铝合金地铁车牵引梁结构建模策略对比研究  

Comparative Study on Modeling Strategies of Traction Beam Structure of Aluminum Alloy Subway Body

作　　者：郭红玲 于春洋 刘春艳 张晓松 薛宁鑫 GUO Hongling;YU Chunyang;LIU Chunyan;ZHANG Xiaosong;XUE Ningxin(National Engineering Technology and Research Center for System Integration of Railway Vehicles,CRRC Changchun Railway Vehicles Co.,Ltd,Changchun 130062,China)

机构地区：[1]中车长春轨道客车股份有限公司国家轨道客车系统集成工程技术研究中心,吉林长春130062

出　　处：《大连交通大学学报》2023年第4期27-30,68,共5页Journal of Dalian Jiaotong University

基　　金：中国中车股份有限公司重大科技研究开发计划资助项目(2020CCA093)。

摘　　要：提出两种牵引梁结构的有限元建模方案,同时开展车体静强度试验与仿真分析,将仿真分析值与试验值进行对比。分析结果表明:方案1比方案2保守,且方案1更适用于设计阶段校核车体结构强度。在牵引梁与地板之间的双层板件结构位置,两种方案的方向应力分析结果与试验值的误差分别为9%~21%、7%~52%,方案1的建模方案更合理;在远离牵引梁与地板之间的双层板件结构位置,两种方案的方向应力分析结果与试验值的误差分别为4%~13%、8%~18%,两种方案的分析误差接近,但方案1的结果更精确。A finite element modeling scheme is proposed for two kinds of traction beam structure,static strength test and simulation analysis of vehicle body are carried out,and the simulation analysis value with the test value are compared and analyzed.Scheme 1 is more conservative than that of Scheme 2,and Scheme 1 is more suitable for checking the structural strength of the vehicle body at the design stage.In the position of the double-layer panel structure between the traction beam and the floor,the error between the directional stress analysis results and the test values of the two schemes are 9%-21%and 7%-52%respectively,and the modeling scheme of Scheme 1 is more reasonable.Away from the position of the double-layer plate structure between the traction beam and the floor,the error of the directional stress analysis results of the two schemes is 4%-13%and 8%-18%respectively,and the analysis errors of the two schemes are close,and the results of Scheme 1 are more accurate.

关 键 词：牵引梁 静强度 建模方案 对比分析 

分 类 号：U270.32[机械工程—车辆工程]