Please wait a minute...
Shopping Cart Email List Chinese
Advanced Search Fig/Tab
Frontiers of Mechanical Engineering

ISSN 2095-0233

ISSN 2095-0241(Online)

CN 11-5984/TH

Postal Subscription Code 80-975

2018 Impact Factor: 0.989

Featured Articles  |  Most Downloaded  |  Most Reading
Online Submission Subscribe to Our RSS Content Feed
Front. Mech. Eng.    2020, Vol. 15 Issue (2) : 265-278    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11465-019-0571-9
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Evaluation of power regeneration in primary suspension for a railway vehicle
Ruichen WANG1, Zhiwei WANG2()
1. Institute of Railway Research, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield HD1 3DH, UK
2. State Key Laboratory of Traction Power, Southwest Jiaotong University, Chengdu 610031, China
 Download: PDF(2091 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

To improve the fuel economy of rail vehicles, this study presents the feasibility of using power regenerating dampers (PRDs) in the primary suspension systems of railway vehicles and evaluates the potential and recoverable power that can be obtained. PRDs are configured as hydraulic electromagnetic-based railway primary vertical dampers and evaluated in parallel and series modes (with and without a viscous damper). Hydraulic configuration converts the linear behavior of the track into a unidirectional rotation of the generator, and the electromagnetic configuration provides a controllable damping force to the primary suspension system. In several case studies, generic railway vehicle primary suspension systems that are configured to include a PRD in the two configuration modes are modeled using computer simulations. The simulations are performed on measured tracks with typical irregularities for a generic UK passenger route. The performance of the modified vehicle is evaluated with respect to key performance indicators, including regenerated power, ride comfort, and running safety. Results indicate that PRDs can simultaneously replace conventional primary vertical dampers, regenerate power, and exhibit desirable dynamic performance. A peak power efficiency of 79.87% is theoretically obtained in series mode on a top-quality German Intercity Express track (Track 270) at a vehicle speed of 160 mile/h (~257 km/h).
Keywords railway vehicle      primary damper      power regeneration      ride comfort      running safety     
Corresponding Author(s): Zhiwei WANG   
Just Accepted Date: 27 December 2019   Online First Date: 18 February 2020    Issue Date: 25 May 2020
 Cite this article:   
Ruichen WANG,Zhiwei WANG. Evaluation of power regeneration in primary suspension for a railway vehicle[J]. Front. Mech. Eng., 2020, 15(2): 265-278.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fme/EN/10.1007/s11465-019-0571-9
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fme/EN/Y2020/V15/I2/265
Damper Potential power/W Regenerated power/W Regenerated power efficiency/%
Primary vertical damper 39.07 (low) 1.47 (low) 3.75 (high)
Secondary lateral damper 4790.00 (high) 12.47 (high) 0.67 (low)
Secondary vertical damper 25.82 (very low) 0.32 (very low) 1.25 (moderate)
Secondary yaw damper 3700.00 (moderate) 3.03 (moderate) 0.08 (very low)
Tab.1  Comparisons among different railway dampers: Parallel configurations
Symbol Definition Value Symbol Definition Value
mveh Total vehicle mass 3.3×104 kg Bwb Bogie wheelbase 2.6 m
mbd Carboy mass 2.508×104 kg Hbd Body height 1.57 m
mbg Total bogie frame mass 4.18×103 kg Hbg Bogie height 0.5 m
mws Per wheelset mass 1.12×103 kg Wr Wheel radius 0.45 m
ksl Secondary lateral stiffness (per axle box) 1.672×106 N/m Hslbdh Secondary lateral damper body end height 0.53 m
csl Secondary lateral damping (per damper×2) 2.507598×104 N?s/m Hslbgh Secondary lateral damper bogie end height 0.56 m
ksv Secondary vertical stiffness (per axle box) 1.3672×105 N/m Hsvt Secondary vertical damper body end height 0.96 m
csv Secondary vertical damping (per damper×4) 1.337386×104 N?s/m Hsvb Secondary vertical damper bogie end height 0.895 m
ksy Secondary yaw stiffness (per axle box) 2.09×105 N/m Hsyt Secondary yaw damper body end height 0.61 m
csy Secondary yaw damping (per damper×4) 6.687×106 N?s/m Hsybgh Secondary yaw damper bogie end height 0.53 m
kpv Primary vertical stiffness (per axle box) 7.599×105 N/m Hpvt Primary vertical damper height (top) 0.81 m
cpv Primary vertical damping (per damper×8) 4179.33 N?s/m Hpvb Primary vertical damper height (bottom) 0.29 m
cped
(Case 1)		 Electrical damping
(PRDs, cped)		 See Fig. 1(a) Lhl Half body length 12 m
cped
(Case 2)		 Electrical damping
(PRDs, cped)		 See Fig. 1(b) Lhw Half body width 1.4 m
Tab.2  Values of the parameters of a typical passenger rail vehicle [41]
Fig.1  Electrical damping coefficient with different electrical loads. (a) Case 1; (b) Case 2.
Fig.2  Simplified side view of a rail vehicle.
Fig.3  Block diagram of the overall objective functions in a rail vehicle.
Track Line speed/(km?h–1) Length/km Standard deviation (lateral)/mm Standard deviation (vertical)/mm Description
110 110 5 3.04 5.12 A low-speed, 110 km/h (70 mile/h) piece of UK track, lower-quality cross-country track
160 160 5 2.46 2.77 A mainline UK track, 160 km/h (100 mile/h), typical of better-quality cross-country and lower-quality intercity routes
200 200 5 1.42 2.39 A good-quality piece of UK mainline track, 200 km/h (125 mile/h), typical of high-speed intercity tracks
225 225 5 1.36 2.00 Top-quality UK track, 225 km/h (140 mile/h), example of the best intercity track
270 270 4 1.04 1.81 Top-quality German ICE track, 270 km/h (170 mile/h)
Tab.3  General track data characteristics and descriptions [42]
Fig.4  Simplified diagram of the suspension systems and PRD. (a) Parallel: Case 1; (b) series: Case 2.
Am/m2 Dm/(10−6 m3) kT/(Nm?A–1) kV/(V?rad–1?s) ηv/% ηm/% r/Ω R (Case 1) /Ω R (Case 2)/Ω
0.000127 8.2 0.925 0.925 92 95 10 1, 5, 10, 20, 50 0.5, 1, 2, 5, 10
Tab.4  Values of key parameters of the PRDs
Scale for NMV Comfort index
NMV<1.5 Very comfortable
1.5≤NMV<2.5 Comfortable
2.5≤NMV<3.5 Medium
3.5≤NMV<4.5 Uncomfortable
NMV≥4.5 Very uncomfortable
Tab.5  NMV evaluation scales for ride comfort [36]
Fig.5  Wheel–rail contact forces: Y (lateral force), Q (vertical force), N (normal force), and F (lateral rolling friction force).
Running speed/(mile?h–1) Body center Pivot 1 Pivot 2
Case 1
25 0.6285 0.8265 0.9730
50 0.6924 1.3738 1.1074
75 0.8178 1.3696 1.4633
100 1.0422 1.7284 2.1450
Case 2
25 0.6229 0.8158 0.9596
50 0.6790 1.3459 1.0770
75 0.8045 1.2948 1.4520
100 1.0401 1.7243 2.1318
Tab.6  Ride comfort assessment (95th percentile weighted RMS acceleration (mean ride comfort)) under different vehicle speeds (load: 1 Ω)
Running speed/(mile?h–1) Body center Pivot 1 Pivot 2
25 0.6285 0.8265 0.9730
50 0.6924 1.3738 1.1074
75 0.8178 1.3696 1.4633
100 1.0422 1.7284 2.1450
Tab.7  Ride comfort assessment (95th percentile weighted RMS acceleration (mean ride comfort)) under different vehicle speeds (viscous damper)
Load resistance/Ω Body center Pivot 1 Pivot 2
Case 1
1.0 1.0422 1.7284 2.1450
5.0 1.0422 1.7284 2.1450
10.0 1.0422 1.7284 2.1450
20.0 1.0422 1.7284 2.1450
50.0 1.0422 1.7284 2.1450
Case 2
0.5 1.0401 1.7243 2.1318
1.0 1.0442 1.7367 2.1484
2.0 1.0507 1.7580 2.1702
5.0 1.0597 1.8010 2.2202
10.0 1.0668 1.8705 2.2781
Tab.8  Ride comfort assessment (95th percentile weighted RMS acceleration (mean ride comfort)) under different electrical loads (speed: 100 mile/h)
Radius/m Cant/mm Gauge widening/mm Transition length/m Distance from the start of the runoff transition to the center of dip/m
90 25 19 7.5 0.000 (top), 7.500 (bottom)
150 100 13 30 6.000 (top), 16.883 (bottom)
200 150 6 45 6.000 (top), 16.883 (bottom)
Tab.9  Low-speed flange climbing track cases
Radius (transition*)/m Y/Q
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 (viscous damper)
90 (bottom) 0.714 0.714 0.714
90 (top) 0.699 0.699 0.683
150 (bottom) 0.605 0.605 0.605
150 (top) 0.760 0.760 0.761
200 (bottom) 0.726 0.723 0.715
200 (top) 0.676 0.675 0.676
Tab.10  Y/Q low-speed flange climbing case under 1 Ω electrical load
Fig.6  Force-velocity loops. (a) Case 1 with Track 200 at different running speeds; (b) Case 1 with 25 mile/h speed at different tracks; (c) Case 2 with Track 200 at different running speeds; (d) Case 2 with 25 mile/h speed at different tracks.
Fig.7  (a) Case 1 potential power, (b) Case 1 regenerated power, (c) Case 2 potential power, and (d) Case 2 regenerated power at different running speeds.
Fig.8  (a) Case 1 potential power, (b) Case 1 regenerated power, (c) Case 2 potential power, (d) Case 2 regenerated power, (e) Case 1 power efficiency, and (f) Case 2 power efficiency at different electrical loads.
1 F Yu, M Cao, X Zheng. Research on the feasibility of vehicle active suspension with energy regeneration. Journal of Vibration and Shock, 2005, 24: 27–30 (in Chinese)
2 D Karnopp. Power requirements for vehicle suspension systems. Vehicle System Dynamics, 1992, 21(1): 65–71
https://doi.org/10.1080/00423119208969002
3 C Yu, W Wang, Q Wang. Analysis of energy-saving potential of energy regenerative suspension system on hybrid vehicle. Journal of Jilin University (Engineering and Technology Edition), 2009, 39(4): 841–845 (in Chinese)
4 J Liang, C Shao. Research on an energy-regenerative active suspension for vehicles. Vehicle & Power Technology, 2010, (1): 55–58 (in Chinese)
5 J Mossberg, Z Anderson, C Tucker, et al. Recovering Energy from Shock Absorber Motion on Heavy Duty Commercial Vehicles. SAE Technical Paper 2012-01-0814, 2012
https://doi.org/10.4271/2012-01-0814
6 A Z Matamoros-Sanchez. The use of novel mechanical devices for enhancing the performance of railway vehicles. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Loughborough: Loughborough University, 2013
7 P Zheng, R Wang, J Gao, et al. Parameter optimization of power regeneration on the hydraulic electric regenerative shock absorber system. Shock and Vibration, 2019, 2019: 5727849
https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/5727849
8 L Zuo, P S Zhang. Energy harvesting, ride comfort, and road handling of regenerative vehicle suspensions. Journal of Vibration and Acoustics, 2013, 135(1): 011002
https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4007562
9 L Zyga. Energy-harvesting shock absorber that increases fuel efficiency wins R&D 100 award. Available at Science X website on July 14, 2011
10 J Zhang, Z Peng, L Zhang, et al. A review on energy-regenerative suspension systems for vehicles. In: Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering. London, 2013, 1889–1892
11 P Zheng, R Wang, J. Gao A comprehensive review on regenerative shock absorber systems. Journal of Vibration Engineering & Technologies, 2020, 8(1): 225–246
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42417-019-00101-8
12 G R Wendal, G Stecklein. A Regenerative Active Suspension System. SAE Technical Paper 910659, 1991
https://doi.org/10.4271/910659
13 M G Fodor, R C Redfield. The variable linear transmission for regenerative damping in vehicle suspension control. In: Proceedings of American Control Conference. Chicago: IEEE, 1992, 26–30
https://doi.org/10.23919/ACC.1992.4792012
14 M R Jolly, D L Margolis. Regenerative systems for vibration control. Journal of Vibration and Acoustics, 1997, 119(2): 208–215
https://doi.org/10.1115/1.2889705
15 Y Aoyoma, K Kawabate, S Hsegawa, et al. Development of the Full Active Suspension by Nissan. SAE Technical Paper 901747, 1990
https://doi.org/10.4271/901747
16 T Norisugu. Energy saving of a pneumatic system (2). Energy regenerative control of a pneumatic drive system. Hydraulics & Pneumatics, 1999, 38(4): 1–4
17 J. Stansbury US Patent, 9270131. 2016-02-23
18 D Karnopp. Permanent magnet linear motors used as variable mechanical dampers for vehicle suspensions. Vehicle System Dynamics, 1989, 18(4): 187–200
https://doi.org/10.1080/00423118908968918
19 D Ryba. Semi-active damping with an electromagnetic force generator. Vehicle System Dynamics, 1993, 22(2): 79–95
https://doi.org/10.1080/00423119308969022
20 A Gupta, T M Mulcahy, J R Hull. Electromagnetic shock absorbers. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Modal Analysis Conference. Kissimmee, 2003, 181
21 L Zuo, B Scully, J Shestani, et al. Design and characterization of an electromagnetic energy harvester for vehicle suspensions. Smart Materials and Structures, 2010, 19(4): 045003
https://doi.org/10.1088/0964-1726/19/4/045003
22 Y Okada, J Yonemura, M Shibata. Regenerative control of moving mass type vibration damper. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Motion and Vibration Control. Zurich, 1998, 85–90
23 Y Suda, S Nakadai, K Nakano. Study on the self-powered active vibration control. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Motion and Vibration Control. Zurich, 1998
24 M Cao, W Liu, F Yu. Development on electromotor actuator for active suspension of vehicle. Chinese Journal of Mechanical Engineering, 2008, 44(11): 224–228
https://doi.org/10.3901/JME.2008.11.224
25 X Zheng, F Yu. Study on the potential benefits of an energy-regenerative active suspension for vehicles. SAE Transactions, 2005, 114: 242–245
https://doi.org/10.4271/2005-01-3564
26 Z Li, L Zuo, G Luhrs, et al. Electromagnetic energy-harvesting shock absorbers: Design, modelling, and road tests. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 2013, 62(3): 1065–1074
https://doi.org/10.1109/TVT.2012.2229308
27 R J Hayes, J H Beno, D A Weeks. Design and Testing of An Active Suspension System for a 2-1/2 Ton Military Truck. SAE Technical Papers 2005-01-1715. 2005
28 J H Beno, M T Worthington, J R Mock. Suspension Trade Studies for Hybrid Electric Combat Vehicles. SAE Technical Paper 2005-01-0929, 2005
29 Y Zhang, X Zhang, M Zhan, et al. Study on a novel hydraulic pumping regenerative suspension for vehicles. Journal of the Franklin Institute, 2015, 352(2): 485–499
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfranklin.2014.06.005
30 Z Fang, X Guo, L Xu, et al. Experimental study of damping and energy regeneration characteristics of a hydraulic electromagnetic shock absorber. Advances in Mechanical Engineering, 2013, 5: 943528
https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/943528
31 C Li, P W Tse. Fabrication and testing of an energy-harvesting hydraulic damper. Smart Materials and Structures, 2013, 22(6): 065024
https://doi.org/10.1088/0964-1726/22/6/065024
32 C Li, R Zhu, M Liang, et al. Integration of shock absorption and energy harvesting using a hydraulic rectifier. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 2014, 333(17): 3904–3916
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2014.04.020
33 R Wang, F Gu, R Cattley, et al. Modelling, testing and analysis of a regenerative hydraulic shock absorber system. Energies, 2016, 9(5): 386
https://doi.org/10.3390/en9050386
34 S K Sharma, U Saini, A Kumar. Semi-active control to reduce lateral vibration of passenger rail vehicle using disturbance rejection and continuous state damper controllers. Journal of Vibration Engineering & Technologies, 2019, 7(2): 117–129
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42417-019-00088-2
35 S K Sharma, A Kumar. Disturbance rejection and force-tracking controller of nonlinear lateral vibrations in passenger rail vehicle using magnetorheological fluid damper. Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, 2018, 29(2): 279–297
https://doi.org/10.1177/1045389X17721051
36 S K Sharma, A Kumar. Ride comfort of a higher speed rail vehicle using a magnetorheological suspension system. Proceedings of the IMechE, 2018, 232(1): 32–48
https://doi.org/10.1177/1464419317706873
37 S K Sharma, A Kumar. Impact of longitudinal train dynamics on train operations: A simulation-based study. Journal of Vibration Engineering & Technologies, 2018, 6(3): 197–203
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42417-018-0033-4
38 S K Sharma, A Kumar. Impact of electric locomotive traction of the passenger vehicle Ride quality in longitudinal train dynamics in the context of Indian railways. Mechanics & Industry, 2017, 18(2): 222
https://doi.org/10.1051/meca/2016047
39 S K Sharma. Multibody analysis of longitudinal train dynamics on the passenger ride performance due to brake application. Proceedings of the IMechE, 2019, 233(2): 266–279
https://doi.org/10.1177/1464419318788775
40 World Health Organization. Global status report on road safety: Time for action. Available at World Health Organization website on June 25, 2009
41 Serco. VTISM Version 2.6.6 User Guide, 2014
42 VAMPIRE Dynamics. Vehicle Dynamics Version 6.5. Resonate. Available at VAMPIRE website on July 1, 2016
43 R Wang. Modelling, testing and analysis of a regenerative hydraulic shock absorber system. Dissertation for the Doctoral Degree. Huddersfield: University of Huddersfield, 2016
44 R Wang, Z Chen, H Xu, et al.Modelling and validation of a regenerative shock absorber system. In: Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Automation and Computing (ICAC’14). Cranfield: IEEE, 2014, 32–37
https://doi.org/10.1109/IConAC.2014.6935456
45 R Wang, D Crosbee, S Iwnicki, et al. Power regeneration in the primary suspension of a railway vehicle. In: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Rail Transportation. Chengdu, 2017
46 L Xu, X X Guo, J Liu. Evaluation of energy-regenerative suspension structure based on fuzzy comprehensive judgment (FCJ). Advanced Materials Research, 2010, 139–141: 2636–2642
https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.139-141.2636
47 BS EN 12299. Railway applications.  Ride comfort for passengers. Measurement and evaluation. 2009
48 J. Nadal Theory of Locomotive Stability, Part II: Yaw Motion. Annals of Mines, 1896, 232–255
49 RSSB. Railway Group Standard GM/RT2141: Resistance of railway vehicles to derailment and roll-over. 2009
[1] Yongjie LU, Shaopu YANG, Shaohua LI. Heavy vehicle dynamics with balanced suspension based on enveloping tire model[J]. Front Mech Eng Chin, 2010, 5(4): 476-482.
[2] Wade A. SMITH, Nong ZHANG, . Recent developments in passive interconnected vehicle suspension[J]. Front. Mech. Eng., 2010, 5(1): 1-18.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed