Details:

Creators:
Jacobsen, Karina ; Severson, Kristine ; Perlman, Benjamin
Jacobsen, Karina ; Severson, Kristine ; Perlman, Benjamin Less -
Corporate Creators:
John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (U.S.) ; Tufts University
John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (U.S.) ; Tufts University Less -
Subject/TRT Terms:
[+]
Crash energy management
Collisions
Commuter Cars
Crash Injury Research
Crash Victim Simulation
Crashworthiness
Dummies
Impact Tests
Occupant Protection Devices
Passenger Cars
Push Pull Trains
Vehicle Compartment Components
Vehicle Compartments

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
American Society of Mechanical Engineers ; Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Less -
NTL Classification:
AGR-SAFETY AND SECURITY-SAFETY AND SECURITY ; NTL-RAIL TRANSPORTATION-Rail Safety ; NTL-SAFETY AND SECURITY-Accidents ; NTL-SAFETY AND SECURITY-Rail Safety ;
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
Main Document Checksum:
[+]
urn:sha256:01e61d21be2859360144351c2cf954e58e535440c35bf18c7c2cf3118fbe993e
File Type:

Supporting Files

• No Additional Files

More +