See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/273171447

Calculation and laboratory testing of the rotation resistance of a bogie

Article  in  Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part F Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit · January 2013
DOI: 10.1177/0954409713508110

CITATIONS READS

5 857

4 authors, including:

Huailong Shi
Southwest Jiaotong University
30 PUBLICATIONS   134 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Huailong Shi on 22 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, Part F: Journal of Rail and Rapid
Transit
http://pif.sagepub.com/

Calculation and laboratory testing of the rotation resistance of a bogie

Huai-long Shi, Ping-bo Wu, Ren Luo and Jin-ying Guo
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part F: Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit published online 31
October 2013
DOI: 10.1177/0954409713508110

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://pif.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/10/23/0954409713508110

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Institution of Mechanical Engineers

Additional services and information for Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part F: Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit
can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://pif.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://pif.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

>> OnlineFirst Version of Record - Oct 31, 2013

What is This?

Downloaded from pif.sagepub.com at Southwest Jiaotong University on October 31, 2013

XML Template (2013) [16.10.2013–3:47pm] [1–10]
//blrnas3/cenpro/ApplicationFiles/Journals/SAGE/3B2/PIFJ/Vol00000/130128/APPFile/SG-PIFJ130128.3d (PIF) [PREPRINTER stage]

Original Article

Proc IMechE Part F:

J Rail and Rapid Transit
Calculation and laboratory testing of the 0(0) 1–10
! IMechE 2013
rotation resistance of a bogie Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0954409713508110
pif.sagepub.com

Huai-long Shi, Ping-bo Wu, Ren Luo and Jin-ying Guo

Abstract
The rotation movement between bogie and carbody is studied using vehicle system dynamics theory and formulas for the
rotation resistance factor are derived for different air spring states. Laboratory tests are conducted and the obtained
results are compared with calculations. The rotation resistance factor for motor and trailer cars experiencing AW0 and
AW4 loading conditions when air springs are in inflated, deflated and over-inflated states are considered so as to validate
the proposed formulas and test and discuss error sources. The rotation resistance factor of the bogie is related to the
rotation angle and speed. The faster the rotation speed, then the greater is the rotation resistance factor. The greater the
rotation angle, then the greater is the rotation resistance factor. The maximum rotation resistance factor is 0.094 for a
trailer car at a rotation speed of 1 deg/s and experiencing AW0 loading conditions and with the air springs in the deflated
state. The maximum rotation resistance factor when the air springs are deflated is much greater than that when the air
springs are in the inflated state for a rotation speed of 1 deg/s. The maximum rotation resistance factor obtained at a
rotation speed of 1 deg/s is much greater than the one obtained at 0.2 deg/s. The over-inflated state of air springs has
little influence on the rotation resistance of the bogie. The calculated results obtained when considering air springs in
inflated and over-inflated states are slightly smaller than test results with a maximum difference of 0.02. For the deflated
state of the air springs, the calculated and test results for a trailer car are equivalent and the calculated results are slightly
larger than the test results for a motor car with a maximum difference of about 0.02. The theoretical formulas should
consider the dynamic nature of stiffness properties and damping effect of air springs. The effects of other suspension
components should also be considered. A laboratory test or field test after assembly is an essential requirement. The
comparison of test and calculated results validates the proposed formulas and allows sources of error to be discussed.

Keyword
Bogie rotation resistance; theoretical calculation; laboratory test; rotation angle; rotation speed; air springs; deflated;
inflated; over-inflated

Date received: 13 June 2013; accepted: 16 September 2013

Introduction to conduct laboratory tests and use the obtained

The resistance to rotation of a bogie affects the results in comparison studies with calculations to iso-
dynamic performance of railway vehicles especially late the sources of errors. It is also importance for
their ability to negotiate curves and their hunting sta- practitioners to know the assumptions behind the cal-
bility. In fact it is important enough that it is used as a culation models so that they can decide which formula
performance test after assembly. A large value of is suitable for their particular application.
rotation resistance worsens the curve negotiation abil- The dynamic behavior of railway vehicles has been
ity while a smaller value worsens the running stability considered by Eickhoff et al.1 According to their
in a straight line, thus it is important to create an review of modeling methods used for railway vehicles,
appropriate rotation resistance for the bogie at the the models of suspension systems need to consider
vehicle design stage. The theoretical calculation of a components such as air springs, anti-roll bar,
bogie’s rotation resistance is of considerable interest.
Results obtained in a rotation resistance test can be State Key Laboratory of Traction Power, Southwest Jiaotong University,
used to verify the accuracy and validity of these People’s Republic of China
calculations.
Corresponding author:
The calculation of the rotation resistance of a bogie
Huai-long Shi, State Key Laboratory of Traction Power, Southwest
on a freight car is extensively discussed in the litera- Jiaotong University, Chengdu 610031, Sichuan, People’s Republic of
ture, however, only a few articles discuss the accuracy China.
and validity of these calculations. Thus, there is a need Email: shihuailong1003@126.com
XML Template (2013) [16.10.2013–3:47pm] [1–10]
//blrnas3/cenpro/ApplicationFiles/Journals/SAGE/3B2/PIFJ/Vol00000/130128/APPFile/SG-PIFJ130128.3d (PIF) [PREPRINTER stage]

2 Proc IMechE Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 0(0)

load-sensitive dampers that display friction effects and tow-axle passenger vehicle were reported by Huang
rubber bushings that display hysteresis effects. The and Wang16 and Simson and Brymer.17 However
combination of these components allows valid and these papers did not present calculation formulas
sophisticated modeling methods and techniques that and tests for air springs in an over-inflated state and
can yield accurate results. A test procedure and evalu- different rotation speeds.
ation indicators of rotation resistance of a bogie that This paper presents theoretical formulas for bogie
are based on the standard EN143632 have been dis- rotation resistance for air springs in deflated, inflated
cussed by Julian and Evert.3 However, only the basic and over-inflated states. A laboratory test is con-
specifications for laboratory or field tests are pre- ducted and its results are compared with the results
sented and no discussion about error sources or con- obtained in theoretical calculations. The bogie rota-
sideration of tests at different air spring states is tion resistance factor for a motor and a trailer car
presented. under AW0 and AW4 loading conditions at different
The force distributions for three-piece bogies of a air spring states are summarized to validate the pro-
freight car at various load conditions have been ana- posed formulas and test and discuss error sources.
lyzed by Simson and Pearce4–6 and Simson and
Brymer.7 The influences of rotation resistance of a
bogie on wheel/rail contact and wear on curves were
Dynamics model of a railway vehicle
discussed. The greater the rotation resistance, then the The model of the dynamics of the railway vehicle is
higher is the wheel/rail wear. Bogie rotation resistance shown in Figure 1. KS and CS are the stiffness and
was modeled in order to account for uneven loading damping of the secondary suspension system, respect-
effects in track curve transitions. The design of tran- ively, KP and CP are the stiffness and damping of the
sition curvature and the lubrication of rail and center primary suspension system, respectively. 2aþ is the
bearings or side bearers can be used to reduce the high bogie’s wheel base and 2a* is the distance between
wheel/rail wear in three-piece bogies caused by high the centers of two bogies. The relation of the rotation
bogie rotation resistance. resistance torque and rotation angle for a bogie can be
Emereole et al.8 pointed out that there is a very described as shown in Figure 2 provided that the non-
strong correlation between wear and the average linear properties of the suspension system are ignored.
absolute angle of attack of the wheelset. The total M represents the rotation torque between the carbody
wear on the wheels increases with center bearer fric- and bogie,  represents the rotation angle and K rep-
tion level. An extensive simulation-based parametric resents the rotation stiffness between the bogie and
study was performed to determine the effects of vary- carbody. The bouncing and pitching movements of
ing side bearer type, center bearer friction level, the carbody are considered while other degrees of
wagon load conditions and speed on the wear charac- freedom are constrained.
teristics of the wheelset.
Wu et al.9 and Wu and Robeda10 pointed out that
a vehicle will exhibit significantly shortened wheel Theoretical calculation of the rotation
maintenance cycle times as a result of a high bogie resistance of a bogie
rotation resistance being retained into the curve and
Definition of rotation resistance factor
high wheelset angles of attack on the leading bogie.
These insights were obtained from vehicle dynamics The rotation resistance factor is used as an index to
simulations performed using the software package measure rotation resistance. It can be expressed as
VAMPIRE. Wear rates can be accelerated due to
the negative impact high angles of attack have on M
X¼ ð1Þ
gauge face lubrication. Bogie warp and wheelset 2Q0  2aþ
angles of attack retained in constant radius curves
are affected by lateral forces such as coupler angle where X is the rotation resistance factor for a bogie,
train forces. M is the rotation resistance torque (unit: kN-m),
The longitudinal stiffness created by the friction
effects of center and side bearers contribute to the
rotation resistance of a bogie on a freight car and
thus reducing the distance between two side bearers
can reduce the extent of the rotation resistance.11,12
The operating movements of a rail vehicle during its
transition around a curve was analyzed by Lacker.13
Katta and Conry14 studied the dynamic stiffness of
the center bearer of a freight car and presented a
damping model and Toyofuku et al.15 studied the
dynamic properties of air springs. A test procedure
and evaluation indicators for rotation resistance of a Figure 1. Model of the dynamics of the railway vehicle.
XML Template (2013) [16.10.2013–3:47pm]
//blrnas3/cenpro/ApplicationFiles/Journals/SAGE/3B2/PIFJ/Vol00000/130128/APPFile/SG-PIFJ130128.3d
Shi et al.
Figure 2. Relation between rotation torque and angle.
2Q0 is the average axle load of the bogie (unit: kN)
and 2aþ is the bogie’s wheel base (unit: m).
The rotation angle between the carbody and bogie
can be computed using2
a 0:020
 ¼ þ ð2Þ
Rmin 2aþ
 a
eval ¼
Rmin
where  is the rotation angle between carbody and
bogie, 2a* is the distance between the centers of two
bogies (unit: m) in this case 2a* ¼ 15.6 m, 2aþ is
the bogie’s wheel base (unit: m) in this case
2aþ ¼ 2.5 m and Rmin is the minimum curve radius
(unit: m) in this case Rmin ¼ 300 m.
Equation (2) reflects the rotation angle that is
achieved at the minimum curve radius Rmin specified
for the vehicle and includes the effect of wheel/rail
clearances. Without the gauge clearances the rotation
angle could be described as in equation (3) with the
rotation angle being 1.49 when the radius is 300 m. In
order to be able to make valid comparisons with the
laboratory test results, a curve with radius 300 m was
considered since this is the most common curve radius
for an extreme track situation.
The factor should be X 4 0.1 for a railway passen-
ger vehicle indicating that the rotation speed should
be constant at set rotation speed of 0.2 deg/s or 1 deg/s
for at least  75% of the rotation angle amplitude
according to EN14363. 2
Theoretical calculations
The research reported in the literature on rotation
resistance of bogies shows that the horizontal stiffness
of the air springs and the friction coefficient of the
slide and center plates are the most significant param-
eters that determine the level of rotation resistance.
The other suspension components such as draw bar,
anti-roll bar, vertical damper and horizontal damper
have only a minor effect on the level of rotation resist-
ance. Thus, these parameters can be ignored in calcu-
lations. It should be noted that the yaw damper will
provide some resistance. The higher the rotation
speed, then the greater is the resistance. However,
the main function of a yaw damper is create a rotation
[1–10]
(PIF) [PREPRINTER stage]
3
resistance that is high enough to inhibit the hunting
movement of a bogie at high running velocities but is
small enough to create a good curve transition per-
formance. The effect of a yaw damper is not further
considered in this paper.
Inflated and over-inflated air springs. Almost all the rota-
tion resistance of a bogie comes from the horizontal
stiffness of the air springs when they are in the inflated
and over-inflated states. The stiffness has dynamic
properties that related to movement frequency, amp-
litude and vertical load.
The rotation resistance torque can be calculated
using
M ¼ KSX  ðd sin Þ  2d ð4Þ
where M is the rotation resistance torque (unit: kN-
m), KSX is the horizontal stiffness of the air springs
(unit: kN/m), 2d is the distance between two air
ð3Þ
springs on a bogie (unit: m) in this case 2d ¼ 2 m
and  is the rotation angle between carbody and
bogie.
Deflated air springs. When the air springs are in a
deflated state nearly all the rotation resistance of a
bogie comes from the friction force of the sliding
plate in the air springs. The friction force is related
to the vertical load on the air springs and the friction
coefficient of sliding plate.
The rotation resistance torque can be written as
M ¼ W    2d ð5Þ
where M is the rotation resistance torque (unit: kN-
m), W is the vertical load on the air springs (unit: kN),
 is the friction coefficient of the sliding plate inside
the air springs, in this case  ¼ 0.09 and 2d is the dis-
tance between two air springs on a bogie (unit: m) in
this case 2d ¼ 2 m.
Table 1 presents the load data and characteristics
of air springs of the vehicle. AW0 represents the vehi-
cle when it is a tare load condition with the usual
operating equipment and fluids installed i.e. water
tanks full, toilet waste tanks empty, but no passen-
gers. AW4 is an extremely heavy load condition with
all seats occupied and with an extra nine people per
square meter. T represents the trailer car and M rep-
resents the motor car. Table 2 shows the results of the
calculations for the cases when the rotation resistance
factor is assumed to be 0.022–0.060 for all cases. In
the inflated and over-inflated states, the factor for
AW4 loading is slightly less than that for AW0 load-
ing. The factor of the trailer car is slightly bigger than
for the motor car. Among the deflated, inflated and
over-inflated states, the factor for the deflated or over-
inflated state is greater than that for the inflated state
and the factor in the deflated state displays the overall
maximum value.
XML Template (2013) [16.10.2013–3:47pm] [1–10]
//blrnas3/cenpro/ApplicationFiles/Journals/SAGE/3B2/PIFJ/Vol00000/130128/APPFile/SG-PIFJ130128.3d (PIF) [PREPRINTER stage]

4 Proc IMechE Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 0(0)

Table 1. Load conditions and characteristics of air springs.

Sign Description Unit M/AW0 M/AW4 T/AW0 T/AW4

KSX Horizontal stiffness of air springs when deflated kN/m 62.5 134.5 59.8 141.5
KSX Horizontal stiffness of air springs when inflated kN/m 149 182 152 188
KSX Horizontal stiffness of air springs when over-inflated kN/m 169 212 172 218
2Q0 The average axle load of the test bogie kN 103 175 90 171
W Vertical load on air springs kN 62.5 134.5 59.75 141.5

Table 2. Results of the calculations.

X Deflated Inflated Over-inflated

M/AW0 0.044 0.030 0.034

M/AW4 0.055 0.022 0.025
T/AW0 0.048 0.035 0.040
T/AW4 0.060 0.023 0.027

Laboratory tests on the rotation

resistance
The rotation movement was measured on the labora-
tory test rig shown in Figures 3 and Figure 4. One Figure 3. Picture of laboratory setup.
bogie is fixed to the turntable represented by the
shaded circle and moves with the turntable so that
moves in a circle. Two actuators are used to drive
the system. The load and displacement time history
of the actuators are recorded for the rotation angle,
speed and rotation resistance torque calculations.
A load sensor is mounted on the top of the actuator
to measure the force applied by the actuator on the
turntable that is required to free it from the effect of
the movement of the actuator rod. The displacement
sensor is mounted along the actuator rod.
During the testing process, the displacement con-
trol method was used to control the turntable so that
it rotated back and forth. Different radius curves and Figure 4. Bogie rotation resistance test.
vehicle passing velocities can be simulated using
actuators with different moving displacement ampli- During all tests when the air springs were in the
tude and speed. The two actuators each generate a inflated state all the leveling valves and cross feeds
sine wave; the sine waves have the same amplitude between airbags were active and all the air springs
and speed but are in opposite phases. The calculation remained fully inflated. An air ‘‘stand-up’’ test was
method for rotation angle, speed and rotation resist- performed to monitor the air pressure of air springs
ance torque is illustrated in Figure 5. The maximum or the height of the carbody floor before and after the
output force of actuator is F1 when the maximum test to confirm that no significant air loss had
rotation angle is . occurred during the test. The whole test was declared
void if the carbody dropped more than 5 mm in 12 h.
Both the motor and trailer car’s bogies were tested
Test specification under tare load and heavy load conditions in different
Tests were carried out with the air springs in inflated, air springs states. During the test, the turntable and
deflated and over-inflated states. The vehicle reached bogie were rotated by the actuators, so the inertia of a
its normal operating height in the inflated state. The moving bogie was measured. This approach accur-
floor height of the carbody in this case is 0.90 m from ately mimics the actual situation of a vehicle passing
the ground. All the air springs were deflated completely round a curve. The resistance and inertia effects of the
in the deflated state and were over-inflated to the same turntable were subtracted from the test result of the
extent in the over-inflated state. The carbody floor bogie’s rotation resistance. Before the formal test, a
height in this case is 0.93 m from the ground. rotation resistance test was performed for the
XML Template (2013) [16.10.2013–3:47pm] [1–10]
//blrnas3/cenpro/ApplicationFiles/Journals/SAGE/3B2/PIFJ/Vol00000/130128/APPFile/SG-PIFJ130128.3d (PIF) [PREPRINTER stage]

Shi et al. 5

Figure 5. Rotation resistance torque and angle of test turntable.

turntable using the same rotation speed and angle 4. Calculate the rotation resistance factor X using
as in the bogie’s rotation resistance test, so that the equation (1).
initial resistance and inertia of turntable were 5. Repeat steps 1 to 4 under different rotation speeds
obtained. (0.2 and 1 deg/s).

Testing for the turntable’s rotation resistance

Results
The turntable’s rotation resistance was measured
using the following test procedure. In order to ensure the validity and credibility of the
data processing method applied to the test results,
1. In the tare load condition, rotate the turntable three continuous peak-to-peak values of the rotation
using the actuators and measure the maximum resistance force history were used to calculate the
force which is regarded as the turntable’s friction rotation resistance force. The average value
force F0. (A1 þ B1 þ A2 þ B2 þ A2 þ B2)/6 was taken as the
2. Calculate the rotation resistance torque of the rotation resistance force of the turntable or bogie to
turntable calculate the rotation resistance torque.
Figure 6 is the time history of the turntable’s rota-
M0 ¼ F0  b
tion resistance force at rotation speeds of 0.2 and
3. Repeat steps 1 and 2 under different rotation 1 deg/s. In the utilized data processing method,
speeds (0.2 and 1 deg/s). F0 ¼ 0.209 kN (0.2 deg/s) and F0 ¼ 0.076 kN (1 deg/s)
were treated as the initial rotation resistance force of
the turntable and this was subsequently subtracted
from the test results on the bogie’s rotation resistance.
Testing for the bogie’s rotation resistance
Figures 7 to 9 show the test results on the rotation
The bogie’s rotation resistance was measured under resistance of a bogie on a trailer car for different air
different air springs states and load conditions using springs states at a rotation speed of 0.2 deg/s. In each
the following the test procedure. figure, plot (a) is the time history of the bogie’s rota-
tion resistance force and plot (b) shows the relation-
1. Fasten the wheel sets of the bogie under test on the ship between the rotation torque and rotation angle.
turntable then a free bogie is put on the track. It is clear from the figures that the rotation force when
Both the motor and trailer car are tested in differ- the air springs are inflated and over-inflated behaves
ent air springs states. like the turntable’s rotation force as a strictly mono-
2. Drive the turntable using the actuators and meas- tone increasing or decreasing waveform shown in
ure the relationship between the rotation force F1 Figures 7(a) and 8(a). The relation between the rota-
and rotation angle . In this case, the rotation tion torque and rotation angle is just same as in
resistance force due to the weight of turntable is Figure 2 showing that the bogie rotation stiffness is
included. Then, calculate the turntable’s rotation constant in Figures 7(b) and 8(a). It also shows that
resistance torque the hysteresis characteristics of air springs in inflated
M1 ¼ F1  b and over-inflated states are nearly the same. Thus, air
springs in an over-inflated state have little influence on
3. The bogie’s rotation resistance torque can be the bogie’s resistance to rotation. Figure 9(a) indicates
described as that sliding occurred between the carbody and
bogie when the air springs were in a deflated state.
M ¼ M1  M0 Figure 9(b) shows a significant hysteresis
XML Template (2013) [16.10.2013–3:47pm] [1–10]
//blrnas3/cenpro/ApplicationFiles/Journals/SAGE/3B2/PIFJ/Vol00000/130128/APPFile/SG-PIFJ130128.3d (PIF) [PREPRINTER stage]

6 Proc IMechE Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 0(0)

(a) 0.3 (b) 0.2

B1 B2 B3
0.2
0.1
0.1

F0 / kN
F0/ kN
0.0 0.0
-0.1
-0.1
-0.2
A1 A2 A3
-0.3 -0.2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
time /s time /s

Figure 6. Time history of turntable rotation resistance force with rotation speed (a) 0.2 deg/s and (b) 1 deg/s.

(a) 6 (b) 15
4 10

M1 /(kN·m)
2 5
F1 / kN

0 0
-2 -5
-4 -10
-6 -15
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
time /s θ /(°)

Figure 7. Rotation resistance of the bogie when air springs are in inflated state (a) time history of the bogie’s rotation resistance
force and (b) resistance torque as a function of rotation angle.

(a) 6 (b) 15
4 10
M1 /(kN·m)

2 5
F1 / kN

0 0
-2 -5
-4 -10
-6 -15
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
time /s θ /(°)

Figure 8. Rotation resistance of the bogie when air springs are in over-inflated state (a) time history of bogie’s rotation resistance
force and (b) resistance torque as a function of rotation angle.

(a) 6 (b) 15
4 10
M1 /(kN·m)

2 5
F1 / kN

0 0
-2 -5
-4 -10
-6 -15
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
time /s θ /(°)

Figure 9. Rotation resistance of the bogie when air springs are in deflated state (a) time history of bogie’s rotation resistance force
and (b) resistance torque as a function of rotation angle.
XML Template (2013) [16.10.2013–3:47pm] [1–10]
//blrnas3/cenpro/ApplicationFiles/Journals/SAGE/3B2/PIFJ/Vol00000/130128/APPFile/SG-PIFJ130128.3d (PIF) [PREPRINTER stage]

Shi et al. 7

characteristic occurs for the deflated state compared Tables 3 and 4 show the rotation characteristics of
with the behavior of the inflated and over-inflated a trailer car in AW0 and AW4 loading conditions,
states. This is mainly a result of the friction damping respectively. Tables 5 and 6 show the rotation char-
effect of the sliding plate. The bogie’s maximum rota- acteristics of the motor car in AW0 and AW4 loading
tion resistance factor is 0.094 for a trailer car in AW0 conditions, respectively.
loading in the deflated state. However, the bogie’s Table 7 shows a summary of the test results on the
rotation resistance factor of the motor car and trailer bogie’s rotation resistance factor. First, the results
car are nearly the same. show that the bogie’s rotation resistance factor at

Table 3. Rotation characteristics of trailer car under AW0 loading.

Test case Rotation speed ¼ 0.2 deg/s Rotation speed ¼ 1 deg/s

Trailer bogie tare load Symbol Deflated Inflated Over-inflated Deflated Inflated Over-inflated

Turntable force (kN) F0 0.209 0.209 0.209 0.076 0.076 0.076

Tested force (kN) F1 4.128 4.434 4.349 8.360 5.194 5.384
Rotation distance (m) b 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Turntable torque (kN-m) M 0 ¼ F0  b 0.523 0.523 0.523 0.190 0.190 0.190
Test torque (kN-m) M 1 ¼ F1  b 10.319 11.085 10.873 20.901 12.984 13.459
Bogie torque (kN-m) M ¼ M1 – M0 9.796 10.563 10.351 20.711 12.794 13.269
Average axleload (kN) 2Q0 88.29 88.29 88.29 88.29 88.29 88.29
Bogie wheelbase (m) 2aþ 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
X X ¼ M/2Q0  2aþ 0.044 0.048 0.047 0.094 0.058 0.060

Table 4. Rotation characteristics of trailer car under AW4 loading.

Test case Rotation speed ¼ 0.2 deg/s Rotation speed ¼ 1 deg/s

Trailer bogie heavy load Symbol Deflated Inflated Over-inflated Deflated Inflated Over-inflated

Turntable force (kN) F0 0.209 0.209 0.209 0.076 0.076 0.076

Tested force (kN) F1 7.431 7.282 7.578 13.385 9.025 8.533
Rotation distance (m) b 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Turntable torque (kN-m) M0 ¼ F0  b 0.523 0.523 0.523 0.190 0.190 0.190
Test torque (kN-m) M1 ¼ F1  b 18.576 18.205 18.944 33.462 22.562 21.333
Bogie torque (kN-m) M ¼ M1 – M0 18.054 17.683 18.421 33.272 22.372 21.143
Average axleload (kN) 2Q0 168.242 168.242 168.242 168.242 168.242 168.242
Bogie wheelbase (m) 2aþ 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
X X ¼ M/2Q0  2aþ 0.043 0.042 0.044 0.079 0.053 0.050

Table 5. Rotation characteristics of motor car under AW0 loading.

Test case Rotation speed ¼ 0.2 deg/s Rotation speed ¼ 1 deg/s

Motor bogie tare load Symbol Deflated Inflated Over-inflated Deflated Inflated Over-inflated

Turntable force (kN) F0 0.209 0.209 0.209 0.076 0.076 0.076

Tested force (kN) F1 4.491 5.294 4.674 7.822 5.862 4.854
Rotation distance (m) b 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Turntable torque (kN-m) M0 ¼ F0  b 0.523 0.523 0.523 0.190 0.190 0.190
Test torque (kN-m) M1 ¼ F1  b 11.228 13.235 11.685 19.555 14.655 12.135
Bogie torque (kN-m) M ¼ M1 – M0 10.705 12.713 11.163 19.365 14.465 11.945
Average axleload (kN) 2Q0 101.043 101.043 101.043 101.043 101.043 101.043
Bogie wheelbase (m) 2aþ 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
X X ¼ M/2Q0  2aþ 0.042 0.050 0.044 0.077 0.057 0.047
XML Template (2013) [16.10.2013–3:47pm] [1–10]
//blrnas3/cenpro/ApplicationFiles/Journals/SAGE/3B2/PIFJ/Vol00000/130128/APPFile/SG-PIFJ130128.3d (PIF) [PREPRINTER stage]

8 Proc IMechE Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 0(0)

Table 6. Rotation characteristics of motor car under AW4 loading.

Test case Rotation speed ¼ 0.2 deg/s Rotation speed ¼ 1 deg/s

Motor bogie heavy load Symbol Deflated Inflated Over-inflated Deflated Inflated Over-inflated

Turntable force (kN) F0 0.209 0.209 0.209 0.076 0.076 0.076

Tested force (kN) F1 7.575 7.499 7.416 13.405 8.266 8.877
Rotation distance (m) b 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Turntable torque (kN-m) M0 ¼ F0  b 0.523 0.523 0.523 0.190 0.190 0.190
Test torque (kN-m) M1 ¼ F1  b 18.938 18.747 18.540 33.513 20.665 22.192
Bogie torque (kN-m) M ¼ M1 – M0 18.416 18.225 18.018 33.323 20.475 22.002
Average axleload (kN) 2Q0 171.675 171.675 171.675 171.675 171.675 171.675
Bogie wheelbase (m) 2aþ 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
X X ¼ M/2Q0  2aþ 0.043 0.042 0.042 0.078 0.048 0.051

Table 7. Summary of test results on rotation resistance factor of the bogie.

Rotation speed ¼ 0.2 deg/s Rotation speed ¼ 1 deg/s

Test case Deflated Inflated Over-inflated Deflated Inflated Over-inflated

T/AW0 0.044 0.048 0.047 0.094 0.058 0.060

T/AW4 0.043 0.042 0.044 0.079 0.053 0.050
M/AW0 0.042 0.050 0.044 0.077 0.057 0.047
M/AW4 0.043 0.042 0.042 0.078 0.048 0.051

Table 8. Comparisons between test results and theoretical calculations.

Theoretical calculation Test results at 0.2 deg/s

Test case Deflated Inflated Over-inflated Deflated Inflated Over-inflated

T/AW0 0.044 0.030 0.034 0.044 0.048 0.047

T/AW4 0.055 0.022 0.025 0.043 0.042 0.044
M/AW0 0.048 0.035 0.040 0.042 0.050 0.044
M/AW4 0.060 0.023 0.027 0.043 0.042 0.042

the speed of 1 deg/s is much bigger than the result which is much larger than air damping, so the deflated
at the speed of 0.2 deg/s. Thus, it can be concluded state is worse than the inflated and over-inflated
that the bogie’s rotation resistance factor is related states. The maximum rotation resistance factor is
to the rotation speed. The faster the rotation speed, 0.094 for a trailer car under the AW0 loading condi-
then the greater is the rotation resistance factor. This tion and the air springs in the deflated state. However,
is mainly caused by the dynamic stiffness property of the rotation resistance factors of the motor car and
the air springs, i.e. the faster the moving speed the trailer car are nearly the same.
greater is the stiffness, which directly affects the rota- Comparing the test results in Table 7 and theoret-
tion resistance of the bogie. ical calculation results in Table 2, the test results at
In addition, the results show that there is little dif- the rotation speed of 1 deg/s are larger than the test
ference between air springs in the inflated and over- results at 0.2 deg/s and the calculated results. As the
inflated states which indicates that over-inflation has theoretical calculation did not consider the effect of
little influence on the rotation resistance of the bogie. rotation speed, a comparison between the theoretical
However, the results show that there is a major calculation results and laboratory test results at the
difference between air springs in the inflated and rotation speed of 0.2 deg/s is presented in Table 8. The
deflated states at the rotation speed of 1 deg/s; the following conclusions can be drawn.
deflated state of air springs has a significant effect
on the rotation resistance. This is mainly a result of 1. In the inflated and over-inflated states of the air
the friction damping effect created by the sliding plate springs, the calculated results are slightly smaller
XML Template (2013) [16.10.2013–3:47pm] [1–10]
//blrnas3/cenpro/ApplicationFiles/Journals/SAGE/3B2/PIFJ/Vol00000/130128/APPFile/SG-PIFJ130128.3d (PIF) [PREPRINTER stage]

Shi et al. 9

than the test results with a maximum difference of springs, the calculated and test results for the
0.02 for the AW4 loading case. This is due to the trailer car are equivalent and the calculated
point that the theoretical formulas ignore the results are slightly larger than the test results for
dynamic nature of the stiffness of air springs at the motor car with a maximum difference of
different rotation speeds and also the influences about 0.02.
of vertical loading and other suspension compo- 6. The theoretical formulas should consider the
nents are not considered. It can be concluded that dynamic nature of stiffness properties and damp-
a laboratory test or field test after assembly is ing effect of air springs. The effects of other sus-
essential. pension components should also be considered.
2. In the deflated state of the air springs, the calcu- A laboratory test or field test after assembly is
lated and test results are equivalent for the case of an essential requirement.
the trailer and the calculated results are slightly 7. The comparison of test and calculated results val-
bigger than test results for the motor car with idates the proposed formulas and allows sources
maximum difference of about 0.02 which may be of error to be discussed.
due to friction effects that are related to the load-
ing and the speed of the sliding plate.
Funding
This work was supported by the Railway Ministry Science
& Technology Development Project (grant 2012J006-B), the
National Science & Technology Pillar Program (grant
Conclusions 2009BAG12A01), the National Basic Research Program
of China (grant 2011CB711100), and the National Science
The rotation movement between bogie and carbody is & Technology Pillar Program (grant 2011BAG05B04).
studied using vehicle system dynamics theory and for-
mulas for the rotation resistance factor are derived for
different air spring states. Laboratory tests are con- References
ducted and the obtained results are compared with 1. Eickhoff BM, Evans JR and Minnis AJ. A review of
calculations. The rotation resistance factor for modelling methods for railway vehicle suspension com-
motor and trailer cars experiencing AW0 and AW4 ponents. Veh Syst Dyn 1995; 24(6-7): 469–496.
loading conditions when air springs are in inflated, 2. BS EN14363: 2005. Railway applications-testing
deflated and over-inflated states are considered so as for the acceptance of running characteristics of railway
to validate the proposed formulas and test and discuss vehicles-testing of running behaviour and stationary
error sources. The following conclusions can be tests.
drawn from the presented studies. 3. Julian S and Evert A. Handbook of railway vehicle
dynamics. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2006,
1. The rotation resistance factor of the bogie is pp.453–454.
4. Simson SA and Pearce ME. Wheel wear losses from
related to the rotation angle and speed. The
bogie rotation resistance, effects of cant and speed. In:
faster the rotation speed, then the greater is the The joint rail conference, Atlanta, GA, USA, April 4–6
rotation resistance factor. The greater the rotation 2006, pp.109–114. ASME.
angle, then the greater is the rotation resistance 5. Simson SA and Pearce ME. Centre bearing rotation
factor. forces during curve transitions. In: Proceedings of the
2. The maximum rotation resistance factor is 0.094 conference on railway engineering: rail achieving growth,
for a trailer car at a rotation speed of 1 deg/s and Melbourne, Australia, 30 April–May 3 2006, pp.71–77.
experiencing AW0 loading conditions and with the Melbourne, Vic.: RTSA.
air springs in the deflated state. The maximum 6. Simson SA and Pearce M. Longitudinal impact forces at
rotation resistance factor when the air springs 3 piece bogie center bearings. In: The joint rail confer-
are deflated is much greater than that when ence, 16–18 March 2005, pp.45–50. American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, Rail Transportation Division
the air springs are in the inflated state for the rota-
RTD, v29, ASME/IEEE.
tion speed of 1 deg/s. The maximum rotation 7. Simson S and Brymer B. Gauge face contact implications
resistance factor obtained at the rotation speed of bogie rotation friction in curving. In: 7th International
of 1 deg/s is much greater than the one obtained Conference on Contact Mechanics and Wear of Rail/
at 0.2 deg/s. Wheel Systems (CM2006), Brisbane, Australia,
3. The rotation resistance factor of the motor car and 4–26 September 2006, pp.549–554. Institute of
trailer car are nearly the same for all cases. Materials Engineering Ltd.
4. The over-inflated state of air springs has little influ- 8. Emereole O, Simson S and Brymer B. A parametric
ence on the rotation resistance of the bogie. study of bogie rotation friction management utilizing
5. The calculated results obtained when considering vehicle dynamic simulation. In: Proceedings of the inter-
air springs in inflated and over-inflated states are national conference on contact mechanics and wear of rail/
wheel systems, 30 April–3 May 2006. Melbourne: RTSA,
slightly smaller than test results with a maximum
Preprint 2006.
difference of 0.02. For the deflated state of the air
XML Template (2013) [16.10.2013–3:47pm] [1–10]
//blrnas3/cenpro/ApplicationFiles/Journals/SAGE/3B2/PIFJ/Vol00000/130128/APPFile/SG-PIFJ130128.3d (PIF) [PREPRINTER stage]

10 Proc IMechE Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 0(0)

9. Wu H, Robeda J and Guins T. Truck center plate lubri- liners. In: ASME/IEEE 2004 joint rail conference,
cation practice study and recommendations. Research Baltimore, Maryland, USA, April 6–8 2004, pp.63–73.
Report R-966, 2004. Pueblo Colorado: Association of ASME.
American Railroads/Transport Technology Center. 15. Toyofuku K, Yamada C, Kagawa T and Fujita T.
10. Wu H and Robeda J. Effect of bogie center plate lubri- Study on dynamic characteristic analysis of air spring
cation on vehicle curving and lateral stability. Veh Syst with auxiliary chamber. JSAE Rev 1999; 20(3):
Dyn 2004; 41(1): 292–301. 349–355.
11. Zhai PJ, Liu YH and Liu H. Bogie rotate resistance 16. Huang YM and Wang TS. Rotational resistance behav-
calculation method of freight car for railway vehicle ior and field testing of two-axle bogie design. Veh Syst
(in Chinese). Diesel Loco 2011; 2: 21–24. Dyn 1999; 31(1): 47–63.
12. Zhang H. Side bearing friction resistance analysis of 17. Simson S and Brymer B. Laboratory testing of bogie
SW-160 passenger car bogie (in Chinese). J Railw Veh rotation friction with applied track twisting forces. In:
2002; 40(11): 1–4. The conference on railway engineering (CORE 2008),
13. Lacker UB. Investigation into the running of locomo- Perth, Western Australia, 7–10 September 2008.
tives on curves, English translation. Int Railw Congr pp.395–402. Perth, WA: Railway Technical Society of
Assoc Bull 1962; 4: 887–895. Australasia.
14. Katta RR and Conry TF. A dynamic stiffness and
damping model for rail car center plate polymer

View publication stats