DTD 5 ARTICLE IN PRESS

Advances in Engineering Software xx (2005) 1–11

www.elsevier.com/locate/advengsoft

Wheel-rail contact elements incorporating irregularities

C.J. Bowe*, T.P. Mullarkey
Department of Civil Engineering, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland
Received 25 November 2003; accepted 17 March 2005

Abstract
The aim of this study is to simulate the dynamic vertical response of a vehicle traversing rigid rails and a railway bridge. This is achieved
by using the authors’ wheel-rail contact element (WRC) to model the dynamic interaction that exists between a sprung wheel, using a
Hertzian spring, and the rail. The objective in creating these elements was to model the rail and wheel irregularities, which was not a feature
of the contact elements within the ANSYS finite element program. In this paper the numerical results generated using the authors’ WRC
element are identical to the results generated using the commercial contact element of ANSYS for a smooth rail condition. In the case of
irregular rails, the numerical results generated using the authors’ WRC elements compare very favourably with the results from the literature.
q 2005 Civil-Comp Ltd and Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Wheel-rail contact element; Hertzian spring; Rigid rails; Irregularities

1. Introduction
In recent years, research on the dynamic response of
trains and railway bridges has become an important topic in
civil engineering. Engineers and researchers have a
responsibility for ensuring the safe passage of trains
traversing rails and railway bridges by carrying out
extensive research on existing structures. Much of the
dynamic response that the bridge and vehicle experience
can be attributed to the contact that exists between the wheel
and the rail. Therefore, by modelling the different wheel-rail
conditions, one can better understand the dynamic response
of vehicles and railway bridges.
Many researchers such as Cheng et al. [1], Yang and
Wu [2] and Yau et al. [3] have developed their own vehicle-
bridge elements, whereby the vehicle is the assembly of an
unsprung mass for the wheel and sprung mass for the
vehicle body. In these systems, the wheel is assumed to be in
direct contact with the rail at all times; hence, the wheel and
rail have the same deflection and wheel-rail separation is not
* Corresponding author. Tel.: C353 91 524411x3086; fax: C353 91
750507.
E-mail address: cathal.bowe@nuigalway.ie (C.J. Bowe).
0965-9978/$ - see front matter q 2005 Civil-Comp Ltd and Elsevier Ltd.
All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.advengsoft.2005.03.026
possible on a rigid rail. In doing so, these systems must also
include the additional convective accelerations due to the
wheel as it travels along the beam. In the authors’ model, the
wheel is represented by a sprung mass, thus a Hertzian
spring exists between the wheel and the rail and is simulated
by means of the WRC elements. In this case, the wheel and
beam no longer have the same deflection; hence the
additional convective accelerations due to the wheel are
not required.
The authors’ technique involves modelling each wheel as
a Hertzian spring perpendicular to the surface of the rail.
Each WRC element consists of three stiffness matrices to
simulate the action of the wheel on the flexible rail, whereas
only one stiffness matrix is required to represent the action
of the wheel on the rigid rail. The appropriate non-zero
values, inputted into the stiffness matrices, relate to the
position of a wheel on a particular element using its shape
functions. The WRC elements use the extension in the
Hertzian spring at each time-step to calculate the contact
force that exists between the wheel and the rail. Wheel-rail
separation occurs when the extension in the spring becomes
positive, thus all stiffness matrices related to that particular
wheel are made equal to zero.
Introducing irregularities into the model tends to affect
the behaviour of the train as it travels along the rails.
Authors such as Au et al. [4], Chu et al. [5] and Wiriyachai
et al. [6] have discussed the effects of irregularities on the
DTD 5 ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 C.J. Bowe, T.P. Mullarkey / Advances in Engineering Software xx (2005) 1–11

Wheel Centre The subscripts B and L denote beam and spring,

Wheel Centre respectively.
The interaction between the spring and beam element
over which it is travelling has to be in accordance with
Rail Sprung mass Newton’s third law. The beam acts with a vertical force on
the spring; the spring acts with an equal and opposite force
Fig. 1. Wheel modelled as a sprung mass. on the beam. Point forces and moments on the nodes
represent this force on the beam.
rails. Certain irregularities can lead to wheel-rail separation From the free-body in Fig. 2, the nodal forces in the
and as the wheel regains contact with the rail, it can cause a wheel-rail contact element can be expressed as follows
sharp impact load to the structure.
8 9 8 9
In the authors’ model the irregularities are created using > ULx1 > > FLx1 >
" >
>
#> >
> > >
> >
>
the summation of a series of sine curves and are represented > >
kL11 kL12 < ULy1 = < FLy1 =
indirectly using forces and moments applied to the flexible Z (1)
rail and wheel as well as modifying the equation for kL21 kL22 > >
> ULx2 >
>
>
>
>
> FLx2 >
>
>
>
: >
; > : >
;
extension. Again the forces and moments used are related to ULy2 FLy2
the position of a wheel on a particular element using its
shape functions. When the wheel travels on the rigid rail, where kLij (i, jZ1, 2) denotes a 2!2 stiffness matrix, ULxi,
only the force applied to the wheel is taken into account. ULyi (i, jZ1, 2) are the nodal displacement vector and FLxi,
FLyi (i, jZ1, 2) are the nodal force vector of the Hertzian
spring (also referred to as a link). kL11 is a symmetrical
2. Wheel-rail contact elements matrix, kL22 is equal to kL11, kL12 is equal to kL21, the latter
being equal to minus one times kL11.
" # " #
2.1. Smooth rails cos2 q sin q cos q 0 0
kL11 Z kH Z kH ðq Z 908 Þ
2 0 1
The technique involves modelling a wheel as a Hertzian sin q cos q sin q
spring with one node at the centre of the wheel and the other The vertical displacement at any point along the beam
node on the rail as illustrated in Fig. 1. The spring is always can be calculated using Eq. (2), where N1 and N2 are the
perpendicular to the surface. In Fig. 2, the reader can see a transverse displacement shape functions and G1 and G2 are
free-body diagram for the WRC element and one beam the rotational shape functions.
element representing part of the rail. In ANSYS, the user
can create a stiffness matrix between any pair of nodes; VB ðxÞ Z VB1 N1 ðxÞCqB1 G1 ðxÞCVB2 N2 ðxÞCqB2 G2 ðxÞ (2)
hence, the authors are obliged to use this facility to input the
three additional stiffness matrices, thereby simulating the where
vertical effects of the wheel. To simulate the spring, three N1 ðxÞ Z 1C2ðx=lÞ3 K3ðx=lÞ2
additional stiffness matrices are created between local node
1 and local node 2 of the beam, between local node 1 of the G1 ðxÞ Z xf1K2ðx=lÞCðx=lÞ2 gN2 ðxÞ Z 3ðx=lÞ2 K2ðx=lÞ3 (3)
beam and local node 2 of the spring and finally between
local node 2 of the beam and local node 2 of the spring. G2 ðxÞ Z xfðx=lÞ2 Kðx=lÞg
Fig. 2 indicates that the coordinate system adopted in this
study has x positive along the beam element, y positive The length of the beam element is denoted by l and the
upward and z positive outwards. The origin of the distance travelled along the element is given by x, travelling
coordinate system is at local node 1 of the beam. For two- from left to right. Because local node 1 of the spring is
dimensional problems, the deflection in the x, y plane and located at position x on the beam, we can state the
rotation about z-axis are denoted as U, V and q, respectively. following:

ULy2
y
2 2 ULx2
2nd stiffness matrix 2 3rd stiffness matrix
θB1 Hertzian
1 Spring 1
UB2
UB1 1
0 1st stiffness matrix
1 x 2

z VB1 VB2 θ B2

Fig. 2. Free-body diagram of the wheel-rails contact element.

DTD 5 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C.J. Bowe, T.P. Mullarkey / Advances in Engineering Software xx (2005) 1–11 3

ULy1 ZVB ðxÞ (4) three stiffness matrices used by the WRC elements:
8 9 2 38 9
> 0> 0 0 0 0 0 0 > U
The substitution of Eq. (4) into Eq. (1) gives the >
> >
> > B1 > >
>
> >
> 6 7>
> >
>
following: >
> N1>
> 6 0 N1 N1 N1 G1 0 N1 N2 N1 G2 7> >
> V
>
>
B1 >
> >
> > 6 7> >
8 9 8 9 >
> >
> 6 7>
> >
>
> ULx2 > > FLx1 > < G1 >
> = 6 0 G N G G 0 G N G G 7< q > >
> >
=
> > > > 6 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 27 B1
" #>
> >
> > > >
> FLy1 Z½kH
6 6 7
kL11 kL12 < VB ðxÞ = < FLy1 = >
>
> 0> >
> 60 0 0 0 0 0 7>
7
>UB2 > >
Z (5) >
> >
> 6 7>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> 6 7>
> >
>
kL21 kL22 >
>
> ULx2 >>
>
>
>
> FLx2 >
>
> >
>
> N >
>
>
6 0 N N N G 0 N N N G 7>
> V >
>
> > 4 5> B2 >
; > > 2 2 1 2 1 2 2 2 2
: : ; >
> >
> >
> >
>
ULy2 FLy2 : ; : ;
G2 0 G2 N1 G2 G1 0 G2 N2 G2 G2 qB2
2 38 9 2 38 9
0 0 0 0 0 0 > UB1 > 0 0 0 0 0 0 > UB2 >
Since it is assumed that the Hertzian spring element > > > >
6 7>> >
> 6 7>
> >
>
remains perpendicular to the surface at all times, the 6 0 0 0 0 N1 0 7>>V >
> >
> 6 0 0 0 0 N2 07> >V >
> >
>
6 7> > 6 7> >
7> > > >
B1 B2
horizontal displacement on both nodes are equal. The force 6 >
> >
> 6 7>
> >
>
6 0 0 0 0 G 0 7> < >
= 6 0 0 0 0 G 07> < >
6 1 7 qB1 6 2 7 qB2 =
imparted to the beam by the spring is equal to KFLy1 C½KkH
6 6 7 C½KkH
6 6 7
7> 7
located at position x, which in turn is equal to minus one 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 7> >ULx2 > >
> 6 0 0 0 0 0 07> > ULx2 >
>
6 7> > 6 7>
> >
>
times the left hand side of Eq. (6). The right-hand side of Eq. 6 7>>
>
>
>
> 6 7>
>
>
>
>
>
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 7> > >
> 6 7>
> >
Ly2 >
4 5> U Ly2 > 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 5> U >
(6) come from Eq. (5). This generalised force consists of >
> >
> >
> >
>
: ; : ;
vertical forces and moments applied to the nodes. 0000 0 0 K 0000 0 0 K
8 9 8 9 (9)
>
> 0 >> >
> 0 >>
>
> >
> >
> >
> There are three matrix terms on the right-hand
>
> N >
> >
> N >
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > side of Eq. (9). The first term represents the stiffness
1 1
> >
> > > > ( )
<G = <G > =  VB ðxÞ matrix along the beam element, the second term
1 1

FLy1 Z kH KkH (6) represents the stiffness matrix between local node 1
>
> 0 >> >
> 0 >> ULy2
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> of the beam and local node 2 of the spring element
>
> > > >
> N2 >
> > > > N2 >> and the third term represents the stiffness matrix
>
> > > >
: ; : >
> > ; between local node 2 of the beam and local node 2
G2 G2
of the spring element.
In Eq. (6), VB(x) is replaced by the right-hand side of The force imparted to the wheel axle by the spring is
Eq. (2), resulting in the following equation: KFLy2, where FLy2 is derived from Eqs. (5) and (2) resulting
8 9 8 9 in the following:
> 0 > > 0 >
>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> 8 9 8 9
>
> N >
> >
> N 1>
> > 0> > 0>
>
> > 1>
> > > >
> > >
> >> >
> >>
>
> > > >
> >
>
>
>
>
> 8 8 9 9>>
>
>
>
>
< G1 >
> = > < G1 >=
>
>0>> > > VB1 > > >
>0>>
 >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> > > > > > > >
FLy1
>
Z kH KkH <0>= >
<

>
<
 B1 =
q > > >
=< 0 >
=
>
> 0 > >
>
>
>
> 0 >>
> FLy2 Z ½KkH
N1 G1 N2 G2 C½kH
ULy2
>
> >
> >
> >
> (7) > > > >
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 0>> >
> >
> VB2 > >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 0>
>
>
>
> N >
> >
> N >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
:
>
>
:
>
>
;
>
>
;
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2 >
> > > > 2
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
: >
> ; > : > ; >
> 1 >
> qB2 >
> 1 >
>
> >
> > >
> >
G2 G2 : ; : > ;
( ) K K
VB1 N1 ðxÞCqB1 G1 ðxÞCVB2 N2 ðxÞCqB2 G2 ðxÞ 2 38 9 2 3
0 0 0 0 0 0 > UB1 > 0 0 0 000
> >
7> >
!
ULy2 6 >
> >
> 6 7
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 7> VB1 > 60 0 0 0 0 07
6 7>
>
>
>
>
> 6 7
6 7> > 6 7
Eq. (7) can also be rewritten as: 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 7> >
<
>
>
= 60 0 0 0 0 07
6 7 qB1 6 7
8 9 8 9 Z½KkH
6
6
7
7> C½KkH
6 6
7
7
> 0> >0> 8 9 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 7> > ULx2 > >
> 60 0 0 0 0 07
>
> >
> >
> >
> VB1 > 6 7> > 6 7
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 6 7>
> >
> 6 7
> >
> N1 >
> > >
>
> N1 >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 6 0 N1 G1 0 0 0 7>
>
> U
>
>
> 6 0 N 2 G2 0 0 0 7
> > > > > > 4 5>
> Ly2 >
> 4 5
>
> >
> >
> >
> " # >
> q B1 >
> >
: >
;
< G1 >
> = > < G1 >=
>
< >
= 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 000
 N1 G1 N2 G2 0 8 9 2
K
38 9
FLy1 Z kH KkH VB2 > U > 0 0 0 0 0 0 > U >
>
> 0> > >
> 0> > 0 0 0 0 1 > > >
> > B2 >
> > > B1 >
> >
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 6 7> >
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> q B2 >
> >
> V >
> 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 7>>
> V
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> B2 >
> 6 7 >
> B1 >
>
> N 2> > N 2> > > >
> >
> 6 7 >
> >
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> : ; >
<q = > 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 7<> >
> >
: ; : ; > > ULy2 B2 6 7 qB1 =
C½kH
66 7 ð10Þ
G2 G2 !
> > 7
>
> ULx2 >> 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 7>>
> ULx2 >
>
>
>
> >
> 6 7 > >
(8) >
> > 6 7>> >
>
>U >
> >
> 6 0 0 0 0 1 0 7>>U >
> >
>
>
> Ly2 >
> 4 5 >
> Ly2 >
>
The right-hand side of Eq. (8) is developed further, >
: >
; >
: >
;
giving rise to the following equation, which contain the K 000000 K
DTD 5 ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 C.J. Bowe, T.P. Mullarkey / Advances in Engineering Software xx (2005) 1–11

The right-hand side of Eq. (10) contains three matrix

ULy2 ULx2
terms, and the third term by itself represents the effects of y 2 2
the rigid rails. For programming purposes Eqs. (9) and (10) x 2
are combined, resulting in symmetrical stiffness matrices for
the Hertzian spring, updated at each timestep.
f (x ) Hertzian
The wheel-rail contact force in the spring is evaluated by θ B1 Spring
multiplying the extension by the spring stiffness. The UB1 1 1 UB2
Hertzian extension is given by Eq. (11), where q is equal to 0 1 x 2
908 for the spring and where Eq. (4) has been incorporated.
z VB1 VB2 θ B2
8 9
> ULx1 >
>
> >
> Fig. 3. Free-body diagram of the WRC element with irregularities.
>
> >
>

< ULy1 =
extension Z Kcos q Ksin q cos q sin q Modifying Eq. (6) to include the effects of irregularities
>
> >
> ULx2 >
> >
> on the rails yields the following equation:
>
: >
;
ULy2 8 9 8 9
8 9 > 0> > 0>
> ULx1 > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> > >
> > > >


>
< V ðxÞ >
= > >
>
N1 >
> > >
>
>
N1 >
>
B >
> >
> >
> >
> ( )
Z 0 K1 0 1 ð11Þ < G1 >
> = < G1 >
> =

>
> ULx2 > >  VB ðxÞCf ðxÞ
>
> >
> FLy1 Z kH KkH
> > >
: ; >
> 0> >
>
>
>
> 0> >
> ULy2
ULy2 >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> N2 >> >
> N2 >
>
In the model, the extension in the spring is calculated at >
> >
> >
> >
>
: ; : >
> > > ;
each timestep to determine if the wheel is in contact with the G2 G2
rail. A negative extension (compression) indicates that 8 9 8 9
contact exists between the wheel and the rail, while a >0>
> > >
>
0>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> >
> >
> >
>
positive extension (tension) means that there is no contact; >
> N 1 >
> >
> N 1 >
>
>
> >
> >
> >
>
thus all stiffness matrices related to that particular wheel are >
> > ( ) > > ( )
< G1 >=
 VB ðxÞ
>
< G1 >=
 f ðxÞ
set equal to zero when the extension is positive.
Z k KkH C kH KkH
>0>
> > H ULy2 >
> 0> > 0
>
> >
> >
> >
>
2.2. Irregular rails >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> > > >
>
> N2 >>
>
>
>
> N2 >>
>
> >
> > > >
> >
: ; : ;
As a wheel traverses a rail with irregularities, the vertical G2 G2
position of the wheel changes in accordance with the profile (14)
of the irregularity, thus influencing the behaviour of the
train. Certain irregularities can lead to wheel-rail separation
where the irregularity function f ðxÞ has been isolated on the
and as the wheel regains contact with the rail, it can cause a
right-hand side. Once again, the force imparted to the beam
sharp impact load to the structure. In this model the
by the spring is equal to minus one times the left hand side
irregularity function, f, is the summation of several sine
of Eq. (14).
curves as given in Eq. (12)
Modifying Eq. (10) to include irregularities yields the
X
N
2px following:
fZ aj sin (12)
gj 8 9
jZ1
> VB1 >
>
> >
>
where aj and gj are the amplitude and wavelength, >
> >
>

 qB1 =
<
respectively, of the jth wave and N is the number of sine FLy2 Z½KkH
N1 G1 N2 G2
curves. The horizontal distance from the left support of the >
> >
VB2 >
>
> >
>
>
: >
;
beam to the spring is denoted as x. 
qB2
A free-body diagram showing irregularities on the rail
can be seen in Fig. 3. This figure shows the Hertzian spring C ½kH
ULy2 C ½kH
f ðxÞ
 ð15Þ
following the profile of the irregularities on the rail. Both the
x and the irregularity function f are shown in this figure. An The Hertzian extension in the spring is now modified by
inspection of Fig. 3 tells us that Eq. (4) must be modified as the irregularity function f and takes the form of Eq. (16).
follows: This equation explains why the contact element of ANSYS
is unsuitable for modelling irregularities. Its equation for
ULy1 Z VB ðxÞ C f ðxÞ
 (13) extension cannot include function f. Eqs. (14)–(16) are
DTD 5 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C.J. Bowe, T.P. Mullarkey / Advances in Engineering Software xx (2005) 1–11 5

of 80.77 m and a total mass of approximately 275 tonnes. All

members in the bridge are modelled using three-dimensional
elastic beam elements. Sleeper and ballast effects are ignored
in the model. In our model the rail on the bridge is flexible, but
the rail to the left and right of the bridge is rigid.
Fig. 4. Three-dimensional model of the Boyne Viaduct railway bridge.
3.2. Train model
updated at each timestep. 8 9
> ULx1 > The three-dimensional vehicle model considered in this
>
> >
>
>
< >

 =
 VB ðxÞ C f ðxÞ paper comprises a six-axle locomotive and a single four-
extension Z 0 K1 0 1 (16) axle railway carriage as illustrated in Fig. 5. Each vehicle
>
> ULx2 >
>
>
> >
> consists of a vehicle body supported by a pair of bogies,
: ;
ULy2 with each bogie supported by axles and finally a pair of
wheels supports each axle. The bogies are connected to the
3. Bridge and train model axles through primary suspensions and to the vehicle body
through secondary suspensions, with each suspension
3.1. Bridge model consisting of a spring and dashpot.
Fig. 6 presents a three-dimensional locomotive model.
As a case study, one only considers the centre span of the Lumped masses mw are used to model the wheel masses,
Boyne Viaduct railway bridge located in Drogheda, Ireland. while elastic beam elements are used to model the bogie and
The three-dimensional model of the bridge comprises a simply vehicle body components. The primary spring stiffness and
supported truss as shown in Fig. 4. The bridge has a clear span damping is given by k1 and c1, while k2 and c2 denote the

Fig. 5. Six-axle locomotive and four-axle railway carriage.

y y
θz θx
x z

vehicle body

k2 c2 secondary suspension k2 c2
bogie
k1 c1 primary suspension k1 c1
mw mw mw mw mw mw
wheelset
kH Hertian spring kH
l2 l2 l2 l2 l4
l3

Fig. 6. Three-dimensional locomotive model.

DTD 5 ARTICLE IN PRESS
6 C.J. Bowe, T.P. Mullarkey / Advances in Engineering Software xx (2005) 1–11

secondary spring stiffness and damping. The Hertzian

VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT (m)

0.0005
spring stiffness, also known as the wheel-rail contact (a)
0.0000
stiffness, is given by kH. Horizontal links are required 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
–0.0005
between the vehicle body and the bogie and also between
WRC ELEMENT
the bogie and axles to prevent the structure from becoming a –0.0010
ANSYS CONTAC48
mechanism. These horizontal links do not interact with the –0.0015
suspension springs. The distance between the axles of a
–0.0020
single bogie is l2, between centres of two bogies is l3 and
between wheels of a single axle is l4. The three-dimensional –0.0025
railway carriage model is similar to the locomotive model TIME (sec)

expect that it has two axles instead of three per bogie as

VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT (m)

0.0005
described in Esveld [7]. (b)
0.0000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
–0.0005
ANALYTICAL (5 modes)
–0.0010 WRC ELEMENT
4. Results
–0.0015

4.1. Model validation for a single mass –0.0020

In order to validate the system, the authors compare their
use of the WRC element with their use of the commercial
node-to-surface contact element in ANSYS (CONTAC48).
They also compare their results with some simple analytical
solutions developed by Biggs [8]. The bridge properties
adopted in Sections 4.1.1–4.1.3 are similar to those of Yang
and Wu [2], such that the bridge has a length lZ25 m,
Young’s modulus of elasticity EZ2.87!106 kN/m2,
moment of inertia IZ2.9 m4, mass per unit length mZ
2.303 t/m and a Poisson’s ratio nZ0.2. The gravitational
and damping effects of the bridge are ignored. The wheel
traverses the bridge at a constant speed cZ27.78 m/s. The
Hertzian spring stiffness kHZ1595 kN/m. Each example
uses the Newmark time integration method [9] with 200
equal time steps to solve the transient analysis. In Sections
–0.0025
TIME (sec)
Fig. 8. Vertical displacement at mid-point of beam due to a moving sprung
load. (a) Comparing the WRC element with ANSYS CONTAC48 element;
(b) comparing the WRC element with analytical solution [8].
the vertical acceleration at mid-point of the beam are plotted
as a function of time in Figs. 8 and 9, respectively,. In each
case, figure (a) compares the WRC element with ANSYS
CONTAC48 element, while figure (b) compares the
solution using the WRC elements with Biggs’s [8]
analytical solution, where the first 5 modes of vibration
are used to determine the deflection and acceleration of the
beam.
VERTICAL ACCELERATION (m/s2)

0.6
4.1.1–4.1.2 time t is arranged in such a manner that the 0.5
(a) WRC ELEMENT
ANSYS CONTAC48
vehicle is at the left hand support at tZ0 s. 0.4
0.3
0.2
4.1.1. Wheel as a moving sprung load
0.1
As shown in Fig. 7, a simply supported beam is subjected 0.0
to a moving sprung load P travelling at speed c from left to –0.1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

right. In the authors’ model, the wheel is given a zero mass –0.2
and the point force PZ56.4 kN is attached to the centre of –0.3
the wheel i.e. local node 2 of the spring. The deflection and TIME (sec)
VERTICAL ACCELERATION (m/s2)

0.6
0.5
(b) ANALYTICAL (5 modes)
WRC ELEMENT
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
–0.1
–0.2
–0.3
TIME (sec)

Fig. 7. Simply supported beam subjected to a moving sprung load. (a) Fig. 9. Vertical acceleration at mid-point of beam due to a moving sprung
Comparing the WRC element with ANSYS CONTAC48 element; (b) load. (a) Comparing the WRC element with ANSYS CONTAC48 element;
comparing the WRC element with analytical solution [8]. (b) Comparing the WRC element with analytical solution [8].
DTD 5 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C.J. Bowe, T.P. Mullarkey / Advances in Engineering Software xx (2005) 1–11 7

VERTICAL ACCELERATION (m/s2)

0.6
0.5 (a) WRC ELEMENT
0.4 ANSYS CONTAC48

0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
–0.1
–0.2
–0.3
TIME (sec)

Fig. 10. Simply supported beam subjected to a moving sprung mass. (a)

VERTICAL ACCELERATION (m/s2)

0.6
Comparing the WRC element with ANSYS CONTAC48 element; (b) 0.5
(b) ANALYTICAL (2 modes)
comparing the WRC element with analytical solution [8]. 0.4
WRC ELEMENT

0.3
One should notice from the plots a striking similarity 0.2
between the solutions using the WRC element and the 0.1
ANSYS CONTAC48 element; equally the numerical and 0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
.
analytical solutions are strikingly similar. –0.1
–0.2
–0.3
4.1.2. Wheel as a moving sprung mass TIME (sec)

Fig. 10 presents a simply supported beam subjected to a Fig. 12. Vertical acceleration at mid-point of beam due to a sprung mass. (a)
moving sprung mass MwZ5.75 t traversing the beam at a Comparing the WRC element with ANSYS CONTAC48 element; (b)
constant speed. In this example, the analytical solution [8] comparing WRC element with analytical solution [8].
consists of the first two modes of vibration. Again, one
From inspection, one can see that the results from the
compares the deflection and vertical acceleration at mid-
WRC element and ANSYS CONTAC48 element are very
point of the beam as a function of time in Figs. 11 and 12,
similar again, whereas there are some slight deviations
respectively, while the vertical displacement and accelera-
between the analytical solution [8] and the solution using
tion of the sprung mass as a function of time are shown in
the WRC element. Two reasons for the inaccuracy in the
Figs. 13 and 14, respectively. In Fig. 15, a plot of the contact
analytical solution are as follows: (1) too few modes are
force between the wheel and the rail is presented. The
used to describe the deflection of the beam; and (2) the
contact force due to the motion of the wheel varies
somewhat from the weight of the wheel. analytical solution [8] models the wheel as an unsprung
VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT (m)

0.0005
VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT (m)

(a) 0.0005
0.0000 (a)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.0000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
. 0.9
.
–0.0005 –0.0005
WRC ELEMENT WRC ELEMENT
–0.0010 ANSYS CONTAC48 –0.0010 ANSYS CONTAC48

–0.0015 –0.0015

–0.0020
–0.0020
–0.0025
–0.0025
TIME (sec) –0.0030
TIME (sec)
VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT (m)

0.0005
VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT (m)

(b) 0.0005
0.0000 (b)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.0000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
–0.0005
–0.0005
ANALYTICAL (2 modes)
ANALYTICAL (2 modes)
–0.0010 WRC ELEMENT –0.0010
WRC ELEMENT
–0.0015 –0.0015

–0.0020
–0.0020
–0.0025
–0.0025
–0.0030
TIME (sec) TIME (sec)

Fig. 11. Vertical displacement at mid-point of beam due to a sprung mass. Fig. 13. Vertical displacement of the wheel due to a sprung mass. (a)
(a) Comparing the WRC element with ANSYS CONTAC48 element; (b) Comparing the WRC element with ANSYS CONTAC48 element; (b)
comparing the WRC element with analytical solution [8]. comparing WRC element with analytical solution [8].
DTD 5 ARTICLE IN PRESS
8 C.J. Bowe, T.P. Mullarkey / Advances in Engineering Software xx (2005) 1–11
VERTICAL ACCELERATION (m/s2)

0.20
(a)
0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
–0.05

–0.10
WRC ELEMENT
–0.15 ANSYS CONTAC48
–0.20
TIME (sec)
VERTICAL ACCELERATION (m/s2)

0.20
(b) Fig. 16. Rigid rail and simply supported beam subjected to a travelling
0.15 bouncing wheel.
0.10

0.05 0.003

VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT (m)

0.00 WRC ELEMENTS
0.002
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
–0.05 ANSYS CONTAC48
0.001
–0.10
ANALYTICAL (2 modes) 0
–0.15 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
WRC ELEMENT –0.001
–0.20
–0.002
TIME (sec)
–0.003
Wheel on rigid rail
Fig. 14. Vertical acceleration of the wheel due to a sprung mass. (a) –0.004 Whee on rigid rail
Comparing the WRC element with ANSYS CONTAC48 element; (b)
–0.005
Comparing WRC element with analytical solution [8].
–0.006
TIME (sec)
mass, thus requiring the additional convective accelerations,
Fig. 17. Vertical displacement at mid-point of the beam due to the travelling
which are ignored in the analytical solution. bouncing wheel.

The vertical displacement of the beam (at mid-point) and

4.1.3. A travelling bouncing wheel the wheel as a function of time is plotted in Figs. 17 and 18,
In the following example one examines the effects of respectively, while the contact force between the wheel and
wheel-rail separation, whereby the wheel is modelled as a rail is shown in Fig. 19. Again, excellent agreement can be
travelling sprung mass with an initial positive extension seen between the solution using the WRC element and
resulting in a zero contact force. As mentioned earlier, when ANSYS CONTAC48 element results. One can also see from
the extension in the Hertzian spring becomes positive, no Fig. 19 that as the wheel regains contact with the rail it
contact exists between the wheel and the rail, the contact generates a large impact load, much greater than the weight of
force is zero, and all stiffness matrices related to that the wheel; thus the maximum deflection of the beam shown in
particular wheel are put equal to zero. Fig. 17 is much greater than the corresponding value in Fig. 11.
In this model, rigid rails are located on either side of a
simply supported beam as shown in Fig. 16. The initial 4.2. Model validation for a pair of masses separated
horizontal position of the wheel at time tZ0 s is located at a by a spring for a wide range of speeds
distance lrZ25 m from the left support of the beam, while
the initial vertical extension is 0.01 m. The wheel traverses The WRC element models the wheel of a vehicle as
the simply supported beam between the times tZ0.9–1.8 s sprung mass involving a Hertzian spring. In this section,
and at all other times the wheel travels on the rigid rail. 0.02
VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT (m)

–50 0.00
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.0 0.5 1.5 2.0 2.5
CONTACT FORCE (kN)

–0.02
–52
WRC ELEMENT –0.04
–54 ANSYS CONTAC48
–0.06
–56
–0.08

–58 –0.10 W1.0RC ELEMENTS

Weight of the wheel ANSYS CONTAC48
–60 –0.12
TIME (sec)
TIME (sec)

Fig. 15. Wheel-rail contact force due to a sprung mass. Fig. 18. Vertical displacement of the travelling bouncing wheel.
DTD 5 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C.J. Bowe, T.P. Mullarkey / Advances in Engineering Software xx (2005) 1–11 9

0 1.8

DYNAMIC / STATIC DEFLECTION

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
–20 1.7
CONTACT FORCE (kN)

–40 1.6
–60 1.5
–80 1.4
–100
1.3
–120 OLSSON [10] UNSPRUNG MASS
1.2
WRC ELEMENTS Weight of
–140 SOFT HERTZIAN SPRING
ANSYS CONTAC48 the wheel 1.1
HARD HERTZIAN SPRING
–160
1.0
TIME (sec) 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
VEHICLE SPEED / CRITICAL SPEED
Fig. 19. The contact force between the rail and the travelling bouncing
wheel. Fig. 21. Simply supported beam subjected to a moving vehicle using
different Hertzian spring stiffness on a smooth rail.
the authors compare their WRC element with the unsprung
mass system of Olsson [10]; however, the authors use both One now examines the dynamic effects of rail
hard and soft Hertzian springs for the WRC elements irregularities on the simply supported beam subjected to
because Hertzian springs are absent from Olsson’s [10] the same moving vehicle. Olsson [10] uses an unsprung
model as shown in Fig. 20. mass system while the authors use their WRC element.
The bridge properties of Section 4.1 are used in this Again, hard and soft Hertzian spring are used for
comparison purposes. In the model, the ratio of the bridge
example. The dimensionless parameters adopted are similar
length to the irregularity wavelength is equal to 10, while
to those of Olsson [10], such that the vehicle to bridge mass
the ratio of the irregularity amplitude to the static deflection
ratio is 0.5; the unsprung wheel mass to sprung vehicle mass
is 0.05. In Fig. 22, one can see that the results for the hard
ratio is 0.25; the bridge to vehicle frequency ratio is 3; the
and soft Hertzian springs vary somewhat from the results of
vehicle damping ratio is 0.125. Other dimensionless
Olsson [10].
parameters used are a speed ratio (that is the vehicle
speed divided by the critical speed) and a dynamic
amplification factor (ratio between the maximum dynamic 4.3. Boyne Viaduct subjected to a moving locomotive
deflection and static deflection of the mid-point of the and carriage on smooth and irregular rails
bridge). The critical speed is the speed of the vehicle such
that the vehicle travels a distance of twice the length of the The authors will now use the WRC element to investigate
bridge in a time equal to the natural period of the bridge. the dynamic response of the Boyne Viaduct Railway Bridge
In Fig. 21, the authors compare their WRC element with subjected to a moving vehicle travelling at a constant speed.
the unsprung mass system of Olsson [10] under smooth rail The bridge and vehicle properties used are defined in
conditions, whereby the hard to soft Hertzian spring Table 1. This is a three-dimensional problem, unlike the
stiffness has a ratio of 500. One can see from the results examples of Sections 4.1 and 4.2, which are two-
that the solution for the hard Hertzian spring stiffness is dimensional. In this example, the authors use the Newmark
time integration method [9] to solve the transient analysis
almost identical with the solution of Olsson [10] at all
with 500 equal time steps.
speeds, whereas the soft Hertzian spring stiffness compares
The WRC element is used to model rail irregularities,
better with Olsson [10] at lower speeds.
which are not a feature of the contact element of ANSYS.

1.8
DYNAMIC / STATIC DEFLEVTION

1.7 OLSSON [10] UNSPRUNG MASS

SOFT HERTZIAN SPRING
1.6
HARD HERTZIAN SPRING
1.5

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
VEHICLE SPEED / CRITICAL SPEED

Fig. 20. Comparing Olsson [10] unsprung model with the author sprung Fig. 22. Simply supported beam subjected to a moving vehicle using
mass system using WRC elements. different Hertzian spring stiffness on a rail with irregularities.
DTD 5 ARTICLE IN PRESS
10 C.J. Bowe, T.P. Mullarkey / Advances in Engineering Software xx (2005) 1–11

Table 1
Model properties

Bridge properties
Overall length of bridge (m) 81.77
Self-weight of bridge (t) 275
First natural frequency of unloaded 3.14
bridge (Hz)
First natural frequency loaded 1.94
bridge (Hz)
Train properties Locomotive Carriage
Mass of car body (t) 90.958 33.7
Mass of each bogie frame (t) 10.175 3.15
Mass of each axle together with 4.522 1.5
wheels, mw (t)
Stiffness of spring in primary 7000 700
suspension, k1 (kN/m)
Damping of spring in primary 58.8 5.88
suspension, c1 (kN s/m)
Stiffness of spring in secondary 4100 410
suspension, k2 (kN/m) Fig. 24. Vehicle traversing the Boyne Viaduct with rail irregularities.
Damping of spring in secondary 22 2.2
suspension, c2 (kN s/m) wheel of the train arrives at the left support at tZ0.5 s and
Hertzian spring stiffness, kH (kN/m) 1.40!106 1.40!106 the rear wheel of the train leaves the right support at tZ
Distance between two centre of axles, 1.8 2.56
6.67 s. The simulation assumes that the bridge is horizontal
l2 (m)
Distance between two centre 14 14 in the absent of gravity and bridge damping is neglected.
of bogie frames, l3 (m) In Fig. 24, the authors show an image, taken from an
Overall length of vehicle (m) 18 18.78 animation, of the train traversing the Boyne Viaduct,
Number of vehicles 1 1
influenced by the irregularities on the rail using their
General properties
WRC element. One can see from the image that the
Young’s modulus of elasticity (kN/m2) 2.05!108
Density of steel (t/m3) 7.850 irregularities cause the locomotive to rolls about its long
Poisson’s ratio 0.3 axis as it traverses the bridge. It should be noted that the
displacements have been increased by a factor of 10. In
In addition the WRC element is used as a lateral spring to the results that follow the smooth rail is compared with the
prevent the wheels of the vehicle from sliding laterally off irregular rail. The vertical displacement at mid-point of the
the rails, something not possible using the contact element bridge (point T1 as shown in Fig. 4) and the vertical
of ANSYS. This example studies the rolling of a railway displacement of the front wheel of the train (point W1 in
carriage about the long axis, induced by rails with Fig. 5) on rail A are plotted as a function of time in Figs. 25
irregularities out of phase. A plot of the two rails (A and and 26, respectively. Fig. 27 presents the contact force that
B) with irregularities out of phase is presented in Fig. 23, exists between the front wheel (W1) of the train and rail A,
with each irregularity having a wavelength of 40 m and while the lateral displacement of the vehicle body (point V1
amplitude of 0.01 m. Rails A and B are indicated on Fig. 24. as shown in Fig. 5) can be seen in Fig. 28. Examining
The train model consists of a six-axle locomotive pulling Figs. 23 and 26, one can see that the front wheel of the train
a single four-axle railway carriage traversing the Boyne follows the profile of the irregularity. From inspection of the
Viaduct railway bridge at (20 m/s) 72 km/h from left to graphs, one can also see that, for this particular speed and
right. Time t is arranged in such a manner that the front irregularity, the dynamic effects of the bridge are less
significant than those of the train.
IRREGULARITY FUNCTION (m) .

0.0100
VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT (m)

0.005
Irregularity along Irregularity RAIL A
rigid rail along bridge
RAIL B 0.000
0.0050 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
–0.005
SMOOTH RAIL
–0.010 Rear wheel on
0.0000 IRREGULARITIES right support
–0.015

–0.0050 –0.020
–0.025

–0.0100 –0.030 Front wheel on Front wheel on

–40 –20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 left support right support
–0.035
DISTANCE (m) TIME (sec)

Fig. 23. Rail irregularities out of phase along bridge. Fig. 25. Vertical displacement at mid-point of the Boyne Viaduct (T1).
DTD 5 ARTICLE IN PRESS
C.J. Bowe, T.P. Mullarkey / Advances in Engineering Software xx (2005) 1–11 11

0.010 0.02

LATERAL DISPLACEMENT (m)

VERTICAL DISPLACEMENT (m)

0.000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IRREGULARITIES
–0.010
0.01
–0.020 SMOOTH RAIL

–0.030 IRREGULARITIES
0.00
–0.040 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
–0.050
–0.060 –0.01
–0.070
–0.080 –0.02
TIME (sec)
TIME (sec)

Fig. 26. Vertical displacement of the first wheel of the train on rail A (W1). Fig. 28. Lateral displacement of the vehicle body (V1).

–50 for the WRC elements because Hertzian springs are absent
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 from Olsson’s [10] model. The authors’ results compare
–70
CONTACT FORCE (kN)

SMOOTH RAIL very favourably with Olsson’s [10] results.

–90 IRREGULARITIES Finally the authors subject the Boyne Viaduct to a
–110
moving locomotive and railway carriage on smooth and
irregular rails. In this example, the WRC has a three-
–130
dimensional formulation and it simulates the vertical and
–150 lateral interaction between the wheel and the rail, the rail
–170
being smooth or irregular. Rolling motion of the train is
TIME (sec) evident in the case of irregularities that are out of phase on
the two rails. Based on the results, summarised above, the
Fig. 27. Contact force between the first wheel of the train and rail A (W1).
authors can claim that the WRC element is exceedingly
robust.
5. Conclusions

In this paper, the authors develop their own wheel-rail

contact element to simulate the dynamic interaction that
exists between a sprung wheel and the rail. This system uses
a Hertzian spring to represent the wheel, and is modelled
using three stiffness matrices. Wheel-rail separation is
determined by calculating the extension of the spring at each
timestep. If the extension become positive, the contact force
is put equal to zero and all stiffness matrices related to that
wheel are set equal to zero.
The authors compare the use of their WRC element with
the use of the ANSYS CONTAC48 element. They also
compare their results with some simple analytical solutions
developed by Biggs [8]. In the case of the wheel considered
as a moving sprung load, the wheel considered as a moving
sprung mass, and the travelling bouncing wheel, the
solutions using the WRC element are identical to the
solutions using the ANSYS CONTAC48 element. For
analytical solutions, the WRC element compares better with
five modes than with two modes. The model is next
validated for a pair of moving masses separated by a spring
for a wide range of speeds. The authors compare their WRC
element with the unsprung mass system of Olsson [10];
however, the authors use both hard and soft Hertzian springs
References
[1] Cheng YS, Au FTK, Cheung YK, Zheng DY. On the separation
between moving vehicles and bridges. Journal of Sound and Vibration
1999;222(5):781–801.
[2] Yang YB, Wu YS. A versatile element for analyzing vehicle-bridge
interaction response. Engineering Structures 2001;23:452–69.
[3] Yau JD, Yang YB, Kuo SR. Impact response of high speed rail bridges
and riding comfort of rails cars. Enginnering Structures 1999;21:
836–44.
[4] Au FTK, Wang JJ, Cheung YK. Impact study of cable-stayed railway
bridges with random rails irregularities. Engineering Structures 2002;
24:529–41.
[5] Chu KH, Garg VK, Bhatti MH. Impact in truss bridge due to freight
trains. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 1985;3:159–73.
[6] Wiriyachai A, Chu KH, Garg VK. Bridge impact due to wheel and
track irregularities. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division
1982;108:648–65.
[7] Esveld C. Modern railway track, 1st Edition, MRT Production, 1989.
[8] Biggs JM. Introduction to Structural Dynamics, 1st Edition, Engle-
wood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, 1964.
[9] Bathe KJ. Finite element procedures, 1st Edition, Englewood Cliffs,
Prentice-Hall, 1996.
[10] Olsson M. Finite element, modal co-ordinate analysis of structures
subjected to moving loads. Journal of Sound and Vibration 1985;99:
1–12.