Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Materials 2020; 29:195–202

Research Article

Tran Anh Dung*, Mai Van Tham, Do Xuan Quy, Tran The Truyen, Pham Van Ky, and Le Hai Ha

Numerical and experimental study of the dynamic

factor of the dynamic load on the urban railway
https://doi.org/10.1515/jmbm-2020-0020 (1972) had used dynamic load factor for high speed railway
Received Jul 30, 2020; accepted Dec 24, 2020 track that incorporates train speed and the condition of the
track [4]. The Office of Research and Experiments (ORE) of
Abstract: This paper presents simulation calculations and
the International Union of Railways and Birmann [5] had
experimental measurements to determine the dynamic load
proposed dynamic load factor for speeds up to 200 km/h
factor (DLF) of train on the urban railway in Vietnam. Sim-
incorporates the track geometry, vehicle suspension, ve-
ulation calculations are performed by SIMPACK software.
hicle speed, vehicle center of gravity, age of track, curve
Dynamic measurement experiments were conducted on
radius, super-elevation, and cant deficiency. The Germany
Cat Linh – Ha Dong line. The simulation and experimental
Railways (1943) using an equation with the train speed is no
results provide the DLF values with the largest difference of
more than 200 km/h to calculate the dynamic load factor
2.46% when the train speed varies from 0 km/h to 80 km/h
only using train speed [6]. The dynamic load factor formula
Keywords: dynamic load, dynamic load factor, urban rail- is used for South African Railways is similar to the Talbot
way, train speed, track stiffness formula, but is calculated for narrow gauge track [2]. Clarke
formula algebraically combines the Talbot and Indian Rail-
ways dynamic load factors [7]. In 1968, a dynamic load fac-
tor only depended on the train speed was prepared for the
1 Introduction
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA)
and used in subsequently recommended standards for tran-
Dynamic load is an important value in the railway design
sit trackwork [8]. In 2010, Sadeghi had proposed a dynamic
process. Thus, accurate study of the DLF will lead to safe
load factor in Iran. This factor depends on train speed [9].
and economical designs. However, determining the DLF is
The speed of the train is no more 200km/h. The use of the
a rather complicated problem because of the interaction
AREMA recommendation for dynamic impact factor is sug-
between rail and moving vehicles.
gested for the railway with the train speed from 32 km/h
The dynamic load is generally expressed as a function
to 193 km/h [10]. The China Railways proposed dynamic
of the static load (Eq. 1) [1]
load factors that depend on train speed and wheel load
Pd = ∅ · Ps (1) shift coefficient in curves. This factor is used for high speed
railway [11]. In 2017, Leonid and Andrey had researched dy-
Where P d is the dynamic wheel load, ∅ is the dynamic namic live load factor for bridge structures on High speed
wheel load factor (∅ > 1), and P s is the static wheel load. railway [12].
Studies by authors around the world have published In this study, the authors studied the DLF for the ur-
research results on dynamic load of railway. In 1953, Tal- ban railway based on field measurement and simulation
bot [2] had given a dynamic load factor that relates to train calculations. The strain gage is used to measure relative
speed and wheel diameter for heavy haul railway with the deformation. Simulation calculations are implemented by
train speed less than 80 km/h. In 1969, Indian Railways SIMPACK software.
had proposed dynamic load factor for narrow gauge track
incorporates track modulus and train speed [3]. Eisenmann

*Corresponding Author: Tran Anh Dung: University of Transport

and Communications, Hanoi, Vietnam;
Email: [email protected]
Mai Van Tham, Do Xuan Quy, Tran The Truyen, Pham Van Ky,
Le Hai Ha: University of Transport and Communications, Hanoi,
Vietnam

Open Access. © 2020 T. Anh Dung et al., published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution
4.0 License
196 | T. Anh Dung et al.

Figure 1: The strain gage

2 Experimental method to
determinate DLF
2.1 Test equipments

The rail is mounted the equipment to measure deformation.

Relative deformation was measured by the strain gage with
length 10mm. Strain gage was placed at the bottom center
of the rail foot (Figure 1). Figure 2: The train of Cat Linh – Ha Dong urban railway line

2.2 Load test arrangements

Test loads are trains on Cat Linh – Ha Dong urban railway

Figure 3: Model of the train
line as Figure 2.
Each train includes 4 cars [13] with the following set-up
method: + Tc-M + M-Tc such as Figure 3, in which: “M”: motor car
“+”: semi-automatic central buffer coupler “Tc”: trailer car
“−”: Semi-permanent central buffer coupler Load arrangement of the train is set up such as Figure 4

Figure 4: Model of test train load

 Numerical and experimental study of the dynamic factor of the dynamic load on the urban railway | 197

2.3 Test results

Figure 5 shows the dynamic deformation time-history

curves of the rail foot in the first test point on Cat Linh
– Ha Dong urban railway line with train speed V = 30 km/h.
The maximum of dynamic deformation is 0.00011732.

Figure 7: Dynamic deformation versus time for train speed V =

80km/h

Table 1: Table of results of static deformation

No. Measurement times Static deformation

Figure 5: Dynamic deformation versus time for train speed V =
1 The first 0.00010735
30km/h 2 The second 0.00010519
3 The third 0.00010004
Average value 0.00010419
Figure 6 shows the dynamic deformation time-history
curves of the rail foot in the second test point on Cat Linh –
Ha Dong urban railway line with train speed V = 50 km/h. Some typical results of the dynamic load factors are
The maximum of dynamic deformation is 0.000127. depicted in the form of graphs comprising load histories
under different train speeds (Figure 8).

Figure 6: Dynamic deformation versus time for train speed V =

50km/h

Figure 7 shows the dynamic deformation time-history Figure 8: Dynamic load factors increasing due to speed for urban
railway
curves of the rail foot in the third test point on Cat Linh –
Ha Dong urban railway line with train speed V = 80 km/h.
The maximum of dynamic deformation is 0.000145.
Measuring the static deformation of the rail we have
the following results:
198 | T. Anh Dung et al.

By using linear regression analysis of the DLF. Using

Minitab simulation software. The results from the minitab
3 Application of software to
software are as follows simulate dynamic model
vehicle-track interactions
Regression equation
3.1 Numerical simulation process
Φ = 0.9909 + 0.004853.V
The model of vehicles is included 3 parts: car body, bogie
and wheel set. Each part of the system has five degrees of
Coeflcients freedom: bouncing, lateral, rolling, yawing and pitching.
So, each car has 35 degrees of freedom as follows in Table 2.
The model of track structure with the continuous elas-
Term Coef SE Coef T-Value P-Value VIF
Constant 0.9909 0.0124 79.94 0.000 tic point support model uses a series of point support spac-
V 0.004853 0.000250 19.38 0.003 1.00 ing intervals of the discrete elastic (Figure 9, 10).

Model Summary Figure 9: Track structure lateral view

S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred)

0.0146026 99.47% 99.21% 96.25%

Analysis of variance
Figure 10: Track structure side view

Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value

Regression 1 0.080074 0.080074 375.52 0.003 These models are established using SIMPACK software
V 1 0.080074 0.080074 375.52 0.003 to simulate the model of urban railway dynamic such as
Error 2 0.000426 0.000213 Figure 11 to 14.
Total 3 0.080500

The equation of DLF is proposed such as Eq. 2.

Φ = 0.9909 + 0.004853.V (2)

Where V is velocity (km/h)

It can be seen that the values of dynamic load factor in-
creasing due to speed such as Eq. 2. It was created based on
support stiffness, rail material, train load and train speed.

Figure 11: Simulation of wheel model of Cat Linh – Ha Dong line

 Numerical and experimental study of the dynamic factor of the dynamic load on the urban railway | 199

Table 2: Vehicle vibration model degrees of freedom

Freedom Bouncing Lateral Rolling Yawing Pitching

Car body Zc Yc ϕc ψc βc
Front bogie Zt1 Yt1 ϕ t1 ψ t1 β t1
Rear bogie Zt2 Yt2 ϕ t2 ψ t2 β t2
First wheel set Zw1 Yw1 ϕ w1 ψ w1 β w1
Second wheel set Zw2 Yw2 ϕ w2 ψ w2 β w2
Third wheel set Zw3 Yw3 ϕ w3 ψ w3 β w3
Fourth wheel set Zw4 Yw4 ϕ w4 ψ w4 β w4

Table 3: The specifications of the urban railway train

No. Technical parameters Symbols, units Values

1 Mass of car body Mc [ton] 22.4
2 Mass of frame Mt [ton] 3.52
3 Mass of wheel set Mw [ton] 1.539
4 The car body around the X axes’ rotational inertia; Icx [ton.m2 ] 23.2
5 The car body around the Y axes’ rotational inertia; Icy [ton.m2 ] 943
6 The car body around the Z axes’ rotational inertia; Icz [ton.m2 ] 941
7 The bogie around the X axes’ rotational inertia; Itx [ton.m2 ] 1.43
8 The bogie around the Y axes’ rotational inertia; Ity [ton.m2 ] 1.76
9 The bogie around the Z axes’ rotational inertia; Itz [ton.m2 ] 2.96
10 The wheel set around the X axes’ rotational inertia Iwx [ton.m2 ] 0.801
11 The wheel set around the Y axes’ rotational inertia Iwy [ton.m2 ] 0.104
12 The wheel set around the Z axes’ rotational inertia Iwz [ton.m2 ] 0.814
13 The distance between two bogie centre plates 2L [mm] 12,600
14 The distance between two wheel axes Lt [mm] 2,200
15 The hight from the rail surface to the center of the body Hc [mm] 1,800
16 The height from the rail surface to the center of the bogie Hf [mm] 500
17 The lateral distance between two axle box springs 2dw [mm] 1,930
18 The lateral distance between two air springs 2ds [mm] 1,850
19 The longitudinal distance between two axle box springs 2c1 [mm] 550
20 The height from the top of the air spring to the center of the body hc [mm] 1,005
21 The height from the bottom of the air spring to the center of the bogie hf [mm] 196.8
22 Height from rail surface to damper H2 [mm] 697
23 The height from the rail face to the restraining bar H3 [mm] 465
24 Diameter of wheel D [mm] 840
25 Distance between two wheel rollers 2S [mm] 1,493
26 Longitudinal stiffness of one side of the air spring Ksx [MN/m] 0.21
27 Lateral stiffness of one side of the air spring Ksy [MN/m] 0.21
28 The vertical stiffness of one side of the air spring Ksz [MN/m] 0.45
29 Longitudinal stiffness of an axle box Kpx [MN/m] 10.6
30 Lateral stiffness of an axle box Kpy [MN/m] 7.8
31 Vertical stiffness of an axle box Kpz [MN/m] 1.7
32 Lateral damping coeflcient of air springs Csy [kN.s/m] 30.0
33 Vertical damping coeflcient of air springs Csz [kN.s/m] 60.0
34 Vertical damping coeflcient of axle box springs Cpz [kN.s/m] 10.0
200 | T. Anh Dung et al.

Figure 12: Simulation of bogie model of Cat Linh – Ha Dong line

Figure 15: Graph of vertical dynamic force of wheel load acting on

rail with V = 30 km/h

Figure 13: Simulation of car body model of Cat Linh – Ha Dong line

Figure 16: Graph of vertical dynamic force of wheel load acting on

rail with V = 50 km/h

Figure 14: 3D model calculating dynamic of car of Cat Linh – Ha

The dynamic load of the wheels acting on the rails
Dong line
when the cars of Cat Linh – Ha Dong line run on the rails
with train speed V = 80 km/h are shown in Figure 17. The
3.2 Results maximum of dynamic load is 59.228 kN.
It can be seen that the experimental results of dynamic
The dynamic load of the wheels acting on the rails when the load factors are similar to the simulation values. These
cars of Cat Linh – Ha Dong line run on the rails with train results are compared with the results of other authors that
speed V = 30 km/h are shown in Figure 15. The maximum are suitable [7].
of dynamic load is 48.625 kN.
The dynamic load of the wheels acting on the rails
when the cars of Cat Linh – Ha Dong line run on the rails
with train speed V = 50 km/h are shown in Figure 16. The
maximum of dynamic load is 52.883 kN.
 Numerical and experimental study of the dynamic factor of the dynamic load on the urban railway | 201

4 Conclusions
The authors performed DLF research and proposed a DLF
function for the urban railway in Vietnam. The results can
be used to provide design flexibility and broadening the
design principle. Besides, this study may also support in cal-
culating railway maintenance and repair. There are many
dynamic load factors for railway, but in this article, the au-
thors assess DLF on the urban railway in Vietnam (1,435
mm gauge). In the future, the next development direction
is to study DLF for prestressed concrete sleepers of narrow
railway (1,000 mm gauge) and high speed railway (1435 mm
gauge) in Vietnam.

Acknowledgement: This research is funded by University

Figure 17: Graph of vertical dynamic force of wheel load acting on of Transport and Communications (UTC) under grant num-
rail with V = 80 km/h ber T2019-CT-01TD.

Table 4: Comparison of dynamic load factor Conflict of Interests: The authors declare no conflict of
interest regarding the publication of this paper.
Velocity Dynamic load factor Deviation
Experiment Simulation ration
results results
30 km/h 1.13 1.15 1.77%
References
50 km/h 1.22 1.25 2.46%
[1] Doyler N.F., Railway Track Design: A Review of Current Practice,
80 km/h 1.39 1.40 0.72% Occasional Paper, No. 35, Canberra: Bureau of Transport Eco-
nomics, Commonwealth of Australia, 1980.
[2] Hay W.W., Railroad Engineering. New York: John Wiley & Sons,
1982.
[3] Srinivasan M., Modern permanent way, Mumbai, India: Somaiya
Publications, 1969.
[4] Esveld C., Modern railway track, Zaltbommel, The Netherlands:
MRT-Productions, 2001.
[5] Birmann F., Paper 5: Track Parameters, Static and Dynamic, In:
Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, London,
UK, 1965, pp.73–85.
[6] Schramm G., Permanent Way Technique and Permanent Way
Economy. Darmstadt: Elsner, 1961.
[7] Van Dyk B.J., Edwards J.R., Dersch M.S., Ruppert C.J.Jr., and
Barkan C.P., Evaluation of dynamic and impact wheel load factors
and their application in design processes, Journal of Rail and
Rapid Transit, pp.33–43, 2017, DOI:10.1177/0954409715619454
[8] Prause R., Meacham H., Harrison H., John T., and Glaeser W., As-
sessment of Design Tools and Criteria for Urban Rail Track Struc-
tures, Vol. 1, Report No.UMTA-MA-06-0025-74-3, Urban Mass
Transit Administration, 1974.
[9] Sadeghi J., and Barati P., Evaluation of conventional methods in
Figure 18: Comparison of dynamic load factor with other authors analysis and design of railway track system, International Journal
of Civil Engineering, Vol.8, 2010; pp.44–56.
[10] American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Associ-
ation (2012): AREMA-Manual for Railway Engineering, Chapter
30, USA: American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way
Association.
202 | T. Anh Dung et al.

[11] Xiufang Chen P.L, Railway Track, China: China Architecture & [13] Ha Noi urban railway project, Cat Linh Ha Dong line, Package 1:
Building, 2017. EPC contract, Construction design, 2014.
[12] Leonid K.D., and Andray V.B., Regulation of the dynamic live load
factor for calculation of bridge structures on high-speed rail-
way mainlines, Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Materials,
Vol.13, pp.12-19, 2017. DOI: 10.1515/cee-2017-0002