Simulation of wheel–rail contact forces

S. IWNICKI
Manchester Metropolitan University, Chester Street, Manchester M1 5GD, UK

Received in final form 4 August 2003

A B S T R A C T This paper summarizes the forces that develop in the contact patch between the wheel
and rail in a railway vehicle. The ways that these forces govern the behaviour of a vehicle
running on straight and curved track are explained and the methods commonly used to
calculate and utilize the forces summarized. As an illustration, the results from a computer
simulation of a typical UK passenger train are presented and certain aspects examined.
Keywords contact forces; profiles; railway vehicle dynamics; vehicle dynamics; wheel–
rail interaction.
NOMENCLATURE a, b = the contact ellipse semi-axes
C 11 , C 22 , C 23 , C 33 = constants calculated from approximate formulae given by Kalker5
E = Young’s modulus for the material in the contact patch
Y l , Y r , Y w = lateral forces at left, right wheel contact patch, lateral force on
wheelset
Fx, Fy, Mz = longitudinal and lateral force and spin moment at contact patch
Fx , Fy = forces at the contact patch (as above) modified by Johnson and
Vermeulen4
f 11 , f 22 , f 23 , f 33 = linear creep coefficients defined by Kalker5
I = inertia of the wheelset about a central vertical axis
l 0 = half the gauge
m = mass of the wheelset
N l , N r = normal force at left, right wheel contact patch
P 0 = vertical force at the wheel due to static vehicle load
P 1 , P 2 = dynamic vertical force response peaks at the wheel after a vertical
irregularity
Ql , Qr , Qw = vertical forces at left, right wheel contact patch, vertical force on
wheelset
r l , r r , = wheel radius at left, right wheel
r 0 = wheel radius with wheelset in central position
R = curve radius
v = forward velocity of the wheelset
U 1 , U 2 , 3 = actual velocity at the contact patch in lateral, longitudinal and spin
directions
U 1 , U 2 , 3 = velocity at the contact patch (as above) calculated from wheel
motion
W = wheelset weight
y, ẏ = wheelset lateral displacement, velocity
γ 1 , γ 2 , ω3 = lateral, longitudinal and spin creepage
λl , λr , λ = conicity of wheel, left, right, effective

Correspondence: S. Iwnicki. E-mail: s.d.iwnicki@mmu.ac.uk


c 2003 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 26, 887–900 887
888 S. I W N I C K I

µ = coefficient of friction at the contact patch

φ, φ̇ = roll angle of wheelset, angular velocity of wheelset rolling about
axle
ψ, ψ̇ = yaw angle, yaw velocity of wheelset
ω = angular frequency of the kinematic oscillation of the rolling
wheelset

both wheels could rotate independently. A good example

INTRODUCTION
All the forces supporting and guiding a railway vehicle
must be transmitted through the contact patches between
the wheels and the rails. An understanding of the way that
these forces are generated and the effect that they have on
the behaviour of the vehicle has developed from trial and
error in the early days to the use of computers to solve
the complex equations developed in the 1960s and has
resulted in the powerful computer packages currently in
use. An understanding of the geometry of the wheel and
rail are the foundations of this understanding.
THE GEOMETRY
The forces between railway wheels and rails are governed
by the geometry of the wheel and the rail. In particular
the geometry of a vertical cross section of the rail and a
radial cross section of the wheel are critical.
Wheel and rail profiles
The earliest railway wheels were cylindrical and ran on
flanged rails. They were usually fitted to an axle so that
of this is shown in Fig. 1 with probably the first locomotive
in the world, built by Richard Trevithick, pulling trucks
on the plate way at the Pen-y-Darren iron works in Wales
in 1804. Fitting the flanges to the wheels instead of the
rails must have made a considerable saving of material and
probably allowed better guidance of the vehicle although
it had the disadvantage of preventing the vehicles from
running on the road. Adding a small amount of conicity
to the wheels would have enhanced this guidance and the
modern wheelset was formed when the two wheels were
joined to the axle and fixed to the vehicle body through
bearings in axleboxes.
If a rolling wheelset moves away from the centre of the
track the conicity at the wheels means that it will have
a larger rolling radius on one side than on the other. As
the wheels are stiffly linked in torsion they have to have
the same rotational speed and the wheelset is forced to
yaw about the vertical axis. This yaw angle tends to point
the wheelset back towards the central rolling line and the
wheelset will then naturally roll back to the centre of the
track.
In a curve the wheelset will tend to move outwards un-
til the rolling radius difference between the two wheels

Fig. 1 Trevithick’s ‘tram engine’ in 1804 running on flanged rails at the Pen-y-Darren plateway. Painted by Terence Cuneo. Reproduced
with the kind permission of the Cuneo Estate.


c 2003 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 26, 887–900

Fig. 2 An idealized wheelset displaced laterally.
matches the yaw velocity needed for the curve (Fig. 2).
This lateral displacement is known as the rolling line off-
set and the wheelset will curve perfectly as long as there
is sufficient clearance for the required lateral movement.
If the flangeway clearance is exceeded before the rolling
line offset is reached then perfect curving will not be
possible.
The following equation links the lateral displacement, y,
and the curve radius R:
r0 − λy R − l0
= ,
r0 + λy R + l0
and the rolling line offset is therefore:
r0 l 0
y= , (2)
Rλ
where r 0 is the radius at the contact point when the
wheelset is central, l 0 represents half the gauge, R the ra-
dius of the curve and γ is the effective conicity.
In fact the wheelset will tend to overshoot its equi-
librium position (due to the developed yaw angle) and
an oscillation known as the kinematic oscillation will be
set up. This kinematic oscillation is also observed on
straight track after any deviation from the natural rolling
line.
This oscillation was observed by George Stephenson in
1827 and analyzed by Klingel1 in 1873. The angular fre-
quency of the kinematic oscillation can be found by as-
suming the motion to be sinusoidal:
 generally gives acceptable results. An alternative is to split
λ the contact patch up into strips and to evaluate the con-
ω=v , (3)
r0 l 0
where v is the forward velocity of the wheelset.
The greater the conicity of the wheelset, the smaller the
curve radius for which perfect curving will be possible
given a particular flangeway clearance. The other side of
this engineering compromise is that the greater the conic-
ity, the lower the rolling speed at which the wheelset be-
comes unstable. This instability is caused by the wheelset
overshooting the equilibrium rolling line and is known
as hunting. Hunting will be limited by flange contact but

c 2003 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 26, 887–900
S I M U L AT I O N O F W H E E L – R A I L C O N TAC T F O R C E S 889
can lead to derailment. The speed at which hunting oc-
curs is known as the critical speed and vehicle designers
must ensure that the critical speed is above the maximum
running speed. In fact the kinematic behaviour is usually
moderated by the creep forces, which are discussed below.
Most railway organizations cant the rails inwards by a
small angle and this usually matches the conicity of the
wheel so that the normal force with the wheelset in the
central position is directed along the web of the rail. In
the United Kingdom this is 1 in 20 but 1 in 30 (for ex-
ample in Sweden) and 1 in 40 (many countries including
Germany) are also common.
Wear at the wheel will tend to change the wheel tread
from a cone to a more complex concave shape. Many rail-
way organizations have designed ‘worn’ profiles, which are
intended to maintain a constant geometry as the wheel
wears. In the United Kingdom the P8 profile was con-
structed from an average measured worn profile and is
shown in Fig. 3.
In use the wheel and rail will wear and the profiles must
be measured to obtain accurate geometrical information.
This can be done with reasonable accuracy using me-
chanical or laser devices and Fig. 4 shows a typical mea-
(1)
sured wheel and rail profile from the ‘MiniProf’ measuring
device.
T H E C O N TA C T
At the point or points where the wheel contacts the rail a
contact patch develops. The size and shape of this contact
patch can be calculated from the normal force, the material
properties and the geometry of the wheel and the rail in
this region. As the wheel and the rail are both bodies of
revolution it is possible to describe this geometry by using
the radii of curvature in the direction of rolling and for
the cross sectional geometry.
In predicting the contact, the theory of Hertz based on
uniform elastic properties of contacting bodies of revolu-
tion is often used giving an elliptical contact patch with
semiaxes that can be calculated. Although this is an ap-
proximation based on full elasticity it is widely used and
tact conditions and the contact stress for each strip finally
ensuring a balance between the wheel load and the total
normal force at the contact patch.
THE FORCES
The forces acting in the contact patch can be split into
normal and tangential components. The tangential force
is usually split further into longitudinal (in the direction
of the rail axis) and lateral (in the plane normal to the
rail axis). The normal force and the lateral force can be
890 S. I W N I C K I

Fig. 3 The P8 ‘worn’ profile.

Fig. 4 Wheel and rail profiles as measured by a miniprof device.

replaced with a vertical and lateral force where the verti-
cal force is truly vertical and the lateral force acts in the
horizontal plane. These are known as V (or Q)—vertical
and L (or Y)—lateral and the ratio L/V or Y/Q is often
used as an indicator of the nearness to derailment.
Gravitational stiffness force
As the wheelset moves laterally the direction of the normal
force between the wheel and rail changes and a component
of this force is directed towards the track centreline and
helps to centre the wheelset. This effect is known as the
gravitational stiffness and the force depends on the lateral
displacement and the roll angle of the wheelset.
When the lateral displacement is small the gravitational
stiffness force can be calculated ignoring differences in
conicity across the wheels:
Referring to Fig. 5
Yl = Nl sin(λl − φ),
(4)
Yr = Nr sin(λr + φ),


c 2003 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 26, 887–900

Fig. 5 An idealized wheelset.
where Y l , Y r are the lateral forces, N l , N r are the normal
forces, λl λr represent the conicity at left and right wheel
and φ roll angle of wheelset
equating vertical forces
Nl cos(λl − φ) = Q l ,
Nr cos(λr + φ) = Q r ,
so the total lateral force
Yw = Yr − Yl = [Q l tan(λl − φ) − Q r tan(λr + φ)] ,
for small angles this can be simplified to:
Yw = −Wφ,
where W = Ql + Qr = the total vertical load acting on
wheelset.
rr − rl λy
But φ= = ,
2l 0 l0
Wλy
so finally Yw = − . (8)
l0
Creep forces
When a railway wheel deviates from pure rolling, that is
during acceleration, braking or curving or when subject
to lateral forces through the suspension, forces tangential
to the normal force are transmitted to the rail at the con-
tact patch. These are called creep forces and are due to
microslippage or creepage in the area of contact.
If a cylindrical wheel rolls along a straight, flat rail with no
tangential force being transmitted between the wheel and
the rail the horizontal distance covered in one revolution
of the wheel will be exactly equal to its circumference.
If, however, a torque is applied to the axle to accelelerate
the wheel then it will be found that in one revoultion the
horizontal movement is less than the circumference of
the wheel. This is due to the material behaviour within the
contact patch as material is compressed at entry before a
section where adhesion takes place then a section where
the material slips out of compression and finally exits in
tension.

c 2003 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 26, 887–900
S I M U L AT I O N O F W H E E L – R A I L C O N TAC T F O R C E S 891
Carter2 was the first to study creep in railway wheels and
he looked to the earlier work of Reynolds in belt drives.
He considered the wheel to be a thick cylinder rolling
on a flat plate and only examined creepage in the lon-
gitudinal direction. He assumed without proof that the
area of adhesion was at the leading edge of the contact
patch. This was extended to the three-dimensional case
of two rolling spheres in contact by Johnson3 who in-
cluded consideration of lateral and longitudinal creepage.
He assumed elliptical Hertzian contact and predicted an
elliptical adhesion region within this. Slip only occurred
in the area between the two regions. As a result of ex-
perimental work by Johnson and Vermeulen4 this theory
was extended for non-spherical bodies and calculated tan-
gential creep forces with an error consistently less than
25%.
In a railway wheel the creepage can be calculated from
the attitude of the wheelset and the resulting creep forces
(5) may then be evaluated. The relationship between creepage
and creep force has been studied thoroughly by Kalker5
and his equations are used in almost all simulations.
The theory of wheel rail creepage was only truly con-
(6)
sidered in three dimensions for the first time by Johnson3
who included spin of the wheel about a vertical axis in
his theory. Kalker then developed a numerical method of
predicting creep forces for arbitrary creepage and spin,
the first available for predicting these forces. This was
subsequently verified experimentally by Brickle6 who also
looked at the result of having a narrow contact ellipse as
(7) is the case during flange contact. From this work Kalker
has produced an exact numerical theory and a linear the-
ory for use when creepage and spin are small. He has
also made available several computer programs to predict
creep forces for given creepages and spin.
Creepage occurs in all three directions in which relative
motion can occur and it is defined as follows:
v1 − v1
Longitudinal creepage γ1 = , (9a)
v
v2 − v2
Lateral creepage γ2 = , (9b)
v
3 − 3
Spin creepage ω3 = , (9c)
v
where v1 , v2 and 3 are the actual velocities of the wheel;
v1 , v2 and 3 are the pure rolling velocities (velocity when
no creep occurs at the same forward velocity) calculated
from the wheel motion and v is the forward velocity of the
wheelset.
The creepage can be calculated from the attitude of the
wheelset using equations based on the geometry and de-
rived by Wickens.7
The velocities at each wheel can then be derived in terms
of the lateral displacement of the wheelset centre of gravity
892 S. I W N I C K I

and the yaw angle of the wheelset, both with respect to with Duvorol at low values of spin creepage and less than
the track centreline: 18% at all values of spin creepage.
for the right-hand wheel : for the left-hand wheel : The creepage creep/force relationship is further com-
rr rl plicated by the fact that the three creepages do not act
v1r = v v1l = v independantly. Kalker5 has shown that the creep forces
r0 r0
(10) depend on the creepages as follows:
v2r = − ẏ + vψ v2l = − ẏ + vψ
v3r = 0 v3l = 0 F x = − f11 γ1 θ,

3r = φ̇λ + ψ̇ 3r = −φ̇λ + ψ̇ F y = − f22 γ2 − f23 ω3 , (12)

Mz = f23 γ2 − f33 ω3 ,
for the right-hand rail : for the left-hand rail :
where f 11 , f 22 , f 23 and f 33 are the linear creep coefficients.
 −2l 0  −2l 0 The equations of Johnson and Vermeulen then modify
v1r =v − l 0 ψ̇ v1l =v + l 0 ψ̇
2R 2R the tangential forces:
  
v2r =0 v2l =0     
   Fx Fs 1 Fs 2 1 Fs 3
v3r =0 v3l =0 Fx = − + µN
F s µN 3 µN 27 µN
3r = 0 3l = 0
(for F s ≤ 3µN), (13)
where y, ẏ are the lateral displacement and velocity of the
wheelset, ψ, ψ̇ are the yaw angle and yaw velocity of the Fx
and F x  = µN (for F s > 3µN),
wheelset and φ̇ is the angular velocity of wheelset rolling Fs 1

(=V /r o ) where F s = (F x + F y 2 ) 2 ,
2

Note: If the track is considered to be flexible rather than µ is the coefficient of friction at the contact patch and N
rigid there may be a lateral component of track velocity is the normal force at the contact patch and similarly for
to consider. FY  from FY .
These velocities can then be used in the previous equa- The linear creep coefficients are calculated as follows:
tions to give the creepages for both wheels: f11 = E(a, b)C11 ,
l 0 ψ̇ λy l0 l 0 ψ̇ λy l0 f22 = E(a, b)C22 ,
γ1r = − − − γ1l = + + + (14)
v r0 R v r0 R f23 = E(a, b)3/2 C23 ,
ẏ ẏ
γ21r = − ψ γ21l = − ψ (11) f33 = E(a, b)2 C33 ,
v v
λ ψ̇ λ ψ̇ where E is the Young’s modulus, a, b represent the con-
ω3r = − − ω3l = − .
r0 v r0 v tact ellipse semi-axes and C 11 , C 22 , C 23 , C 33 are constants
After determining the creepages it is necessary to find the calculated from approximate formulae given by Kalker.5
related creep forces. At small values of creepage the re- The creep forces thus arrived at for the lateral and longi-
lationship can be considered to be linear and linear coef- tudinal direction at each wheel are then combined to give
ficients can be used in calculations. However, at larger a lateral force and a yaw torque acting on each wheelset:
values of creepage, for example during flange contact,  
ẏ ψ̇
the relationship becomes highly non-linear and the creep Yw = −2 f22 − ψ − f23
v v
force approaches a limiting value determined by the nor-  
ẏ ψ̇ 2 f11 l 02 ψ̇ 2 f11 l 0 λy
mal force and the coefficient of friction in the contact Mw = 2 f23 − ψ − 2 f33 − − .
area. When working in this region it is necessary to use a v v v r0
(15)
different calculation method.
It may be appropriate to use one of the programs based This equation can be seen to explain the observed motion
on the Kalker theory described above (e.g. Duvorol, Con- of the wheelset described earlier. The lateral creep force
tact and Fastsim) but a simpler method based on the cu- is proportional to the yaw angle of the wheelset and the
bic saturation theory of Johnson and Vermeulen can also yaw torque acting on the wheelset about a vertical axis is
be used with generally good results. This is a heuristic proportional to its lateral displacement. The effect of this
method and involves calculating the creep force expected is to steer the wheelset towards the centre of the track in
from the linear coefficient and modifying it by a factor de- decaying oscillations at all speeds up to a critical speed
rived from this value divided by the limiting creep force. at which the oscillations continue laterally and in yaw. At
The inaccuracy of this method has been shown by Shen, higher speed the behaviour is unstable and the oscillations
Hedrick and Elkins8 to be less than 10% when compared increase until limited by flange contact.


c 2003 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 26, 887–900
 S I M U L AT I O N O F W H E E L – R A I L C O N TAC T F O R C E S 893

The equations for creep force and gravitational stiff- Vertical forces
ness derived above can now be combined with the in-
The vertical forces that develop between the wheel and
ertia force terms for a wheelset to give a general equation
rail are made up of a force that supports the static load of
of motion. The wheelset is taken as having the two de-
the vehicle and a dynamically varying force in response to
grees of freedom of lateral translation motion and yaw
the vehicle motion along track with irregularities. These
rotation
  forces are usually referred to as
ẏ ψ̇ Wλy P 0 force: the static load on the wheel
m ÿ + 2 f22 − ψ + f23 + =0
v v l0 P 1 force: the high frequency dynamic force where the
  wheel vibrates on the contact stiffness
ẏ ψ 2 f11 l 02 ψ̇ 2 f11 l 0 λy
Iz ψ − 2 f23 − ψ + 2 f33 + + = 0. P 2 force: the lower frequency dynamic force caused by
v v v r0
(16) the wheel and rail vibrating on the substruc-
ture stiffness (pad, sleeper, ballast)
These equations are used in simulations of complete Figure 7 shows an example of these forces as a vehicle
railway vehicles. runs over a vertical dip (such as a fishplated joint between
rails).
A note on approximations
Some approximations are made due to the Hertz con-
tact (mentioned in Section 3), due to the longitudinal
shift of the contact patch and the change in the angle
of the contact plane. It is also possible for multiple con-
tact to occur between the wheel and the rail for some
wheel rail profile combinations. These may be signifi-
cant in flange contact and a fuller treatment is given by
Brickle.6
The Kalker methods are widely used within computer
simulation packages but they tend to be complicated
and a new heueristic model has been proposed by Shen
et al.8 which is much simpler to evaluate and is becoming
more popular. Figure 6 shows a comparison of the Shen
et al.8 heuristic model with Kalker’s ‘Duvorol’ and simpli-
fied ‘Fastsim’ predictions. Fig. 7 Vertical forces after a dipped rail joint.

Fig. 6 Comparison of creep force models

(from Ref. [8]).


c 2003 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 26, 887–900
894 S. I W N I C K I
The frequency of the P 1 force is influenced by the un-
sprung mass (wheel and associated axle mass, bearings and
brake gear) and the Hertzian stiffness at the contact patch.
The P 1 force can be excited by a rail irregularity or defect
or a wheel flat and its peak value occurs at around 1 ms
after the disturbance.
The P 2 force peak occurs at around 10 ms and is in-
fluenced by the rail and sleeper mass as well as the
unsprung mass and the stiffness of the rail pads and
substructure.
FORCE LIMITS
Railway organizations around the world have set limits on
the various forces existing between the wheel and the rail.
Some brief comments on the main limits are given below
to provide a context for the force levels.
Vertical
In the vertical direction high forces can cause damage to
the rails and supporting structures and can cause rolling
contact fatigue when combined with high tangential forces
such as occur during traction, braking or curving.
In the United Kingdom a limit of 322 kN is set for
the P 2 force (based on the maximum load measured for
a Deltic locomotive running at maximum speed over a
dipped rail joint). UIC 5189 sets a maximum static load of
112.5 kN per wheel and a maximum dynamic vertical force
per wheel of between 160 kN and 200 kN, depending on
maximum speed (provided this values does not exceed the
static wheel load plus 90 kN).
In small radius curves (less than 600 m) UIC 518 sets a
limit of 145 kN for the quasi-static vertical force.
Lateral
In the lateral direction high forces can cause distortion
of the track on the bed of ballast. This is normally pro-
tected against by using the simple but widely established
PrudHomme limit for the track shifting force at one
wheelset, which can be calculated from the static load
(P 0 force):
Y <= 10 + P0 /3,
where Y and P 0 are in kN.
Lateral forces of very short duration are less likely to
shift the track and therefore only forces that act for more
than 2 m of track length are usually counted. The Eu-
ropean standard for vehicle acceptance UIC518 reduces
the PrudHomme limit by a factor of 0.85 for freight
vehicles.
In small radius curves (less than 600 m) UIC 518 sets a
limit of 60 kN for the quasi-static lateral force.
Derailment
Likelihood of wheelclimb derailment is indicated by the
ratio of the lateral to vertical force as mentioned earlier.
The theory of Nadal10 is used to establish limits for the
Y/V derailment ratio with 0.8 as the limiting value in
UIC 518.
Wheel unloading
Very low vertical forces at the contact patch can indicate
that a vehicle is susceptible to derailment by rolling over
or by failing to follow twists in the track. A lower limit of
60% of the static wheel load (i.e., unloading by over 40%)
is set in the United Kingdom.
S I M U L AT I O N PA C K A G E S
Using modern computer packages it is possible to carry
out realistic simulation of the dynamic behaviour of rail-
way vehicles. The theoretical basis of the mathematical
modelling used is now mature and reliable and programs
originally written by research institutes have been devel-
oped into powerful, validated and user-friendly packages.
Examples are: ADAMS/Rail, GENSYS Nucars, Simpack
and Vampire and the recent ‘Manchester Benchmark’ ex-
ercise (see Iwnicki11 ) compared the results from these five
packages in simulating a typical freight vehicle and a typ-
ical passenger vehicle on four different track cases.
The first stage in setting up a computer model is to pre-
pare a set of mathematical equations that represent the
vehicle. These are called the equations of motion and are
usually formed as a set of matrices. The equations of mo-
tion can be prepared automatically by the computer pack-
age, a user interface requiring the vehicle parameters to
be described in graphical form or by entering a set of co-
ordinates describing all the important aspects of the bodies
and suspension components.
The vehicle is represented by a network of bodies con-
nected to each other by flexible elements. This is called
a multibody system and the complexity of the system can
be varied to suit the vehicle and the results required. The
bodies are usually rigid but can be flexible with given
modal stiffness and damping properties. Masses and mo-
ments of inertia need to be specified. Points on the bod-
ies, or nodes, are defined as connection locations and di-
mensions are specified for these. Springs, dampers, links,
joints, friction surfaces or wheel–rail contact elements can
be selected from a library and connected between any of
the nodes. All of these interconnections may include non-
linearities such as occurs with rubber or air spring ele-
ments or as in damper blow off valves.
Inputs to the model are usually made at each wheelset.
Typical inputs are cross level, gauge and vertical and
lateral alignment of the track. These can be idealized

c 2003 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 26, 887–900
 S I M U L AT I O N O F W H E E L – R A I L C O N TAC T F O R C E S 895

discrete events representing, for example, dipped joints or Class 43 power car
switches, or can be measured values from a real section of
The Class 43 HST power car is a four-axle, two-bogie
track taken from a recording vehicle. In the United King-
diesel engine locomotive. The main characteristics are:
dom the High Speed Track Recording Coach (HSTRC)
runs over the whole network collecting track data at reg- Axle load 171.67 kN
ular intervals. Additional forces may be specified such as Total weight 70 000 kg
wind loading or powered actuators (e.g. in tilting mech- Unsprung mass per axle 2175 kg
anisms). Depending on the purpose of the simulation a Bogie wheelbase 2.6 m
wide range of outputs for example displacements, accel- Bogie pivot spacing 10.3 m
erations, forces at any point can be extracted. Maximum operating speed 125 mph
Tractive effort at 125 mph 1368 kW
C A S E S T U DY
The primary suspension includes (per axle):
In order to demonstrate the nature and effect of the forces
described above a short case study is presented here. Com- 4 coil springs
puter models of a locomotive and a passenger coach have 2 vertical dampers
been set up using the computer package ADAMS/Rail. 4 traction links with end bushes
The Class 43 power car and the Mk.3 passenger coach are 2 vertical bumpstops
chosen as making up the widely used ‘HST’ train running
The secondary suspension includes (per bogie):
on UK main lines. Various results from the two vehicle
models are then presented as examples of what can be ob- 4 coil springs
tained from simulations such as these. Figure 8 shows the 1 traction centre equivalent bush
Mk.3 coach model in ADAMS/Rail format. 2 vertical dampers

Fig. 8 The computer model of the Mk3 passenger coach in ADAMS/Rail.


c 2003 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 26, 887–900
896 S. I W N I C K I

2 lateral dampers 1 anti roll bar equivalent bush

2 yaw dampers 2 vertical viscous dampers
2 lateral bumpstops 1 lateral viscous damper
2 vertical bumpstops 2 vertical bump-stops + rebound-stops
2 lateral bump-stops
Measured worn wheel profiles from a typical vehicle are
2 yaw friction elements to represent the friction pads.
used and left and right profiles are different.
The wheel profiles used in the model are new P8 profiles.
The vehicle models have been validated against mea-
Mark 3 passenger coach
sured track data provided by Corus Rail Technologies.
The Mark 3 coach is often coupled with the Class These data were in the form of forces at the rail head de-
43 power car and is modelled here in the laden rived from strain gauges on the rail web at a number of test
configuration: sites where the Class 43 locomotive and Mk3 passenger
coach was running. More details of this work are given in
Axle load 101.2 kN Jaiswal.12
Total weight 41 281 kg
Unsprung mass per axle 1595 kg
Bogie wheelbase 2.6 m Results
Bogie pivot spacing 16.0 m
The vehicles have been run on a range of track configu-
Maximum operating speed 125.0 mph
rations and the behaviour in steady state curves as well as
the dynamic response to track forces simulated. The track
The primary suspension includes (per axle):
irregularities are taken from track recording coach data
2 trailing arm bushes for the particular site.
2 vertical coil springs Figure 9 shows the lateral forces for the locomotive run-
2 vertical viscous damper ning into and around the 760 m radius curve at Aycliffe
1 bush to represent the panhard link and Fig. 10 shows the position of the contact patch on the
wheel and the rail for the same curve.
The secondary suspension includes (per bogie):
The tables in Figs 11 and 12 present a summary of the
2 spring elements to represent the airspring + spring plank displacements and forces acting on the rail as the two ve-
system hicles run in curves of 700 m and 1500 m at different
1 traction centre equivalent bush + damping speeds and with varying coefficients of friction. The speed

Fig. 9 Simulated lateral forces on the rail at the front bogie of a Class 43 locomotive running around a 760 m radius curve.


c 2003 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 26, 887–900
 S I M U L AT I O N O F W H E E L – R A I L C O N TAC T F O R C E S 897

Fig. 10 Simulation results showing contact position on rail and wheel for the Class 43 locomotive running around a 760 m radius curve.

Fig. 11 Curving behaviour of the Mk3 passenger coach 700 m radius curve with varying friction and cant deficiency.

differences are shown as cant deficiencies—deviations in
the height difference across the rails from a balancing
speed at which the lateral components of the centrifu-
gal and gravitational forces balance. It can be seen that
the lateral displacement of the leading wheelset does not
change greatly as the vehicles are running close to flange
contact in all cases. The second wheelset moves outwards
with increasing cant deficiency and on the coach this is
more pronounced at the lower value of the coefficient
of friction. The high stresses, sometimes evident on the


c 2003 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 26, 887–900
898 S. I W N I C K I
Fig. 12 Curving behaviour of the Class 43 locomotive in a 1500 m radius curve with varying friction and cant deficiency.
Fig. 13 Predicted contact stress against position on the rail head
for the Class 43 locomotive in 700 m to 1800 m radius curves.
inside rail, are probably not as damaging as those on the
outside wheel in the curve as the creep force is generally
much lower at the inside contact. The highest stress oc-
curs at the flange contact in the locomotive when the area
can drop as low as 10 mm2 .
Figure 13 shows how the contact stress at the high (out-
side) rail varies with the position on the rail head for the
Class 43 locomotive on a range of curves. The trend of
increasing contact stress as the contact moves towards the
flange can clearly be seen.
Finally, Fig. 14 shows the frequency distribution of
the contact position for the two vehicles on straight
and curved track. Observed running bands are super-
imposed on these plots and can be seen to match rea-
sonably well with the tread contact of the vehicles (on
the right rail). Flange contact (on the cess rail) is much
more variable and is influenced greatly by the dynamic
behaviour.
CONCLUSIONS
The forces acting between the wheel and rail in a rail-
way vehicle have been analyzed and can be simulated with
modern computer packages to simulate the behaviour of
the vehicle on any track configuration. A wealth of infor-
mation about the vehicle motions and forces within the
suspension and on the rails can be obtained from these
simulations.
Acknowledgements
The author thanks Yann Bezin and the rest of the
Rail Technology Unit team for the computer mod-
els of the Class 43 locomotive and the Mk3 passen-
ger coach. Thanks also to Jay Jaiswal, Andy Stephens,
Stephen Blair and Tom Kay at Corus Rail Technologies
for the wheel and rail profiles and the trackside measure-
ments used to validate the models; and Network Rail

c 2003 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 26, 887–900
 S I M U L AT I O N O F W H E E L – R A I L C O N TAC T F O R C E S 899

Fig. 14 Frequency of predicted contact positions and observed running band for the class 43 locomotive in a 760 m radius curve.

Fig. 15 Frequency of predicted contact positions and observed position of the running band for the Mk3 coach on straight track.


c 2003 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 26, 887–900
900 S. I W N I C K I
for their support for the Corus Rail Technologies and
MMU work.
REFERENCES
1 Klingel (1883) Uber den Lauf der Eisenbahnwagen auf gerader
Bahn. Organ Fortsch. Eisenb-wes 38, 113–123.
2 Carter, F. W. (1926) On the action of a locomotive driving
wheel. Proc. R. Soc. A 1125, 151–157.
3 Johnson, K. L. (1958) The effect of spin upon the rolling
motion of an elastic sphere upon a plane. J. Appl. Mech. 25,
332–338.
4 Johnson, K. L. and Vermeulen, P. J. (1964) Contact of
nonspherical bodies transmitting tangential forces. J. Appl.
Mech. 31, 338–340.
5 Kalker, J. J. (1979) The computation of three dimensional
rolling contact with dry friction. Int. J. Numer. Methods Eng. 14,
1293–1307.
6 Brickle, B. V. (1973) The steady state forces and moments on a
railway wheelset including flange contact conditions. Doctoral
Thesis, Loughborough University 1973.
7 Wickens, A. H. (1965) The dynamic stability of a railway
vehicle wheelset and bogies having profiled wheels. Int. J. Solids
Struct. 1, 319–341.
8 Shen, Z. Y., Hedrick, J. K. and Elkins, J. A. (1989) A
comparison of alternative creep force models for rail vehicle
dynamic analysis. In: Proceedings of the 8th IAVSD Symposium
Cambridge U.K. Swets and Zeitlinger B.V. Lisse 1989.
9 UIC. (1999) Leaflet 518 (draft). Test and approval of railway
vehicles from the points of view of dynamic behaviour, safety,
track fatigue and ride quality. International Union of Railways
January 1999.
10 Nadal, M. J. (1908) Locomotives a Vapeur. Collection
Encyclopedie Scientific, Biblioteque de Mechanique Appliquee et
Genie, 186 (Paris).
11 Iwnicki, S. D. (1999) The Manchester Benchmarks for Rail
Vehicle Simulation. Suppl. Veh. Syst. Dyn. 31.
12 Jaiswal, J., Blair, S., Stevens, A., Iwnicki, S. and Bezin, Y. (2002)
A systems approach to evaluating rail life. In: Railway
Engineering 2002 (Edited by M. Forde). Glasgow University,
London.

c 2003 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Fatigue Fract Engng Mater Struct 26, 887–900