4.7 Article

Potential advantage of thin-ply on the composite bolster of a bogie for a high-speed electric multiple unit

期刊

POLYMER COMPOSITES
卷 42, 期 7, 页码 3404-3417

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pc.26067

关键词

complex loading; high‐ speed EMU; positive influence; static strength; thin‐ ply

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [12002244]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that the innovative use of thin-ply design strategy in the composite bolster of bogies for high-speed EMUs can effectively improve the static strength of the composite structure, especially at the location of bolts and holes. This breakthrough provides an effective ply design and optimization strategy for composite structure design engineering in high-speed EMUs.
The application of composite materials in bogies for high-speed electric multiple units (EMUs) has been regarded as a technical breakthrough. The application of composite materials in rail vehicles began late in China. Currently, most composite materials are used in non-load-bearing components on the track, and applications in bogies, tie beams, and other load-bearing components are not mature. In this paper, we innovatively apply a design strategy using thin-ply on the composite bolster of a bogie for a multiple unit to optimize the static strength of the composite structure under very complex loading. We applied nine unconventional loads and 11 major operating loads in total to evaluate a potential positive influence of using thin-ply on the static strength of the composite bolster of a bogie. The numerical results showed that for all the complex loading scenarios, the application of thin-ply could effectively improve the static strength of the composite structure, which is more effective at the location of the bolts and holes. The research results break through the traditional design ideas of composite structures and provide an effective ply design and optimization strategy for composite structure design engineering of high-speed EMU.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据