This paper investigates the vertical dynamic behavior of railway tracks with monoblock sleepers. Whole- and half-track finite element (FE) models are presented in which the rails and sleepers are represented with their nominal 3D geometry using solid elements. The railpad encompasses the rail seat area modeled as multiple spring–damper pairs. The 3D FE models are employed for three purposes. First, the stiffness and the damping of the railpad and ballast are derived by fitting the simulations to a set of field hammer test measurements. Second, the origins of six of the seven main characteristics are identified. Third, the influence of the railpad representation on the track’s dynamic response is studied. The results show that, in contrast to the 3D FE half-track model, the 3D FE whole-track model reproduces six of the seven main vertical track characteristics with a maximum deviation of 10% from the measured frequencies. The seventh characteristic is reproduced at approximately the measured frequency when the frequency-dependent stiffness of the railpad is considered. This model can be used to derive track parameters that will aid in the study of track degradation.
NguyenDVKimKDWarnitchaiP. Simulation procedure for vehicle–substructure dynamic interactions and wheel movements using linearized wheel–rail interfaces. Finite Elements Anal Des2009; 45(5): 341–356.
2.
ChenFTakemiyaHHuangM. Prediction and mitigation analyses of ground vibrations induced by high speed train with 3-dimensional finite element method and substructure method. J Vibr Control2011; 17(11): 1703–1720.
3.
JenkinsHStephensonJClaytonG. Effect of track and vehicle parameters on wheel/rail vertical dynamic forces. Railw Eng J1974; 3(1): 2–16.
NdambiJPeetersBMaeckJ. Comparison of techniques for modal analysis of concrete structures. Eng Struct2000; 22(9): 1159–1166.
6.
CardiAAdamsDWalshS. Ceramic body armor single impact force identification on a compliant torso using acceleration response mapping. Struct Health Monitor2006; 5(4): 355–372.
7.
ChenYChengYLiaoJ. Development of a finite element solution module for the analysis of the dynamic behavior and balancing effects of an induction motor system. Finite Elements Anal Des2008; 44(8): 483–492.
8.
GudmarssonARydenNBirgissonB. Characterizing the low strain complex modulus of asphalt concrete specimens through optimization of frequency response functions. J Acoust Soc Am2012; 132(4): 2304–2312.
9.
GrassieSLCoxSJ. Dynamic response of railway track with unsupported sleepers. Proc IMechE D: Transport Eng1985; 199(2): 123–135.
10.
FermerMNielsenJCO. Wheel/rail contact forces for flexible versus solid wheels due to tread irregularities. Vehicle Syst Dynam1994; 23(Suppl. 1): 142–157.
11.
ThompsonDJVincentN. Track dynamic behaviour at high frequencies. Part 1: theoretical models and laboratory measurements. Vehicle Syst Dynam1995; 24(Suppl): 86–99.
12.
HienschMNielsenJVerheijenE. Rail corrugation in the Netherlands - measurements and simulations. Wear2002; 253(1–2): 140–149.
SadeghiJ. Field investigation on vibration behavior of railway track systems. Int J Civil Eng2010; 8(3): 232–241.
15.
KumaranGMenonDNairK. Dynamic studies of railtrack sleepers in a track structure system. J Sound Vibr2003; 268(3): 485–501.
16.
GustavsonRGylltoftK. Influence of cracked sleepers on the global track response: Coupling of a linear track model and non-linear finite element analyses. Proc IMechE F: J Rail Rapid Transit2002; 216(1): 41–51.
17.
SadeghiJBaratiP. Comparisons of the mechanical properties of timber, steel and concrete sleepers. Struct Infrastruct Eng2012; 8(12): 1151–1159.
18.
KaewunruenSRemennikovAM. Sensitivity analysis of free vibration characteristics of an in situ railway concrete sleeper to variations of rail pad parameters. J Sound Vibr2006; 298(1–2): 453–461.
VincentNThompsonDJ. Track dynamic behaviour at high frequencies. Part 2: experimental results and comparisons with theory. Vehicle Syst Dynam1995; 24(Suppl): 100–114.
21.
FermérMNielsenJCO. Vertical interaction between train and track with soft and stiff railpads - full-scale experiments and theory. Proc IMechE F: J Rail Rapid Transit1995; 209(1): 39–47.
22.
LiZZhaoXEsveldC. An investigation into the causes of squats-correlation analysis and numerical modeling. Wear2008; 265(9–10): 1349–1355.
23.
de Man A. Dynatrack: a survey of dynamic railway track properties and their quality. PhD dissertation, Delft University of Technology, 2002.
24.
GrassieSLGregoryRWHarrisonD. Dynamic response of railway track to high frequency vertical excitation. J Mech Eng Sci1982; 24(2): 77–90.
25.
NielsenJCO. Numerical prediction of rail roughness growth on tangent railway tracks. J Sound Vibr2003; 267(3): 537–548.
26.
FerraraRLeonardiGJourdanF. A contact-area model for rail-pads connections in 2-D simulations: Sensitivity analysis of train-induced vibrations. Vehicle Syst Dynam2013; 51(9): 1342–1362.
WuTThompsonD. A double Timoshenko beam model for vertical vibration analysis of railway track at high frequencies. J Sound Vibr1999; 224(2): 329–348.
29.
KnotheKStrzyzakowskiZWillnerK. Rail vibrations in the high frequency range. J Sound Vibr1994; 169(1): 111–123.
30.
GryL. Dynamic modelling of railway track based on wave propagation. J Sound Vibr1996; 195(3): 477–505.
31.
BhaskarA. Wheel-rail dynamics with closely conformai contact part 1 : Dynamic modelling and stability analysis. Proc IMechE F: J Rail Rapid Transit1997; 211(1): 11–24.
32.
ThompsonDJVan VlietWJVerheijJW. Developments of the indirect method for measuring the high frequency dynamic stiffness of resilient elements. J Sound Vibr1998; 213(1): 169–188.
33.
MaesJSolHGuillaumeP. Measurements of the dynamic railpad properties. J Sound Vibr2006; 293(3–5): 557–565.
34.
Li Z, Molodova M, Zhao X et al. Squat treatment by way of minimum action based on early detection to reduce life cycle costs. In Proceedings of the ASME joint rail conference 2010 (JRC2010), vol. 1, pp.305–311.
35.
MolodovaMLiZDollevoetR. Axle box acceleration: Measurement and simulation for detection of short track defects. Wear2011; 271(1–2): 349–356.
36.
ANSYS, Inc. ANSYS Mechanical Application User’s Guide, 2011.
37.
ANSYS, Inc. ANSYS LS-Dyna User’s Guide, 2010.
38.
LeVequeR. Finite volume methods for hyperbolic problems, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
KaboENielsenJEkbergA. Prediction of dynamic train–track interaction and subsequent material deterioration in the presence of insulated rail joints. Vehicle Syst Dynam2006; 44(Suppl. 1): 718–729.
41.
OreguiMLiZDollevoetR. Identification of characteristic frequencies of damaged railway tracks using field hammer test measurements. Mech Syst Signal Process2014. DOI:10.1016/j.ymssp.2014.08.024.
42.
MontgomeryDC. Introduction to statistical quality control, 6th edn. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2009.
43.
European Standard EN 1992-1-1-1:2004, Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures - Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings, 2004.
44.
KnotheKWuY. Receptance behaviour of railway track and subgrade. Arch Appl Mech1998; 68(7–8): 457–470.
45.
WuTXThompsonDJ. The vibration behavior of railway track at high frequencies under multiple preloads and wheel interactions. J Acoust Soc Am2000; 108(3 Part I): 1046–1053.
46.
ElfellyNDieulotJYBenrejebM. A new approach for multimodel identification of complex systems based on both neural and fuzzy clustering algorithms. Eng Appl Art Intel2010; 23(7): 1064–1071.
47.
ZhaoXLiZDollevoetR. Influence of the fastening modeling on the vehicle–track interaction at singular rail surface defects. J Comput Nonlinear Dynam2014; 9(3): 031002–031002.
48.
HempelmannKKnotheK. An extended linear model for the prediction of short pitch corrugation. Wear1996; 191(1–2): 161–169.
49.
IliasH. The influence of railpad stiffness on wheelset/track interaction and corrugation growth. J Sound Vibr1999; 227(5): 935–948.
