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:
  Collisions Commuter Cars Crash Injury Research Crash Victim Simulation Crashworthiness Dummies Impact Tests Occupant Protection Devices Passenger Cars Push Pull Trains Crash Energy Management Vehicle Compartment Components 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.
  
  
• Format:
  PDF
• Collection(s):
  Volpe Center
• Main Document Checksum:
  urn:sha-512:4ee26e78a8ca86ab8a8f3dee2a5fd70318837847c8b14564e31ee803f8d88d0b1a555465b62556088f334ae620e5a96e5b658b61a8e9ebd8391a4e20192bfa8a
• Download URL:
  https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/10036/dot_10036_DS1.pdf
• File Type:
  [PDF - 205.46 KB ]