Vehicle Dynamics
Competition
Mark Benton, Lead Project Manager
24 March 2016
Agenda
14.00 Competition Introduction/ Outline - Mark Benton, RSSB
14.15 A Train Operator’s (TOC) perspective - John Hawkins, GWR
14.25 Vehicle dynamics & the importance of the wheel-rail interface - Hugh O’Neill,
RSSB
14.45 Use of VTISM to assess ‘track friendliness’ of rail vehicles - Dr Gareth Tucker,
RSSB
15.00 VTAC - Dr Mark Burstow, Network Rail
15.15 Q & A
15.30 Coffee Break
15.40 Elevator Pitches - Russ Noble, IXC (facilitating)
16.00 - 17.30 Networking (drinks reception)
2
Future Railway
04 April 2016
Competition Scope
The objectives of this competition are as follows:
 Primary objectives:
– Reduction of the costs associated with track damage
– Reduction of suspension and wheelset maintenance costs
 Secondary objectives:
– Enable vehicles to transition between main-line and branch line running more
easily
 Projects should be at Technology Readiness Level 4-6
3
Future Railway
04 April 2016
Funding
 £4.5m to fund demonstrator projects that meet the competition scope
 Duration 18-24 months (up to 30 months with justification)
 Co-funded proposals (subject to state aid requirements)
 Individual projects expected to be £2-5m including co-funding
4
Future Railway
04 April 2016
Submission
 Applications must be on the form provided and be no more than 20 pages
in total.
 One additional document may be provided - Gantt Chart (.pdf)
Submit to:
Vehicle.Dynamics@RSSB.co.uk
5
Future Railway
04 April 2016
Evaluation
Criterion Description
Weight
Technical How does the proposal meet the brief
50%
and how innovative and feasible is
the proposal to lead to a marketable
product?
How effectively will the project be
Project
20%
managed, are the skills and
capabilities of the consortia
appropriate?
Finances How appropriate is the proposal
30%
financially? Is the overall budget
realistic and justified in terms of the
aims and methods proposed, and
complies with state aid funding
requirements?
6
Future Railway
04 April 2016
Indicative Key Dates
Question Deadline
5.00pm, 6 May 2016
Final Answers to questions
5.00pm, 19 May 2015
Entry submission date
5.00pm, 2 June 2016
Presentations to the evaluation panel 19 or 20 July 2016
Applicants informed of outcome
w/c 25 July 2016
Grant Award
by 29 August 2016
7
Future Railway
04 April 2016
Registration
 Competition pages can be found at:
– http://www.rssb.co.uk/future-railway-programme/funding-opportunities
 Or
– http://www.cvent.com/d/vfqq1r
8
Future Railway
04 April 2016
A Train Operator’s
(TOC’s) Perspective
John Hawkins
First Group
A Train Operator’s (TOC’s) Perspective
• Key TOC consideration for new trains designs:
•
•
•
•
•
Performance specification
Leasing costs
Operating costs
Safety and Reliability
Customer experience
10
Train Performance Specification
A fundamental requirement is that the train should be capable of
the performance specified for its intended operation. This includes:
•
•
•
•
Maximum speed
Acceleration
Capacity
Passenger facilities
A “deliverability” review is required to assess the prospects for the
design proposed achieving the specification.
11
Train Leasing Costs
• Financiers / Rolling Stock Leasing companies will set train
leasing charges based on the following considerations:
• Capital cost
• Expected life
• Residual value, based on:
‒
‒
‒
‒
‒
Assessed future requirements for type of train
Cost of maintenance
Track access charges
Reliability
Ability to deploy on other routes
12
Train Operating Costs
• In addition to leasing charges, TOCs must budget for the
following operating costs:
•
Useable availability
‒ Maintenance requirements
‒ Deployment flexibility (routes / train length)
•
•
•
Variable Track Access Charge (VTAC)
Based on a modelled assessment of track wear and tear caused by the
vehicle design (stated as a cost per vehicle mile). Linked to suspension
characteristics, overall vehicle mass and unsprung mass. The key
assessment tool is VTISM - to be explained in more detail in a later
presentation.
Train maintenance cost
Linked to complexity, inherent reliability and maintainability.
Energy cost
Linked to energy efficiency of traction system, vehicle mass and ability
to regenerate when braking.
13
Train Safety and Reliability
• The suspension system is one of the most safety critical
elements of a train design. Many of the components have the
potential to become single sources of failure.
• The system design (suspension and track) is unique to rail
• It is vital to demonstrate how the suspension system design
manages risks associated with component failure – faults must be
detectable in time to prevent catastrophic failures
• Train delays and cancellations create an adverse impact for
customers and a significant financial cost for TOCs through the
performance regime with Network Rail
• Designs should ensure that failures cause the minimum of impact
on the rail network – consideration of graceful degradation and
degraded modes of operation is essential
14
Customer Experience
• Comfort, in terms of noise and vibration, is a key consideration
in creating the right customer experience. Rail will inevitably be
compared with other competing modes, such as cars and
coaches/buses. Also, expectation is to be able to walk around
safely whilst trains are moving.
• Any potential to reliably reduce journey times is beneficial.
• Need to consider accelerations experienced by passengers in
all three planes.
• May be a potential to deliver similar ride quality to that
experienced today on track with poorer alignment – reducing
track maintenance costs.
• Ability to travel more quickly on existing track, without adverse
impact on safety or comfort?
15
Rail Vehicle Dynamics:
The importance of the wheel
rail interface
Hugh O‘Neill
Professional Head of Rolling Stock RSSB
Topics for today
• The wheel-rail interface – why its management matters
• Cyclic top instability – imprinting risk
• Instability and hunting
• Wear and rolling contact fatigue
• Ballast settlement
• An example of an innovative solution
17
Rail Vehicle Dynamics
30 March 2016
Why does it matter?
18
Rail Vehicle Dynamics
30 March 2016
The wheel rail interface – an introduction
Highest contact stress in engineering
19
Rail Vehicle Dynamics
30 March 2016
Effect of track wavelength
 Railway track contains a wide range of wavelengths
 Vehicles respond differently to different wavelengths
Wavelength
=2L
Wavelength
=L
20
Rail Vehicle Dynamics
30 March 2016
Wavelengths in GB track
Standard rail length in UK jointed track = 60ft (18.3m)
21
Rail Vehicle Dynamics
30 March 2016
Derailment due to vertical resonance
•
Coal Wagon
- Short wheelbase and closely spaced
bounce and pitch modes
•
Track input – case 1
- Wavelength = 11.24m
- Speed = 45mph
- Frequency = 1.8 Hz
•
Track input – case 2
- Wavelength = 11.24m
- Speed = 51mph
- Frequency = 2 Hz
•
Cyclic top derailment
- Add a 500m radius curve
22
Rail Vehicle Dynamics
30 March 2016
Cyclic top derailment
PCA wagon 10769 that derailed at Heworth
23
Rail Vehicle Dynamics
30 March 2016
Cyclic top derailment
CCTV image of a derailed freight train at Heworth, near Newcastle upon Tyne
24
Rail Vehicle Dynamics
30 March 2016
Ballast Settlement
25
Rail Vehicle Dynamics
30 March 2016
Ballast Settlement
26
Rail Vehicle Dynamics
30 March 2016
Conicity depends on both wheelset & track
MiniProf for Windows
Version 2.4.63
Page 1 of 1
Date: 07 September 2009
Time: 10:35:21
50
• Wheel profile
- Increasing wear
- Increasing conicity (usually)
40
30
increasing conicity
20
MiniProf for Windows
Version 2.4.63
Page 1 of 1
20
10
• Track gauge
- Tight gauge - high conicity
0
10
-10
0
-20
• Wheelset back-back
- Wide back-to-back – higher conicity
-10
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
Copyright(c) 1997-2005, Greenwood Engineering
-20
old 113A
new 113A
-30
• Rail profile
- Flatter rail head – higher conicity
- New 113A rail reduced conicity
-40
-50
-60
27
Rail Vehicle Dynamics
-50
-40
30 March 2016
Copyright(c) 1997-2005, Greenwood Engineering
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
5
Hunting instability
• Bogie hunting
- high-speed, high-conicity
- high frequency ~7Hz
- wheelsets move relative to bogie
- body barely moves
• Body hunting
- low conicity
- low frequency 0.5-1.5Hz
- Wheelset and bogie move together
- body moves
28
Rail Vehicle Dynamics
30 March 2016
Lateral Movement of Wheelset on Track
•
•
•
•
Wheelset amplitude is limited by flange contact
Can get high forces between wheel and rail
Bad riding, passenger complaints
Deterioration of track and vehicle, higher maintenance costs
Decreasing speed
29
Rail Vehicle Dynamics
30 March 2016
Contact patch energy
Y
Z X
30
Rail Vehicle Dynamics
30 March 2016
The pressure in the
wheel contact
patch is equivalent
to a weight of a
double decker bus
on a 5p coin
Contact Patch Energy -Wear
Wearrelationships
0.5
Wear (mm²/km)
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
100
200
300
TGamma (J/m)
31
Rail Vehicle Dynamics
30 March 2016
400
500
Contact patch energy
•
•
•
32
Rail Vehicle Dynamics
30 March 2016
Wear
•
- traction direction on rails
- braking direction on wheels
Low energy (T)
- no damage
Moderate energy (T)
- severe RCF
- typically when wheelset steering
High energy (T)
- wear removes any cracks
- typically in flange contact
RCF more damaging
RCF
• Longitudinal forces in the contact patch
cause Rolling Contact Fatigue
Contact patch energy
Rolling contact fatigue
33
Rail Vehicle Dynamics
30 March 2016
RCF consequences
Multiple fractures:
• Consequences may be catastrophic
• UK Hatfield derailment October 2000
34
Rail Vehicle Dynamics
30 March 2016
Wheel effects
Cracks in wheels generally don’t turn
down like rails:
• Wheels are bi-directional
• Causes surface damage (spalling)
• In extreme cases, wheel fracture
35
Rail Vehicle Dynamics
30 March 2016
Example of Innovative Solution: HALL Bush
36
Rail Vehicle Dynamics
30 March 2016
Summary
• An understanding of vehicle dynamics does matter!
- To manage safety
- To minimise commercial risk to Railway Undertakings (RUs) and
Infrastructure Managers (IMs)
- To guarantee passenger comfort and avoid damage to freight payloads
• Your innovative solutions are welcome
37
Rail Vehicle Dynamics
30 March 2016
Use of VTISM to assess
‘track friendliness’ of rail
vehicles
Dr Gareth Tucker FIMechE
Background to VTISM
• Vehicle Track Interaction System Model
• VTISM is a tool to carry out route specific calculations of the cost track
degradation due to the passing of rail vehicles
• VTISM Phase 1 (T353) 2009
• VTSIM Core Module
• Integration of:
• Geogis
• Actraff
• WLRM
• T-SPA
• VTISM Phase 2 (T792) 2013
• Addition of WPDM & WMM
• Updates to user interface
• Addition of ride force coefficient calculation
39
VTISM
04 April 2016
Track degradation due to rail vehicle traffic
40
VTISM
04 April 2016
VTISM overview?
41
VTISM
04 April 2016
VTISM Track damage model
42
VTISM
04 April 2016
Vertical damage (T-SPA)
Vertical axle load vs time
• Ballast settlement
• Sleeper degradation
• Vertical rail stresses
43
VTISM
04 April 2016
Ride force coefficient calculations (forces <20Hz)
44
VTISM
04 April 2016
Rail surface damage (WLRM)
• WLRM developed by RSSB project T115 (2003), developed further by
project T775 (2011)
45
VTISM
04 April 2016
Example WLRM output over a 130 mile route
46
VTISM
04 April 2016
Example VTISM output
47
VTISM
04 April 2016
Example VTISM output
48
VTISM
04 April 2016
Using VTISM
• License is available from RSSB
(contact enquiries@rssb.co.uk)
• Training and support is also available
• User manual is provided
49
VTISM
04 April 2016
Presentation Title: View > Header & Footer
Variable Track Access Charges
(VTAC) and infrastructure
damage
Mark Burstow
Principal Vehicle Track Dynamics Engineer
4-Apr-16 / 50
January 2014
Introduction
►
Running trains causes wear and tear to the infrastructure
• Variable usage charges (VUC) are levied to recover the costs of (some) of the
damage caused
• The VUC for each vehicle is in inverse proportion to its ‘track friendliness’
- Vehicles which cause more damage will carry a higher charge
- VUC can be used as a measure of ‘track friendliness’
►
What costs are recovered through the VUC?
►
How are these costs calculated and turned into charges?
►
What factors determine the level of a vehicles charge?
• Limitations/assumptions
The CP5 variable usage charge (VUC) / 51
What costs does the VUC recover?
•The VUC recovers operating, maintenance and renewal costs that vary
with traffic
Signalling (5%)
Civils (10%)
Includes maintenance costs and
points renewal costs
Includes costs associated with
underbridges, embankments and
culverts
Track (85%)
January 2014 The CP5 variable usage charge (VUC)
Includes maintenance and renewals
costs, 70% of costs related to vertical
rail forces and 30% of costs relate to
horizontal rail forces
/
52
January 2014
How are VUC costs turned into charges?
Network-wide VUC costs
•The VUC is not a measure
of the full ‘damage’ caused
by each vehicle
VUC vehicle rate
(passenger)
Signalling (£12m)
VUC vehicle rate
(passenger)
Civils (£26m)
VUC vehicle rate
(passenger)
•But is meant to be cost
reflective
Assessment of
vehicles
‘track friendliness’
Efficient average
VUC rate
X
Network-wide
traffic
=
VUC vehicle rate
(passenger)
VUC vehicle rate
(Freight)
Track (£215m)
VUC vehicle rate
(Freight)
VUC vehicle rate
(Freight)
VUC vehicle rate
(Freight)
The CP5 variable usage charge (VUC) / 53
January 2014
How do we assess ‘track friendliness’ –
key variables
The VUC for any vehicle type is determined by its ‘track friendliness’
►
VUC rates are designed to be cost reflective
For each vehicle type a ‘track friendliness score’ is calculated and used to
apportion costs
The four key vehicle characteristics that inform the ‘track friendliness
score’ are:
►
Axle load
►
Operating speed
►
Un-sprung mass
►
Bogie primary yaw stiffness (indicative of its curving ability)
The CP5 variable usage charge (VUC) / 54
Presentation Title: View > Header & Footer
VUC calculator
VUC calculator model is available from the Network Rail website
4-Apr-16 / 55
How do we assess ‘track friendliness’ –
formulae
VUC cost category
Formula used to calculate ‘track friendliness’ score
Track (Vertical)
Ct * ( 0.473e^(0.133A) + 0.015 SU - 0.009 S - 0.284 U - 0.442) * GTM * axles
Track (Horizontal)
Allocated using the ‘curving class’ methodology
Civils
Ct.A3.00.S1.52 (per tonne.mile).GTM
Signalling
50% of costs assumed to be load-related allocated using Track (Vertical)
formula, above, and 50% of costs assumed to be non-load-related allocated
based on vehicle miles
Where:
Ct = 0.89 for loco-hauled passenger stock and multiple units, 1 for all others (vertical track costs equation)
Ct = 1.2 for 2-axle freight wagons, 1 for all others (civils costs equation)
A = axle load (tonnes)
S= operating speed (miles/hour)
U = unsprung mass (tonne/axle)
GTM = gross tonne miles
January 2014 The CP5 variable usage charge (VUC)
/
56
January 2014
Track (vertical forces)‘wear and tear’
relationship
VTISM was used to determine
variation in track damage
(vertical) for a range of vehicle
parameters (not ‘real’ vehicles)
►
Speeds: 25 – 100mph
►
Axleloads: 5 – 25t
►
Unsprung mass= 1000 – 3000kg
Fit a continuous relationship between these damage costs
Calibrate this against agreed NR recoverable total track costs to
determine VTAC
The CP5 variable usage charge (VUC) / 57
January 2014
‘Vertical’ damage relationships
Damage found to be strongly influenced
by axleload
Axleload
Speed
Unsprung mass
The CP5 variable usage charge (VUC) / 58
January 2014
Track surface damage methodology
Horizontal track damage covers rail wear and rolling contact
fatigue
►
Derived from models developed to predict RCF
RCF/wear damage depends on wheel/rail forces (often
quantified through the contact patch energy, Tgamma or T)
T depends on
►
►
Vehicle suspension type and
bogie design
Curve radius
Cant deficiency (speed & installed
cant)
PYS8
180
PYS8, calculated
PYS8, v5.0
160
PYS16
140
T  /J/m
►
200
PYS16, calculated
120
PYS16, v5.0
100
PYS32
PYS32, calculated
80
PYS32, v5.0
60
40
20
Assessment is done over a range
of curves
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Curve radius/m
3000
3500
4000
The CP5 variable usage charge (VUC) / 59
January 2014
Methodology
T can only be evaluated using detailed vehicle dynamics
simulations
►
The existing VUC formulation allows users to either
• ‘look-up’ pre-calculated values for a range of vehicle
characteristics (the ‘vehicle curving class’), or
• do the simulations for the required vehicle and enter the values
into the VTAC spreadsheet to determine the horizontal damage
cost
- A guidance document exists to specify how to do the
simulations: wheel/rail profiles, friction conditions, curve &
cant deficiency, required outputs etc.
The CP5 variable usage charge (VUC) / 60
January 2014
Horizontal VUC component
For a wide range of suspension stiffnesses/vehicle
weights the VUC component has already been
determined
For new/modified vehicles it is possible to use a precalculated rate….
….or use vehicle dynamics simulations to calculate a
new rate
►
►
To recognise the good curving performance of a novel
suspension design
Where axle spacing is shorter than on other vehicles
Loco2_50
Loco3_50
Class_60
Class_66
Pacer_10
Coach_8
Coach_12_30
Coach_12_35
Coach_12_40
Coach_12_50
Coach_12_60
Coach_16_30
Coach_16_35
Coach_16_40
Coach_16_50
Coach_17_30
Coach_17_40
Coach_23_30
Coach_23_40
Coach_23_50
Coach_24_30
Coach_24_35
Coach_24_40
Coach_24_50
Coach_24_60
Coach_26_50
Coach_35_50
Coach_48_40
Coach_48_50
Coach_48_60
Coach_50_40
Coach_50_50
Coach_50_60
Coach_60_50
Coach_64_30
Coach_64_35
Coach_64_40
Coach_64_50
Coach_64_60
Coach_80_30
Coach_80_40
Coach_80_50
Coach_100_40
Coach_128_30
Coach_128_35
Coach_128_40
Coach_128_50
Tilting_50_50
Artic2_80
Artic3
Y25_loaded
Y25_empty
NACO_loaded
NACO_empty
3Piece_empty
3Piece_loaded
2axle_empty
2axle_loaded
TF25_empty
TF25_loaded
Coach_15_30
Coach_15_40
Coach_15_60
Shunter
Coach_HB_40
Coach_HB_50
Coach_HB_60
Coach_HB_Cl221
Class_68
PPM_2axle
The CP5 variable usage charge (VUC) / 61
Example VUC surface damage reduction
Improve vehicle curving class
Reduce ‘primary yaw stiffness’
► Use of variable rate (HALL) radial arm bushes
• Provide reduced yaw stiffness on curves (less wear & RCF) but
high stiffness at high frequency oscillation, so maintains stability
and ride
►
6
40t
50t
Surface damage VUC/p/vm
5
60t
HALL bush
4
3
2
1
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Primary yaw stiffness/MNm/rad
/
Presentation Title: View > Header & Footer
Summary
Variable Usage Charge is a ‘proxy’ for track damage
Does not give the actual costs of damage, but relative charges
► Driven by:
• Axleload
• Unsprung mass
• Wheelset curving characteristics
• Speed
► Not an ‘absolute’ measure of vehicle/track interaction
• Not able to consider benefits of (e.g.) active suspensions and
other enhancements
• But useful to indicate what factors are important
►
Where can I find the calculator….?
4-Apr-16 / 63
Presentation Title: View > Header & Footer
Further information
http://www.networkrail.co.uk/using-our-network/cp5-access-charges/
4-Apr-16 / 64
Q&A
Elevator pitches
Elevator Pitches
Running order:
Rebeka Sellick
Justin Hawley
Roger Lewis
Andrea Bracciali
Russell Crow
Brian Scales
Mark Bush
Lewis Lesley
David Buckley
Christopher Ward
We offer experienced market entry and technology transfer into the railway industry, through our
bid-winning, satisfaction-delivering innovations, engineering and business consultancy service:
looking to partner with credible ideas people, wherever they come from, we can help them roll
forward smoothly!
• Company:
• Contact:
• Email:
SellickRail Ltd
Rebeka Sellick, Director
Rebeka@SellickRail.com
SET is developing an innovative traction and active steering
system with the modelled capability to dramatically reduce
rail wear and RCF.
• Company:
Stored Energy Technology Ltd
• Contact:
Neil Cooney
• Email:
Innovation@set.gb.com
• Web:
www.set.gb.com
Apparently
Independently
Rotating
wheel set
The competition is primarily interested in pushing solutions
up the Technology Readiness Level scale through
demonstrator projects and onward development plans.
Wheels connected via a torque limiter: lower maintenance, lower TACs, less wheel/rail damage, better dynamics, safer.
Fully passive. Proven design and technology. Applicable to virtually any kind of rolling stock. Driving and trailer versions
available. Fully engineered and documented: ready for prototype manufacturing.
• Company: AB Consulting di Andrea Bracciali & C.
• Contact: Andrea Bracciali + 39 347 2429240
• Email: andrea.bracciali@unifi.it
• Web: www.andreabracciali.it
Wear/damage test
apparatus – small-scale
to full-scale
• Company: The University of Sheffield
• Email: roger.lewis@sheffield.ac.uk
High resolution wear
maps; RCF and squat
damage models
RE
SEVE
800
600
RESEVE ROPHIC
ST
CATA
SITION
TRAN
Contact Pressure (MPa)
1200
1000
60 kN
80 kN
Local contact
models and
interface
measurement
Test methods for
wear, RCF,
lubrication friction
modifiers
• Web: http://merail.group.shef.ac.uk/
40 kN
CATASTROPHIC
437.5 -- 500.0
375.0 -- 437.5
312.5 -- 375.0
250.0 -- 312.5
187.5 -- 250.0
125.0 -- 187.5
62.50 -- 125.0
0 -- 62.50
Design tools integrating
wear and damage
predictions with MBD
simulations
-440
-445
-450
Z [mm]
• Contact: Prof Roger Lewis
20 kN
Contact Pressure (MPa)
Wheel/rail tribology – experiment,
model, validation, implementation
-455
-460
-465
MILD
-470
400
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
Sliding Speed (m/s)
0.20
New Profile
Vehicle 1 - Left Wheel
Vehicle 2 - Left Wheel
-475
-820
-800
-780
-740
-760
Y [mm]
-720
-700
-680
Design, Analysis, Prototyping, Test & Manufacture of vehicle suspension components
How can we help you?
• Company: Tinsley Bridge
• Contact: Russell Crow
• Email: russell.crow@tinsleybridge.co.uk
• Web: www.tinsleybridge.co.uk
Forging
Welding
Shot peening
Heat treatment
Mechanical testing
Environmental testing
Electrophoretic painting
On-site metallurgy laboratory
Design of radial bogies that provide major reduction in lateral force on curves and reduced wheel wear.
• Company: Brian Scales – Transportation Engineer
• Contact: Dr Brian Scales, P.E., F.I.Mech.E.
• Email: brianscales@msn.com
• Web
Mark Bush
Mark.Bush@TfL.gov.uk
www.tfl.gov.uk
We are seeking to join innovative technology proposals that aims to reduce rolling contact fatigue, and wheelset maintenance costs across our
rail networks to form a well balanced consortium.
We offer:
• Transport authority intelligence – how we run our services and future opportunities for suppliers/authorities
• Access to our rolling stock, infrastructure and engineers to faster move through TRLs
• Business case development capability including assessing new operation and maintenance processes
• Dissemination capability through our wider organisation both internally and externally to TfL
• Proven track record in InnovateUK, EU and transport innovation projects
Summary – we would like to provide the “pull” to your “push” for demonstrator concepts as the ultimate end user
Developing economic high performance operational systems
from Trampower’s low track force bogie.
• Company: Tram Power Ltd.
• Contact: Lewis Lesley
• Email: lewis.lesley@trampower.co.uk
• Web www.trampower.co.uk
Vampire Dynamic Simulations and Vehicle Modelling
Consultancy Services
• Company: Balfour Beatty Rail
• Contact: David Buckley
• Email: d.buckley@bbrail.com
• Web: www.balfourbeatty.com/capabilities/rail-engineering/assetmanagement/gauging/
Long established expertise in mechatronic vehicles: concepts, modelling and control systems design. Looking
to partner: vehicle manufacturers, owners and operators
• Company: Loughborough University
• Contact: Dr Christopher Ward
• Email: c.p.ward@lboro.ac.uk
• Web: lboro.ac.uk
Thank you