bowe (2008) unsprung wheel-beam interactions using modal and finite element models
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/3/2019 Bowe (2008) Unsprung Wheel-beam Interactions Using Modal and Finite Element Models
1/12
Unsprung wheel-beam interactions using modal and finiteelement models
C.J. Bowe *, T.P. Mullarkey
Department of Civil Engineering, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland
Received 7 September 2007; accepted 18 January 2008Available online 11 March 2008
Abstract
The aim of this study is to simulate the dynamic vertical response of an unsprung mass, i.e. wheel, traversing a beam, i.e. bridge or rail.This is achieved by using the authors modal or finite element method to model the dynamic interaction that exists between the unsprungmass and the beam. In this paper, the authors compare the final form of the modal method with the final form of the finite elementmethod, and they clearly demonstrate that if the mode shapes of the modal method are replaced by the finite element weighting andshape functions, the finite element method is derived, apart from the stiffness matrix. The results for the moving load compare very wellwith Akin and Mofids [Akin JE, Mofid M. Numerical solution for response of beams with moving mass. J Struct Eng 1989;115(1):12031] solution; however, the results for the moving mass are very different. Other authors who are getting agreement with Akin and Mofids(1989) moving mass are ignoring the issue of convective acceleration. 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Unsprung moving mass; Convective acceleration; Modal superposition; Finite element; Similarity of forms
1. Introduction
Research on the dynamic response of vehicles traversingbridges has long been an interesting topic of civil engineer-ing. Depending on the complexity of the model and resultssought, one can simulate a vehicle as a moving constantforce as done by Biggs [2], Akin and Mofid [1], Wu et al.[3], and Bowe and Mullarkey [4]; a moving sprung massas done by Biggs [2], Yang and Wu [5], and Bowe and Mul-larkey [6]; or as a moving unsprung mass as done by Biggs
[2], Akin and Mofid [1] and Yang et al. [7]. In this paper,the authors focus on the latter vehicular model by develop-ing an analytical numerical model as well as a finite elementmodel for a moving unsprung mass traversing a beamwithin the ANSYS finite element program.
When one deals with a moving unsprung mass its verti-cal position must be the same as the vertical position of the
point of the beam directly underneath. However, since themoving unsprung mass is moving horizontally, its verticalvelocity is not the same as the vertical velocity of the pointof the beam directly underneath, (which we will call thelocal vertical velocity of the mass). In fact the verticalvelocity of the moving unsprung mass is equal to the verti-cal velocity of the beam plus a convective term. Similarlythe vertical acceleration of the moving unsprung mass isequal to the vertical acceleration of the beam plus addi-tional convective terms. In Akin and Mofids [1] moving
unsprung model the convective velocity and accelerationare omitted from the model; thus their solution is inaccu-rate. This inaccuracy is overcome in the authors paperby including both the local and convective terms for themoving unsprung mass and is clearly shown in the develop-ment and result sections.
The paper begins by developing the modal characteristicshape and natural frequencies for any beam support type,which is later particularized for a cantilever beam. Fromthe differential equation governing the vibration of a beamsubjected to the moving unsprung wheel the authors derive
0965-9978/$ - see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.advengsoft.2008.01.002
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +353 91 524411x3086; fax: +353 91750507.
E-mail address: [email protected] (C.J. Bowe).
www.elsevier.com/locate/advengsoft
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Advances in Engineering Software 39 (2008) 911922
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected] -
8/3/2019 Bowe (2008) Unsprung Wheel-beam Interactions Using Modal and Finite Element Models
2/12
a modal analytical solution with both the local and convec-tive acceleration of the unsprung mass taken into account.During the development, by normalising the beam modes,one can further reduce the complexity of the solutions.
Next, the finite element method for the movingunsprung mass is developed, which is somewhat different
from the development of the wheelrail contact (WRC) ele-ment in Bowe and Mullarkey [6] for a moving sprung mass.In the present paper additional mass, stiffness and dampingmatrices are added to the beam matrices, whereas onlyadditional stiffness matrices were required in the WRC ele-ment. This paper highlights the similarities and differencesbetween the modal and finite element model as far as theform of the final matrices is concerned. The weightingand shape functions of the finite element method play asimilar role to that played by the mode shapes in the ana-lytical numerical solution. The difference between the twomethods occurs in the representation of the stiffness matrix.Integration by parts gives the finite element stiffness matrix
a different form from that of the modal stiffness matrix.Additionally, the second derivatives of the beam elementshape functions are discontinuous in the finite elementmethod.
In order to validate the modal and finite elementmethod, the authors compare their results with those ofthe Bowe and Mullarkey [6] moving sprung model, wherethe Hertzian spring is given a reasonably large stiffnessand the moving sprung wheel is prevented from losing con-tact with the beam, i.e. no separation. In addition, thispaper highlights the drastic effects of omitting the convec-tive acceleration terms from an unsprung moving mass
problem as the results obtained are very different fromthe Akin and Mofids [1] solution. Nevertheless, authorssuch as Yang and Wu [5] are still comparing their devel-oped models with Akin and Mofids [1] inaccurate solution,ignoring the issue of convective acceleration.
2. Natural frequencies and modal shapes for a beam
In this section, the authors develop the natural frequen-cies and modal shapes of single-span beams as shown inFig. 1. The differential equation governing the free vibra-tion of a beam is expressed according to Biggs [2] as:
EIo
4vx; tox4
m o2vx; tot2
0 1
where E is Youngs modulus of elasticity, I is the secondmoment of area and m is the mass per unit length of thebeam. It should also be noted that beam deflection v(x,t)is expressed as a function of both time t and position xalong the span.
Since the right-hand side of Eq. (1) is set equal to zero,
the separation of variables method allows one to define thebeam deflection of the nth mode by:
vnx; t fnt/nx 2where fn(t) is a time function and /n(x) is the characteristicshape. The substitution of Eq. (2) into Eq. (1) gives rise totwo ordinary differential equation (ODE) governing fn(t)and /n(x) as follows:
d2
dt2fnt Hfnt 0 3a
d4
dx4/nx mH
EI/nx 0 3b
In order that Eq. (3) has a periodic solution, Hmust be po-sitive, and then the solution for fn(t) is as follows:
fnt C1 sinffiffiffiffiH
pt C2 cos
ffiffiffiffiffiHt
p4
whereffiffiffiffiH
pis the natural frequency of the beam, xn.
Equally, the ODE governing the characteristic shape/n(x) has the following solution:
/nx An sin anx Bn cos anx Cn sinh anx Dn cosh anx 5a
where
an ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffimx2n=EI4q 5bA;Bn;Cn;Dn are constant values evaluated by the boundaryconditions of the beam. It should also be noted that Eq.(5a) is valid for any type of end restraint. In this paper,the dynamic effects caused by an unsprung wheel traversinga cantilever beam are investigated; hence, one must evalu-ate the beams natural frequencies and mode shapes, whichare found in the Appendix A.
3. Analytical numerical (modal superposition) solution of a
moving unsprung wheel
The authors are now in the position to develop theiranalytical numerical solution for a moving unsprung wheel
z
x
y, v
0m, EI
L
Fig. 1. Single-span beam and coordinate system.
z, k
x, i
y, v,j
0
m, EI
( )dX tc
dt=
L
Mw
Fig. 2. Moving unsprung wheel traversing a beam.
912 C.J. Bowe, T.P. Mullarkey / Advances in Engineering Software 39 (2008) 911922
http://-/?-http://-/?- -
8/3/2019 Bowe (2008) Unsprung Wheel-beam Interactions Using Modal and Finite Element Models
3/12
Mw traversing a beam at a constant speed as shown inFig. 2. The differential equation governing the vibrationof a beam subjected to the moving unsprung wheel masscan be expressed, repeating Eq. (54) in Appendix B, asfollows:
EI
o4v
x; t
ox4 mo
2v
x; t
ot2 px 6awhere
px Ftdx Xt 6bwhere F(t) is the force imparted to the moving unsprungmass by the beam, positive if acting in the positive y-direc-tion. The Dirac delta function is represented by d. The po-sition vector p(t) of the moving point mass is as follows:
pt Xti Ytj 7where i and j are the unit vectors in the x and y directions,respectively. The horizontal speed c of the moving mass
along the beam in Eq. (7) is
dXtdt
c 8
as shown in Fig. 2. The equation of motion for the movingmass in the y-direction is
Mwd2Yt
dt2 Mwg Ft 9
where g is the acceleration due to gravity. Eliminating F(t)in Eq. (6) using (9) gives the following:
EIo4vx; tox4
m o2vx; tot2
Mw d2Ytdt2
Mwg
dx Xt
10
Since the moving mass is always in contact with the beam,the constraint equation is
Yt vx; tjxXt 11
Therefore the vertical velocity of the moving mass is asfollows:
dYtdt
ovx; totxXt ovx; t
oxxXt dXt
dt|fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl}convective velocity
12
Furthermore the vertical acceleration of the moving mass isSubstituting Eq. (13) into (10) yields
EIo
4vx; tox4
m o2vx; tot2
Mw o2vx; tot2
xXt 2 o2vx; t
oxotxXt dXt
dt
o2vx; tox
2 xXtdXt
dt
dXt
dt ovx; t
oxxXt d2Xt
dt2 g
d x Xt 14
In order to solve Eq. (14), we use the method of modalsuperposition; whereby v(x,t) can be represented accordingto Biggs [2] as follows:
vx; t Xn
rnt/nx 15
where /n(x) is the nth characteristic shape discussed aboveand rn(t) is the nth function of time which has to be calcu-lated. Substituting Eq. (15) into (14) gives the followingequation:
EIXNn1rnt/ivn x m
XNn1
rnt/nx
MwXNn1
rnt/n Xt 2dXt
dt
XNn1
_rnt/0nXt"
dXtdt
2XNn1rnt/00n Xt
d2Xtdt2
XNn1rnt/0n Xt g
#d x Xt 16
where a dot over rn(t) represents a derivative with respect totime, and a dash over /n(x) represents a derivative with re-spect to x. Substituting Eqs. (3b) and (5b) into Eq. (16) toeliminate the fourth derivative of/n(x) gives the followingequation:
EIXNn1rnta4n/nx m
XNn1
rnt/nx
MwXNn1
rnt/n Xt 2dXt
dt
XNn1
_rnt/0nXt"
dXt
dt 2
XN
n1rn
t
/
0n
X
t
d
2Xtdt2
XNn1rnt/0nXt g
#dx Xt 17
As the reader will see, this replacement of/ivn x, using Eqs.(3b) and (5b), is an important distinction between the mod-
d2Ytdt2
o2vx; tot2
xXt
2 o2vx; toxot
xXt
dXtdt
o2vx; tox2
xXt
dXtdt
dXtdt
ovx; tox
xXt
d2Xtdt2
|fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl}convective accelaration13
C.J. Bowe, T.P. Mullarkey / Advances in Engineering Software 39 (2008) 911922 913
http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?-http://-/?- -
8/3/2019 Bowe (2008) Unsprung Wheel-beam Interactions Using Modal and Finite Element Models
4/12
al method and the finite element system. Multiplying bothsides of Eq. (17) by /i(x), i= 1,2,3, . . . N, integrating alongthe beam length, and using Eq. (43) from the Appendix A,gives the following set of ordinary differential equationsgoverning rn(t), n = 1, 2,3 . . . N.
EIXNn1rnta4nLdin m
XNn1
rntLdin
MwXNn1
rnt/nXt 2dXt
dt
XNn1
_rnt/0nXt"
dXtdt
2XNn1rnt/00n Xt
d2Xtdt2
XNn1rnt/0nXt
g#/iXt; i 1; 2; 3; . . .N 18
where din = 1 when i= n, and din = 0 when i6 n. Rear-ranging Eq. (18) in the order of the mass, damping andstiffness terms with the forcing term on the right-hand sidegives the following:
XNn1mLdin Mw/iXt/nXtf grnt
XNn1
2MwdXt
dt/iXt/0nXt
_rnt
XNn1EILdina
4n Mw
dXt
dt 2
/iXt/00nXt(Mw d
2Xtdt2
/iXt/0nXtrnt Mwg/iXt;
i 1; 2; 3; . . .N 19
Since Akin and Mofid [1] only include the local accelera-tions of the moving unsprung mass, terms containingdX(t)/dt and d2X(t)/dt2 are omitted by Akin and Mofid[1]. Expanding Eq. (19) into matrix form gives:
mL
1 0 0 . . . 0
0 1 0 . . . 0
0 0 1 . . . 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 0 0 . . . 1
26666664
37777775r1
r2
r3
. . .
rN
8>>>>>>>>>>>:
9>>>>>>=>>>>>>;
Mw
/1/1 /1/2 /1/3 . . . /1/N
/2/1 /2/2 /2/3 . . . /2/N
/3/1 /3/2 /3/3 . . . /3/N
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
/N/1 /N/2 /N/3 . . . /N/N
26666664
37777775
r1
r2
r3
. . .
rN
8>>>>>>>>>>>:
9>>>>>>=
>>>>>>;
2Mw dXtdt
/1/01 /1/
02 /1/
03 . . . /1/
0N
/2/01 /2/
02 /2/
03 . . . /2/
0N
/3/01 /3/
02 /3/
03 . . . /3/
0N
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
/N/01 /N/
02 /N/
03 . . . /N/
0N
26666664
37777775_r1
_r2
_r3
. . .
_rN
8>>>>>>>>>>>:
9>>>>>>=>>>>>>;
EIL
a41 0 0 . . . 0
0 a42 0 . . . 0
0 0 a43 . . . 0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0 0 0 . . . a4N
2666666437777775r1
r2
r3
. . .
rN
8>>>>>>>>>>>:9>>>>>>=>>>>>>;
Mw dXtdt
2 /1/001 /1/
002 /1/
003 . . . /1/
00N
/2/001 /2/
002 /2/
003 . . . /2/
00N
/3/001 /3/
002 /3/
003 . . . /3/
00N
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
/N/001 /N/
002 /N/
003 . . . /N/
00N
26666664
37777775r1
r2
r3
. . .
rN
8>>>>>>>>>>>:
9>>>>>>=>>>>>>;
Mw d2
Xtdt2
/1/01 /1/
02 /1/
03 . . . /1/
0N
/2/01 /2/
02 /2/
03 . . . /2/
0N
/3/01 /3/02 /3/03 . . . /3/0N. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
/N/01 /N/
02 /N/
03 . . . /N/
0N
26666664
37777775r1
r2
r3
. . .
rN
8>>>>>>>>>>>:
9>>>>>>=>>>>>>;
Mwg
/1
/2
/3
. . .
/N
8>>>>>>>>>>>:
9>>>>>>=>>>>>>;20
Rewriting Eq. (9), the reaction force between the unsprungwheel and the rail can be computed as;
Ft MwgMw d2Ytdt2
21
where F(t) is the force imparted tothe moving unsprungmassby the beam, positive if acting in the positive y-direction.
4. Finite element system of a moving unsprung wheel
In Figs. 3 and 4, the reader can see an unsprung wheeltraversing a beam finite element. The diagram presentsthe coordinate system i.e. x positive along the beam ele-ment, y positive upward and z positive outwards. The ori-
gin of the coordinate system is at local node 1 of the beam.For two-dimensional problems, the deflection in the y-direction and rotation about the z-axis are defined by R1and R2, respectively, at local node 1 of the beam, while
R1 R3
R2
R4z
x
y
0
m, EI
dX(t)c
dt=
Mw1 2
Fig. 3. Moving unsprung wheel traversing a beam finite element.
914 C.J. Bowe, T.P. Mullarkey / Advances in Engineering Software 39 (2008) 911922
http://-/?-http://-/?- -
8/3/2019 Bowe (2008) Unsprung Wheel-beam Interactions Using Modal and Finite Element Models
5/12
R3 and R4 are the deflection in the y-direction and rotationabout the z-axis, respectively, at local node 2 of the beam.
From Bowe and Mullarkey [6] with a change of nota-tion, the vertical displacement at any point along the beamcan be calculated using Eq. (22), where U1 and U3 are thetransverse displacement shape functions and U2 and U4are the rotational shape functions.
vx; t
X4
n1Rn
tUn
x
22
where
U1x 1 2x=l3 3x=l2; implying U10 1;U010 0; U1l 0 and U01l 0
U2x xf1 2x=l x=l2g; implying U20 0;U020 1; U2l 0 and U02l 0
U3x 3x=l2 2x=l3; implying U30 0;U030 0; U3l 1 and U03l 0
U4
x
x
fx=l
2
x=l
g; implying U4
0
0;
U040 0; U4l 0 and U01l 123
Substituting Eq. (22) into (14) gives the following equation:
EIX4n1RntUivn x m
X4n1
RntUnx
MwX4n1
RntUnXt 2 dXtdt
X4n1
_RntU0nXt"
dXt
dt 2
X4
n1Rn
t
U00n
X
t
d
2Xtdt2
X4n1RntU0nXt g
#dx Xt 24
In order to apply Galerkins method [8] of weighted resid-uals, both sides of Eq. (24) are multiplied by Ui(x), i= 1, 2,3 and 4, and integrated along the element length;
EIX4n1
Zl0
UixUivn xdxRnt mX4n1
Zl0
UixUnxdxRnt
Mw Z
l
0
Ui
x
X4
n1
Un
X
t
Rn
t
2
dXtdt"
X4n1
U0nXt _Rnt dXt
dt
2X4n1
U00nXtRnt
d2Xtdt2
X4n1
U0nXtRnt g#dx Xtdx 25
Rearranging Eq. (25) in the order of the mass, dampingand stiffness terms with the forcing term on the right-handside gives the following:X4n1m
Zl0
UixUnxdxMwUiXtUnXt
Rnt
X4n1
2MwdXt
dtUiXtU0nXt
_Rnt
X4n1EI
Zl0
UixUivn xdx
MwdX
t
dt 2
UiXtU00nXtMw d
2Xtdt2
UiXtU0nXtRnt
MwgUiXt; i 1; 2; 3; and 4 26The term
Rl0UixUivn xdx will now be integrated by parts
twice using the following general expression:Zl0
udv uvjl0 Zl
0
vdu 27
resulting in the following:
Zl0
UixUivn xdx UixU000n xjl0 Zl0
U0ixU000n xdx
UixU000n xjl0 U0ixU00nxjl0Zl
0
U00i xU00nxdx
UixU000n xjl UixU000n xj0 U0ixU00nxjl U0ixU00nxj0Zl
0
U00i xU00nxdx 28
Eq. (28) implies the following:X4n1EI
Zl0
UixUivn xdxRnt
X4n1EIfUixU000n xjl UixU000n xj0
U0ixU00nxjl U0ixU00nxj0Zl
0
U00i xU00nxdxgRnt 29
By means of Eqs. (50) and (51) from the Appendix B, Eq.(29) becomes:
z
y
0
L
x
c
Mw
Fig. 4. Moving unsprung load traversing a fixed-free cantilever beam.
C.J. Bowe, T.P. Mullarkey / Advances in Engineering Software 39 (2008) 911922 915
http://-/?-http://-/?- -
8/3/2019 Bowe (2008) Unsprung Wheel-beam Interactions Using Modal and Finite Element Models
6/12
X4n1EI
Zl0
UixUivn xdxRnt
UixQjl UixQj0 U0ixMjl U0ixMj0
X
4
n
1
EI
Zl
0
U00i xU00nxdxRnt 30
Substituting Eq. (55) from the Appendix B into Eq. (30)gives:
X4n1EI
Zl0
UixUivn xdxRnt
UilbQ2 Ui0bQ1 U0il ^M2 U0i0bM1X4n1EI
Zl0
U00i xU00nxdxRnt 31
Next, one substitutes Eq. (31) into (26) giving the followingequation as:
X4n1m
Zl0
UixUnxdxMwUiXtUnXt
Rnt
X4n1
2MwdXt
dtUiXtU0nXt
_Rnt
X4n1EI
Zl0
U00i xU00nxdx
MwdX
t
dt 2
UiXtU00nXtMw d
2Xtdt2
UiXtU0nXtRnt
MwgUiXt Ui0bQ1 UilbQ2 U0i0bM1 U0ilbM2; i 1; 2; 3; and 4 32
Rewriting Eq. (32) in matrix form, as well as substitutingEq. (23) into Eq. (32), gives the following:
m Zl0
U1U1 U1U2 U1U3 U1U4
U2U1 U2U2 U2U3 U2U4U3U1 U3U2 U3U3 U3U4
U4U1 U4U2 U4U3 U4U4
26664 37775dxR1R2R3R4
8>>>>>: 9>>>=>>>;Mw
U1U1 U1U2 U1U3 U1U4
U2U1 U2U2 U2U3 U2U4
U3U1 U3U2 U3U3 U3U4
U4U1 U4U2 U4U3 U4U4
2666437775
R1R2R3R4
8>>>>>:9>>>=>>>;
2Mw dXtdt
U1U01 U1U
02 U1U
03 U1U
04
U2U01 U2U
02 U2U
03 U2U
04
U3U01 U3U
02 U3U
03 U3U
04
U4U01 U4U02 U4U03 U4U04
26664
37775
_R1_R2_R3
_R4
8>>>>>:
9>>>=>>>;
EIZl
0
U001U001 U
001U
002 U
001U
003 U
001U
004
U002U001 U
002U
002 U
002U
003 U
002U
004
U003U001 U
003U
002 U
003U
003 U
003U
004
U004U001 U
004U
002 U
004U
003 U
004U
004
2666437775dxR1
R2
R3
R4
8>>>>>:9>>>=>>>;
Mw dXtdt
2U1U
001 U1U
002 U1U
003 U1U
004
U2U001 U2U002 U2U003 U2U004U3U
001 U3U
002 U3U
003 U3U
004
U4U001 U4U
002 U4U
003 U4U
004
26664 37775R1
R2
R3
R4
8>>>>>: 9>>>=>>>;Mw d
2Xtdt2
U1U01 U1U
02 U1U
03 U1U
04
U2U01 U2U
02 U2U
03 U2U
04
U3U01 U3U
02 U3U
03 U3U
04
U4U01 U4U
02 U4U
03 U4U
04
2666437775R1
R2
R3
R4
8>>>>>:9>>>=>>>;
Mwg
U1
U2
U3
U4
8>>>>>:
9>>>=>>>;
bQ1
1
0
0
0
8>>>>>:
9>>>=>>>;
bQ2
0
0
1
0
8>>>>>:
9>>>=>>>;
bM10
1
0
0
8>>>>>:9>>>=>>>; bM2
0
0
0
1
8>>>>>:9>>>=>>>; 33
Comparing Eq. (20) with (33), one can clearly see that themodal method is remarkably similar to the finite elementmethod apart from the representation of the stiffness ma-trix and the nodal forces, bQ1; bQ2; bM1 and bM2; moreover,during the finite element assembly Newtons Third Laweliminates these forces at internal nodes.
5. Results
In Sections 5.1 and 5.2, the authors analyse the dynamicresponse of a cantilever beam subjected to a movingunsprung wheel, while Section 5.3 examines Olssons [10]unsprung wheel system comprising an unsprung wheelmass and sprung mass body supported by a spring-dampertraversing a simply supported beam at a wide range ofspeeds. It should be noted that the gravitational and damp-ing effects of the beam are ignored in all cases. In eachexample, the authors use the Newmark-b time integrationmethod [9] with 500 equal time steps to solve the transientanalysis. In all cases, time t is arranged in such a mannerthat the wheel is at the left support at t = 0 s and the initialdisplacement and velocity of the unsprung wheel and beamare equal to zero. In Sections 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 the authorsdescribe the deflection of the beam using 6 modes, whilein the finite element system the beam is discretized into10 beam elements.
5.1. Wheel as a moving unsprung load traversing a cantilever
beam
In this first example, the authors examine the effects of a
moving unsprung mass traversing a fixed-free cantilever
916 C.J. Bowe, T.P. Mullarkey / Advances in Engineering Software 39 (2008) 911922
http://-/?-http://-/?- -
8/3/2019 Bowe (2008) Unsprung Wheel-beam Interactions Using Modal and Finite Element Models
7/12
beam at constant speed c = 50.8 m/s from left to right,where the inertia effects of the wheel mass are omitted; thusonly the gravitational effects of the mass are taken intoaccount i.e. the weight of the wheel Mwg is equal to25.79 kN. The authors adopt the same cantilever beam asAkin and Mofid [1], such that the beam has a length
L = 7.62 m, Young modulus of elasticity E= 2.07 1011
N/m2, moment of inertia I= 4.58 105 m4, and massper unit length m = 46 kg/m; therefore, using Eq. (48) thefirst natural frequency of this particular beam isx1 = 27.49 rad/s.
The vertical displacement at the free-end of the cantile-ver beam is plotted as a function of time in Fig. 5. Theresults obtained in Fig. 5a relate to the moving unsprungload traversing a fixed-free cantilever beam, while Fig. 5bshows the results of the moving unsprung load traversinga free-fixed cantilever. One can observe from the results astriking similarity between the authors system and theresults obtained from Akin and Mofid [1]. The reader
should be aware that in Akin and Mofids [1] paper, gravityacts in the upwards direction.
5.2. Wheel as a moving unsprung mass traversing a cantilever
beam
Using the same beam properties as Section 5.1, theauthors now investigate the effects of a moving unsprung
mass traversing a cantilever beam, where on this occasionthe inertia effects of the wheel mass as well as its gravita-tional effects are taken into account. The wheel is travers-ing at constant speed c = 50.8 m/s from left to rightacross the beam. In this particular model, the unsprungwheel has a mass Mw = 2629 kg, i.e. Mw/mL = 7.5.
In Fig. 6, the authors plot the vertical displacement atthe free-end of the fixed-free cantilever beam as a functionof time. Only the local acceleration of the moving unsprungwheel is taken into account in Fig. 6a, while Fig. 6b pre-sents the total (local plus convective) acceleration of themoving unsprung wheel. In addition, the authors plot theresults of a moving sprung wheel traversing the cantileverwhere the Hertzian spring is given a reasonable large stiff-ness (see Bowe and Mullarkey [6]). In one example, themoving sprung wheel is not allowed to separate from thebeam; however, it can be seen in Fig. 7 that wheel separa-tion actually occurs. Thus, the free-end deflection of thebeam due to the moving sprung wheel with separation is
also plotted in Fig. 6b. Examining the results of Fig. 6a,it can be seen that the results of the authors model arequite similar to the results of Akin and Mofids [1] modal
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15
Time (sec)
VerticalDisplacement(m)
Akin & Mofid [1]
Modal (6 Modes)
Finite Element Model
(a) Fixed-free cantilever beam (fixed atx = 0)
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15
Time (sec)
VerticalDisplacement(m) Akin & Mofid [1]
Modal (6 Modes)
Finite Element Model
(b) Free-fixed cantilever beam (fixed atx =L)
Fig. 5. Vertical displacement at the free-end of the cantilever beam due to
a moving unsprung load travelling at 50.8 m/s.
-0.30
-0.25
-0.20
-0.15
-0.10
-0.05
0.00
0.05
0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15
Time (sec)
VerticalD
isplacement(m)
Akin& Mofid [1]
Modal (6 Modes) - Local acceleration only
Finite Element Model - Local acceleration only
(a) Local acceleration of the moving unsprung wheel
-0.07
-0.06
-0.05
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15
Time (sec)
VerticalDisplacementm)
Modal (6 Modes) - Full Solution
Finite Element Model - Full Solution
Sprung Wheel - Without seperation
Sprung Wheel - With seperation
(b) Total (local plus convective) acceleration
of the moving unsprung wheel
Fig. 6. Vertical displacement at the free-end of a fixed-free cantilever
beam due to a moving unsprung mass travelling at 50.8 m/s.
C.J. Bowe, T.P. Mullarkey / Advances in Engineering Software 39 (2008) 911922 917
-
8/3/2019 Bowe (2008) Unsprung Wheel-beam Interactions Using Modal and Finite Element Models
8/12
system, while the results for the authors unsprung modelin Fig. 6b all show a striking similarity with the resultsfrom the sprung model [6] with no separation. Fig. 6bshows that the results from the sprung model with separa-tion are slightly different.
The reader can see by comparing Fig. 6a with b thatconvective acceleration should not be omitted. It can beseen that the free-end deflection in Fig. 6b is a quarterthe deflection in Fig. 6a at time t = 0.15 s. Moreover, thegraphs in Fig. 6a are different in form from the graphs ofFig. 6b.
In Fig. 7, one can see that the reaction force between themoving unsprung wheel and the beam goes negative at timet = 0.085 s. In the case of the moving sprung wheel, separa-tion occurs at this time; contact is re-established at time
t = 0.114 s. For the moving unsprung systems, it is shownthat the reaction forces becomes positive at a much earliertime t = 0.099 s.
Next the authors examine the dynamic effects of themoving unsprung wheel traversing a free-fixed cantileverbeam as shown in Fig. 8. The vertical displacement at thefree-end of the cantilever beam as a function of time is plot-ted in Fig. 9. As before, only the local acceleration of themoving unsprung wheel is taken into account in Fig. 9a,while Fig. 9b presents the total (local plus convective)acceleration of the moving unsprung wheel. Examiningthe results of Fig. 9a, it can be clearly seen that the results
of the authors model are very similar to the results of Akinand Mofids [1] modal system, while the results for theauthors unsprung model in Fig. 9b are comparable withthe results from the sprung model [6] with no separation.
Comparing the free-end deflection of the beam in Fig. 9awith b, it can be seen that the results vary by a factor of4, which is a similar ratio that is observed in Fig. 6.
The authors now examine the effects of convective accl-eration at lower speeds. Fig. 10 presents the vertical dis-placement at the free-end of a cantilever beam as afunction of time subjected to a moving unsprung mass tra-versing at a speed c = 27.78 m/s as well as at a very slowspeed c = 1 m/s using the authors models. It should benoted that in Fig. 10 that the modal and finite elementmodel (FEM) have the same solution. The results obtainedfrom the fixed-free cantilever beam are shown in Fig. 10a,while Fig. 10b and c plots the results from the free-fixed can-tilever beam due to the moving unsprung mass. ExaminingFig. 10a and b, the reader can see that the free-end deflec-tion of the cantilever beam without convective accelerationvaries by a factor of 3 with the results for the total (localplus convective) acceleration at the speed c = 27.78 m/s.Whereas, at the very slow speed c = 1 m/s, Fig. 10a showsthat there are no significant difference between the convec-tive acceleration and the total (local plus convective) accel-eration, while Fig. 10c shows a noticeable difference in
results at lower speeds. Examining Fig. 10c, one can see that
z
y
0
L
Mw
x
c
Fig. 8. Moving unsprung mass traversing a free-fixed cantilever beam.
-0.12
-0.10
-0.08
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0.00
0.02
0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15
Time (sec)
VerticalDisplacement(m)
Akin & Mofid (1989)
Modal (6 Modes) - Local acceleration only
Finite Element Model - Local acceleration only
(a) Local acceleration of the moving unsprung wheel
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15
Time (sec)
VerticalDisplacement
(m)
Modal (6 Modes) - Full Solution
Finite Element Model - Full Solution
Sprung Wheel - Without seperation
(b) Total (local plus convective) acceleration
of the moving unsprung wheel
Fig. 9. Vertical displacement at the free-end of a free-fixed cantileverbeam due to a moving unsprung mass travelling at 50.8 m/s.
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15
Time (sec)
ContactFo
rce/StaticWeight
Modal (6 Modes) - Full Solution
Finite Element Model - Full Solution
Sprung Wheel - Without seperation
Sprung Wheel - With seperation
Fig. 7. Dimensionless force between the moving mass and beam as afunction of time.
918 C.J. Bowe, T.P. Mullarkey / Advances in Engineering Software 39 (2008) 911922
-
8/3/2019 Bowe (2008) Unsprung Wheel-beam Interactions Using Modal and Finite Element Models
9/12
as the moving unsprung mass traverses the free-fixed canti-lever beam, the free-end undergoes an oscillatory motion,where the amplitude decreases to a constant value withoutconvective acceleration and increases to a constant withconvective acceleration.
5.3. Moving unsprung vehicle traversing a simply supported
beam
In this section, the authors examine the dynamicresponse of a simply supported beam subjected to a movingunsprung vehicle by means of the authors modal and finite
element models, at a wide range of speeds. The vehicle sys-
tem comprises an unsprung mass Mw in contact with beam,which supports a sprung vehicle mass Mv by means of aspring-damper as show in Fig. 11. The dimensionlessparameters adopted are similar to those of Olsson [6,10],such that the vehicle system to bridge mass ratio is 0.5;the unsprung wheel mass to sprung vehicle mass ratio is
0.25; the bridge to vehicle frequency ratio is 3; and the vehi-cle damping ratio is 0.125. Other dimensionless parametersused are a speed ratio (that is the vehicle speed divided bythe critical speed) and a dynamic amplification factor (ratiobetween the maximum dynamic deflection and static deflec-tion of the mid-point of the bridge). The critical speed ofthe vehicle is the speed such that the vehicle travels a dis-tance of twice the length of the bridge in a time equal tothe natural period of the bridge.
The simply supported beam used has a length L = 25 m,Youngs modulus of elasticity E= 2.87 106 kN/m2,moment of inertia I= 2.9 m4, mass per unit lengthm = 2.303 t/m and a Poissons ratio m = 0.2, as adopted
in Yang and Wu [7]. In Fig. 12, the author plots thedynamic amplification factor at mid-span of the beam fora wide range of speeds for the moving unsprung vehicle.From the results, one can observe that the authors modaland finite element model for the unsprung moving vehicleis remarkably similar to Olsson (1985) solution at allspeeds.
6. Conclusion
In this paper, the authors developed their own modaland finite element model of a moving unsprung mass tra-
versing a beam. It has been shown that the final form of
z
y
0
L
x
c
Mw
Mv
k1 c1
Fig. 11. Moving unsprung vehicle traversing a simply supported beam.
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Vehicle Speed/ Critical Speed
Dynamic/StaticDeflection
Olsson [10] Unsprung System
Modal (6 Modes)
Finite Element Model
Fig. 12. Moving unsprung vehicle traversing a simply supported beam ata wide range of speeds.
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.
0
Dimensionless timect/L
Vertical
Displacement(m)
Modal & FEM - Local acceleration (1m/s)
Modal & FEM - Local acceleration (27.78 m/s)
Modal & FEM - Local plus convective acceleration (1m/s)
Modal & FEM - Local plus convective acceleration (27.78 m/s)
(a) Fixed-free cantilever beam at both speeds
-0.6
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
0
Dimension less timect /L
VerticalD
isplacement(m)
Modal & FEM - Local acceleration (27.78 m/s)
Modal & FEM - Local plusconvective acceleration (27.78 m/s)
(b) Free-fixed cantilever beam due to
-1.2
-0.8
-0.4
0.0
0.4
0.8
1.2
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Dimensionless timect /L
VerticalDispla
cement(m)
Modal & FEM - Local acceleration (1 m/s)
Modal & FEM - Local plus convective acceleration (1 m/s)
(c) Free-fixed cantilever beam due to
the moving mass travelling at 27.78 m/s
the moving mass travelling at 1 m/s
Fig. 10. Vertical displacement at the free-end of the cantilever beam dueto a moving unsprung mass travelling at lower speeds.
C.J. Bowe, T.P. Mullarkey / Advances in Engineering Software 39 (2008) 911922 919
-
8/3/2019 Bowe (2008) Unsprung Wheel-beam Interactions Using Modal and Finite Element Models
10/12
the modal method is remarkable similar to the final form ofthe finite element method, and that if the mode shapesof the modal method are replaced by the finite elementweighting and shape functions, the finite element methodis derived, apart from the stiffness matrix.
This paper also highlights the danger of omitting the
convective acceleration from moving unsprung wheel sys-tems. It is shown using both a modal and finite elementmodel that excluding these convective terms can have a sig-nificant effect on the results by as much a factor of 4. Earlydynamic studies by Biggs [2] and Akin and Mofid [1]neglected these terms; however more recent studies [7] arestill comparing their developed models with these inaccu-rate solution, while ignoring the issue of convectiveacceleration.
Appendix A. Cantilever beam natural frequencies and
mode shapes
In the following section, the authors derive the naturalfrequencies and mode shapes for a cantilever beam that isencastre at the origin; hence, the boundary conditions areas follows:
v ovox
0 at x 0 34a
EIo
2v
ox2 EIo
3v
ox3 0 at x L 34b
where v is the deflection of the beam, ov/o x is the slope,EIo2v/ox2 is the bending moment, and EIo3v/ox3 is theshear force. This follows the work of Biggs [2] and Fryba
[11]. The function /n(x) satisfies the same boundary condi-tion as v(x,t). This can be seen by substituting Eq. (2) intoEq. (34). Evaluating /n(x) at x = 0 using Eq. (5a) and thefirst derivative of that equation, gives:
/n0 0 Bn Dn Dn Bnd
dx/n0 0 Anan Cnan Cn An
35
Substituting Eq. (35) back into (5a) gives the following:
/nx Ansin anx sinh anx Bncos anx cosh anx36
Equally, one evaluates the second and third derivative ofEq. (5a) for x = L giving:
d2
dx2/nL Ana2n sin anL sinh anL
Bna2n cos anL cosh anL 0 37ad3
dx3/nL Ana3n cos anL cosh anL
Bna3nsin anL sinh anL 0 37bSince An,Bn cannot both be equal to zero for a non-trivialvalue of/n, then the determinant of the coefficients must be
zero, resulting in
sin anL sinh anL cos anL cosh anL cos anL cosh anL sin anL sinh anL
0 38which reduces to
cos anL cosh anL 1 0 39From Eq. (37a), one gets
An
Bn cos anL cosh anL
sin anL sinh anL 40
Rewriting Eq. (36) for /n(x) to within an undeterminedamplitude Bn as follows:
/nx BnAn
Bnsinh anx sin anx cosh anx cos anx
41
The undetermined amplitude Bn is evaluated by normaliz-ing /n (x) as follows:
ZL0
/2nxdx L 42
Eq. (42) gives a value of unity for Bn. In addition, themodes are orthogonal:ZL
0
/nx/ixdx Ldin 43
The evaluation of the natural frequencies, xn, of the canti-lever beam are related to the roots an of Eq. (39) throughEq. (5b). In order to compute the roots an of Eq. (39), itis rewritten as follows:
cos bn cosh bn 1 0 44awhere
bn anL 44bSubstituting Eq. (44b) into (5b) and rearranging in terms ofthe natural frequencies xn, one gets the following relation-ship (measured in rad/s):
xn b2n
L2
ffiffiffiffiffiEI
m
r45
The roots bn of Eq. (44a) are got by plotting the followingfunction:
Wb cosb coshb 1 46in Fig. 13. The roots occur when W crosses the b-axis.These roots are approximated by the points where cos bcrosses the b-axis as can be seen in Fig. 13. The roots ofcos b are given by the following equation:
bn 2n 1
2
p; n 1; 2; 3; . . . 47
In Table 1, the authors present bn, n = 1, 6 evaluated bothexactly and approximately for the cantilever beam. Forn = 1, the approximate value is unsuitable as the error is
over 16%. For n > 1, the approximate roots are more suit-
920 C.J. Bowe, T.P. Mullarkey / Advances in Engineering Software 39 (2008) 911922
-
8/3/2019 Bowe (2008) Unsprung Wheel-beam Interactions Using Modal and Finite Element Models
11/12
able because the differences between the evaluated andapproximate roots are less than 0.5%.
Using Table 1, one can write the first natural frequencyx1 using Eq. (45) as follows:
x1 1:875192
L2ffiffiffiffiffiEIm
r 48Alternatively, substituting Eq. (47) into (45) gives approx-imate natural frequencies for the cantilever beam, whichare most suitable when n > 1
xn n 1=22p2
L2
ffiffiffiffiffiEI
m
r49
Appendix B. Convention for shear force and bending moment
and equation of vibration for a beam
In the following section, the statement of convention forshear and bending moment as well as derivation of the gov-erning equation of vibration are presented. In Fig. 14, theauthor presents a differential beam segment dx subjectedto a load p(x) acting in the positive y-direction. The shearforces Q and bending moment M acting on this particularbeam segment obey the right-hand system; thus, the shearforce acts positively upwards on the positive face of thebeam segment and positively downwards on the negativeface of the beam segment, while the bending moment actspositively in a counter-clockwise direction about the z-axis
on the positive face of the beam segment and acts positively
in a clockwise direction about the z-axis on the negativeface of the beam segment as shown in Fig. 14.
Using the above convention, the constitutive law relat-ing bending moment to curvature states:
M EIo2v
ox250
Satisfying equilibrium, the sum of moments about the z-axis on the positive face of the free-body diagram mustbe equal to zero (ignoring rotary inertia); thus, the shearforce is equal to:
Q EIo3v
ox351
Next, satisfying Newtons Second Law in the verticaldirection:
Q oQox
dx pxdx Q mdx o2v
ot252
Simplifying Eq. (52) as follows:
oQ
ox px m o
2v
ot253
Substituting Eq. (51) into (53):
EIo
4v
ox4 m o
2v
ot2 px 54
The convention for the shear force and bending moment atlocal nodes 1 and 2 of the finite element are shown inFig. 15. The conventions for bending moment and shearforce of Figs. 14 and 15 are as follows:bM1 M0; bM2 MlbQ1 Q0; bQ2 Ql 55
z
x
y, v
0
M
xdx
dxxQQ +
p(x)
dx
M
Q
M +
Fig. 14. Free-body diagram of a load beam segment.
1Q
2Q
1M
2M
z
x
y
0m, EI
1 2
Fig. 15. Convention for bending moment and shear force at element
nodes.
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
True
Cos
()
cos
3
2
5
2
7
2
2
Fig. 13. Comparing the roots ofW and cos b graphically.
Table 1First 6 roots of a cantilever beam
n W (b) = 0 cos b = 0 % Differential
Roots of Eq. (46) Eq. (47)
1 1.875190 1.570796 16.232702 4.694091 4.712389 0.389813 7.854757 7.853982 0.009874 10.995541 10.995574 0.000305 14.137168 14.137167 0.000016 17.278760 17.278760 0.00000
C.J. Bowe, T.P. Mullarkey / Advances in Engineering Software 39 (2008) 911922 921
-
8/3/2019 Bowe (2008) Unsprung Wheel-beam Interactions Using Modal and Finite Element Models
12/12
References
[1] Akin JE, Mofid M. Numerical solution for response of beams withmoving mass. J Struct Eng 1989;115(1):12031.
[2] Biggs JM. Introduction to Structural Dynamics. 1st ed. McGraw-Hill; 1964.
[3] Wu JJ, Whittaker AR, Cartmell MP. The use of finite element
techniques for calculating the dynamic response of structures tomoving loads. Comput Struct 2000;78:78999.[4] Bowe CB, Mullarkey TP. Verification of contact elements by
triangular force technique. In: Symposium on Trends in the Appli-cation of Mathematics to Mechanics. Elsevier; 2000. p. 429.
[5] Yang YB, Wu YS. A versatile element for analyzing vehicle-bridgeinteraction response. Eng Struct 2001;23:45269.
[6] Bowe CJ, Mullarkey TP. Wheel-rail contact elements incorporatingirregularities. Adv Eng Software 2005;36:82737.
[7] Yang YB, Yau JD, Wu YS. Vehicle-bridge interaction dynamics withapplication to high speed railways. 1st ed. World Scientific PublishingCo. Pte Ltd.; 2004.
[8] Brebbia CA, Walker S. Dynamic analysis of offshore structures. 1sted. Newnes-Butterworths; 1979.
[9] Bathe KJ. Finite element procedures. 1st ed. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1996.
[10] Olsson M. Finite element, modal co-ordinate analysis of structuresubjected to moving loads. J Sound Vib 1985;99:112.
[11] Fryba L. Dynamics of railway bridges. 1st ed. Thomas-Telford; 1996.
922 C.J. Bowe, T.P. Mullarkey / Advances in Engineering Software 39 (2008) 911922