Effectiveness of alternative rail passenger equipment crashworthiness strategies

Details

• Creators:
  Jacobsen, Karina ; Severson, Kristine ; Perlman, Benjamin
• Corporate Creators:
  John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (U.S.) ; Tufts University
• Subject/TRT Terms:
  • Crashworthiness
  • Impact tests
  • Collisions
  • Passenger cars
  • Commuter cars
  • Crash injury research
  • Crash victim simulation
  • Dummies
  • Occupant protection devices
  • Vehicle compartments
  More +
• Publication/ Report Number:
  RTD2006-94043
• Resource Type:
  Proceedings
• Geographical Coverage:
  United States
• Corporate Publisher:
  American Society of Mechanical Engineers ; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
• Abstract:
  Crashworthiness strategies, which include crash energy ; management (CEM), pushback couplers, and push/pull ; operation, are evaluated and compared under specific collision ; conditions. Comparisons of three strategies are evaluated in ; this paper: ; - Push versus Pull Operation (Cab Car Led versus ; Locomotive Led Consists) ; - Conventional versus CEM Consists ; - Incremental CEM versus Full-CEM ; Rail cars that incorporate CEM are designed to absorb collision ; energy through crushing of unoccupied structures within the ; car. Pushback couplers are designed to recede into the draft sill ; under collision loads and enable the car ends to come into ; contact, minimizing the likelihood of lateral buckling. ; Push/pull operation refers to operating either a locomotive (pull ; mode) or a cab car (push mode) at the leading end of the train. ; Five cases using combinations of these three strategies are ; evaluated. The basic collision scenario for each case analyzed ; in this paper is a train-to-train collision between like trains. ; Each train has a locomotive, four coach cars, and a cab car. The ; impact velocity ranges from 10 to 40 mph. ; The following five cases are evaluated: ; 1. All conventional cars with a cab car leading (baseline ; case) ; 2. All conventional cars with a locomotive leading ; 3. Conventional coach cars with pushback couplers, with ; CEM cab car leading ; 4. All CEM cars with a cab car leading ; 5. All CEM cars with a locomotive leading ; A one-dimensional lumped-mass collision dynamics model ; is used to evaluate the effectiveness of each strategy, or ; combination of strategies, in terms of preserving survivable ; space for occupants and minimizing secondary impact velocity ; (SIV). Test data is used to correlate SIV with head, chest, and ; neck injury. Probability of serious injuries and fatalities are ; calculated based on calculated car crush and injury values. The ; maximum crashworthy speed, or the maximum impact speed at ; which everyone is expected to survive, is calculated for each ; case. ; Of the five cases evaluated, the scenario of a cab car led ; conventional consist represents the baseline level of ; crashworthiness. The highest levels of crashworthiness are ; achieved by a consist of all CEM cars with a locomotive ; leading, followed by all CEM cars with a cab car leading. The ; results indicate that incremental improvements in collision ; safety can be made by judiciously applying different ; combinations of these crashworthiness strategies. A CEM cab ; car leading conventional cars that are modified with pushback ; couplers enhances the level of crashworthiness over a ; conventional cab car led consist and provides a level of ; crashworthiness equal to a locomotive leading conventional ; passenger cars.
  More +
• Format:
  PDF
• Download URL:
  https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/10036/dot_10036_DS1.pdf
• File Type:
  [PDF - 205.46 KB]
• Collection(s):
  Volpe Center
• Main Document Checksum:
  urn:sha-512:4ee26e78a8ca86ab8a8f3dee2a5fd70318837847c8b14564e31ee803f8d88d0b1a555465b62556088f334ae620e5a96e5b658b61a8e9ebd8391a4e20192bfa8a