To assess the dynamic behavior of monorail–bridge system, an innovative model of train–guideway interaction has been developed based on multibody dynamics and finite element simulation. A finite element model of guideway structure for a particular monorail system is built up using parametric design language, considering a specific length of straddle monorail line in three dimensions. Both straight and curved track geometries are modeled to simulate the actual bridge infrastructure. Flexible elements are adopted for the guideway beams consisting of reinforced concrete profiles to increase the accuracy of the numerical simulations in a more realistic way. The bridge model indeed, is simulated using a beam-frame structure of composite steel–concrete material. A multibody simulation of monorail vehicle is then introduced using the commercial multibody software MSC Adams. The three-dimensional multibody model of the monorail vehicle together with the bridge subassemblies is eventually implemented in multibody environment. The entire dynamic model of the vehicle-track system consists of all flexible and rigid body elements. Dynamic responses of the vehicle and bridge system are then extracted for different loading conditions. The proposed numerical model is validated using some dynamic simulation results of the system from the vehicle manufacturer in the selected case study. The model is further verified against several analytical and measurement results reported in the literature both for straight and curved track configurations. The result of dynamic simulations gives an overview about the dynamic forces and reactions that can appear in bridge structure due to the train movement.
SimpsonBJ. Urban public transport today, London; New York: Routledge, 1993.
2.
Goda K, Nishigaito T, Hiraishi M, et al. A curving simulation for a monorail car. In: Proceedings of the 2000 ASME/IEEE joint railroad conference, 2000, pp.171–177. New York: IEEE.
3.
PakPSTsujiKSuzukiY. Comprehensive evaluation of new urban transportation systems by AHP. Int J Syst Sci1987; 18: 1179–1190.
4.
GravaS. Urban transportation systems. Choices for communities, New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003.
5.
He X, Kawatani M, Sobukawa R, et al. Dynamic response analysis of Shinkansen train-bridge interaction system subjected to seismic load. In: 4th international conference on current and future trends in bridge design, construction and maintenance, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 10--11 October 2005.
6.
KimCWKawataniM. Effect of train dynamics on seismic response of steel monorail bridges under moderate ground motion. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn2006; 35: 1225–1245.
7.
MajkaMHartnettM. Effects of speed, load and damping on the dynamic response of railway bridges and vehicles. Comput Struct2008; 86: 556–572.
8.
DinhVNKimKDWarnitchaiP. Dynamic analysis of three-dimensional bridge-high-speed train interactions using a wheel-rail contact model. Eng Struct2009; 31: 3090–3106.
9.
LiuKReyndersEDe RoeckG. Experimental and numerical analysis of a composite bridge for high-speed trains. J Sound Vib2009; 320: 201–220.
10.
GuoWHChenDHLiZ. Influence of secondary dead load on vehicle-bridge coupling vibration of long-span cable-stayed bridges. J Central South Univ2011; 8: 041–041.
11.
AntolinPZhangNGoicoleaJM. Consideration of nonlinear wheel-rail contact forces for dynamic vehicle-bridge interaction in high-speed railways. J Sound Vib2013; 332: 1231–1251.
12.
YangYBYauJWuY. Vehicle-bridge interaction dynamics, Singapore: World Scientific, 2004.
13.
AntolínPZhangNGoicoleaJM. Consideration of nonlinear wheel–rail contact forces for dynamic vehicle–bridge interaction in high-speed railways. J Sound Vib2013; 332: 1231–1251.
14.
DinhVNKimKDWarnitchaiP. Dynamic analysis of three-dimensional bridge–high-speed train interactions using a wheel–rail contact model. Eng Struct2009; 31: 3090–3106.
15.
LiQWuDJ. Analysis of the dominant vibration frequencies of rail bridges for structure-borne noise using a power flow method. J Sound Vib2013; 332: 4153–4163.
16.
LouP. A vehicle-track-bridge interaction element considering vehicle’s pitching effect. Finite Elem Anal Des2005; 41: 397–427.
17.
LouPYuZWAuFTK. Rail–bridge coupling element of unequal lengths for analysing train–track–bridgeinteraction systems. Appl Math Model2012; 36: 1395–1414.
18.
MoghimiHRonaghHR. Development of a numerical model for bridge–vehicle interaction and human response to traffic-induced vibration. Eng Struct2008; 30: 3808–3819.
19.
NguyenDVKimKDWarnitchaiP. Simulation procedure for vehicle–substructure dynamic interactions and wheel movements using linearized wheel–rail interfaces. Finite Elem Anal Des2009; 45: 341–356.
20.
YauJDYangYBKuoSR. Impact response of high speed rail bridges and riding comfort of rail cars. Eng Struct1999; 21: 836–844.
21.
LiuXGuanXZhangJ. Simulation of stochastic vibration of maglev track inspection vehicle. Mech Syst Signal Process2007; 21: 1927–1935.
22.
YauJD. Vibration control of maglev vehicles traveling over a flexible guideway. J Sound Vib2009; 321: 184–200.
23.
YauJD. Aerodynamic vibrations of a maglev vehicle running on flexible guideways under oncoming wind actions. J Sound Vib2010; 329: 1743–1759.
24.
ZhouDFHansenCHLiJ. Suppression of maglev vehicle–girder self-excited vibration using a virtual tuned mass damper. J Sound Vib2011; 330: 883–901.
25.
ZhouDFLiJHansenCH. Application of least mean square algorithm to suppression of maglev track-induced self-excited vibration. J Sound Vib2011; 330: 5791–5811.
26.
JuSHHoYSLeongCC. A finite element method for analysis of vibration induced by maglev trains. J Sound Vib2012; 331: 3751–3761.
27.
LouP. Comparison of two types of deflection functions for analysing the responses of the rail and the bridge under static or moving vehicles. Proc IMechE, Part K: J Multi-body Dynamics2006; 220: 105–123.
28.
JianhuaZ. Application of straddled-type monorail car technology in Chongqing Light Rail Jiao-Xin Line Project. Modern Urban Transit2004; 1: 005–005.
29.
RenLHZhouJSShenG. Dynamics model and simulation study of a straddle type monorail car. China Rail Sci2004; 5: 005–005.
30.
Lee CH, Kanbara T, Nishimura N, et al. Effect of train dynamics on seismic performance of steel monorail bridges under extreme ground motions. In: Fourth international conference on current and future trends in bridge design, construction and maintenance, Thomas Telford, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 10–11 October 2005, p. 57.
31.
XuetongSAuFTWenhuaG. Dynamic performance of double-deck bridges under road vehicles and monorail trains. HKIE Trans2011; 18: 26–33.
32.
Janjic D. Dynamic train-bridge interaction in monorail Sao Paulo metro line 2. In: IABSE symposium report, International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering, 2013, pp.1–8.
33.
LeeCHKimCWKawataniM. Dynamic response analysis of monorail bridges under moving trains and riding comfort of trains. Eng Struct2005; 27: 1999–2013.
34.
LeeCHKawataniMKimCW. Dynamic response of a monorail steel bridge under a moving train. J Sound Vib2006; 294: 562–579.
35.
LiuYGeYYangY. The dynamic response analysis of the coupled system of the straddle type monorail train and the track beam. China Rail Sci2010; 5: 004–004.
36.
LiuYYGeYMYangYR. Vibration characteristic of coupled system for straddle type monorail beam and train. J Traffic Transport Eng2010; 2: 011–011.
37.
Si X, Au F and Guo W. Riding comfort of a double-deck long-span bridge under both road vehicles and monorail trains. In: The 2nd international postgraduate conference on infrastructure and environment (IPC2010), Hong Kong, China, 2010, pp.196–203.
MaJBPuQHXiaZG. Experimental research on the Chongqing straddle-type monorail transportation system under dynamic loading. J Railway Eng Soc2007; 11: 014–014.
40.
ShiZPuQHGaoYF. Dynamic testing of straddle-type monorail vehicles system in Chongqing city. J Vib Shock2008; 12: 025–025.
41.
Shi Z, Pu Q and Xia Z. Research on dynamic testing of straddle-type monorail transit system in Chongqing city. In: The emerging frontiers of transportation and development in China. Reston, VA: ASCE, 2009, pp.2279–2286.
42.
Fontaine AG and Janssen J. Integrated chassis and suspension systems for monorail vehicles. Google Patents, 1991.
43.
YangYFWangLF. Study of dynamic behavior of steel box rail beam for straddle-type monorail transit. Bridge Construct2004; 2: 004–004.
44.
XingJHSongYXYangQS. Dynamic response research of straddle type monorail traffic system. Sci Technol Eng2007; 11: 067–067.
45.
GuoWHLiuHT. Dynamic analysis of a coupled system of a monorail train of straddle type and a continuous track beam. J Vib Shock2009; 7: 033–033.
46.
MaJPuQHuoX. Vehicle-bridge coupling vibration analysis of pc rail beam of straddle-type monorail transportation. J Southwest Jiaotong Univ2009; 6: 003–003.
47.
LiuYYGeYMYangYR. Finite element analysis of dynamic behavior of monorail steel track beam of straddle type light rail transit. World Bridges2010; 1: 010–010.
48.
DuZXLiN. Force simulation of straddle-type monorail vehicle’s steering wheel. Railway Locomot Car2011; 4: 024–024.
49.
ZhangKFDuZX. Impact of speed and curve at curve negotiation performance of straddle-type monorail vehicle. Electric Locomot Mass Transit Veh2011; 3: 008–008.
50.
DuZXWenXXShenZ. The impact analysis of tire parameter for tire wear when monorail vehicle curve driving. Appl Mech Mater2014; 470: 529–533.
51.
LiuGJangBZhouZH. Effect of wheel pressure on vibration of straddle monorail transit vehicle-bridge system. Adv Mater Res2014; 919: 542–546.
52.
Bosso N, Gugliotta A and Somà A. Multibody simulation of a freight bogie with friction dampers. In: ASME/IEEE 2002 joint rail conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2002, pp.47–56.
53.
EomBGLeeHS. Assessment of running safety of railway vehicles using multibody dynamics. Int J Precis Eng Manuf2010; 11: 315–320.
54.
KortumWSchiehlenW. General purpose vehicle system dynamics software based on multibody formalisms. Veh Syst Dyn1985; 14: 229–263.
55.
ShabanaAASanyJR. A survey of rail vehicle track simulations and flexible multibody dynamics. Nonlinear Dyn2001; 26: 179–212.
56.
CallejoANarayananSHKGarcía de JalónJ. Performance of automatic differentiation tools in the dynamic simulation of multibody systems. Adv Eng Softw2014; 73: 35–44.
57.
FengZQJoliPSeguyN. FER/Mech—a software with interactive graphics for dynamic analysis of multibody system. Adv Eng Softw2004; 35: 1–8.
58.
MenonRGKurdilaAJ. Sub-domain decomposition methods and computational controls for multibody dynamical systems. Comput Syst Eng1992; 3: 189–200.
59.
CarlbomPF. Combining MBS with FEM for rail vehicle dynamics analysis. Multibody Syst Dyn2001; 6: 291–300.
60.
RathodCChamorroREscalonaJ. Validation of three-dimensional multi-body system approach for modelling track flexibility. Proc IMechE, Part K: J Multi-body Dynamics2009; 223: 269–282.
61.
ShabanaAChamorroRRathodC. A multi-body system approach for finite-element modelling of rail flexibility in railroad vehicle applications. Proc IMechE, Part K: J Multi-body Dynamics2008; 222: 1–15.
62.
WangJPZhouYLWanF. Monorail truss structure selection based on modal analysis. Appl Mech Mater2012; 226: 364–367.
63.
WangXLiWBZhangBJ. Finite element analysis and optimization of monorail structure of monorail vehicle for mountains. Guangdong Agric Sci2012; 2: 049–049.
64.
WenXXHeYTDuZX. Crash simulation of straddle-type monorail vehicle body and human injury research. Adv Mater Res2012; 413: 486–490.
65.
Abbasi M, Naeimi M and Samet MN. Design strategies for civil and structural design of monorail lines with concentration on Qom monorail project (In Persian). In: 12th international conference on railway transportation, Tehran, Iran, 2010.
66.
Ghafooripour A, Ogwuda O and Rezaei S. An efficient cost analysis of monorail in the Middle East using statistics of existing monorail and metro models. Urban Transport XVIII: Urban Transport and the Environment in the 21st Century, vol. 18, 2012, p. 241.
67.
JafariALovePE. Quality costs in construction: case of Qom Monorail Project in Iran. J Construct Eng Manage2013; 139: 1244–1249.
68.
Rolling stock design, report of manufacturer, dynamic clearances, load and force data exerted on guideway beams. FCF company, Italy, Qom Urban Railway Organization, 2011.
KimDHwangSKimH. Vehicle stability enhancement of four-wheel-drive hybrid electric vehicle using rear motor control. IEEE Trans Veh Technol2008; 57: 727–735.
71.
Calculation leaflets, structural design of Qom monorail project, Iran, 2011.
Lawrence KL. ANSYS tutorial release 14. SDC Publications, 2012.
75.
Kim C, Jung YG, Cho SY, et al. Vibration control simulation for a multi-body high speed flexible rotor model using a phase adjusting method. In: ICCAS-SICE, 2009, pp.2286–2290.
76.
Shu B and Xu C. The structural analysis based on modern design method. In: IEEE 10th international conference on computer-aided industrial design & conceptual design, Wenzhou, China, 26–29 November 2009, pp.16–18.
77.
ZhuCLiuYXCaiGQ. Dynamics simulation analysis of flexible multibody of parallel robot. Appl Mech Mater2008; 10: 647–651.
78.
LiJXingJTanW. ADAMS tutorial examples, Beijing: Beijing Institute of Technology Press, 2002.
79.
Barbosa AF and Ribeiro GO. Analysis of reinforced concrete structures using ANSYS nonlinear concrete model. Computational Mechanics: New Trends and Applications. Barcelona, Spain: CIMNE, 1998.
80.
FanningP. Nonlinear models of reinforced and post-tensioned concrete beams. Electron J Struct Eng2001; 1: 111–119.
81.
WangYQWangFZ. Simulation of bond-slip relationship between concrete and reinforcing bar in ANSYS. J Tianjin Univ2006; 2: 016–016.
82.
Craig RR Jr. A review of time-domain and frequency-domain component mode synthesis method. Int J Analyt Exp Modal Anal 1985; 2(2).
83.
BamptonMCCraigJRoyR. Coupling of substructures for dynamic analyses. AIAA J1968; 6: 1313–1319.
