0
Research Papers

Pantograph/Catenary Contact Formulations

[+] Author and Article Information
Shubhankar Kulkarni, Ahmed A. Shabana

Department of Mechanical and
Industrial Engineering,
University of Illinois at Chicago,
Chicago, IL 60607

Carmine M. Pappalardo

Department of Industrial Engineering,
University of Salerno,
Fisciano, Salerno 84084, Italy

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Technical Committee on Vibration and Sound of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF VIBRATION AND ACOUSTICS. Manuscript received April 4, 2016; final manuscript received September 26, 2016; published online November 21, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Marco Amabili.

J. Vib. Acoust 139(1), 011010 (Nov 21, 2016) (12 pages) Paper No: VIB-16-1161; doi: 10.1115/1.4035132 History: Received April 04, 2016; Revised September 26, 2016

In this investigation, the pantograph/catenary contact is examined using two different formulations. The first is an elastic contact formulation that allows for the catenary/panhead separation and for the analysis of the effect of the aerodynamic forces, while the second approach is based on a constraint formulation that does not allow for such a separation by eliminating the freedom of relative translation in two directions at the catenary/panhead contact point. In this study, the catenary system, including the contact and messenger wires, is modeled using the nonlinear finite element (FE) absolute nodal coordinate formulation (ANCF) and flexible multibody system (MBS) algorithms. The generalized aerodynamic forces associated with the ANCF position and gradient coordinates and the pantograph reference coordinates are formulated. The new elastic contact formulation used in this investigation is derived from the constraint-based sliding joint formulation previously proposed by the authors. By using a unilateral penalty force approach, separation of the catenary and panhead is permitted, thereby allowing for better evaluating the response of the pantograph/catenary system to wind loading. In this elastic contact approach, the panhead is assumed to have six degrees-of-freedom with respect to the catenary. The coordinate system at the pantograph/catenary contact point is chosen such that the contact model developed in this study can be used with both the fully parameterized and gradient deficient ANCF elements. In order to develop a more realistic model, the MBS pantograph model is mounted on a detailed three-dimensional MBS rail-vehicle model. The wheel/rail contact is modeled using a nonlinear three-dimensional elastic contact formulation that accounts for the creep forces and spin moment. In order to examine the effect of the external aerodynamic forces on the pantograph/catenary interaction, two scenarios are considered in this investigation. In the first scenario, the crosswind loading is applied on the pantograph components only, while in the second scenario, the aerodynamic forces are applied on the pantograph components and also on the flexible catenary. For the configuration considered in this investigation, it was found that the crosswind assists the uplift force exerted on the pantograph mechanism, increasing the mean contact force value. Numerical results are presented in order to compare between the cases with and without the wind forces.

Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

The direction of the drag and the lift forces

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Rail-vehicle system schematic

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Pantograph–catenary model schematic

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

The catenary system

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Catenary computational model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Contact force without wind loading

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Contact force without wind loading—zoomed window

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Contact force comparison between the sliding joint formulation and the penalty formulation (-- -- -- penalty force formulation and ---- sliding joint formulation)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Contact force comparison between the sliding joint formulation and the penalty formulation—zoomed window (-- -- -- penalty formulation and ---- sliding joint formulation)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Contact force with cross-wind loading on the pantograph components of 20 m/s at a yaw angle of 15 deg

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Drag force on the panhead

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Lift force on the panhead

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Contact force comparison with crosswind loading on the pantograph components of 20 m/s at a yaw angle of 15 deg and with no wind loading (-- -- -- without wind loading and ---- with crosswind loading)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Contact force comparison with crosswind loading on the pantograph components of 20 m/s at a yaw angle of 15 deg and with no wind loading — zoomed window (-- -- -- without wind loading and ---- with crosswind loading)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Contact force with cross-wind loading on the pantograph components and the catenary of 20 m/s at a yaw angle of 15 deg

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Contact force comparison with crosswind loading on the pantograph components and the catenary of 20 m/s at a yaw angle of 15 deg and with no wind loading (-- -- -- without wind loading and ---- with crosswind loading)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Contact force comparison with crosswind loading on the pantograph components and the catenary of 20 m/s at a yawangle of 15 deg and with no wind loading—zoomed window (-- -- -- without wind loading and ---- with crosswind loading)

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In