Initial Experience for the Verification of Vehicle Models according to EN14363: 2016 Annex T

Transcription

1 Initial Experience for the Verification of Vehicle Models according to EN14363: 2016 Annex T 2nd SIMULIA European Multibody Simulation UGM 7th November 2017 Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rolf Naumann Christian Mallwitz, B.Eng. Sönke Lück, M.Sc. University of Applied Sciences Bielefeld Institute of System Dynamics and Mechatronics Workgroup Railway Vehicles Stephan Behringer, M.Sc. DB Systemtechnik GmbH I.T-IVP 23 (1) Minden

2 Content of presentation 1. Introduction 2. Overview EN Annex T 3. MBS-Model of locomotive BR Validation Process 5. First Conclusion and Future Work 2

3 1. Introduction Simulation can often be used in the context of the homologation testing process Reduction of the number of test variants Reduction of testing times, Increasing the probability of successful proof, Increasing the security of critical questions. Reduction of costs: If the modelling process and the use of the simulation takes place in the design phase for other questions (crosswind, proof of derailment safety, comfort calculations, strength requirements, etc.), a reduction of the costs is to be expected. If the modelling process and simulation is only for the proof of the testing a cost reduction is not necessarily to be expected The biggest challenge is the validation of the simulation models 3

4 1. Introduction New validation method for simulation models for railway vehicles developed within the EU project DynoTRAIN (2013) Models used in numerical simulations must be validated by comparison with on-track test results Aspects of the EN14363 Annex T: Use of experimental data from the normal measuring method with measuring wheelsets Definition of the data to be compared minimum number of evaluation points data filtering in accordance with the evaluation of the measured data. Calculation of the mean values and standard deviation of the differences between simulation and measurement Assessment by comparison with defined validation limits At least 3 sections for each of the 4 test sections (12 sections in total) should be examined Length of sections of curves and straight track line must be at least equal to the measured sections 4

5 1. Introduction Validation should include the following: Sufficiently detailed modelling of relevant design data with regard to vehicle dynamics Test results for the modeled vehicle that can be used for model validation, including Time courses of measured data in digital form Tests and data should include a representative range of track conditions, curves, cant deficiency, speed and contact conditions Sufficiently exact track data of the original test track If there is no complete data set available an estimation of the error influence must be drawn up and, if necessary, the scope of application is to be restricted! When using numerical simulations for a vehicle under different conditions (eg. empty, laden, air spring operation, emergency spring operation, etc.), individual models must be validated for each condition. Two validation methods are available 5

6 2. OverviewEN Annex T EN Annex T simulation of on-track tests Validation against static, quasi-static and dynamic tests Method 1: ( previous conventional method ) Comparison of selected tests with simulation results Assessment by expert Method 2: ("mathematical comparison") Simulation of defined configurations (tests) and evaluation with mathematical methods (max values, statistics) Comparison with tests No assessment by expert necessary 6

7 2. OverviewEN Annex T Source: Polach, O.: Validierung der Simulationsmodelle für die fahrtechnische Zulassung [3] Definition Validation: It has to be proven that the simulation model simulates the examined physical tests with sufficient accuracy. Problematic: what does " sufficient accuracy " mean? How is this judged? Which methods are available? Selection of a representative number of test configurations to test the entire scope of the simulation model. Method 1: required and recommended tests defined (own decision) Method 2: Test and simulations are precisely defined Simulation of the test configurations Method 1: Recommended inputs and boundary conditions Method 2: (sufficiently) precisely defined Assessment of the comparison between measurement and simulation results Method 1: Limits values for deviations defined for a small amount of values, otherwise not specified. Method 2: Exactly describes the assessment method and limit values 7

8 2. OverviewEN Annex T Method2 Quantities to be assessed (Table T2): Source [1] 8

9 2. OverviewEN Annex T Method2 zu beurteilende Größen (Tabelle T2) Fortsetzung: Source [1] 9

10 2. OverviewEN Annex T Method2 Simulations sec. 1 sec. 2 Measurement sec. 1 sec. 2 Evaluation of the relevant values for simulation SV Evaluation of the relevant values for measurement MV Source [3] 10

11 2. OverviewEN Annex T Method2 Calculation of differences DV Multiplication with sign of MV Normalization with the validation limits Berechnung Mittelwert und Standardabweichung Source [3] 11

12 2. OverviewEN Annex T Method2 Validation result: Mean value of all required values Standard deviation of all required values Source [3] Successful validation if all values are less than 1! Remark / Criticism of method 2: The dynamic behavior of the vehicle such as natural frequencies are not tested Thus, an important property of the simulation model is not validated! 12

13 3.1 BR120 - Overview History [6]: - First mass-produced 3-phase current locomotive for DB - First prototypes were produced in Testing and proving finished in Until 1989 DB received 60 BR120 from different suppliers - Universal usage (passenger transport, heavy freight trains) - Service perfomance in 2010: km/month Technical Data [7]: - Length over buffer: 19.2 m - Mass: 84 t - Vmax: 200 km/h - Tractive force at starting: 340 kn 13

14 3.2 BR120 -MBS-Model -Car Body Bogie 2 Bogie 1 Wheelset 3,4 Car Body Wheelset 1,2 14

15 3.3 BR120 -MBS-Model -Bogie Primary Suspension: - Springs - Damper - Wheelbars - Lift Lock / Fixed Stop Secondary Suspension: - Springs - Damper - Fixed Stop / Lateral Buffer Traction Link: 15

16 3.4 BR120 - MBS-Model - Wheelsets Wheelsets: - Measured wheel profiles - Measured rail profiles - Left & right profile for every validation exercise (averaged profiles) - Rail track ballast force element - Representing roadbed properties 16

17 4.1 Validation Exercise- Overview Start: Uffenheim (95.3 km) Validation Exercises: Exercise 1: - Section of interest: km - Section with constant radius: km - Curve radius: 581 m - Velocity: 110 km/h - Test zone: 3 End: Ansbach (51.3 km) Source: Google Maps 3 17

18 4.2 Validation Exercise - Measured Data for Validation BR120: - Lateral & vertical wheel forces of bogie 1 - Lateral and vertical accelerations of car body on top of bogie 1 Track: - Track layout (.trm) - Track irregularities (.tre) - Averaged rail profiles (.prr) 18

19 4.3 Validation Exercise- Process& Results Pre-processing / Simulation Simulation Results Yjk Qjk ÿ*i z *i Test Run Results Yjk Qjk ÿ*i z *i Post-processing / Validation Filter Low pass, Band pass, Sld mean L ts Defining Evaluation Section (L ts ) Evaluation Median 0.15% / 99.85% Percentile Root-Mean-Square

20 4.3 Validation Exercise- Process& Results Difference S V, M V and Transformation =( ) Mean Value and Standard Deviation Difference [kn] Yqst Right Wheel Left Wheel Mean S. Dev. 0 Section 1Section 2Section 3 Mean S. Dev. Normalization, Final Verification, 2 3, 1;,..,

21 5 Conclusion - Model building process Technical drawings Data sheets First verification with stationary tests (no part of method 2) o 150m curve o Bogie rotation test o Stationary vertical wheel forces - First verification test according to method 2 581m curve - The preparation of measuring data is complex (synchronization, resampling), an automatization of this process would be useful to increase efficiency - First results are showing good coherence, adaption of model is still necessary - Analysis of Different Validation Exercises from DynoTrain-Project - Method 2 of EN14363 is suitable for automatization, if measured data is provided pre-processed - The quality of verification, for using the model in framework of approval, can only be judged at the end of our project 21

22 Thank you for your attention! Prof. Dr.-Ing. Rolf Naumann Christian Mallwitz, B.Eng. University of Applied Sciences Bielefeld Institute of System Dynamics and Mechatronics Workgroup Railway Vehicle Interaktion Bielefeld Germany 22

23 Literature [1] EN14363:2016 Bahnanwendungen Versuche und Simulationen für die Zulassung der fahrtechnischen Eigenschaften von Eisenbahnfahrzeugen Fahrverhalten und stationäre Versuche; Deutsche Fassung EN 14363:2016 [2] EN14363:2013 Bahnanwendungen Zulassungsprozess bezüglich der fahrtechnischen Eigenschaften von Eisenbahnfahrzeugen Prüfung des Fahrverhaltens und stationäre Versuche; Deutsche Fassung pren 14363:2013 [3] Polach, O.: Validierung der Simulationsmodelle für die fahrtechnische Zulassung, aus: Fahrzeuge Rolling Stck, ZEVRail 140 (2016) 6-7 Juni-Juli, S [4] Mongiardini, M.; Malcom, H. Ray; Anghileri, M.: Development of a Software for the Comparison of Curves DuringtheVerificationandValidation ofnumericalmodels, Italy, 7th European LS-Dyna Conference, 14th 15th May, 2009, Salzburg. [5] Polach, O. et. al.: Validation ofsimulationmodelsin thecontextofrailwayvehicleacceptance, aus: Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers / Part F, Journal of rail and rapid transit, Band 229, 6, S , London, [6] Kratochwille, R.: Description class BR120, DB-Systemtechnik GmbH, [7] DB-Systemtechnik GmbH: Hauptdaten der Lok BR 120, interner Bericht. 23