Detecting early damages in the railway pantograph mechanism: a multiple excitation approach for the frequency domain

References

• RAIB. Report 06/2013: accident involving a pantograph and the overhead line near Littleport. 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Conway S. Review of human factors risk in rail vehicle maintenance and inspection. 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Conway S. Lump mass models for legacy pantographs on GB mainline. 2016. (T1105 Report).
   Google Scholar
• Peters J. Dead line testing of pantographs on the RTT catenary system. 1981.
   Google Scholar
• Park TJ, Han CS, Jang JH. Dynamic sensitivity analysis for the pantograph of a high-speed rail vehicle. J Sound Vib. 2003;266(2):235–260. doi: 10.1016/S0022-460X(02)01280-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pombo J, Ambrósio J. Influence of pantograph suspension characteristics on the contact quality with the catenary for high speed trains. Comput Struct. 2012;110:32–42. doi: 10.1016/j.compstruc.2012.06.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xin T, Roberts C, Weston P, et al. Condition monitoring of railway pantographs to achieve fault detection and fault diagnosis. Proc Inst Mech Eng F. 2018. doi: 10.1177/0954409718800567.
   Google Scholar
• Seering W, Armbruster K, Vesely C, et al. Experimental and analytical study of pantograph dynamics. J Dyn Syst Meas Control. 1991;113(2):242–247. doi: 10.1115/1.2896371
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collina A, Bruni S. Numerical simulation of pantograph-overhead equipment interaction. Veh Syst Dyn. 2002;38(4):261–291. doi: 10.1076/vesd.38.4.261.8286
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ambrósio J, Pombo J, Rauter F. A memory based communication in the co-simulation of multibody and finite element codes for pantograph-catenary interaction simulation. In: Multibody Dynamics. 2009. p. 231–252. (Compuational methods and applications). Springer, Berlin.
   Google Scholar
• Deml J, Baldauf W, Bahn AD. A new test bench for examinations of the pantograph-catenary interaction. In: Proceedings of the WCRR, Cologne, Germany; 2001. p. 25–29.
   Google Scholar
• Collina A, Facchinetti A, Fossati F, et al. Hardware in the loop test-rig for identification and control application on high speed pantographs. Shock Vib. 2004;11(3–4):445–456. doi: 10.1155/2004/740146
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruni S, Ambrosio J, Carnicero A, et al. The results of the pantograph–catenary interaction benchmark. Veh Syst Dyn. 2015;53(3):412–435. doi: 10.1080/00423114.2014.953183
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collina A, Bruni S, Facchinetti A, et al. Pcada statement of methods. Veh Syst Dyn. 2015;53(3):347–356. doi: 10.1080/00423114.2014.959027
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ambrósio J, Pombo J, Antunes P, et al. Pantocat statement of method. Veh Syst Dyn. 2015;53(3):314–328. doi: 10.1080/00423114.2014.969283
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Massat JP, Balmes E, Bianchi JP, et al. Oscar statement of methods. Veh Syst Dyn. 2015;53(3):370–379. doi: 10.1080/00423114.2015.1005016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CENELEC. Railway applications – current collection systems – validation of simulation of the dynamic interaction between pantograph and overhead contact line. 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Xie C, Long Z, Peng X, et al. System's device of locomotive pantograph characteristic inspection. Patent ref.: CN204788991 (U). 2018. Available from: https://bit.ly/2GPrOUp.
   Google Scholar
• Bing C, Xu S, Gao Y, et al. Pantograph test method, system, device and rail vehicle. Patent ref.: CN106338405 (A). 2018. Available from: https://bit.ly/2UN8k6K.
   Google Scholar
• Lu G. Portable pantograph tester. Patent ref.: CN2316662 (Y). 1998. Available from: https://bit.ly/2IZLTcd.
   Google Scholar
• Yang H, Huang S, Gao Y, et al. Portable rail vehicle pantograph static test [of pressure] device. Patent ref.: CN205027525 (U). 2010. Available from: https://bit.ly/2LbCD7v.
   Google Scholar
• Li S, Li S. Static characteristic precise detection adjusting system for subway pantographs. Patent ref.: CN204462777 (U). 2015. Available from: https://bit.ly/2vroeJK.
   Google Scholar
• Xuzhing C, Dijun L, Wei H, et al. Pantograph test bench. Patent ref.: CN201803855 (U). 2011. Available from: https://bit.ly/2XXDqdX.
   Google Scholar
• Watanuki N, Kobayashi T, Shiono K, et al. Pantograph pushing-up force inspection device. Patent ref.: JP2017167068 (A). 2017. Available from: https://bit.ly/2GQGtPf.
   Google Scholar
• Zhang C, Liu L. Train pantograph structural health monitoring system. Patent ref.: US2018208222 (A1). 2018. Available from: https://bit.ly/2LjFew2.
   Google Scholar
• Villani LG, Shiki SB, Cunha A, Jr., et al..Challenges for structural health monitoring: nonlinearities and uncertainties.  In: Uncertainty Modeling: Fundamental Concepts and Models, III, University of Brasilia (UnB), 2022. p. 258–278, Book series in Discrete Models, Inverse Methods, & Uncertainty Modeling in Structural. 2022 hal-03811571.
   Google Scholar
• Vamvoudakis-Stefanou KJ, Sakellariou JS, Fassois SD. Vibration-based damage detection for a population of nominally identical structures: unsupervised multiple model (mm) statistical time series type methods. Mech Syst Signal Process. 2018;111:149–171. doi: 10.1016/j.ymssp.2018.03.054
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santamato G, Chiaradia D, Solazzi M, et al. A robotic device for the structural dynamics inspection of railway pantographs through nonlinearity tests. IFAC-PapersOnLine. 2020;53(2):8476–8481. doi: 10.1016/j.ifacol.2020.12.1429
   Google Scholar
• Kopsaftopoulos FP, Fassois SD. Vibration based health monitoring for a lightweight truss structure: experimental assessment of several statistical time series methods. Mech Syst Signal Process. 2010;24(7):1977–1997. doi: 10.1016/j.ymssp.2010.05.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santamato G, Chiaradia D, Solazzi M, et al. A lightweight robotic device based on a micro-macro actuation concept for the inspection of railway pantograph. J Mech Robot. 2020;12(6):Article ID 061002. doi: 10.1115/1.4046995
   Google Scholar
• Mayes RL, Gomez AJ. Part 4: what's shakin', dude? Effective use of modal shakers. Exp Tech. 2006;30(4):51–61. doi: 10.1111/ext.2006.30.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Worden K, Farrar CR, Haywood J, et al. A review of nonlinear dynamics applications to structural health monitoring. Struct Control Health Monit. 2008;15(4):540–567. doi: 10.1002/stc.215
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CENELEC. Railway applications – current collection systems – requirements for and validation of measurements of the dynamic interaction between pantograph and overhead contact line. 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Lampaert V, Swevers J, Al-Bender F. Impact of nonlinear friction on frequency response function measurements. In: Proceedings of the International Seminar on Modal Analysis; Vol. 1. Citeseer; 2001. p. 443–450.
   Google Scholar