Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers...

http://pif.sagepub.com/Transit

Engineers, Part F: Journal of Rail and Rapid Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical

http://pif.sagepub.com/content/227/5/453The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0954409713494945

2013 227: 453Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part F: Journal of Rail and Rapid TransitMaksym Spiryagin, Andrew George, Yan Quan Sun, Colin Cole, Tim McSweeney and Scott Simson

locomotive model acceptance procedureInvestigation of locomotive multibody modelling issues and results assessment based on the

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Institution of Mechanical Engineers

can be found at:Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part F: Journal of Rail and Rapid TransitAdditional services and information for

http://pif.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://pif.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://pif.sagepub.com/content/227/5/453.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Sep 16, 2013Version of Record >>

at Inst. of Mechanical Engineers on January 10, 2014pif.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Inst. of Mechanical Engineers on January 10, 2014pif.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://pif.sagepub.com/


http://pif.sagepub.com/content/227/5/453

http://pif.sagepub.com/content/227/5/453



http://www.imeche.org/home

http://www.imeche.org/home

http://pif.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://pif.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://pif.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://pif.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://pif.sagepub.com/content/227/5/453.refs.html

http://pif.sagepub.com/content/227/5/453.refs.html

http://pif.sagepub.com/content/227/5/453.full.pdf

http://pif.sagepub.com/content/227/5/453.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml





Special Issue on work of the Cooperative Research Centre for Rail Innovation, Australia

Investigation of locomotive multibodymodelling issues and results assessmentbased on the locomotive modelacceptance procedure

Maksym Spiryagin1,2, Andrew George1,2, Yan Quan Sun1,2,Colin Cole1,2, Tim McSweeney1 and Scott Simson3

Abstract

The acceptable dynamic behaviour of railway locomotives is governed by different standards in different parts of the

world. Some standards allow the use of multibody simulation tools (such as VAMPIRE, NUCARS, GENSYS and

SIMPACK) in place of physical testing, but generally not for all locomotive tests within each standard. Virtual multibody

locomotive models can allow simple analyses, such as for slightly modified and relocated locomotives, to be completed in

less time, and lower cost and effort in comparison with physical type testing. Unfortunately, the detailed locomotive

model acceptance procedures required to achieve this for locomotive designs do not presently exist. This paper

discusses the methodology behind a proposed locomotive model acceptance procedure that is currently intended for

Australian freight locomotives, although it can be modified to suit other countries and locomotive types. A review of

relevant international standards was first undertaken to determine which tests to include and to draw from international

best practice. A few case studies are then given to show how the proposed methodology can be implemented on a heavy

haul locomotive model.

Keywords

Locomotive, standard, model, multibody simulation, virtual test

Date received: 6 November 2012; accepted: 28 April 2013

Introduction

Several standards exist worldwide to assess thedynamic behaviour of railway locomotives. These typ-ically contain a range of static and dynamic tests, con-ducted on either laboratory equipment, test tracks oroperating rail lines, to determine locomotive perform-ances such as the ability to negotiate sharp curves andsusceptibility to hunting. Locomotives that are new,substantially modified, or have been relocated to anew location with significantly different track param-eters need to undergo physical testing so that theirdynamic performance can be assessed, which can beboth time-consuming and expensive for rail oper-ators.1–3 In the case of slightly modified or relocatedlocomotives, it is possible to reduce the time andresources required for dynamic behaviour testing viathe use of virtual multibody locomotive models inplace of actual locomotive testing. There is also furtherscope to use multibody models, perhaps linked withadditional scripts to model equipment such as traction

control and dynamic/pneumatic braking systems.Having more information on whether or not a newlocomotive would satisfy static/dynamic behaviourstandards would be advantageous in the early designphase. Several validated multibody simulation (MBS)packages are available for this purpose, with the under-lying mathematical modelling theory now consideredto be mature and reliable.4,5 Although some standardsallow simulation in place of specified physical tests,namely from Standards Australia,1–3 British/European Standards6,7 and Rail Corporation NewSouth Wales (RailCorp),8,9 few acceptance procedures

1Central Queensland University, Centre for Railway Engineering,

Australia2The CRC for Rail Innovation, Brisbane, Australia3Bradken Resources, New Lambton, Australia

Corresponding author:

Maksym Spiryagin, Centre for Railway Engineering, Central Queensland

University, Rockhampton, Queensland, Australia.

Email: [email protected]

Proc IMechE Part F:

J Rail and Rapid Transit

227(5) 453–468

! IMechE 2013

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0954409713494945

pif.sagepub.com

at Inst. of Mechanical Engineers on January 10, 2014pif.sagepub.comDownloaded from



currently exist to validate the multibody locomotivemodels required for virtual testing. Additionally,few standards contain information on testing loco-motive traction and braking (dynamic and air) capa-bilities. Of the currently researched papers, only theRailCorp and superseded Railways of Australia(ROA) standards10 detail traction and brakingtests. Some braking tests were also mentioned in aRequest for Purchase (RFP) by Virginia RailwayExpress (VRE) for new diesel-electric passengerlocomotives.11

This paper is concerned with creating a locomotivemodel acceptance procedure (LMAP) incorporatingbest practices from international standards applicableto locomotive dynamic behaviour. Various worldwidestandards andMBS software user guides12,13 have beenreviewed to determine the tests required in the newacceptance procedure and identify any shortcomingsin existing standards, particularly with regard to trac-tion and braking tests. A locomotive type for whichdata is available has been modelled using theGENSYSMBS software. Traction and dynamic brak-ing power controls have been added in the multibodycode as a subroutine. Finally, the wholemodel has beentested using the new LMAP. In this case the main focusis on Australian heavy haul operations since the pro-posedLMAP is being developed to validate locomotivemodels for use in the CRC for Rail Innovation ProjectR3.119 ‘Locomotive Adhesion’. In this paper, a fewcase studies/simulations are performed in GENSYSto see how the proposed LMAP methodology can beimplemented, along with a discussion on its adequacy.

Proposed acceptance procedure

When developing the proposed LMAP for heavy haullocomotives, a review of relevant worldwide standardsand MBS software manuals was first conducted todetermine the tests required and the most suitable par-ameters to use for each test. In order to thoroughly testlocomotive models, it was decided to include a widevariety of tests to identify and solve as many problemsas possible that could potentially arise. As the pro-posed LMAP is intended for use in Australia, the ter-minology is based on that used in the Rail IndustrySafety & Standards Board (RISSB)/AustralianStandards.1–3 Test categories covered in the proposedLMAP are outlined in Table 1 alongwith the standardsand MBS manuals that were researched. The derivedlist of tests, including brief descriptions of the tests, isthen given in Table 2. The proposed LMAP has beensplit into three main ‘stages’, or categories, which areexplained in the following subsections.

Stage 1: Basic locomotive model checking/debugging

Stage 1 consists of tests to ensure that the model codeused is free of errors and that the multibody model

behaves as expected when basic (static and dynamic)analyses are performed. As the RISSB/AustralianStandards1–3 do not contain provisions for the debug-ging of multibody locomotive models, the testsadopted in Stage 1 were based mainly on theGENSYS online documentation13–15 with someinput from the VAMPIRE (version 4.32) usermanual.12 The tests in Stage 1 can be summarised asfollows.

1. Test 1 – Automatic syntax error checking.12,14,15

Procedure: Run the model code as input to anautomatic code checking program suchas RUNF_INFO in GENSYS. Acceptance cri-teria: No syntax/coding errors or extremely soft/stiff connections should be found in the modelcode.

2. Test 2 – Visual model check.12,14 Procedure: Viewthe model in a three-dimensional (3D) plottingprogram. Acceptance criteria: All bodies and con-nections should be correctly placed anddimensioned.

3. Test 3 – Quasistatic analyses.14

3a – Vertical car-body displacement. Procedure:Constrain vertical car-body movements and dis-place it 5 cm in the negative direction (down-wards). Acceptance criteria: Both bogiesshould deflect symmetrically while wheel loadsshould increase linearly in proportion to totalprimary and secondary suspension stiffness.

3b – Lateral car-body displacement. Procedure:Constrain lateral car-body movements and dis-place it 5 cm in the positive direction (right).Acceptance criteria: Both bogies should deflectsymmetrically, being negatively yawed relativeto the track.

4. Test 4 – Modal (eigenvalue) analysis.12,14

Procedure: Perform a modal analysis on the loco-motive model at zero speed. Look for basicmodes/eigenvalues. Acceptance criteria: Errorssuch as negatively damped and overly high eigen-values (upwards of �5000 rad/s) should not bepresent.

5. Test 5 - Time-stepping analysis – Numericalinstabilities.12,14 Procedure: Perform two time-stepping analyses on the locomotive model, withboth fine and coarse time steps, at high speed(�100% design). Acceptance criteria: Thereshould be no unexpected motions in the model.Initial disturbances should stabilise at the sametime regardless of the time step value.

6. Test 6 – Critical speed estimation.14 Procedure:Perform a time-stepping analysis with the locomo-tive at very high speed (�300 km/h). Instabilitiesare initiated with an initial excitation. Wheelsethunting stops near (�10 km/h) the locomotive’scritical speed. Acceptance criteria: The approxi-mate critical speed should be >110% of the loco-motive’s design speed.

454 Proc IMechE Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 227(5)




Tab

le1.

Test

cate

gori

es

conta

ined

inth

epro

pose

dLM

AP.

Cou

ntry

/reg

ion/

cate

gory

:E

urop

eIn

tern

atio

nal

Org

anis

atio

n:R

OA

Rai

lCor

pB

S/E

N

UIC

AA

R

VR

ED

Eso

lver

Del

taR

ail

I trap C noitceS

PRS

M R

AA

)5002( 815 CI

U5002:36341

NE S

Bsuoir a

V31 noitceS

AO

R1.9057 S

A1.8 057 S

A1.7 057 S

A: era

wtf os/d ra dnat SI

RF

P 0

8-00

4 D

ivis

ion

6G

EN

SYS

VA

MP

IRE

2131

1171

76

72-52,22- 81,9,801

13

2:secn er efe

R Stag

e 1

- L

ocom

otiv

e m

odel

che

ckin

g/de

bug

Sgnikcehc rorre c ita

motuA

RM

RM

Skce hc la usi

VR

MR

MQ

uasi

stat

ic a

naly

ses

(ver

tical

& h

oriz

onta

l)S

RM

Zer

o sp

eed

mod

al (

eige

nval

ue)

anal

ysis

SR

MIn

capa

ble

Tim

e-st

eppi

ng a

naly

sis

- nu

mer

ical

inst

abili

ties

DR

MR

MD

deeps l acitirC

RM

Loc

omot

ive

(can

dida

te)

outl

ines

XX

Senil tuo ci ta tS

X1. 705 7 S

AX

D ,Sy a

ws c itame ni k ci sa

B1.705 7 S

AX

De nil tu o ci ta

m enik t pewS

Tra

ck fo

rces

and

str

esse

s815

CIU

XX

XX

Ss daol lac it rev/elxa/l eeh

w ,ssam e lc ihe v ss or

GX

XS

o itar D /P

XX

Dsecrof 2P

MX

Dse cro f gni tf ih s- kca rt la re ta

LU

IC 5

18M

XD

s ecr of li ar- le ehw l are ta

LX

Dyn

amic

beh

avio

urX

MX

Dgn it nu

HX

X8 15

CIU

IX

XX

MX

D)y tilauq edir( snoitar elecca edir esa

BX

815 CI

UX

XM

XD

noit ai to gen e vru c )tnats noc( lac itrev dna latnoziroH

XX

Decn araelc elcihev-elci he

VM

XX

Decnar ae lc e igob- el ci he

VM

XD

)larips ( noita itog en ev ruc noi tis narT

XX

XM

XS

tset tsiw

TI

XX

D ,Secnatsiser lanoi t at or ei go

BM

XD

revolloR

IX

MR

D)laretal dna lacitrev( seitiraluge rri kc ar t detalosI

MR

D:s eitira lu ger ri kc art c ilcy

CX X

XM

RD

ecn uob dna hctiPM

RD

)llor dna ts iwt( l lor cino

mraH

XM

RD

)gni vruc cimany d( yti ralu gerri yrtne evru

CX

MX

Dsev ruc n i secr of lani duti gno

LX

Tra

ctio

nI

Dgnitrats tneidar

GX

Dti

mi l noisehda rehtaew ll

AX

Dliar te

w/ yrd rof de eps- troffe ev itcarT

XD

lia r tew/yrd rof tr offe ev itcart suoun itno

CI

Dtse t n oit are le cca de eps ec na la

BB

raki

ngX

XD

secnats id gnip po tSX

XX

Dg ni kra p tneidar

GX

XS

t set cita tSX

Dse tar noi tarelece

DK

EY

TO

TE

ST S

YM

BO

LS:

S =

Sta

tic, D

= D

ynam

ic, X

= M

anda

tory

, R =

Rec

omm

ende

d, M

= M

odel

ling

pres

ently

allo

wed

, I =

Im

plie

d/su

pple

men

tary

MB

S m

anua

lsU

.S.A

Stag

e 2

- T

ests

cur

rent

ly in

clud

ed in

Aus

tral

ian

Stan

dard

s

Stag

e 3

- T

ests

fro

m o

ther

res

earc

hed

stan

dard

s/do

cum

ents

Aus

tral

ian

Stan

dard

sA

ustr

alia

Spiryagin et al. 455




Table 2. Brief descriptions of proposed LMAP tests.

Test Description

Stage 1: Basic locomotive

model checking/

debugging

1. Automatic syntax error checking Locomotive model code is checked using an

automatic syntax checking program such as

RUNF_INFO (GENSYS)13

2. Visual model check Create a 3D plot of the locomotive model to

observe any geometry errors (not observ-

able by syntax checking programs)13

3. Quasistatic analyses:

a) Vertical car-body deflection

b) Lateral car-body deflection

Observe effects on suspension components,

bogie movements and wheel loads when

applying a) downward, and b) rightward

displacements on the car body13

4. Modal (eigenvalue) analysis Calculate eigenvalues at zero speed for the

locomotive model. Errors include negative

damping and high absolute eigenvalues

(�5000 rad/s)13

5. Time-stepping analysis –

numerical instabilities

Run the locomotive model at high speed

and check for unexpected motions.

Check effects of altering time-step on

instabilities13

6. Critical speed Apply an initial car-body disturbance and

decelerate the locomotive from a high

speed to determine when hunting stops13

Stage 2: Tests

currently

included

in Australian

Standards

A. Rolling stock outlines 1. Static suspension heights Measure locomotive suspension response in

the maximum and minimum static height

conditions2,18,19

2. Basic kinematics – sway

a) Cant test rig

b) On-track test

c) Stationary on max. installed cant

Determine the body roll relative to the

wheelset plane and lateral translation rela-

tive to the wheelset centreline by a) raising

to maximum cant on both sides, b) running

the locomotive at maximum speed and cant

deficiency, or c) when stationary on max-

imum installed cant2,6,18,20

B. Track forces and stresses 1. Axle loads and P/D ratios

a) Static test

b) Dynamic test

Axle loads can be measured when the loco-

motive is a) static, or b) travelling at 10 km/

h on straight track. The P/D ratio is simply

wheel load divided by wheel

diameter3,6,18,21

2. P2 forces Can be obtained from an equation or by

running the locomotive over a dipped rail

weld3,18

3. Lateral track-shifting forces Cannot exceed the calculated limit when

running through a curve at maximum speed

and cant deficiency3

4. Lateral wheel-to-rail forces Bogie side L/V (Y/Q, lateral/vertical force)

ratios cannot be exceeded when a) running

through various curve radii, or b) on

straight track with a sinusoidal lateral

irregularity3,17

C. Dynamic behaviour 1. Hunting Measurement of lateral and vertical

accelerations at bogie centres at

110% of design speed on smooth,

straight track1,16,17,19,22

2. Base ride accelerations Evaluation of ride quality on rough

track1,6,11,16,19,20,22.

3. Horizontal and vertical

curve negotiation

Negotiation of minimum-radius horizontal

curves and vertical humps/dips1,19,20

(continued)





Stage 2: Tests currently included in AustralianStandards

Stage 2 consists of static and dynamic tests that arepresently included in the RISSB/Australian Standardsfor freight rolling stock, namely AS 7507.1 for rollingstock outlines,2 AS 7508.1 for track forces/stresses3 andAS 7509.1 for dynamic behaviour.1 A review of equiva-lent standards from RailCorp,8,9 the (now superseded)ROA Manual,10–16 the Association of AmericanRailroads,17 British Standards6 and the InternationalUnion of Railways (UIC)7 showed that few augmenta-tions needed to be made to the Australian Standardstest requirements. The VAMPIRE user manual12 andthe RFP for new diesel-electric passenger locomotivesby VRE11 gave only supplementary or implied infor-mation, whereas the (relevant) test requirements con-tained in the (online) GENSYS manual13 were largelybased on UIC Leaflet 518.7 Tests in Stage 2 can besummarised as follows.

Stage 2A – Rolling stock outlines

1. Test 1 – Static suspension heights.2,18,19 Procedure:Perform quasistatic analyses on the locomotive for

both maximum and minimum operational weightsto find the maximum/minimum static heights.Acceptance criterion: No part of the locomotiveshould infringe its applicable static (cross-sectional) outline.

2. Test 2 – Basic kinematics – sway. 2,6,18,20 Thesetests are used to determine body roll and lateraltranslation relative to the wheelset centreline whenthe locomotive is tilted (e.g. when cornering).Acceptance criterion: No part of the locomotiveshould infringe its applicable basic kinematic(cross-sectional) outline.2a – Cant test rig. Procedure: Raise the locomotive

in multiple increments up to its maximumapplicable cant on one side, then lower backto zero cant. Do the same to the other side toget a hysteresis curve of lateral and roll move-ments versus applied cant.

2b – On-track test (dynamic). Procedure: Perform atime-stepping (or quasistatic) analysis with thelocomotive curving at maximum cant deficiencyas close to maximum speed as possible.

2c – On-track test (static). Procedure: Perform aquasistatic analysis of the locomotive at max-imum cant when stationary.

Table 2. Continued.

Test Description

4. Transition curve negotiation

a) Twist test

b) Bogie rotational resistance

c) On-track assessment

Wheel unloading is to be measured when a)

static on a twisted test track, or when c)

travelling through a specified exit transition

after a curve. Bogie rotational resistance is

also measured to determine its dimen-

sionless ‘X-factor’1,19,20

5. Rollover Determines if the locomotive can negotiate

curves above the posted speed limit with-

out rolling onto its side about the high rail1

6. Isolated track irregularities

a) Flat hump

b) Curve kink

Vertical and lateral bogie centre accelerations,

wheel unloading and axle L/V ratios are

measured through a) vertical disturbances

on straight track, and b) a lateral disturb-

ance in a curve1,19

7. Cyclic track irregularities

a) Pitch and bounce

b) Harmonic roll

c) Curve entry irregularity

Similar criteria for testing isolated track irre-

gularities. Deals with vertical track dis-

turbances in a) the track centreline, b)

staggered between the high and low rail,

and c) cant imbalance in a curve1,17,19

8. Longitudinal forces in curves Determination of buff and draft forces on the

locomotive when cornering between other

rolling stock. (This test is optional since

additional longitudinal train dynamics

simulation is required)1,19

Stage 3: Traction

and braking

1. Traction testing Evaluates the locomotive’s ability to run in dry

and wet conditions10,11,20,22,27

2. Braking testing Time taken to stop the locomotive on dry

track for a variety of speeds10,11,19,20,25,26





Stage 2B – Track forces and stresses

1. Test 1 – Axle loads and P/D ratios.3,6,18,21

Procedure: Wheelset loads can be obtainedeither from a quasistatic analysis at 0 km/h or aquasistatic/time-stepping analysis at 10 km/h. TheP/D ratio is simply wheel load divided by wheeldiameter. Acceptance criterion: Wheelset/axleloadings and P/D ratios cannot exceed prescribedlimits.

2. Test 2 – P2 forces.3,18 Procedure: This is simplyobtained using the equation described in AS7508. Acceptance criterion: P2 forces cannotexceed prescribed limits.

3. Test 3 – Lateral track-shifting forces.3 Procedure:Perform time-stepping analyses for situations (ifany) where the locomotive will experience unba-lanced lateral acceleration 50.72m/s2 (for1435mm gauge) in curves. Acceptance criterion:The sum of lateral wheelset forces on each axlecannot exceed limits defined in AS 7508.

4. Test 4 – Lateral wheel-to-rail forces.3,17 Procedure:Run the locomotive through various curves whosespeed, cant and radius result in an unbalanced lat-eral acceleration of 0.73m/s2 using time-steppinganalyses. Acceptance criteria: Lateral wheel/railforces (L or Y) cannot exceed limits defined inAS 7508.

Stage 2C – Dynamic behaviour (Time-steppinganalyses are required unless otherwise noted)

1. Test 1 – Hunting. 1,16,17,19,22 Procedure: Run thelocomotive model over a 52 km stretch ofsmooth, straight track at 110% of design speed.Acceptance criteria: Lateral and vertical acceler-ation limits at the bogie centres cannot beexceeded. Significant hunting motions of thewheelsets cannot occur during the test.

2. Test 2 – Base ride accelerations.1,6,11,16,19,20,22

Procedure: Run the locomotive over track thatrepresents the roughest encountered in service.Straight track will suffice. Acceptance criteria:Lateral and vertical acceleration limits at thebogie centres cannot be exceeded along withapplicable ride index/comfort limits.

3. Test 3 – Horizontal and vertical curve negoti-ation.1,19,20 Procedure: Measure displacements oflocomotive bodies when traversing the minimumradius horizontal and vertical curves encounteredin service (at low speeds). Acceptance criteria:Clearances between the car-body, bogie framesand wheelsets should allow the locomotive to tra-verse the track geometry without derailing orbecoming damaged. Suspension elements/param-eters and wheel/rail profiles may also have aneffect.

4. Test 4 – Transition curve negotiation.1,19,20

4a – Twist test. Procedure: The static locomotivemodel is placed on a cant ramp designed toimpart (underframe) twisting forces. Wheelsetsof interest, in this case the lead wheelset of thefirst bogie, are then incrementally raised andlowered on both sides in a similar manner tostage 2A, test 2a to obtain a hysteresis curveshowing wheel unloading versus applied wheel-set cant. Acceptance criterion: The averagewheel unloading for the analysed wheelsetcannot exceed 60%.

4b – Bogie rotational resistance. Procedure:Determine the torque required to rotate thebogies relative to the car-body by either (a) run-ning the model through a minimum-radiuscurve at a speed typical of in-service operationor (b) rotating one bogie while the locomotive isstatic. Acceptance criterion: The X-factor calcu-lated for the bogie should be less than 0.1.

4c – Alternate on-track assessment. Procedure:Run the locomotive model at 10 km/h througha minimum radius curve with a prescribed cantirregularity in the exit transition. Acceptancecriteria: Limits on maximum axle (sum) L/V(Y/Q) ratios and wheel L/V ratios sustainedfor 50ms cannot be exceeded.

5. Test 5 – Rollover.1 Procedure: Perform time-step-ping analyses for situations (if any) where thelocomotive will experience unbalanced lateralacceleration 50.72m/s2 (for 1435mm gauge) incurves. Acceptance criterion: The vertical unload-ing for wheels on the low rail cannot be greaterthan 60%.

6. Test 6 – Isolated track irregularities.1,19 Procedure:Run the locomotive at a range of speeds up to110% of design speed over the following irregula-rities: (a) flat hump (vertical); (b) curved dip (ver-tical); and (c) curve entry irregularities (lateral).Acceptance criteria: Prescribed limits for max-imum lateral/vertical accelerations, verticalwheel/rail forces and sum axle L/V (Y/Q) ratioscannot be exceeded.

7. Test 7 – Cyclic track irregularities.1,19 Procedure:Run the locomotive at a range of speeds up to110% of design speed for the following cases: (a)pitch and bounce (vertical parallel rail disturb-ances); (b) harmonic roll (vertical staggered raildisturbances); and (c) curve entry irregularities(variations in cant imbalance). Acceptance criteria:Prescribed limits for maximum lateral/verticalaccelerations, vertical wheel/rail forces and sumaxle L/V (Y/Q) ratios cannot be exceeded.

8. Test 8 – Longitudinal forces in curves. 1,19

Procedure: Calculations are first carried out todetermine wheel unloading limits and if they willbe breached for a locomotive experiencing longi-tudinal buff/draft forces in a (small-radius) curve.If the calculated limit is not exceeded but the cal-culated wheel unloading is greater than 90%,





a time-stepping analysis is required. The locomo-tive is simulated to run in a (small-radius) curvewith either separate rolling stock models coupledto it to provide buff/draft forces, or by applyingcoupler forces to the locomotive model deter-mined using longitudinal train simulation (LTS).Acceptance criteria: The calculated wheel unload-ing limit should not be exceeded. Any wheel liftduring simulations results in failure.

Stage 3 – Tests not included in AustralianStandards (traction and braking)

Locomotive traction and braking tests are containedin Stage 3 since they are not covered in the AustralianStandards and require advanced modelling techniqueswith an introduction of locomotive traction controlsystems.23,24 From the researched standards, onlythose from RailCorp19,20,22,25–27 supplied detailedinstructions for traction and braking tests, with theROA Manual10 and the VRE RFP11 providing onlysupplementary or implied information. A brief sum-mary of the tests in Stage 3 is now presented.

Traction tests..

1. Test 1 – Gradient starting.10,20 Procedure:Determine the longitudinal coupler force exertedon the locomotive when hauling the heaviest per-missible train up a given gradient. Apply thiscoupler force to the locomotive model and haveit start from rest on straight, level track (since thelocomotive model can only start on straight trackin GENSYS). Acceptance criteria: The locomotive(and train) should be able to accelerate to balancespeed without exceeding the traction equipment’sshort-time (thermal) rating.

2. Test 2 – All-weather adhesion limit.27 Procedure:Start the locomotive and train (the latter simu-lated with applied longitudinal coupler forces) atline speed on dry, level straight track before climb-ing a 1 km incline. At 500m up the incline trackfriction will change from dry to wet to simulate theapplication of water sprays on the locomotive.Acceptance criteria: The test is failed if (a) speeddrops below 10 km/h; (b) excessive uncontrolledwheel-slip occurs; and/or (c) the traction equip-ment’s short-time rating is exceeded.

3. Test 3 – Tractive effort-speed for dry/wet rail.20

Procedure: Run the locomotive and train fromrest on straight track up to balance speed. Therail can be on a gradient, but level track will suf-fice. Record tractive effort, speed, throttle reading,wheel-slip, sanding applications and the timetaken to accelerate to balance speed during thetest. Acceptance criterion: Excessive wheel-slip isnot allowed.

4. Test 4 – Continuous tractive effort for dry/wetrail.20 Procedure: Starting at balance speed, run

the locomotive on straight track. The rail canbe on a gradient, but level track will suffice.Acceptance criterion: The locomotive must beable to maintain its balance speed without exces-sive wheel-slip.

5. Test 5 – Balance speed acceleration test.10

Procedure: Similar to Test 1, although the objectis to record the time taken for the locomotive toaccelerate to balance speed with its given gradientand load. Acceptance criteria: Those mentioned inTest 1, with the additional requirement that thetime taken to accelerate to balance speed shouldbe similar to data provided by the locomotivemanufacturer (although this is not strictly a criter-ion for failure).

Braking tests.

1. Test 1 –Stopping distances.10,11,20,22,26 Procedure:A locomotive and train is to be tested on dry,straight track. It is preferred to have level track,but (constant) gradients can also be used. Shortlyafter the train has started at speed, apply the(emergency/dynamic/pneumatic) brakes andrecord the distance and time elapsed while thetrain slows to a stop. Multiple speeds should betested. Acceptance criteria: Excessive wheel-slipcannot occur and the train must be able toslow to a complete stop. Braking time and dis-tance (with the train) should be similar to dataprovided by the locomotive manufacturer(although this is not strictly a criterion for fail-ure) and within limits imposed by the locomotiveoperator.

2. Test 2 – Gradient parking.10,19 This test shouldonly be considered if parking brake mechanismsare being tested. Procedure: Start the locomotiveat rest on a 1:30 gradient with the parking brakeon. Acceptance criteria: The parking brake shouldbe strong enough to secure the locomotive indef-initely. No movement is allowed.

3. Test 3 – Static test.10,19 Consider this test only ifpneumatic braking is modelled. Procedure: Applythe locomotive air brakes when it is at rest.Simulation of the air brakes alone (rather thanthe multibody model) should suffice. Acceptancecriteria: The air brakes should function properly,with appropriate air pressures, apply/release timesand brake block forces.

4. Test 4 – Deceleration rates.22,25 Procedure:Dovetailed with Test 1. Deceleration ratescan either be recorded directly or calculatedfrom the deceleration times and distancesrecorded earlier. Acceptance criteria: Brakingdeceleration rates should be similar to dataprovided by the locomotive manufacturer(although this is not strictly a criterion for fail-ure) and within limits imposed by the locomotiveoperator.





Simulated case studies

In order to evaluate the proposed LMAP, the tests inStage 1 and a few examples from Stage 2 were per-formed on a multibody locomotive model providedby the Centre for Railway Engineering (CRE) for usein GENSYS. The locomotive model runs on standardgauge (1435mm) track and has aCo-Cowheel arrange-ment with rigid bogies. Its total mass is 134metric tons,which is the maximum allowable fully provisionedlocomotive mass on Australia’s Defined InterstateRail Network.28 One Euler ‘esys’ coordinate system iscreated for the overall vehiclewith each individual bodymass, namely the car-body, bogies and axles, beingrelated to the ‘esys’ via their own linear ‘lsys’ coordinatesystems. Track is modelled as lumped masses that jointhe wheelsets at wheel/rail contact zones and arerestricted to three degrees of freedom (lateral transla-tion, vertical translation and roll rotation). Suspensioncharacteristics are linear aside from the yaw damperwhich is modelled as a viscous damper. The vehiclemasses and inertia are shown in Table 3. Similarmodels of locomotives have been used in previouswork.23,24 The locomotive model allows modellingtraction and braking, and Stage 3 tests have been simu-lated for this paper based on previous work reported inthe literature.23,24 It should be noted that, for all testsdescribed in the following subsections (except for trac-tion braking tests), the coefficient of friction at thewheel/rail contact patches is assumed to be 0.4, corres-ponding with dry weather conditions. For Stages 1 and2, the Fastsim algorithm developed by Kalker29 hasbeen used. In the case of Stage 3 tests for the dry frictioncondition, the maximum friction coefficient at zero slipvelocity is 0.47 and the coefficient of friction is depend-ent on slip velocity based on the Polach theory. All-weather adhesion of 35% is used as the limit becauseit can be assumed that this level can be realised with a97% probability on dry rail.30 For the wet friction con-dition, themaximum friction coefficient at zero slip vel-ocity is 0.3. Parameters required for Polach’s variablefrictionmodel31,32 are given inTable 4,wherem0, kA, kS,A and B are model parameters for different frictionconditions.

For Stage 3 tests, a simplified traction system hasbeen developed for the locomotive model based on thebogie traction control strategy of one inverter perbogie implemented as a subroutine in GENSYS.The system uses a feedback control strategy asshown in Figure 1, where Tref is the referencetorque, Tref* is the reference torque generated by thecontrol system, Tin is the input motor torque, Twheels

is the traction torque applied to the wheelsets and �Tis the torque reduction. The inverter and tractionmotor dynamics can be written as

Twheels ¼1

�sþ 1Tin ð1Þ

where � is a time constant.The slip limiter is used to avoid rail damage by high

values of longitudinal slip. In our case, the limit valueis 20% as described in the patent literature.33 Thetorque limiter does not allow the control system toexceed the reference torque. The slip controller is aproportional-integral controller, which uses a sliperror as the input signal to the controller.

Locomotive model checking and debuggingtests (Stage 1)

For all Stage 1 tests, the locomotive model was placedon straight, level ideal track with new AS60 kg/m pro-file rails and new ANZR1 profile wheels. The locomo-tive model was first checked for syntax errors by usingthe GENSYS program RUNF_INFO to analyse themodel code.13 A visual check was then conductedusing the Gplot utility by plotting the locomotivemodel in 3D and checking for errors such as incor-rectly mounted couplings13 and other geometricalerrors.12 No irregular geometry was found in the loco-motive model which can be seen in Figure 2.

Next, two quasistatic analyses were performed tosee how the locomotive suspension responded to car-body displacements of 5 cm in both the vertical(downwards) and lateral (right) directions. This wasachieved by constraining vertical/lateral motion in thecar-body and then displacing its centre of mass 5 cmin the vertical/lateral direction.13 When the car bodywas displaced 5 cm downwards, both bogies were

Table 3. The locomotive mass and inertia parameters.

Parameter Value Units

Vehicle body mass 87,180 kg

Vehicle body mass-inertia, roll 168,550 kg�m2

Vehicle body mass-inertia, pitch 3,610,410 kg�m2

Vehicle body mass-inertia, yaw 3,590,650 kg�m2

Bogie frame mass 14,860 kg

Bogie frame mass-inertia, roll 6520 kg�m2

Bogie frame mass-inertia, pitch 45,370 kg�m2

Bogie frame mass-inertia, yaw 50,300 kg�m2

Wheelset mass (shared traction

mass included)

2850 kg

Wheelset, roll 1789 kg�m2

Wheelset, pitch 1200 kg�m2

Wheelset, yaw 1789 kg�m2

Table 4. Wet and dry parameters for Polach variable friction

model.

Friction condition �0 kA kS A B

Dry 0.47 0.6 0.15 0.44 0.7

Wet 0.3 0.29 0.09 0.38 0.1





pushed toward the ground and the vertical wheelloads increased evenly throughout all axles. With a5 cm lateral car-body displacement, both bogies wereyawed with respect to the track in the same directionas the car-body displacement. A zero-speed modal(eigenvalue) analysis was then carried out on the loco-motive model, with the results showing no instancesof any absolute eigenvalues higher than �5000 rad/s,which would have indicated a problem of a rigid sus-pension connection.13

The model was then checked to see if any numer-ical instability occurred during time-stepping ana-lyses. To do this, the locomotive model was run ona 1 km length of straight, level, AS60 kg/m profileideal track at 115 km/h, which is a typical maximumspeed of Australian Co-Co freight locomotives.24

The model was tested using a two-step Runge–Kuttasolver with back step correction, first with a ‘normal’time step of 1ms and then a ‘coarse’ time step of 5ms.The point where model stability is reached was deter-mined by analysing the vertical wheel/rail contactpatch forces as shown in Figure 3, where the modelappears to stabilise at �4 s. Although instabilitiesstart to appear from �21.4 s in the leading bogie(upper plot) and from �1.5 s in the trailing bogie(lower plot), these have only a minor effect sincethey vary by ��15N for the leading and ��30Nfor the trailing bogies. The average vertical force incomparison is �109.515 kN. Sources of these instabil-ities could either be the particular model/solver com-bination or the rough longitudinal displacementcontrol used to regulate speed.

Figure 2. A 3D plot of the locomotive geometry.

Figure 1. The traction control system for one bogie.





A further time-stepping analysis was then under-taken to determine the locomotive’s critical speed. Ona 3 km length of straight, level, AS60 kg/m profileideal track, the locomotive model started off ata speed of 400 km/h, slowing down at a rate of5 km/h/s. The normal time step of 1ms is used withan initial excitation applied to the car-body to inducehunting.5 As seen in Figure 4 the locomotive stopshunting at �53 s, which corresponds to a speed of(400 km/h – (53 s� 5 km/h/s))¼ 135 km/h. This resultis favourable since hunting should not occur below110% of a vehicle’s design speed21, which in thiscase is (1.1� 115 km/h)¼ 126.5 km/h.

Hunting (Stage 2)

The following locomotive and track model param-eters were used in the hunting test:

. tare (empty) condition;1,19

. worn wheel profiles1 (two ANZR1 wheel profileswith flange wear and some tread wear were

supplied by CRE and converted into GENSYSformat);

. smooth track irregularities1 (FRA Class 6 track,generated using a formula for use in aVAMPIRE script, was converted into GENSYSformat. Since the irregularity file only covered1 km, it was looped three times for the huntingtest);

. new AS60 kg/m rail profiles were used (this is notexplicitly mentioned in AS 7509.1);

. travelling as a single vehicle1;

. dry weather conditions1 (�¼ 0.4);

. speed¼ 110% design1 (126.5 km/h in this case);

. track geometry: 52 km of straight, level track21

(a track length of 3 km was used in this case).

AS 7509.1 recommends that lateral accelerationshould be measured at the locomotive model’s leadingand trailing bogie centres of rotation. Measured sig-nals should be recorded at more than or equal to50 samples/s and filtered with a 10Hz cut-off. Thehunting test is deemed successful if the average peak

Figure 3. Numerical instabilities in vertical contact forces during a time-stepping analysis.

(1 km ideal tangent track).





accelerations experienced over a 5 s period do notequal or exceed �0.35 g.19 In this case it was decidedto augment the acceptance criteria for the hunting testby drawing from Section 26 (RSU 288) of RailCorp’sdocument ESR 0001 – 200.19 In addition to measuringlateral accelerations at the bogie centres, verticalaccelerations were recorded. The limits placed onbogie centre accelerations (excluding transients) byRSU 288 are:

. maximum body lateral acceleration ¼� 0.35 gover 5 s;

. maximum body vertical acceleration ¼� 0.5 gover 5 s.

It is also recommended by AS 7509.1 that wheel L/V(lateral to vertical wheel/rail contact force) ratios sus-tained for 2m should not exceed 1.0 for vehicles withsoft lateral suspension.1 Although the locomotivemodel does not appear to have a soft lateral suspen-sion, this criterion has still been evaluated. Two wornwheel profiles were supplied and two hunting testswere simulated. In both cases a time-stepping analysiswas conducted using the GENSYS ‘heun_c’ solver

and a time-step¼ 1ms (with data writtenevery 10ms). The calculated results showed that thedisturbances in the measured vertical and lateralacceleration signals were attributable to the track irre-gularities and not any hunting movements. The mea-sured acceleration signals were also well within thelimits imposed by AS 7509.1 and RSU 288. A sum-mary of hunting test results, read from plots of thecalculated data, is contained in Table 5.

Cyclic track irregularities – Pitch and bouncetest (Stage 2)

For the pitch and bounce test, the locomotive modelwas fitted with new ANZR1 profile wheels. AlthoughAS 7509.1 specifies the use of the roughest track irre-gularities encountered in normal operation1, for thepurposes of this study FRA Class 6 track irregulari-ties were used as in the hunting test. Properties ofthe generated FRA Class 6 track data are summarisedin Table 6.

The FRA Class 6 track irregularities were super-imposed over a 1 km stretch of tangent track wherethree vertical track centre-line disturbances were

Figure 4. Hunting test results (upper plot¼ speed, lower plot¼ lateral axle displacements).





located from a starting distance of 275m. Althoughthe exact geometry is not specified in AS 7509.1 orSection 28 (RSU 290) of RailCorp’s document ESR0001–200, the wave peak-to-peak distance H¼ 20mmand wavelength L¼ 13.7m were defined. In this testthe vertical bumps were assumed to have a sinusoidalshape.

AS 7509.1 also recommends that a speed range upto 110% of design speed should be evaluated.1 In thiscase the locomotive model was run through the testtrack at 20, 40, 60, 80, 100 and 110% of design speed,corresponding to speeds of 23, 46, 69, 92, 115 and126.5 km/h. For lower locomotive speeds, the startand finish distances on the test track were located asshown in Table 7 with the object of minimising simu-lation time while still allowing the locomotive modeltime to settle before and after crossing the cyclic irre-gularities. As with the hunting tests, a time-steppinganalysis was conducted using the GENSYS ‘heun_c’solver and a time-step¼ 1ms (with data written every10ms). Table 7 details the acceptance criteria for thetest as recommended by AS 7509.1 and RSU 290,

along with approximate results read from plots ofthe calculated data.

Maximum lateral acceleration, vertical accelerationand wheel unloading all increase with locomotivespeed; however, it can be seen that an apparent anom-aly is noted in the maximum vertical acceleration at69 km/h. Since none of the acceptance criteria limitswere exceeded, even at 110% of design speed, they aresatisfied by the locomotive model on FRA Class 6track. Performing this test with rougher track classeswould result in greater maximum lateral and verticalaccelerations being recorded.

Traction test (Stage 3)

It is necessary to initially check artificially that thetraction control system is able to control a processbetween wheel and rail, and that the model can repro-duce adhesion curves in the proper way for a locomo-tive. For this purpose, it is necessary to define anoptimal slip value up to 0.3. Figure 5 shows thedependence between longitudinal adhesion coefficient

Table 7. Pitch and bounce test results.

Locomotive speed:

% of design 20 40 60 80 100 110

Actual speed (km/h) 23 46 69 92 115 126.5

Test track start and finish points (m from start):

Start point 225 175 125 75 25 0

End point 460 580 700 820 940 1000

Acceptance criteria (all passed):

Maximum lateral acceleration 4�0.5 g 1,19��7.821x10�3 g ��0.013 g ��0.016 g ��0.028 g ��0.043 g ��0.049 g

Maximum vertical acceleration 4�0.8 g1,19��8.436x10�3 g ��0.053 g ��0.086 g ��0.081 g ��0.085 g ��0.094 g

Maximum wheel unloading over 50 ms 490% 1,19�37.4% �38.8% �41.4% �47.5% �51.7% �57.1%

Maximum axle sum L/V ratio over 50 ms 41.5 1�0.097 �0.095 �0.095 �0.095 �0.096 �0.097

Table 5. Hunting test results.

Acceptance criteria1,19 Worn profile 1 (approx.) Worn profile 2 (approx.) Outcome

Maximum body lateral acceleration¼�0.35 ga��0.055 to 0.041 g ��0.056 to 0.059 g Passed

Maximum body vertical acceleration¼�0.5 ga��0.037 to 0.030 g ��0.037 to 0.030 g Passed

Maximum wheel L/V ratio¼ 1.0b�0.133 �0.134 Passed

aOver a 5 s period. Excludes transients.bOver a 2 m distance.

Table 6. Properties of generated FRA Class 6 track irregularity data.

Track Class 6

Centre-line deviation (mm)

Gauge (mm) Cant (mm)Lateral Vertical

Max. 4.55308 5.63059 1439.1144 4.11439

Min. �4.84230 �5.93963 1430.4959 �4.50407





and the longitudinal slip in the time domain for theleading wheelset running on ideal track with dry rails.A continuous speed of 22 km/h was used in this test.The results obtained confirm that the locomotivemodel is able to reproduce an adhesion curve in thesame range as initially defined. In addition, Figure 5shows that the slip limiter works properly for slipvalues higher than 0.25. Note that values higherthan 0.25 are not used, but are included for complete-ness as has been done for such a system in the USPatent 5424948.33 The proper adhesion/slip curvebehaviour of the model also has been obtained forwet friction conditions between wheels and rails.

At the second stage, the validation of the modelcan be performed based on tests described in the lit-erature.20,27 The main objective of such tests can beformulated so as to obtain steady and controlled trac-tion efforts achieved by a locomotive under differentfriction conditions. In our case, the following param-eters are used:

. new wheel and rail profiles;

. notch 8, speed 22 km/h;

. distance-dependent friction conditions (500m fordryþ an additional 500m for wet);

. tangent track 1000m;

. gradient¼ 1 in 30;

. train mass¼ 1500 t;

. FRA Class 5 track irregularities.

The following acceptance criteria were defined:

. no uncontrolled wheelslip;

. speed cannot be lower than 10 km/h.

Other acceptance criteria such as traction motor cur-rents and sanding cannot be replicated by this simu-lation due to the usage of the simplified model. Theresults plotted in Figure 6 show that the model does

not exceed the stated acceptance criteria. The tractioneffort realised by the locomotive is stable at around300 kN without any significant change.

Braking test (Stage 3)

In this section, only dynamic braking has been testedsince: ‘The dynamic brake shall provide a constantmaximum braking effort over as wide a speed rangeas possible (nominally from 50 km/h to as near aspossible to zero speed)’.10 In this work, the dynamicbraking notch position 7 was used for this procedure,which allows a maximum dynamic braking effort of

Figure 6. Simulation results for travelling distance, locomo-

tive speed and longitudinal slip (the leading wheelset) in the

time domain.

Figure 5. Example of the longitudinal friction force/longitu-

dinal slip curve (dry friction condition) for the leading wheelset.





325 kN to be achieved from 5 to 43 km/h. The follow-ing initial parameters were used:

. new wheel and rail profiles;

. tangent track 2000m;

. gradients¼�0.5%, 0 and 0.5%;

. train mass¼ 1500 t;

. ideal track.

The results obtained are presented in Table 8 andshow a reasonable behaviour of the train stoppingprocess. It confirms that the traction system providessatisfactory results. Other tests for the braking sectioncan also be performed, but this would require thedevelopment of a model of the pneumatic brakingsystem.

Discussion and future work

A LMAP has been developed for use in MBS soft-ware, and sample tests have been conducted using anexisting locomotive model in GENSYS. These simu-lated case studies show that simulation of locomotivedynamic behaviour in MBS software is not only pos-sible, but can identify issues with a locomotive modelthat can otherwise be overlooked.

From the provided engineering analysis, it is pos-sible to see that it is a very adequate tool for Stages 1and 2. Examples of similar validation of static anddynamic performance for passenger and freightwagons against Australian Standards can be found inGoldney and Church.34 However, Stage 3 is not cov-ered by the existing standards as well as Stages 1 and 2.This is a reason why railway companies should developtheir own engineering standards in the field of tractionand braking. This area requires further developmentand standardisation. It is also necessary to mentionthat it is strongly necessary to use more accurate coup-ler force parameters from LTS studies in cases wherethere is no experimental data available. The samemethodology has been recently published by Szanto.35

For accurate results, advanced friction models suchas published by Tomberger et al.36 and Ertz andKnothe37 for wheel/rail contact are required becauseadhesion of the wheel rail contact patch is not onlydependent on wheelset slip velocity as in Polach’swork,31,32 but will be dependent on wheel unloadingand the contact patch eccentricity (length to width).These influence contact pressure and slip velocityof each wheel, changing the temperatures and

interface fluid effects. However, the application ofsuch models is not currently available for MBS pack-ages and it will increase calculation time substantially.

Future work involves continuing the completion ofa full locomotive model, which includes electrical,pneumatic and mechanical subsystems. The modelwill be subjected to the tests contained in the proposedLMAP using the ‘open’ GENSYS-Simulink co-simu-lation interface described by Spiryagin et al.23 Thiswill help locate any significant sources of error sothat the model can be properly debugged.

In order to validate the locomotive model, resultsfrom the LMAP tests will then be compared to experi-mental data from an equivalent real-world freightlocomotive. The physical tests are expected to besimilar to those described in the RISSB/AustralianStandards,1–3 although some augmentationsfrom the proposed LMAP may be incorporated.Comparing the simulated and experimental locomo-tive data will enable the accuracy of the locomotivemodel to be determined and provide a basis for imple-menting further adjustments to the multibody code ifrequired. The primary goal is to obtain a virtual loco-motive model that accurately replicates the behaviourof its real-world equivalent.

Conclusions

A LMAP has been proposed to validate multibodymodels of locomotives intended for use onAustralian railways. Although largely based onRISSB/Australian Standards, some content fromother Australian and worldwide standards, alongwith MBS software manuals, was selected to augmenttests within the procedure.

The case studies show how the proposed LMAPcan be implemented when testing locomotive modelsfor validation purposes. There is also scope for iden-tifying errors within locomotive models that couldotherwise go unnoticed. Once all tests in the proposedprocedure have been performed on the locomotivemodel, data from these simulations can be comparedwith experimental data from an equivalent real-worldlocomotive. This offers further scope to improve themodel to the point where it can accurately and com-prehensively replicate the dynamic behaviour of itsphysical counterpart while still satisfying the require-ments of relevant standards. For these reasons theproposed methodology is determined to be sound.

Funding

The authors are grateful to the CRC for Rail Innovation(established and supported under the Australian

Government’s Cooperative Research Centres Program) forthe funding for this project.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the support of the Centre for

Railway Engineering, Central Queensland University and

Table 8. Dynamic braking application results.

Grade (%)

Travelling

time (s) Distance (m)

0.5 44 �530

0 55 �650

�0.5 74 �900





the many industry partners that have contributed to thisproject, in particular staff from RailCorp, FortescueMetals Group and Brookfield Rail. The authors also

acknowledge DEsolver for use of the GENSYS softwareto perform the vehicle dynamics simulations reported inthis paper.

References

1. AS 7509: 2009. Railway rolling stock - dynamic behav-iour - part 1: locomotive rolling stock.

2. AS 7507: 2009. Railway rolling stock - rolling stock out-lines - part 1: locomotive rolling stock.

3. AS 7508: 2009. Railway rolling stock - track forces andstresses - part 1: locomotive rolling stock.

4. Evans J and Iwnicki SD. Vehicle dynamics and the

wheel/rail interface. Institution of MechanicalEngineers Seminar ‘Wheels on rails – An update’.London, April 2002.

5. Polach O, Berg M and Iwnicki SD. Simulation.In: S Iwnicki (ed.) Handbook of railway vehicle dynam-ics. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis Group, 2006,

pp.359–421.6. BS EN 14363: 2005. Railway applications - testing for

the acceptance of running characteristics of railwayvehicles - testing of running behaviour and stationary

tests.7. UIC Leaflet 518: 2005. Testing and approval of railway

vehicles from the point of view of their dynamic behav-

iour - safety - track fatigue - ride quality.8. Rail Corporation New South Wales. Rolling stock -

minimum operating standards for rolling stock,

http://engineering.railcorp.nsw.gov.au/InternetStandards.asp?discipline¼RollingStock&standards¼Minimum%20Operating%20Standards%20for

%20Rolling%20Stock (2012, accessed 1 October 2012).9. Rail Corporation New South Wales. Rolling stock

procedures, http://engineering.railcorp.nsw.gov.au/RollingStocks_Procedures.asp (2012, accessed 1

October 2012).10. Railways of Australia. ROA manual of engineering

standards and practices, section 13 - locomotives. 1992.

11. Virginia Railway Express. Request for purchase no. 08-004, technical specifications, section 601 - testing -general, diesel-electric locomotives, http://www.vre.

org/about/procurement/rfp_08-004_diesel-electric_locomotive/specifications/Division%206.pdf (2007,accessed 1 October 2012).

12. Rawlings L. VAMPIRE (Version 4.32) User Manual,

AEA Technology, Derby, UK, 2004.13. DEsolver. The GENSYS homepage, http://www.gen-

sys.se (2000, accessed 1 October 2012).

14. DEsolver. Debugging a vehicle model, http://www.gensys.se/doc_html/analyse_check.html#Mainmenu (2000, accessed 1 October 2012).

15. DEsolver. Error in a vehicle model, http://www.gensys.se/doc_html/analyse_error.html (2000, accessed 1October 2012).

16. Railways of Australia. ROA manual of engineer-ing standards and practices section 3 - road worthi-ness acceptance standards for rail freight vehicles,1991.

17. Association of American Railroads. Manual of stand-ards and recommended practices section c - part

ii - design, fabrication and construction of freight cars.Safety and Operations. Washington, DC: Association ofAmerican Railroads, 2011, pp.1–432.

18. Rail Corporation New South Wales. RSU 100 series -minimum operating standards for rolling stock - gen-eral interface standards. Engineering procedure - rolling

stock. Haymarket, Australia: Rail CorporationNew South Wales, 2009, pp.1–48.

19. Rail Corporation New South Wales. RSU 200 -

Minimum operating standards for rolling stock -common interface requirements. Engineeringprocedure - rolling stock. Haymarket, Australia: RailCorporation New South Wales, 2011, pp.1–77.

20. Rail Corporation New South Wales. RSU AppendixA1 -Locomotive vehicle information pack. Engineeringprocedure - rolling stock. Haymarket, Australia: Rail

Corporation New South Wales, 2011, pp.1–15.21. Rail Corporation New South Wales. Static vehicle

weigh test. Engineering procedure - rolling stock.

Haymarket, Australia: Rail Corporation New SouthWales, 2011, pp.1–9.

22. Rail Corporation New South Wales. RSU 300 -

RailCorp minimum operating standards for rollingstock - locomotive specific interface requirements.Engineering standard -Rolling Stock. Haymarket,Australia: Rail Corporation New South Wales, 2011,

pp.1–30.23. Spiryagin M, Simson S, Cole C and Persson I.

Co-simulation of a mechatronic system using

Gensys and Simulink. Veh Syst Dyn 2012; 50(3):495–507.

24. Spiryagin M, Sun YQ, Cole C, et al. Development of

traction control for hauling locomotives. J Syst DesDyn 2011; 5(6): 214–1225.

25. Rail Corporation New South Wales. Measurement ofbrake performance. Engineering procedure - rolling

stock. Haymarket, Australia: Rail CorporationNew South Wales, 2009, pp.1–14.

26. Rail Corporation New South Wales. Measurement of

brake performance (stopping distances). Engineeringprocedure - rolling stock. Haymarket, Australia: RailCorporation New South Wales, 2009, pp.1–5.

27. Rail Corporation New South Wales. Testing of locomo-tive all weather adhesion. Engineering procedure - rollingstock. Haymarket, Australia: Rail Corporation New

South Wales, 2009, pp.1–5.28. Ramsey N, Szanto F and Hewison P. Introducing

the next generation locomotive to the Australianrail network. In: The conference on railway

engineering, Perth, Australia, 7–10 September 2008,pp.471–480. Canberra: Railway Technical Society ofAustralasia.

29. Kalker JJ. A fast algorithm for the simplified theory ofrolling contact. Veh Syst Dyn 1982; 11: 1–13.

30. Matthews C. Development of the Cv43ACi locomotive.

In: The conference on railway engineering, Perth,Australia, 7–10 September 2008, pp.489–494.Canberra: Railway Technical Society of Australasia.

31. Polach O. Influence of locomotive tractive effort of the

forces between wheel and rail. Veh Syst Dyn 2001; 35:7–22.

32. Polach O. Creep forces in simulations of traction vehi-

cles running on adhesion limit. Wear 2005; 258:992–1000.





33. Locomotive traction control system using fuzzy logic.Patent 5424948, USA, 13 June 1995. Patent assignee:General Motors Corporation, Detroit MI.

34. Goldney I and Church D. Validation of dynamic per-formance of a railway vehicle by simulation. In: Theconference on railway engineering (eds M Dhanasekar,

T Constable and D Schonfeld), Brisbane, Australia,10–12 September 2012, pp.351–358. Canberra:Railway Technical Society of Australasia.

35. Szanto, F. Curves – what a drag! In: The conference onrailway engineering (eds M Dhanasekar, T Constable

and D Schonfeld), Brisbane, Australia, 10–12September 2012, pp.359–366. Canberra: RailwayTechnical Society of Australasia.

36. Tomberger C, Dietmaier P, Sextro W and Six K.Friction in wheel-rail contact: a model comprisinginterfacial fluids, surface roughness and

temperature. Wear 2011; 271; 2–12.37. Ertz M and Knothe K. A comparison of analytical

and numerical methods for the calculation of tem-

peratures in wheel/rail contact. Wear 2002; 253:498–508.





Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers...

Documents

Transcript of Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers...