4.6 Article

Wheel Flats in the Dynamic Behavior of Ballasted and Slab Railway Tracks

期刊

APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL
卷 11, 期 15, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/app11157127

关键词

railway dynamics; wheel flats; vehicle-track interaction; ballasted track; slab track

资金

  1. national funds through the FCT/MCTES (PIDDAC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This research used numerical methods to study the effects of wheel flats with different geometric configurations on the dynamic behavior of both ballasted and slab tracks. The results showed that the dynamic force was higher on the slab track, while the maximum vertical displacement was higher on the ballasted track.
Wheel flats induce high-impact loads with relevance for the safety of the vehicle in operation as they can contribute to broken axles, hot axle boxes, and damaged rolling bearings and wheels. The high loads also induce damage in the track components such as rails and sleepers. Although this subject has been studied numerically and experimentally over the last few years, the wheel flat problem has focused on ballasted tracks, and there is a need to understand the phenomena also for slab tracks. In this research, a numerical approach was used to show the effects of the wheel flats with different geometric configurations on the dynamic behavior of a classical ballasted track and a continuous slab track. Several wheel flat geometries and different vehicle speeds were considered. The nonlinear Hertzian contact model was used because of the high dynamic variation of the interaction of the load between the vehicle and the rail. The results evidenced that, for the same traffic conditions, the dynamic force was higher on the slab track than on the ballasted one, contrary to the maximum vertical displacement, which was higher on the ballasted track due to the track differences regarding the stiffness and frequency response. The results are useful for railway managers who wish to monitor track deterioration under the regulatory limits.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据