Ar 877997

POLITECNICO DI MILANO
SCHOOL OF INDUSTRIAL AND INFORMATION

ENGINEERING
Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering
HOW TO TUNE INDIAN RAILWAY

NORMATIVE IN ORDER TO TEST
COMPONENTS OF HIGH-SPEED
INTEGRATED SYSTEM
Supervisor: Prof. Claudio Somaschini

Co-supervisor : Fabio Piccioli
Degree Thesis:
Abhisheik Ravichandran
877997
Academic Year 2018/19

Preface
This thesis is a part of my MSc in Mechanical Engineering at Politecnico di Milano and

was carried out in collaboration with Italcertifer SpA group Ferrovie della stato Italiane
in Florence, Italy.
I would like to thank my supervisor and examiner at Politecnico di Milano, Prof. Claudio
Somaschini and my tutor Ing. Fabio Piccioli and co-supervisor Mr. Roberto Catini at
Italcertifer SpA for their valuable support and assistance during the work.
I would also like to thank Prof. Stefano Bruni and Dr. Bin bin Liu for his help during my
training period for the usage of software.
Abhisheik Ravichandran
Italy, 2019
1|How to tune Indian Railway normative in order to

test components of high-speed integrated system
Abstract
TITLE – HOW TO TUNE INDIAN RAILWAY
NORMATIVE IN ORDER TO TEST ANY COMPONENTS
OF HIGH-SPEED INTEGRATED SYSTEM
KEYWORDS :- Testing and simulation, Running behavior, EN14363:2005 & UIC 518
Standards , Train 18 , Indian norms and procedure, vehicle dynamics interaction with
track
To study the comparative analysis on procedure of EN14363 standard benefiting over

Indian railway testing standards on running behavior of semi high speed train. Choosing
a new technology vehicle Train18 respecting Indian conditions to verify simulation
(Software - Simpack) tests on running dynamics. The trains were modelled in Simpack
using its technical parameters and characteristics of wheelset , bogie , car body. The
track layout structure (broad gauge 1676mm) designed following Indian conditions with
rail inclination of 1:20. The simulation tests are carried out in four different zones in dry
test conditions in which operating speed and cant deficiency act as an influencing factor
same as the procedure carried out by on-track tests respecting EN standards. Finally, to
check the assessment quantities (Running safety, Track loading, Vibration behavior)
falls within the limit values of EN standard to compare with the results of Indian testing
standards.
Simulations were done with focus kept on results reaching below the limit values of
running safety, track loading, and ride characteristics parameters. Since it is a new
technology vehicle only normal measuring methods were taken from EN14363
Standard.
The results of these latter simulations showed that the vehicle would pass an authority
approval process in its current configuration (designed for very safe conditions)
The vehicle ride behavior results show a very low acceleration values for both
lateral and vertical displacements of car-body due to high damping values.

Contents
Abstract................................................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 8
1.1 Background :- ................................................................................................................................ 8
1.2 Problem Definition :- ................................................................................................................. 8
1.3 Purpose :- ....................................................................................................................................... 8
1.4 Methodology :- .............................................................................................................................. 8
1.5 Delimitations :- ............................................................................................................................. 9
Chapter 2 .............................................................................................................................................. 11
Frame of Reference .......................................................................................................................... 11
2.1 Requirements :- ......................................................................................................................... 11
2.1.1 EN14363 :- ............................................................................................................................. 11
2.1.2 UIC-518 :- .............................................................................................................................. 11
2.1.3 ERA/TD/2012-17/INT :- ................................................................................................... 11
2.2 Assessment values :- ................................................................................................................ 12
2.3 Test Conditions :- ...................................................................................................................... 13
2.4 Test Zones:- ................................................................................................................................. 14
2.5 Processing :- ................................................................................................................................ 16
2.6 Limit values :- ............................................................................................................................. 18
2.7 Vehicle Description :- .............................................................................................................. 20
2.8 Simpack :- .................................................................................................................................... 21
2.9 Guide on Derailments :- .......................................................................................................... 22
2.9.1 Derailments on Curves :- ................................................................................................. 22
2.9.2 Cant or Super-elevation :- ............................................................................................... 22
2.9.3 Reasons for providing super-elevation :-.................................................................. 23
2.9.4 Cant deficiency :- ................................................................................................................ 23
2.9.5 Length of transition curve :- .......................................................................................... 24
2.10 Indian norms and procedures :- ........................................................................................ 24
2.10.1 Derailment co-efficient :- .............................................................................................. 24
2.10.2 Ride index :- ....................................................................................................................... 25
Chapter 3 .............................................................................................................................................. 27
Simulation Model :- .......................................................................................................................... 27
3.1 Vehicle Model :-.......................................................................................................................... 27

3.1.1 Mathematical Vehicle Modelling :- ............................................................................... 28
3.1.1 Wheelset Model :- ................................................................................................................ 29
3.1.2 Bogie Frame Model :- ........................................................................................................ 32
3.1.3 Car Body Model :- ............................................................................................................... 36
3.2 Track Model :- ............................................................................................................................. 40
3.2.1 Track Irregularity :- ........................................................................................................... 42
3.2.2 Track Layout for Test Zones :- ....................................................................................... 45
Chapter 4 .............................................................................................................................................. 55
4. Simulations According to EN:14363 :- ................................................................................. 55
4.1 Test Zone 1, Tangent Track :- ................................................................................................. 56
4.1.1 Stability Assessment Using Simulations :- ................................................................ 56
4.2 Test Zone 2 (Large Radius Curve) :- ................................................................................... 58
4.2.1 Stability Assessment Test Zone 2 :- .............................................................................. 58
4.3 Test Zone 3 (Small Radius Curve) :- ................................................................................... 60
4.3.1 Stability Assessment Test Zone 3:- ............................................................................... 60
4.4 Test Zone 4 (Very Small Radius Curve) :-......................................................................... 61
4.4.1 Stability Assessment :- ...................................................................................................... 61
Chapter 5 .............................................................................................................................................. 63
Analysis of Simulation Results According to EN 14363 :- .................................................. 63
5.1 Division on Sections and Percentile Evaluation :- ........................................................ 63
5.2 Results on Statistical Evaluation :-..................................................................................... 64
5.2.1 Test Zone 1 :- ........................................................................................................................ 65
5.2.2 Test Zone 2 :- ....................................................................................................................... 69
5.3.3 Test Zone 3 :- ....................................................................................................................... 77
5.3.4 Test Zone 4 :- ....................................................................................................................... 85
Chapter 6 .............................................................................................................................................. 93
Discussion & Conclusions :- .......................................................................................................... 93
Bibliography........................................................................................................................................ 95
Appendix A .......................................................................................................................................... 95
Appendix B ........................................................................................................................................ 958

List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Wheel-rail contact............................................................................. 13
Figure 2.2 LHB Coach dimensions..................................................................... 20
Figure 3.1 Vehicle model.................................................................................... 27
Figure 3.2 Wheelset model................................................................................. 29
Figure 3.3 Contact geometry.............................................................................. 31
Figure 3.4 Wheel & Rail profile.......................................................................... 31
Figure 3.5 Contact overview .............................................................................. 32
Figure 3.6 Preload results................................................................................... 32
Figure 3.7 Bogie frame profile............................................................................ 34
Figure 3.8 Wheelset arrangements & suspension position................................ 34
Figure 3.9 Bogie frame model with wheelset arrangement............................... 34
Figure 3.10 Preload for modal check-wheelset.................................................... 35
Figure 3.11 Rail track model................................................................................ 37
Figure 3.12 Car-body model................................................................................. 37
Figure 3.13 Car-body with bogie & wheelset........................................................ 38
Figure 3.14 Car-body wireframe representation.................................................. 38
Figure 3.15 Entire vehicle model.......................................................................... 38
Figure 3.16 Preload model check- carbody.......................................................... 39
Figure 3.17 Force elements – bogie front............................................................ 40
Figure 3.18 Force elements- bogie rear................................................................ 40
Figure 3.19 Track model with transition segment............................................... 41
Figure 3.20 Excitation type................................................................................... 42
Figure 3.21 Excitation lateral left & right............................................................. 43
Figure 3.22 Excitation vertical left & right........................................................... 44
Figure 4.1 Eigen value calculation – TZ1........................................................... 56
Figure 4.2 Function of damping......................................................................... 57
Figure 4.4 Function of daming........................................................................... 58
Figure 4.7 Eigen value calculation- TZ4............................................................. 61
Figure 5.1 Results on statistical evaluation........................................................ 64

List of Tables
Table 1 Normal measuring method............................................................... 12
Table 2 Test conditions & test zones.............................................................. 13
Table 3 Test zones with influencing parameters........................................... 13
Table 4 Speed & Cant deficiency limit values................................................ 15
Table 5 Measuring processing parameters.................................................... 17
Table 6 Limit values for ride characteristics.................................................. 19
Table 7 LHB coach characteristics................................................................. 21
Table 8 Wheelset geometry properties.......................................................... 30
Table 9 Comparison on bogie properties....................................................... 33
Table 10 Comparison on primary suspension parameters............................. 33
Table 11 Car-body properties comparison...................................................... 36
Table 12 Secondary suspension properties..................................................... 37
Table 13 Cartographic horizontal track model................................................ 40
Table 14 Cartographic super-elevation track model....................................... 41
Table 15 Horizontal track layout parameters TZ-2......................................... 46
Table 16 Super-elevation track layout parameters TZ-2................................. 48
Table 21 Comparison on results with limit values.......................................... 94

Chapter 1
Introduction
In this chapter the background and definition of the problem handled in the thesis are
explained. The main purpose and delimitations of the work as well as the methodology
are also explained.
1.1 Background :-
The company Integral coach factory (ICF) Chennai, India has developed a new
technology vehicle called TRAIN 18, which is a semi high speed train (Electric Multiple
Unit). For a new rail vehicle to be approved for running, a number of requirements
needs to be fulfilled, a part of these would be vehicle’s dynamic interaction with track.
These quantities looked for mainly vertical and lateral acceleration in the vehicle and
wheel rail forces and these can be obtained with simulations using a mathematical
model of the vehicle. The model has to be verified with the procedure of on-track tests
and then the simulation can be used for approval of the vehicle.
1.2 Problem Definition :-

The problem handled in the thesis can be summarized as: create and verify simulation
model of the vehicle T18 and use that to see if the vehicle meets the requirements of
running dynamics with EN14363 STANDARD respecting Indian conditions,
parameters and relevance.
1.3 Purpose :-
The purpose of the work was to examine the running characteristics and behavior of T18
vehicle using a simulation model following EN14363 test procedures and see if it meets
the limit values for approval and made a comparative analysis on how EN14363
standard testing on running behavior would benefit Indian vehicle on testing.
1.4 Methodology :-
The vehicle model was created in the simulation software SIMPACK using required train
data from documentation of RDSO and other references.
Then simulations were performed with vehicle speed, track geometry and data
processing methods according to EN14363. The results were then analyzed to see if they
were below their respective limit values. After the simulation model, comparing the
results on Running safety, Track loading, Vibration behavior (Ride Quality)
over Indian Railway norms.
1.5 Delimitations :-
To keep the work to level only with On-track test procedures, a few delimitations were
done. Topics not covered in thesis:
a) Stationary tests
b) Partial or dispensation on-track test with simplified measuring method.

MODELLING OF VEHICLE
RUNNING DYNAMICS
SIMULATION WITH EN14363
RESULTS FOR FOUR TEST ZONES EXPORT RESULTS INTO XLSX

IN SIMPACK & IMPORT IN MATLAB
FILTERING OF RESULTS
RUNNING SAFETY & TRACK LOADING – LOW

PASS FILTER 20Hz
RIDE CHARACTERISTICS – BAND PASS FILTER 0.4- TAKING INTO ACCOUNT

10 Hz ONLY THE FILTERED RESULTS
FOR DIVISON FROM MATLAB
DIVISION ON SECTIONS FOR EACH TEST

ZONE
EXPORT THE SECTION

PERCENTILE EVALUATION
FILE INTO EXCEL TO
RUNNING SAFETY – 99.85% & 0.15% PERFORM PERCENTILE
CALCULATION
TRACK LOADING FORCES – 50%
RIDE CHARACTERISTICS – 50 % & 99.85%
TAKING INTO
STATISTICAL EVALUATION :- ONE DIMENSIONAL ACCOUNT ONLY
ANALYSIS ONE VALUES OF
MEDIAN OF VALUES + K*STD.DEVIATION EACH SECTION
VALUES TO
K=3 FOR RUNNING SAFETY DETERMINE
EVALUATION
K=2.2 FOR TRACK LOADING & RIDE CHARACTERISTICS
COMPARE WITH LIMIT VALUES OF EN 14363 STD

OVER INDIAN STANDARD
10 | H o w t o t u n e I n d i a n R a i l w a y n o r m a t i v e i n o r d e r t o
Chapter 2
Frame of Reference
2.1 Requirements :-
The requirements for running safety for the vehicle type handled in the thesis are found
in EN14363 and UIC-518.
2.1.1 EN14363 :-
This standard contains information on the vehicle running test needs to be performed,
the assessment quantities with their limit values. The testing is divided into two parts:
stationary test and on-track test. In the thesis the focus is on the tests explained in the
on-track test section of the standard.
2.1.2 UIC-518 :-
This standard cover information on all provisions dealing with on-line running test and
the analysis of the results in terms of rolling stock approval from point of view of
dynamic behavior in connection with safety, track fatigue, running behavior. This also
contains a code of practice with respect to track alignment design, track geometry and
other operating conditions (speed and cant deficiency) to be complied with for the
vehicle approval tests.
2.1.3 ERA/TD/2012-17/INT :-
This document provides the necessary additional specifications to perform running
dynamic behavior testing of rolling stock. The method of tests and track geometric
quality for the running behavior testing are outlined for accessing a rolling stock
running dynamic under TSI (Technical Specifications for Interoperability)
1 EN 14363:2005 Railway applications - Testing for the acceptance of running

characteristics of railway vehicles
2 UIC-518 Testing and approval of railway vehicles from the point of

view of dynamic behavior – Safety , Track fatigue , Running
behavior
3 ERA/TD/2012- Running dynamics – Applications of EN14363:2005
17/INT
4 EN 15663:2009 Railway applications – Definition of vehicle reference

masses
2.2 Assessment values :-

As a first step, it had to be decided if a complete or just a partial on-track test was
needed. Since the test was being performed for an initial acceptance of the vehicle, the
complete on-track test was needed. Following this, a measurement method shall be
determined with the choices being normal and simplified measuring method, the
simplified method differs from normal method is that no wheel-rail forces are
measured. The measuring method is determined using the flow chart and for the studied
vehicle it came to know if it was deemed new technology vehicle or not. The quantities
that needed to be measured with normal measuring method can be seen [1].
Here Y and Q are the track forces meaning they are resultant forces in the contact
between wheel and rail. Y is the lateral guiding force and Q is the vertical force.
ASSESSMENT SYMBOL NORMAL MEASURING METHOD

VALUES
∑YMAX Maximum sum of guiding force
RUNNING SAFETY (Y/Q)MAX Maximum quotient of guiding force over wheel
∑YRMS
force
Moving rms of guiding force
TRACK LOADING YQST Quasi-static guiding force
QQST Wheel force
QMAX
Maximum wheel force
VIBRATION ÿ*QST Quasi-static acceleration in vehicle body
BEHAVIOR * *
ÿ MAX, z MAX Maximum acceleration in vehicle body
ÿ*RMS, z*RMS
Rms of acceleration in vehicle body
Table.1. Normal measuring methods
The acceleration in the vehicle body are normally measured above each bogie and as
well as in the longitudinal center of the body for non-articulated type bogies. These
positions were chosen because this is where the response generally would be the highest
and also these positions would be measured following the standard.
Fig.2.1 Wheel-rail contact
2.3 Test Conditions :-

Testing of the vehicle needed to be carried out in four different test zones. The first test
zone is straight track and curves with very large curve radius. In this particular zone the
testing of the vehicle is carried out in the area of vehicle’s permissible speed. The second
test zone is in the large curve radii. Here the testing of the vehicle is carried out in
vehicle’s permissible speed and with high cant deficiency. The third zone is in the small
curve radius between 400 m and 600 m. the fourth zone is in very small curve radii
between 250 m and 400 m. The testing of the vehicle for zones 3 and 4 are carried out in
the area of vehicle’s permissible cant deficiency [2].
The following table shows the test conditions for track sections in straight track and very
large curves
TEST CHARACTERISTICS TEST ZONE 1 (Straight track & very

large curves)
Length of track section Lts
V ≤ 220 km/h 250 m
Minimal number of track sections nts,min 25

Minimal length of the sum of all track 10 km
sections ∑Lts
Table.2 Test conditions test zones
The following table shows the test conditions for track sections in curves
TEST CHARACTERISTICS TEST ZONE

3 4
400 m ≤ R < 250 m ≤ R <
600 m 400 m
Length of track section Lts 100 m 70 m
100 m
V ≤ 140 km/h 250 m
140 km/h < V ≤ 220 km/h
Minimal number of track sections 25 50 25

nts,min
Minimal total length of track sections 10 km
∑Lts
Mean value of curve radius of all track 500 m 300 m
sections Rmwa ±50 m +50 m, -20 m
2.4 Test Zones:-

‘On-track’ tests for the testing of running characteristics are carried out in four different
test zones. In each test zone, the test condition for track and operation differ with regard
to the ranges of values to be examined for track layout, speed and cant deficiency [1].
TEST ZONE OBJECTIVE ANTICIPATED VEHICLE

CHARACTERISTICS
1. Straight track and Testing of the vehicle in There are no or only small
curves with very the area of the vehicles quasi-static guiding forces or
large radii permissible speed accelerations, but larger
dynamic content in all
evaluation variables
2. Large radius Testing of the vehicle in Superposition of quasi-static
curves the area of the vehicles and dynamic contents of all
permissible speed and evaluation variables
high cant deficiency
3. Small radius Testing of the vehicle in Larger quasi-static guiding
curves 400 m ≤R≤ the area of the vehicles forces, wheel forces and
600m permissible cant accelerations, dynamic
deficiency content generally decreases
4. Very small radius Testing of the vehicle in Larger quasi-static guiding
curves the area of the vehicles forces, wheel forces and
250 m ≤ R ≤ 400 permissible cant accelerations, dynamic
m deficiency content generally decreases
Table.3. Objectives of test zone with influencing parameters
The speed and cant deficiency for different test zone can be seen in the following table.
Cant deficiency- The missing amount of outer rail super elevation required to cancel the
centrifugal acceleration component above the rail level during the running of rolling
stock I curves. For test zone 1 and 2, the vehicle speed shall be specified as test
parameter. The relevant speed is the desired permissible maximum speed of vehicle
Vadm. The vehicle desired maximum cant deficiency is denoted as cdadm [2].
TEST SPEED, V CANT TOLERANCE

ZONES DEFICIENCY, cd
1 V= max (1.1*Vadm , Cd ≤ 40 mm ± 5 km/h
Vadm+10 km/h)
2 Vadm ≤ V ≤ 1.1*Vadm 0.75*cdadm≤ cd ≤ ± 5 km/h
1.1*cdadm ± 0.05*cdadm
3 V ≤ 1.1*Vadm 0.75*cdadm≤ cd ≤ ± 0.05*cdadm
1.1*cdadm
4 V ≤ 1.1*Vadm 0.75*cdadm≤ cd ≤ ± 0.05*cdadm
1.1*cdadm
Table.4. Test zones speed & cant deficiency limits
2.5 Processing :-
The processing of measured signals differs between the different quantities (Running
safety, ride quality and track loading). The filtering unit for different quantities can be
seen in the following table [1].
Assessment Filtering Method of Characteristi Grouping &

value for classificatio cs values conversion
evaluatio n
n Test Test
zone 1 zone
2,3,4
TRACK Per
LOADING wheelse
Guiding force Low pass Random ho = 50 %
t group
Yqst wheelset 1,2 filter 20 sampling
Hz method externa
l wheels
Wheel force Qqst
Per
wheels Random ho = 50 %
11,12,21,22 Low pass sampling bogie
filter 20 method Per group
Wheel force Hz bogie
externa
Qmax wheels Random group
11,12,21,22 sampling all l wheels
method h2 = 99.85 % wheels Per
Low pass bogie
filter 20
Hz group
externa
l wheels
RUNNING
SAFETY
Sum of guiding Low pass Sliding mean h1 = 0.15 % Per
Per
forces ∑Ymax filter 20 method with h2 = 99.85 % wheelse
wheelset 1, 2 Hz window t group wheelse
length 2 m t group
and step
Quotient Y/Q length 5 m h1 = 0.15 %
leading Low pass Sliding mean h2 = 99.85 %
wheelset filter 20 method with For
Hz window
leading
length 2 m
and step wheelse
length 5 m t group
externa
l wheels
RIDE
QUALITY Low pass Random ho = 50 % Per end
Acceleration in filter 20 sampling
group
vehicle body Hz method
ÿ qst
* of
Random h1 = 0.15 % Per end externa
Acceleration in Band pass sampling h2 = 99.85 % group
l wheels
vehicle body filter 0.4 to method
ÿ*max & z*max 10 Hz Per end
Random group
Acceleration in sampling
vehicle body Band pass method
ÿ rms & z*rms
* filter 0.4 to
10 Hz
INFLUENCIN
G
PARAMETER Low pass Random ho = 50 %
S filter 4 Hz sampling
Speed V method
Low pass Random ho = 50 %
filter 4 Hz sampling
Cant deficiency method
cd
Table.5. Measuring processing parameters
2.6 Limit values :-

There are different limit values with different significance with regard to safety issues;
there are limits to each quantity. The limit values for ride characteristics are no running
safety relevant limits but needs to consider with regard to vibration load on passengers,
vehicle components. There are additional limit values for track loading (Combined rail
loading quantity Bqst and rail surface damage quantity Tqst ) to determine appropriate
operating and vehicle conditions depending on track layout, track design, track quality
[3].
The limit values for normal measuring method are to be applied
RUNNING SAFETY:
a) Sum of guiding forces ∑YMAX

The safety critical limit for track shifting
∑YMAX,lim = k1( 10+2Qo/3) kN
Factor k1= 1.0 (locomotives, multiple units, passenger coaches)
b) Quotient of guiding force and wheel force (Y/Q) MAX

The critical safety limit for the quotient of leading wheel
(Y/Q)MAX,LIM = 0.8 (Section for full curve)
(Y/Q)MAX,LIM = 1.2 (Section for transition regions)
TRACK LOADING:
a) Quasi-static guiding force Yqst :-

Yqst,lim = 60 kN (Test zones 2,3,4 excluding transition sections)
b) Quasi-static wheel force Qqst
Qqst,lim = 145 kN (Test zones 2,3,4 excluding transition section)
c) Maximum wheel force Qmax :-
Qmax,lim = 90 + Qo kN
Vadm ≤ 160 km/h: Qmax,lim ≤ 200 kN
160 /h < Vadm ≤ 200 km/h: Qmax,lim ≤ 190 kN
d) Combined rail loading quantity Bqst :-
Bqst = Yqst + 0.83 Qqst
Bmax = (|Y|+ 0.91 Q)max
e) Rail surface damage quantity Tqst :-
A measure for controlling the wear of rails. The interaction between wear and
surface initiated rolling contact fatigue is referred to as rail surface damage
(RSD). The advantage is that it normalizes the influence of varying contact
conditions and wheel/rail friction.
𝑄𝑞𝑠𝑡
𝑇𝑞𝑠𝑡 = ∗ (330. 𝑓 2 − 62. 𝑓 + 4)
10000
𝑌𝑞𝑠𝑡 𝑇𝑥, 𝑞𝑠𝑡
𝑓= + 0.62
𝑄𝑞𝑠𝑡 𝑄𝑞𝑠𝑡
There are no limit values for both Rail surface damage and rail loading
quantities.
RIDE CHARACTERISTICS:
a) Quasi-static accelerations in the vehicle body ÿ*qst

b) Maximum accelerations in the vehicle body ÿ*max , z*max
c) Root mean square of accelerations in vehicle body ÿ*rms , z*rms
ASSESSMENT VEHICLE,TEST LIMIT VALUES FOR

CONDITIONS ACCELERATION IN VEHICLE BODY
m/s2
RIDE CHARACTERISTICS ÿ*qst ÿ*max z*max ÿ*rms z*rms
Locomotives , Power cars 1.5 2.5 2.5 0.5 1.0
Multiple units, Passenger coaches 1.5 2.5 2.5 0.5 0.75
Table.6. Limit values for ride characteristics
2.7 Vehicle Description :-
LHB TYPE COACH :-
LHB coach body type is designed and manufactured by ICF ( INTEGRAL COACH
FACTORY ) for TRAIN 18 and bogies are designed by FIAT Switzerland. It can
withstand operating speed of 160 kmph and maximum speed up to 200 kmph [11].
HOW IT BENEFITS RAILWAYS:
A Longer coach – 2 m longer than conventional type coach. This means more travel
space, increased in seating capacity and wider bays and doorways.
A lighter coach – weight of LHB coach is 10 % lesser than conventional coaches. This
means low haulage cost but also less wear and tear of coaches and tracks.
A higher speed coach – LHB coaches are designed to run at speeds even for 200 kmph
when infrastructure satisfies the condition.
Lesser maintenance – Bogie with less moving parts used.
Fig.2.2 LHB Coach dimensions
DESIGN FEATURES OF LHB COACH SHELL:
Length over buffer 24000 mm
Length over head stock 23540 mm
Width 3030 mm
Height from rail level 4025 mm
Codal life 30 years

Maximum distance between 12345 mm
inner wheels
Maximum tare weight 40.29 Tonne
No of passengers 78
Test speed 181 Kmph
Fit to run at speed of 160 Kmph
Axle load 17 tonne
Table 7. LHB coach characteristics
2.8 Simpack :-
Simpack is a general-purpose Multibody simulation (MBS) software used for dynamic
analysis of any mechanical and mechatronic systems. It enables to generate and solve
virtual 3D models in order to predict and visualize motion, coupling forces and stresses.
Simpack is used for design and analysis of rail-based vehicle of articulated high-speed
trains. With the vehicle model a track model is needed together with track design
geometry and track irregularities. Using the model some different calculations can be
made including the frequency analysis of vehicle and time simulations over a defined
track. When performing time simulations, there are some different methods that solve
ordinary differential equation. In simulation the software also uses hertz theory to
calculate the contact patch and contact pressure between wheel and rail. This theory
says that an elliptical contact arises if two bodies are pressed together with normal force.
The software also uses Kalker’s simplified theory of rolling contact to calculate the
tangential forces in the contact. This is a frequently used model of wheel-rail contact
since it often gives an exact description while being faster to use than the complete
theory. From a simulation there is a lot of different output data available including
displacements and accelerations at any position in all bodies, spring and damper
displacement forces, wheel and rail forces, wheel and rail wear, derailment co-efficient
[7].
2.9 Guide on Derailments :-

2.9.1 Derailments on Curves :-
The rolling stock has higher chances of derailing on a curved track since the flange is
almost continuously pressing against the running edge of outer rail in addition to the
normal tread contact with the rail [10].
Adverse factors on curves
• Excessive angular wear on the outer rail

• Excessive flattening of head on the inner rail
• Gauge widening
• Track distortion
2.9.2 Cant or Super-elevation :-

When a vehicle moves on a circular curve, it is subjected to a constant radial
acceleration which produces a centrifugal force acting away from the centre in a radial
direction. The value of this centrifugal force is given by the formula :
𝑊𝑉^2
𝐹=
𝐺𝑅
F – Centrifugal force
W – Weight of the vehicle
V – Speed of the vehicle
G – Acceleration due to gravity
R – Radius of curve section
To counter this centrifugal force, outer rail on the curves is kept little higher than the
inner rail. The inner rail is normally maintained at its original level and considered as a
reference rail. Raising of outer rail on curve to a specified height in this fashion is known
as Cant or Super-elevation. The state of equilibrium reaches when both the wheels
bear equally on the rails. In this state of equilibrium, the level difference between outer
and inner rail on the curve is called equilibrium super elevation. The equilibrium
super elevation is given by :
𝐺𝑉^2
𝑒=
127 𝑅
G – Gauge + width of rail head
R – Radius of curve
2.9.3 Reasons for providing super-elevation :-

• To have a better distribution of load on two rails
• To reduce wear and tear on rails
• To provide comfort to passengers
• To neutralize the effect on lateral force
2.9.4 Cant deficiency :-

Cant deficiency is the difference between equilibrium cant necessary for maximum
permissible speed on a curve and the actual cant provided.
The cant deficiency is limited due to following two considerations :
• Higher cant deficiency causes discomfort to passengers.
• Higher cant deficiency leads to higher unbalanced centrifugal force which in turn
requires stronger track and fastening to withstand higher lateral force.
As soon as a vehicle enters a circular curve from straight alignment, it is subjected to

centrifugal forces. This increases lateral flange force and affects the track alignment. In
order to limit these and provide smooth entry to the curve, transition curves are
provided on either side of a circular curve . The change of degree is uniform throughout
the length of transition curve. Thus, the curvature increases gradually from zero at the
straight end and becomes equal to the curvature of circular portion at the other end. The
super-elevation increases at the same rate as curvature so that full cant is achieved
simultaneously with the beginning of circular arc. This gives gradual and slow building
of centrifugal force as well as super-elevation. The transitions are thus critical portions
to be examined for the correctness during derailments on curves. The transition curves
are usually laid in the shape of a cubic parabola [4].
2.9.5 Length of transition curve :-

The length of transition portion depends upon the degree of curve, max. permissible
speed, amount of super-elevation and the rate at which the cant is run off. The desirable
length of transition curve in meters is maximum of following three values
(1) 0.008 Ca*Vm
(2) 0.008 Cd * Vm
(3) 0.72 Ca
Where Ca is actual cant provided in mm, Cd is cant deficiency in mm and Vm is
maximum permissible speed in kmph [4].
2.10 Indian norms and procedures :-

2.10.1 Derailment co-efficient :-
Nadal criterion :-
The first way to ensure safety is to give sufficient contact angle to the flange. The second
preference is to reduce the lateral force Y by good design of bogie. Another option is to
limit the track twist and diminution of Q forces. The last way to is to reduce the friction
co-efficient by lubrication. In Europe, this is commonly carried out at wheel flange or on
the gauge corner of the rail in curve sections. The friction forces are also limited in
lateral direction by presence of a longitudinal forces. The friction co-efficient is shared
between the two directions [5].
In the Pochet Nadal formula, this sharing effect is not considered, making the formula
adequate for independent wheels. This means that a rigid wheelset, where the
longitudinal forces are important on attack wheel, will be safer than an independent
wheel in the same conditions.
2.10.2 Ride index :-

Testing on Rolling stock follows AAR and UIC – 518 standards to test the ride
characteristics of the vehicle or carriages. Ride Index value for EMU trains are less than
4 (usually ranges from 3.25 – 3.75) [10].
Human sensation of comfort proportional to Displacement, Rate of change of

Acceleration, Acceleration.
RI = 0.896 (g(f)*b3/f)0.1
g(f) = kf2
b = acceleration amplitude
g(f) = ride comfort correction factor
k = 0.325 for vertical ride Index (0.5 – 5.4 Hz)
k = 0.8 for lateral ride index (0.5 – 5.4 Hz)
Relation between passenger comfort and ride index
RIDE INDEX APPRECIATION FATIGUE LIMIT

1.0 Very good Over 24 hours
1.5 Almost very good Over 24 hours
2.0 Good Over 24 hours
2.5 Neatly good 13 hours
3.0 Passable 5.6 hours
3.5 Still passable 2.8 hours
4.0 Able to run 1.5 hours
4.5 Not able to run 45 min
Chapter 3
Simulation Model :-
3.1 Vehicle Model :-
The model was built with four masses (rigid bodies): the car-body, bogie frame and the
two wheelsets. To keep the model as simple as possible all masses were assumed to be
rigid, see Fig.3.1
BOGIE FRONT
& REAR
Fig.3.1 Vehicle model

3.1.1 Mathematical Vehicle Modelling :-
The railway vehicle comprises of a car-body supported by two bogies one at each end.
Bolsters are the intermediate member between the car-body and each bogie frame and is
connected to car-body through side bearings. The bogie frame supports the weight of
the car-body through a secondary suspension located between the car-body and the
bogie frame. In passenger vehicles, each bogie usually consists of two wheel-axle sets
that are connected through the primary suspension to the bogie frame. In addition, the
wheels are usually tapered or profiled to provide a self-centering action as the axle
traverses the track. The inertial axes system is fixed with the track while the origins of
the body fixed axes system are located at the center of mass of different rigid bodies e.g.
Car-body, bolster, wheel axle etc [9].
3.1.1 Wheelset Model :-
The wheelset model was taken from the template model for rail wheelset from Simpack.
Here, the design of wheelset and its properties are designed based on Indian running
conditions. The type of track joint is TYPE-7 GENERAL RAIL TRACK JOINT ( 6
Degrees of freedom) 5 dof without pitch angle and 1 dof with only s.
S – Longitudinal position ( along track centre)
y - Lateral position
z – vertical position
phi – Roll angle (around s)
psi – Yaw angle (around z)
gam – pitch or rolling angle (around y).
The lateral distance of the rail is defined by the track gauge.
Fig.3.2 Wheelset Model
INDIAN WHEELSET ITALIAN WHEELSET
TYPE TYPE
Axle length 2.56 m 2.2 m
Outer Diameter 0.24 m 0.18 m
Inner Diameter 0.11 m 0.08 m
Nominal Wheel Radius 0.46 0.46 m
Rail profile UIC 60 UIC 60
Track gauge 1676 m 1435 m
Rail cant 1.20 1:40
Gauge measurement 0.012 m 0.014 m
position
Wheel profile S1002 TYPE S1002 TYPE
Lateral wheel distance 0.8635 m 0.75 m
Friction co-efficient 0.3 0.4
Table.8 Wheelset geometry properties
Modal Check :-
Once the single wheelset model is finished by defining the geometrical properties of
wheel and rail, we know that the model is not in equilibrium state, so depending upon
the profile and the position there may be contact between the wheel and rail that exerts
large contact forces.
Here, preload calculations were performed to bring the model to be in equilibrium state,
by setting vehicle speed as zero to prevent the parasitic forces. The resulting preloads
brings the half of wheelset weight force. The maximum residual acceleration has a very
small number.
The model is checked by setting the vehicle global speed parameter by giving actual rail
profile type and adjusting the solver settings for simulation time and sample rate for
laid track distance[6].
Fig.3.3 Contact geometry
Fig.3.4 Wheel and Rail profile
Fig.3.5 Contact overview
Fig.3.6 Preload results
3.1.2 Bogie Frame Model :-

A simple bogie model includes
• 2 Wheelsets
• 1 bogie frame
• Primary suspension system (4 spring-damper in parallel elements)
The new model was taken from the template model ‘Rail track’ (appears to be a
rectangular box) and by defining the body type properties to bring out like the frame
type (wheel rail bogie model). The primary suspensions are modelled with Spring and
damper in parallel (Component ‘Cmp’ type force components are used). The mid frame
connecting the two frames are aligned by changing the longitudinal position of the
frame as the half of the length of wheelbase distance (2.5/2).
The wheelset model is loaded in the main bogie model, as both wheelsets are identical
they can superimpose upon each other [8].
BOGIE BODY INDIAN BOGIE MODEL ITALIAN BOGIE MODEL

PROPERTIES
Wheelbase 2.560 m 2.5 m
Mass of frame 3150 kg 3000 kg
Inertia IXX 1713 kg m2 1500 kg m2
Inertia IYY 3206 kg m2 2500 Kg m2
Inertia IZZ 4763 Kg m2 2800 Kg m2
Center of mass z 0.6 m 0.6 m
Frame length L1 3.534 m 3m
Frame width 0.25 m 0.25 m
Frame height 0.6 m 0.6 m
Mid frame length in X 0.3 m 0.3 m
Mid frame length in Y 2.241 m 2m
Frame length L2 1.6 m 1.2 m
Mid frame length in Z 0.2 m 0.2 m
Table.9 Comparison on bogie body properties
PRIMARY SUSPENSION INDIAN BOGIE MODEL ITALIAN BOGIE MODEL

PARAMETERS TYPE TYPE
Stiffness kX 3.e7 N/m 3.e7 N/m
Stiffness KY 4.e6 N/m 4.e6 N/m
Stiffness KZ 1.2.e6 N/m 1.2.e6 N/m
Damping dX 15000 Ns/m 15000 Ns/m
Damping dY 2000 Ns/m 2000 Ns/m
Damping dZ 4000 Ns/m 4000 Ns/m
Table.10 Comparison on Primary suspension parameter
Process On Bogie Frame Model :-
Fig.3.7 Bogie frame profile
Fig.3.8 Wheelset arrangements and suspension positions
Fig.3.9 Bogie frame model with wheelset arrangements
Modal Check :- (Similar to wheelset model)
Here, preload calculations were performed to bring the model to be in equilibrium state,
by setting vehicle speed as zero to prevent the parasitic forces. The resulting preloads
brings the half of wheelset weight force. The maximum residual acceleration has a very
small number.
The model is checked by setting the vehicle global speed parameter by giving actual rail
profile type and adjusting the solver settings for simulation time and sample rate (100
Hz) for laid track distance [6].
Fig.3.10 Preload for model check
3.1.3 Car Body Model :-
The BODY model was taken from the template model as ‘Rail track’ from Simpack. Here, the
design of car-body and its properties are designed based on Indian cabin conditions (LHB type
coaches). The car-body appears to be in a shape by selecting wheel rail cab and by defining the
body properties based on LHB TYPE VEHICLE. Here centre of gravity is located above the body
reference frame. By fixing the longitudinal position along the track from the starting surface
set as zero, setting the markers for secondary suspension (Cmp force elements) and finally the
body is ready to mount the bogies. First the two bogie models had overlapped each other due to
same longitudinal position and by changing the position ‘s’ of front bogie.
The force elements for the secondary suspension is created between the markers of car-body and
bogie frame [9].
CAR BODY GEOMETRY PROPERTIES

INDIAN TYPE LHB COACH ITALIAN TYPE CARBODY
Mass of car-body 33740 kg 32000 kg
Inertia IXX 56932 kg m2 56000 kg m2
Inertia IYY 1307220 kg m2 2.e6 kg m2
Inertia IZZ 1309744 kg m2 2.e6 kg m2
Position of z from cg point 1.8 m 1.8 m
Length in X L1 23.54 m 22 m
Width W1 3.2 2.79 m
Height H1 4.09 m -
Longitudinal joint position 8.63 m 10.75 m
Bogie – bogie distance 16.2 m 19 m
Position of WS1 from track 17.3 m
Position of WS 2 from track 14.74 m
Table.11 Car body properties
SUSPENSION INDIAN TYPE COACH ITALIAN TYPE MODEL
PARAMETERS
Stiffness kX 175000 N/m 150000 N/m
Stiffness KY 175000 N/m 150000 N/m
Stiffness KZ 450000 N/m 450000 N/m
Damping dX 35000 Ns/m 32000 Ns/m
Damping dY 35000 Ns/m 32000 Ns/m
Damping dZ 23000 Ns/m 20000 Ns/m
Table.12 Secondary Suspension properties
The entire vehicle model contains two bogies and two stages of suspension systems.
Each bogie consists of two solid wheelsets.
Car-Body Modelling Process :-
Fig.3.11 Rail track model
Fig.3.12 Car-body model
Fig.3.13 Car-body with bogie and wheelset
Fig.3.14 Car-body with complete model in wireframe representation
Fig.3.15 Entire vehicle model
Modal Check :-
The model is checked with preload conditions to get lower residual acceleration value
and the value of force components in vertical direction i.e. z direction behaves in a
symmetrical approach. The secondary suspension force after the preload process should
be equal to mass of car-body*9.81/4. Here 4 indicates the number of components placed
[6].
Fig.3.16 Preload model check
Fig.3.17 Force elements (Secondary Suspension) Left Back Bogie before

and after preload check
Fig.3.18 Force elements (Secondary Suspension) Left Front Bogie before
and after preload check
3.2 Track Model :-

Cartographic track model kind of track is used, and this assembled from various
segments in all three directions horizontal, super-elevation and vertical that are stringed
together [8].
ABBREVIATION DESCRIPTION
STR Straight (tangent) track
CIR Circular arc
CLO Clothoid transition, the curvature
increases or decreases linearly by 1/R1 to
1/R2.
Table.13 Cartographic Horizontal track model with description
Fig.3.19 Horizontal track model with transition segment
Abbreviation Description
CST Constant super-elevation
LIR Linear ramp, the super-elevation increases or
decreases linearly from u1 to u2
Table.14 Cartographic Super-elevation track model with description
A positive super-elevation corresponds to a right-hand curve and negative super-

elevation corresponds to a left-hand curve.
3.2.1 Track Irregularity :-
Track excitation in addition has superimposed irregularities to the track layout. Track
related to additional irregularities for all movements in track and rail are listed below.
TRACK RELATED EXCITATION :-
• Lateral excitation
• Vertical excitation
• Roll angular excitation
• Gauge excitation
RAIL RELATED EXCITATION :-
• Left lateral excitation

• Right lateral excitation
• Left vertical excitation
• Right vertical excitation
Fig.3.20 Excitation type
Fig.3.21 Excitation lateral left and right
Fig.3.22 Excitation vertical left and right
3.2.2 Track Layout for Test Zones :-
Test Zone 1 - Track Model :-
The line designed for this type of zone according to EN14363 standard should be of
straight (tangent) line for a minimal of 10 kms in length.
The excitation in the track model is at the starting position of track and given fade
in/out length distance to be 50 till the end of the track. All excitations type of rail related
(both lateral and vertical) on left and right are considered.
Test Zone 2 Track Model :-
The track designed for this type of tests should have straight and very large radius curve.
The length of the track is targeted for about 10 kms, in which there are 5 curve sections
both right- and left-hand curve. The curve radius designed for this type of test zone are
met with test conditions (velocity of train and cant deficiency)
TYPE DESCRIPTIO PAR DESCRIPTIO PAR DESCRIPTIO PAR

OF N T1 N T2 N T3
TRACK
Straight Length 500 - - - -
Transitio Length 100 RADIUS R1 0 RADIUS R2 1520
n
Circular Length 1250 RADIUS R 1520
n
Transitio Length 100 RADIUS R1 0 RADIUS R2 -1600
n
Circular Length 1250 RADIUS R -1600
Transitio Length 100 RADIUS R1 -1600 RADIUS R2 0
n
n
n
Transitio Length 100 RADIUS R1 0 RADIUS R2 -1900
n
Transitio Length 100 RADIUS R1 -1900 RADIUS R2 0
n
n
n
Table.15 Horizontal track layout parameters
Fig.3.23 Test zone 2 track layout
Fig.3.24 Curve layout model test zone 2
Fig.3.25 Super-elevation layout model test zone 2

TYPE DES- PART 1 DES- PART DES- PART
OF CRIPTION CRIPTION 2 CRIPTION 3
TRACK
Constant Length 500 Super 0 - -
elevation U
Linear Length 100 Super 0 RADIUS R2 0.1
elevation U1
Constant Length 1250 Super 0.1
elevation U
Linear Length 100 Super 0.1 RADIUS R2 0
elevation U1
Constant Length 500 Super - - -
elevation U
Linear Length 100 Super 0 RADIUS R2 -0.1
elevation U1
Constant Length 1250 Super -0.1
elevation U
Linear Length 100 Super -0.1 RADIUS R2 0
elevation U1
elevation U
elevation U1
elevation U
elevation U1
elevation U
elevation U1
elevation U
elevation U1
elevation U
elevation U1
elevation U
elevation U1
elevation U
Table. 16 Super-elevation track layout parameters

This type of test zone model is targeted for small radius curves (400 m ≥ R ≤ 600 m) .
The length of the track is almost nearer to 8 kms, in which there are 5 curve sections
both right- and left-hand curve. The curve radius designed for this type of test zone are
met with test conditions (velocity of train and cant deficiency)
TYPE OF DESCRIPTION PART DESCRIPTION PART DESCRIPTION PART
TRACK 1 2 3
Transition Length 100 RADIUS R1 0 RADIUS R2 450
Transition Length 100 RADIUS R1 0 RADIUS R2 -500
Transition Length 100 RADIUS R1 -500 RADIUS R2 0
Fig.3.26 Test zone 3 curve layout model
Fig.3.27 Test zone 3 super-elevation model

TYPE DESCRIP PART 1 DESCRIPT PART DESCRIPT PART 3
OF TION ION 2 ION
TRACK
Constant Length 350 Super 0 - -
elevation U
elevation U1
elevation U
elevation U1
elevation U
elevation U1
elevation U
elevation U1
elevation U
elevation U1
elevation U
elevation U1
elevation U
elevation U1
elevation U
elevation U1
elevation U
elevation U1
elevation U
elevation U1
elevation U
Table. 18 Super-elevation track layout parameters
This type of test zone model is targeted for very small radius curves (250 m ≥ R < 400
m) . The length of the track is kms, in which there are 5 curve sections both right- and
left-hand curve. The curve radius designed for this type of test zone are met with test
conditions (velocity of train and cant deficiency)
TYPE OF DESCRIPTION PART DESCRIPTION PART DESCRIPTION PART

TRACK 1 2 3
Fig.3.28 Curve and super-elevation layout model test zone 4
TYPE DESCRIPTIO PAR DESCRIPTIO PAR DESCRIPTIO PAR
OF N T1 N T2 N T3
TRAC
K
Constan Length 400 Super elevation 0 - -
t U
Linear Length 100 Super elevation 0 RADIUS R2 0.1
U1
Constan Length 350 Super elevation 0.1
t U
Linear Length 100 Super elevation 0.1 RADIUS R2 0
U1
Constan Length 400 Super elevation - - -
t U
Linear Length 100 Super elevation 0 RADIUS R2 -0.1
U1
Constan Length 350 Super elevation -0.1
t U
Linear Length 100 Super elevation -0.1 RADIUS R2 0
U1
t U
U1
t U
U1
t U
Linear Length 100 Super elevation 0 RADIUS R2 -0.1
U1
Constan Length 350 Super elevation -0.1
t U
Linear Length 100 Super elevation -0.1 RADIUS R2 0
U1
t U
U1
t U
U1
t U
Table.20 Super-elevation track layout parameters
Chapter 4
4. Simulations According to EN:14363 :-
In this chapter results from simulations with track design geometry and vehicle speeds
following the standard EN 14363 are presented with figures and values for the
assessment quantities. All accelerations are band-pass filtered between 0.4 – 10 Hz and
all the forces are low pass filtered for 10 Hz which is the procedure for running safety
and ride characteristics [3].
The vehicle’s limit values for sum of lateral forces, ∑YMAX
∑YMAX , LIMIT [KN] 65.59

∑YRMS , LIMIT 32.71
The vehicle’s limit values for Quotient of guiding force and wheel force, (Y/Q)
(Y/Q)MAX,LIMIT 0.8
The vehicle’s limit values for Quasi-static guiding force, YQST (FOR TEST ZONE 2,3,4)
YQST,LIMIT [KN] 60
The vehicle’s limit value for Quasi-static wheel force, QQST (FOR TEST ZONE 2,3,4)
QQST,LIMIT [KN] 145
The vehicle’s limit value for Maximum wheel force, Q MAX
QMAX,LIMIT [KN] 90+166.77/2 =

173.385
4.1 Test Zone 1, Tangent Track :-
For this zone with this desired maximum speed of the vehicle at 160 kmph (operating
speed) the test speed becomes 181 kmph according to Table. 4
4.1.1 Stability Assessment Using Simulations :-

Linear stability :- Assessing stability based on linearized system.
General form of equation of motion of vehicle :
The factor (1/v0) in-front of Dc implies that the amount of damping that this matrix
contributes decrease with increase of vehicle speed.
The linearized model eigen value system (the vehicle speed where the real part is zero is
called linear critical speed Vcric) is used to obtain the dynamic behavior of vehicle.
Fig.4.1 Eigen value calculation for test zone 1
Fig.4.2 Function of Damping vs frequency
Imaginary vs Real part (Root loci curve)

The stability results on the figure above show us the system remains stable for both
operating (160 kmph)and test speeds ( 181 kmph) as it falls in the negative real part for
all loop runs.
4.2 Test Zone 2 (Large Radius Curve) :-
The test speed (169 kmph) and radius of curvature R for this zone must be satisfied in
the following test conditions. Here speed and cant deficiency act as an influencing factor
for running conditions.
Non – compensated acceleration (admissible) = 0.8 m/s2
Wheel-set gauge = 1727 mm

Cant deficiency admissible cdADM= 0.8 * 1727 / 9.81 = 141 mm
Cant deficiency minimum cdMIN = 141 * 0.7 = 99 mm
Cant deficiency maximum cdMAX = 141 * 1.15 = 162 mm
Cant deficiency N2 section = 141 * 1.05 = 148 mm
Minimum velocity of vehicle @ TZ 2 = 155 kmph
Maximum velocity of vehicle @ TZ 2 = 181 kmph
Super elevation h = 100 mm
Non fully compensated centrifugal force by weight component
𝑣2
ℎ 𝑚( − 𝑎𝑛𝑐)
= 𝑅
𝑠 𝑚𝑔
The Radius of curvature can be found out using this formula.
4.2.1 Stability Assessment Test Zone 2 :-

The stability results on the figure below show us the system remains stable for both
operating (160 kmph)and test speeds ( 169 kmph) as it falls in the negative real part for
all loop runs.
Fig.4.3 Eigen value calculation test zone 2
Fig.4.4 Function of damping vs frequency
Imaginary vs Real part (Root locus curve)
4.3 Test Zone 3 (Small Radius Curve) :-
Here, the radius of test zone RMIN (400 m)and RMAX (600 m)are known. The minimum
and maximum speed of the vehicle can be calculated using the formula mentioned in
test zone 2.
The test speed for the radius of curvature must satisfy the non-compensated
acceleration anc and it should be below 0.8 m/s2.
Here cant deficiency act as an influencing factor than the speed of vehicle.
4.3.1 Stability Assessment Test Zone 3:-
Fig.4.6 Function of damping vs frequency
Imaginary vs Real (Root locus curve)
4.4 Test Zone 4 (Very Small Radius Curve) :-

Here, the radius of test zone RMIN (250 m)and RMAX (399 m)are known. The minimum
and maximum speed of the vehicle can be calculated using the formula mentioned in
test zone 2.
The test speed for the radius of curvature must satisfy the non-compensated
acceleration anc and it should be below 0.8 m/s2.
Here cant deficiency act as an influencing factor than the speed of vehicle.
4.4.1 Stability Assessment :-
Fig.4.8 Function of Damping vs frequency
Imaginary vs real part (Root locus curve)
Chapter 5
Analysis of Simulation Results According to EN 14363 :-
The simulation results are taken to perform
• filtration on results
• section division
• percentile evaluation
• statistical analysis
to fulfill with the limit values for the assessment quantities.
A low pass filter [20 Hz] was used for running safety and track loading factors and– a
band pass filter [0.4-10 Hz] was used for ride characteristics behavior to filter the higher
order values and also to follow quasi-static behavior.
5.1 Division on Sections and Percentile Evaluation :-

For the test zone 1, the total distance (10 km) of the track is divided in more than 30
sections as per the standard. In our case the test zone was divided in 40 sections making
each section length to be 250 m. The results then analyzed in each divided section and
calculated the percentile evaluation (differs for each assessment quantities).
For the test zone 2, the total distance (10.04 km) of the track is distributed into 5 curve
sections (left- and right-hand curves). Each circular curve is divided in 5 sections of
length 1250 m making each section length to be 250 m. The results then analyzed in
each divided section and calculated the percentile evaluation (differs for each
assessment quantities).
length 1000 m making each section length to be 100 m. The results then analyzed in
each divided section and calculated the percentile evaluation (differs for each
assessment quantities).
length 350 m making each section length to be 70 m. The results then analyzed in each
divided section and calculated the percentile evaluation (differs for each assessment
quantities) [3].
The frequency values y(hj) is determined for each frequency distribution.
• y(h1), frequency of cumulative curve h1 = 0,15 %

• y(h0), frequency of cumulative curve h0 = 50,0 %;
• y(h2), frequency of cumulative curve h2 = 99,85 %.
5.2 Results on Statistical Evaluation :-

The evaluation based on statistical approach were performed in order to obtain
consistent approach to general reliable results on assessment values and creates the pre-
requisites for the acceptance of vehicle.
Statistical evaluation is carried out separately for each random sample. The confidence
level Y(PA) is increased to 99 % for calculating the running safety, track loading, ride
characteristics parameters.
The estimated maximum value is calculated from mean value and standard deviation
[1].
Y(PA)max = y + k sy
K = 3 for running safety
K= 2.2 for track loading and ride characteristics
Here Y/Q is evaluated for leading wheelset on each bogie. It is also

calculated in respect to curve conditions also (i.e. right-hand curve – left
wheel ; left hand curve – right wheel )
5.2.1 Test Zone 1 :-
It is not necessary to evaluate the Q forces for track loading characteristics according to
EN 14363. The Running safety and ride characteristics results are analyzed and shown
below.
Bogie Front Wheelset 1 :-
sum_Y
4500
4000
SUM OF GUIDING FORCES
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43
NUMBER OF SECTIONS = 40
Fig.5.1 Sum of lateral forces (Running safety)
Y/Q
0.04
0.035
derailment coefficient
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43
number of sections = 40
Fig.5.2 Derailment coefficient (Running safety)
sum_Y
6000
sum of guiding forces
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43
number of sections = 40
Fig.5.3 Sum of guiding forces (Running safety)
Y/Q
0.05
DERAILMENT COEFFICIENT
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43

Bogie Rear Wheelset 1 :-
sum_Y
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41
Y/Q
DERAILMENT COEFFICIENT 0.04
0.035
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41

sum_Y
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41
Y/Q
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41
Car-Body Acceleration :-
y_body
LATERAL ACCELERATION 0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41
Fig.5.9 lateral acceleration
z_body
0.6
VERTICAL ACCELERATION
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41
Fig.5.10 Vertical acceleration
NOTE :- The statistical evaluation was performed with one value of each section with
one dimensional analysis and the final estimated value is compared with the limit value.
Q_L
100000
VERTICAL FORCE LEFT WHEEL
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Fig.5.11 Vertical force Q (Right & left wheel)
Y_R
10000
LATERAL FORCE RIGHT WHEEL
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Y_L
50000
LATERAL FORCE LEFT WHEEL
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Fig.5.12 Lateral force Y (Right & Left wheel)
Y/Q
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
sum_Y
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Q_R
90000
VERTICAL FORCE RIGHT WHEEL
80000
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Q_L

100000
90000
80000
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
NUMBER OF SECTION = 25
Fig.5.15 Vertical forces (Right and left wheel)
Y_R
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Y_L
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Fig.5.16 Lateral force Y (Right and Left wheel)
sum_Y
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Q_R
80000
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Q_L
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Fig.5.18 Vertical force Q (Right & left wheel)
Y_R

9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Y_L
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Fig.5.19 Lateral force Y (Right and left wheel)
Y/Q
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
sum_Y
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Q_R
90000
80000
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Q_L
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Fig.5.22 Vertical forces (Right & Left wheel)
Y_R
LATERAL FORCE RIGHT WHEEL 10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Y_L
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
sum_Y
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
CAR-BODY ACCELERATIONS :-
y_carbody y_carbody_qst
0.8 0.4
LATERAL ACCELERATION QST

0.7 0.35
LATERAL ACCELERATION
0.6 0.3
0.5 0.25
0.4 0.2
0.3 0.15
0.2 0.1
0.1 0.05
0 0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27
NUMBER OF SECTIONS = 25 NUMBER OF SECTIONS = 25
Fig.5.25 Lateral acceleration (Ride characteristics)
z_carbody
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Fig.5.26 Vertical acceleration (Ride characteristics)
VERTICAL FORCE RIGHT WHEEL Q_R

100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51
Q_L
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51
Fig.5.27 Vertical forces Q (Right & Left wheel)
Y_R
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51
NUMBER OF SECTIONS =50
Y_L
30000
LATERAL FORCE LEFT WHEEL 25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51
y/q
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51
sum_Y
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51
Q_R
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51
Q_L
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51
Fig.5.31 Vertical force Q (Right & Left wheel)
Y_R
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51
Y_L
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51
sum_Y
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51

BOGIE REAR WHEELSET 1 :-
Q_R
90000
80000
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51
Q_L

100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51
Y_R
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51
Y_L
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51
Fig.5.35 Lateral force (Right & Left wheel)
y/q
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51
sum_Y
15000
10000
5000
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51
Fig.5.37 Sum of lateral forces

Q_R
80000
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51
Q_L
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51
Y_R
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51
Y_L
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51
sum_Y
18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51

CAR-BODY ACCELERATION :-
y_body
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53
NUMBER OF SECTION = 50
y_qst
0.3
LATERAL QUASISTATIC
0.25
ACCELERATION
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53
Fig.5.41 Lateral acceleration

z_body
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53

Q_R
90000
80000
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930
Q_L
120000
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324252627282930
Y_R
35000

30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Y_L
45000
40000
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314 15161718192021 22232425262728 2930
NO OF SECTIONS = 25
Fig.5.44 Lateral force (left & Right wheel)
Y/Q
0.6
DERAILMENT COEFFICENT
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
SUM_Y
30000

25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Fig.5.46 Sum of guiding forces (Running safety)

BOGIE FRONT WHEELSET 2 :-
Q_R
80000
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Q_L
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Fig.5.47 Vertical forces (Right & left wheel)
Y_R
2000

1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Y_L
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Fig.5.48 Lateral forces (Right & left wheel)
sum_Y
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Q_R
90000
VERTICAL FORCES RIGHT WHEEL
80000
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Q_L
100000
90000
VERTICAL FORCES LEFT WHEEL
80000
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Fig.5.50 Vertical forces Q (Right & left wheel)
Y_R
30000
LATERAL FORCES RIGHT WHEEL
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Y_L
LATERAL FORCE LEFT WHEEL 30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Fig.5.51 Lateral force (Right & left wheel)
y/q
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
sum_Y
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Fig.5.53 Sum of lateral forces
VERTICAL FORCES RIGHT WHEEL Q_R

80000
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Q_L
90000
VERTICL FORCE LEFT WHEEL
80000
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Fig.5.54 Vertical forces Q (Right & left wheel)
Y_R
7000
LATERAL FORCES RIGHT WHEEL
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
sum_Y
Y_L
12000
LATERAL FORCES LEFT WHEEL

7000
6000 10000
5000 8000
4000 6000
3000
4000
2000
1000 2000
0 0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 1 3 5 7 9 11131517192123252729
Fig.5.55 Lateral force Y (Right & left wheel) Fig.5.56 Sum of lateral forces
CAR-BODY ACCELERATIONS :-
y_carbody y_qst
0.16
LATERAL QUASISTATIC ACCELERATION
0.3
0.14
0.25 0.12
0.2 0.1
0.15 0.08
0.06
0.1
0.04
0.05 0.02
0 0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27
Fig.5.57 Lateral acceleration
z_carbody
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27
Chapter 6
Discussion & Conclusions :-
The conclusion that has to be drawn from the current work is that simulation model is
verified and all the results (Running safety, track loading, ride characteristics) obtained
from the model are analyzed with limit conditions of EN 14363 standard and it clearly
showed us the results of all parameter tested falls with-in the limit condition values.
ASSESSMENT LIMIT TEST TEST TEST TEST

QUANITIES VALUES ZONE 1 ZONE 2 ZONE ZONE
EN/INDIAN 3 4
RUNNING SAFETY
1. SUM OF LATERAL 65.56 / 4.077 16.008 20.366 26.475
FORCES [KN] 5.178 24.944 8.239 5.922
4.077 14.642 13.132 15.01
5.178 26.701 15.348 10.19
2. DERAILMENT 0.8 / 1.0 - 0.34 0.40 0.49
COEFFICIENT 0.32 0.35 0.38
TRACK LOADING
1. QUASI-STATIC 60 / NA - 21.77 / 22.36 / 32.87 /
GUIDING FORCE 8.86 23.73 42.04
[KN] 8.54 / 3.76 / 1.84 /
9.69 4.56 2.02
7.65 / 18.19 / 23.97 /
9.20 19.19 26.25
9.25 / 7.35 / 5.86 /
10.50 8.85 5.95
2. QUASI-STATIC - 65.45 / 70.25 / 81.07 /
WHEEL FORCE [KN] 145 / NA 81.25 86.26 65.68
63.25 / 75.36 / 65.56 /
86.25 76.59 56.98
70.65 / 65.36 / 83.35 /
81.36 80.32 71.65
69.65 / 68.95 / 79.84 /
82.36 81.63 75.06
3. MAXIMUM WHEEL - 75.88 / 78.85 / 103.1/

FORCE [KN] 173.38 / NA 90.97 94.05 83.45
77.04 / 84.26 / 71.84
93.47 85.26 /78.05
76.07 / 77.08 / 78.08 /
90.32 89.70 92.05
78.03 / 76.07 / 74.59/
94.50 88.28 84.40
RIDE
CHARACTERISTICS 2.5 / 2.75 & 0.45 / 0.67 / 0.6 / 0.20 /
1. ACCELERATION IN 3.0 0.48 0.63 0.46 0.18
CAR-BODY [m/s2]
Table.21 Comparison on results with limit values

When looking at the simulation results that the vehicle with its current configuration
probably would pass the authority approval test. The testing of running stability showed
that the vehicle handles high equivalent conicity without becoming unstable, and when
instability occurred the wheel rail forces were still under their respective limit values. If
running stability would become a problem the easiest solution would be to increase the
longitudinal stiffness in the primary suspension. This would however lead to higher
wheel-rail forces in curves since it would be harder for the wheels to follow in curves.
And even though the wheel rail forces probably wouldn’t exceed the limit values, so they
would lead to high wear on wheels.
The results on ride comfort showed us the minimal possible value attained in the
simulations, one of the possible reasons is the wheel – rail contact and the other where
if some of the properties of vehicle suspension were changed which can results in
improving the vehicle ride comfort performance. High damper constant lead to high
damper forces even at low piston velocities. Given the vehicle’s weight this would lead to
it being stiff in almost all damper directions. Softening the damper by having a smaller
constant could lead to better results in lower frequency range in which the dynamic
behavior is studied. Other changes that were studied but not presented were softer
lateral primary stiffness to improve the response for lateral acceleration in the car-body.
Bibliography
[1] EN 14363, Railway applications ‐ Testing for the acceptance of running characteristics of railway
vehicles ‐ Testing of running behavior and stationary tests, Brussels: European committee for
standardization, 2005.
[2] ERA/TD/2012-17/INT - Running dynamics – Applications of EN14363:2005
[3] UIC-518 - Testing and approval of railway vehicles from the point of view of dynamic behavior –
Safety , Track fatigue , Running behavior
[4] K. Knothe and S. Stichel, Rail Vehicle Dynamics, Springer International Publishing AG 2017 DOI
10.1007/978-3-319-45376-7_10..
[5] Wickens, A. H., Fundamentals of Rail Vehicle Dynamics—Guidance and Stability, Swets &
Zeitlinger, Lisse, 2003.
[6] Maksym Spiryagin, Colin Cole, Yan Quan Sun, Tim McSweeney, Design & Simulation of Rail vehicles.
[7] Simpack9.10.2 Documentation. 2016,Dassault Systems Simulia Corp.
[8] Prof. Binbin Liu, Lectures on Modelling and simulation, Rail Vehicle Dynamics & Train track
interaction, Politecnico Di Milano
[9] Rakesh Chandmal Sharma, modelling and simulation of railway vehicle system, International Journal
on Mechanical Engineering and Robotics research, ISSN 2278-0149, Vol No – 1, 2014.
[10] A technical guide on Derailments, Centre for Advanced Maintenance Technology, Ministry of
Railways, RDSO, Indian Railways.
[11] Maintenance Manual for LHB coaches, Centre for Advanced maintenance technology, Ministry of
Railways, RDSO, Indian Railways.
APPENDIX : A
TEST ZONE 1 RESULTS :
Bogie Front Wheelset 1 & 2 Force Results :-
Fig.1 Vertical force Q & Lateral force Y(left and right wheel)
Fig.2 Quotient of lateral and vertical forces (Y/Q) Fig.3 Sum of lateral forces wheelset 1
Fig.4 Vertical force Q & Lateral force Y wheelset 2
Fig.5 Quotient of lateral and vertical forces (Y/Q) Fig.6 Sum of lateral forces wheelset 2
Bogie Rear Wheelset 1 & 2 Force Results :-
Fig.7 Vertical force wheelset 1 Fig.8 Lateral force wheelset 2
Fig.9 Quotient of lateral over vertical force (Y/Q) Fig.10 Sum of lateral force wheelset 1
Fig.11 Vertical force wheelset 2 Fig.12 Lateral force wheelset 2
Fig.13 Quotient of lateral over vertical force Fig.14 Sum of lateral forces
Acceleration in Car-body :-
Fig.15 lateral acceleration y car-body Fig.16 Vertical acceleration z car-body
TEST ZONE 2 RESULTS :-
Bogie Front Wheelset 1 & 2 Force Results :-
Fig.17 Vertical force Q wheelset 1 Fig.18 Lateral force Y wheelset 1
Fig.19 Quotient of lateral over vertical force (Y/Q) Fig.20 Sum of lateral forces wheelset 1
Fig.23 Quotient of lateral over vertical (Y/Q) Fig.24 Sum of lateral force wheelset 2
Bogie Rear Wheelset 1 & 2 Force Results :-
Fig.27 Quotient of lateral over vertical force (Y/Q) Fig.28 Sum of lateral force wheelset
Acceleration Results in Car-Body :-
Fig.33 Lateral acceleration car-body Fig.34 vertical acceleration car-body
Bogie Front Wheelsets 1 & 2 Force Results :-
Fig.43 Vertical force Q wheelset 1 Fig.44 lateral force Y wheelset 1
Fig.47 Vertical force Q wheelset 2 Fig.48 lateral force Y wheelset 2
Fig.49 Quotient of lateral over vertical force (Y/Q Fig.50 Sum of lateral forces wheelset 2
Accelerations in Car Body Test Zone 3 :-
Fig.51 Lateral and vertical acceleration in car-body
Bogie Front Wheelset 1 & 2 Force Results
Fig.56 Vertical forces Q wheelset 2 Fig.57 Lateral force Y wheelset 2
Fig.62 Quotient of lateral over vertical force (Y/Q) Fig.63 Sum of lateral forces
wheelset 1
ACCELERATIONS IN CAR-BODY :-
Fig.4.83 Lateral and vertical acceleration car-body
APPENDIX B :-
ANALYSIS ON FILTERING OF RESULTS
Test Zone 1 :- Bogie Front Wheelset 1
Fig.1 Vertical force Q
Fig.2 Lateral force Y
Fig.3 Quotient of lateral over vertical force (Y/Q)
Fig.4 Sum of lateral force wheelset 1
Fig.8 Sum of lateral forces
Fig.12 Sum of lateral force wheelset 1
Fig.16 Sum of lateral forces wheelset 2
Fig.17 Car-body acceleration
Filtering Results Test Zone 2 :-

Fig.24 Quotient of lateral over vertical forces
Fig.28 Quotient of lateral over vertical forces (Y/Q)
Fig.32 Quotient of lateral over vertical force
ACCELERATIONS IN CAR-BODY :-
Fig.34 Lateral acceleration
Fig.35 Vertical acceleration
Filtering Results on Test Zone 3 :-

Fig.36 Vertical forces Q
Fig.37 Lateral forces Y
Fig.44 Vertical forces Q
Fig.45 Lateral forces Y
Fig.52 Lateral acceleration
Fig.53 Vertical acceleration
Filtering Results on Test Zone 4 :-

Fig.60 Quotient of lateral over vertical (Y/Q)
Fig.69 Sum of lateral forces Fig.70 Lateral acceleration

Ar 877997

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ar 877997

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ar 877997

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

POLITECNICO DI MILANO

SCHOOL OF INDUSTRIAL AND INFORMATION

HOW TO TUNE INDIAN RAILWAY

Supervisor: Prof. Claudio Somaschini

Academic Year 2018/19

This thesis is a part of my MSc in Mechanical Engineering at Politecnico di Milano and

1|How to tune Indian Railway normative in order to

To study the comparative analysis on procedure of EN14363 standard benefiting over

2|How to tune Indian Railway normative in order to

4|How to tune Indian Railway normative in order to

5|How to tune Indian Railway normative in order to

6|How to tune Indian Railway normative in order to

7|How to tune Indian Railway normative in order to

1.2 Problem Definition :-

9|How to tune Indian Railway normative in order to

RESULTS FOR FOUR TEST ZONES EXPORT RESULTS INTO XLSX

RUNNING SAFETY & TRACK LOADING – LOW

RIDE CHARACTERISTICS – BAND PASS FILTER 0.4- TAKING INTO ACCOUNT

DIVISION ON SECTIONS FOR EACH TEST

EXPORT THE SECTION

RIDE CHARACTERISTICS – 50 % & 99.85%

COMPARE WITH LIMIT VALUES OF EN 14363 STD

1 EN 14363:2005 Railway applications - Testing for the acceptance of running

2 UIC-518 Testing and approval of railway vehicles from the point of

4 EN 15663:2009 Railway applications – Definition of vehicle reference

2.2 Assessment values :-

ASSESSMENT SYMBOL NORMAL MEASURING METHOD

Fig.2.1 Wheel-rail contact

2.3 Test Conditions :-

TEST CHARACTERISTICS TEST ZONE 1 (Straight track & very

Minimal number of track sections nts,min 25

TEST CHARACTERISTICS TEST ZONE

Minimal number of track sections 25 50 25

2.4 Test Zones:-

TEST ZONE OBJECTIVE ANTICIPATED VEHICLE

TEST SPEED, V CANT TOLERANCE

Assessment Filtering Method of Characteristi Grouping &

2.6 Limit values :-

The limit values for normal measuring method are to be applied

a) Sum of guiding forces ∑YMAX

b) Quotient of guiding force and wheel force (Y/Q) MAX

a) Quasi-static guiding force Yqst :-

a) Quasi-static accelerations in the vehicle body ÿ*qst

ASSESSMENT VEHICLE,TEST LIMIT VALUES FOR

HOW IT BENEFITS RAILWAYS:

Lesser maintenance – Bogie with less moving parts used.

Fig.2.2 LHB Coach dimensions

DESIGN FEATURES OF LHB COACH SHELL:

Codal life 30 years

Table 7. LHB coach characteristics

2.9 Guide on Derailments :-

Adverse factors on curves

• Excessive angular wear on the outer rail

2.9.2 Cant or Super-elevation :-

W – Weight of the vehicle

V – Speed of the vehicle

G – Acceleration due to gravity

R – Radius of curve section

2.9.3 Reasons for providing super-elevation :-