4.7 Article

An iterative interacting method for dynamic analysis of the maglev train-guideway/foundation-soil system

Journal

ENGINEERING STRUCTURES
Volume 33, Issue 3, Pages 1013-1024

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.12.024

Keywords

Foundation-soil interaction; Ground vibration; Iterative interacting procedure; Maglev; Resonance; Vehicle-guideway interaction; Wave propagation

Funding

  1. National Science Council, Taiwan [NSC 97-2221-E-002-217, NSC 99-2221-E-032-020-MY3]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper presents an iterative interacting method for analyzing the dynamic response of a maglev train traveling on an elevated guideway supported by piers embedded in soil. The maglev train is idealized as a row of 2D rigid beams each suspended by levitation forces and controlled by onboard PID controllers. The guideway is modeled as a series of simple beams supported by rigid piers embedded in an elastic half-space. To address the structure interactions from the train to the soil and vice versa, the entire model is decomposed into two subsystems, i.e., the maglev train-guideway and foundation-soil subsystems, each interacting with the other via the rigid piers. The procedure of analysis is as follows: First, the train-guideway subsystem is computed, and the support reactions are used as excitations to the elastic half space. Next, the ground vibrations induced by the pier excitations are computed and fed back via the supports for computing the train-guideway response. The procedure is repeated until the convergence condition is satisfied. The solution obtained for a 2-degree-of-freedom system under a harmonic force is compared with the analytical one to verify the validity of the method proposed herein. The effects of ground wave propagation on the vehicle-guideway response will be evaluated in the numerical examples. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available