Train energy simulation with locomotive adhesion model
Abstract Railway train energy simulation is an important and popular research topic. Locomotive traction force simulations are a fundamental part of such research. Conventional energy calculation models are not able to consider locomotive wheel–rail adhesions, traction adhesion control, and locomoti...
Main Authors: | , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
SpringerOpen
2020-02-01
|
Series: | Railway Engineering Science |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1007/s40534-020-00202-1 |
id |
doaj-ae2ca6986a514564907de193b152fd4e |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-ae2ca6986a514564907de193b152fd4e2021-02-07T12:30:44ZengSpringerOpenRailway Engineering Science2662-47452662-47532020-02-01281758410.1007/s40534-020-00202-1Train energy simulation with locomotive adhesion modelQing Wu0Maksym Spiryagin1Colin Cole2Centre for Railway Engineering, Central Queensland UniversityCentre for Railway Engineering, Central Queensland UniversityCentre for Railway Engineering, Central Queensland UniversityAbstract Railway train energy simulation is an important and popular research topic. Locomotive traction force simulations are a fundamental part of such research. Conventional energy calculation models are not able to consider locomotive wheel–rail adhesions, traction adhesion control, and locomotive dynamics. This paper has developed two models to fill this research gap. The first model uses a 2D locomotive model with 27 degrees of freedom and a simplified wheel–rail contact model. The second model uses a 3D locomotive model with 54 degrees of freedom and a fully detailed wheel–rail contact model. Both models were integrated into a longitudinal train dynamics model with the consideration of locomotive adhesion control. Energy consumption simulations using a conventional model (1D model) and the two new models (2D and 3D models) were conducted and compared. The results show that, due to the consideration of wheel–rail adhesion model and traction control in the 3D model, it reports less energy consumption than the 1D model. The maximum difference in energy consumption rate between the 3D model and the 1D model was 12.5%. Due to the consideration of multiple wheel–rail contact points in the 3D model, it reports higher energy consumption than the 2D model. An 8.6% maximum difference in energy consumption rate between the 3D model and the 1D model was reported during curve negotiation.https://doi.org/10.1007/s40534-020-00202-1Energy consumptionAdhesion modelTraction controlLongitudinal train dynamicsParallel co-simulation |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Qing Wu Maksym Spiryagin Colin Cole |
spellingShingle |
Qing Wu Maksym Spiryagin Colin Cole Train energy simulation with locomotive adhesion model Railway Engineering Science Energy consumption Adhesion model Traction control Longitudinal train dynamics Parallel co-simulation |
author_facet |
Qing Wu Maksym Spiryagin Colin Cole |
author_sort |
Qing Wu |
title |
Train energy simulation with locomotive adhesion model |
title_short |
Train energy simulation with locomotive adhesion model |
title_full |
Train energy simulation with locomotive adhesion model |
title_fullStr |
Train energy simulation with locomotive adhesion model |
title_full_unstemmed |
Train energy simulation with locomotive adhesion model |
title_sort |
train energy simulation with locomotive adhesion model |
publisher |
SpringerOpen |
series |
Railway Engineering Science |
issn |
2662-4745 2662-4753 |
publishDate |
2020-02-01 |
description |
Abstract Railway train energy simulation is an important and popular research topic. Locomotive traction force simulations are a fundamental part of such research. Conventional energy calculation models are not able to consider locomotive wheel–rail adhesions, traction adhesion control, and locomotive dynamics. This paper has developed two models to fill this research gap. The first model uses a 2D locomotive model with 27 degrees of freedom and a simplified wheel–rail contact model. The second model uses a 3D locomotive model with 54 degrees of freedom and a fully detailed wheel–rail contact model. Both models were integrated into a longitudinal train dynamics model with the consideration of locomotive adhesion control. Energy consumption simulations using a conventional model (1D model) and the two new models (2D and 3D models) were conducted and compared. The results show that, due to the consideration of wheel–rail adhesion model and traction control in the 3D model, it reports less energy consumption than the 1D model. The maximum difference in energy consumption rate between the 3D model and the 1D model was 12.5%. Due to the consideration of multiple wheel–rail contact points in the 3D model, it reports higher energy consumption than the 2D model. An 8.6% maximum difference in energy consumption rate between the 3D model and the 1D model was reported during curve negotiation. |
topic |
Energy consumption Adhesion model Traction control Longitudinal train dynamics Parallel co-simulation |
url |
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40534-020-00202-1 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT qingwu trainenergysimulationwithlocomotiveadhesionmodel AT maksymspiryagin trainenergysimulationwithlocomotiveadhesionmodel AT colincole trainenergysimulationwithlocomotiveadhesionmodel |
_version_ |
1724281050590347264 |