This paper presents the results of the International Benchmarking of Longitudinal Train Dynamics Simulators which involved participation of nine simulators (TABLDSS, UM, CRE-LTS, TDEAS, PoliTo, TsDyn, CARS, BODYSIM and VOCO) from six countries. Longitudinal train dynamics results and computing time of four simulation cases are presented and compared. The results show that all simulators had basic agreement in simulations of locomotive forces, resistance forces and track gradients. The major differences among different simulators lie in the draft gear models. TABLDSS, UM, CRE-LTS, TDEAS, TsDyn and CARS had general agreement in terms of the in-train forces; minor differences exist as reflections of draft gear model variations. In-train force oscillations were observed in VOCO due to the introduction of wheel–rail contact. In-train force instabilities were sometimes observed in PoliTo and BODYSIM due to the velocity controlled transitional characteristics which could have generated unreasonable transitional stiffness. Regarding computing time per train operational second, the following list is in order of increasing computing speed: VOCO, TsDyn, PoliTO, CARS, BODYSIM, UM, TDEAS, CRE-LTS and TABLDSS (fastest); all simulators except VOCO, TsDyn and PoliTo achieved faster speeds than real-time simulations. Similarly, regarding computing time per integration step, the computing speeds in order are: CRE-LTS, VOCO, CARS, TsDyn, UM, TABLDSS and TDEAS (fastest).

International benchmarking of longitudinal train dynamics simulators: results

Melzi, Stefano;Cheli, Federico;di Gialleonardo, Egidio;
2018-01-01

Abstract

This paper presents the results of the International Benchmarking of Longitudinal Train Dynamics Simulators which involved participation of nine simulators (TABLDSS, UM, CRE-LTS, TDEAS, PoliTo, TsDyn, CARS, BODYSIM and VOCO) from six countries. Longitudinal train dynamics results and computing time of four simulation cases are presented and compared. The results show that all simulators had basic agreement in simulations of locomotive forces, resistance forces and track gradients. The major differences among different simulators lie in the draft gear models. TABLDSS, UM, CRE-LTS, TDEAS, TsDyn and CARS had general agreement in terms of the in-train forces; minor differences exist as reflections of draft gear model variations. In-train force oscillations were observed in VOCO due to the introduction of wheel–rail contact. In-train force instabilities were sometimes observed in PoliTo and BODYSIM due to the velocity controlled transitional characteristics which could have generated unreasonable transitional stiffness. Regarding computing time per train operational second, the following list is in order of increasing computing speed: VOCO, TsDyn, PoliTO, CARS, BODYSIM, UM, TDEAS, CRE-LTS and TABLDSS (fastest); all simulators except VOCO, TsDyn and PoliTo achieved faster speeds than real-time simulations. Similarly, regarding computing time per integration step, the computing speeds in order are: CRE-LTS, VOCO, CARS, TsDyn, UM, TABLDSS and TDEAS (fastest).
2018
international benchmarking; Longitudinal train dynamics; simulation results; simulators; Automotive Engineering; Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality; Mechanical Engineering
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
International benchmarking of longitudinal train dynamics simulators results.pdf

Accesso riservato

: Publisher’s version
Dimensione 3.64 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
3.64 MB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11311/1039400
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 55
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 36
social impact