) track length.

TTCI/AAR, 2015, Filename p8

Flange Climb Indicator

TTCI/AAR, 2015, Filename p9

Flange Climb Indicator

Contact below this

UIC 510-2 wheel profile

Flange Climb Indicator

Flange Climb Indicator

The car was designed with a 4-point airspring

TTCI/AAR, 2015, Filename p13

Peak-to-peak secondary suspension vertical

followed by the reservoir to reservoir crossover pipe orifice size.

Peak-to-peak lateral acceleration on the carbody floor

orifice has the highest acceleration above 44 km/h

Minimum vertical wheel load measured using rail strain

TTCI/AAR, 2015, Filename p16

distribute the load to

TTCI/AAR, 2015, Filename p17

Truck Load Equalization Air springs deflated

Simulation predictions match the test results very closely.

TTCI/AAR, 2015, Filename p18

TTCI/AAR, 2015, Filename p19

MSP installed test tracks at Capao Redondo yard

test purposes in 2013

All Tests were

Pitch and Bounce

over estimates the displacements at lower speeds.

Twist and Roll

although the trend is similar, showing resonance at the correct

TTCI/AAR, 2015, Filename p22

Statement of Work Requires:

TTCI/AAR, 2015, Filename p23

The turnout run

TTCI/AAR, 2015, Filename p24

New and worn profiles.

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

-70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140

-70 -60 -50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0

Track and Wheelset gage Variations

TTCI/AAR, 2015, Filename p26

Turnout Simulation Predictions

The baseline turnout simulations met safety limits

TTCI/AAR, 2015, Filename p27

Turnout Simulation Predictions