This paper describes analyses of a railroad tank car impacted at its side by a ram car with a rigid punch. This generalized collision, referred to as a shell impact, is examined using nonlinear (i.e., elastic-plastic) finite element analysis (FEA) and three-dimensional (3-D) collision dynamics modeling. Moreover, the analysis results are compared to full-scale test data to validate the models. Commercial software packages are used to carry out the nonlinear FEA (ABAQUS and LS-DYNA) and the 3-D collision dynamics analysis (ADAMS). Model results from the two finite element codes are compared to verify the analysis methodology. Results from static, nonlinear FEA are compared to closed-form solutions based on rigid-plastic collapse for additional verification of the analysis. Results from dynamic, nonlinear FEA are compared to data obtained from full-scale tests to validate the analysis. The collision dynamics model is calibrated using test data. While the nonlinear FEA requires high computational times, the collision dynamics model calculates gross behavior of the colliding cars in times that are several orders of magnitude less than the FEA models.

In train collisions, multi-level rail passenger vehicles can deform in modes that are different from the behavior of single level cars. The deformation in single level cars usually occurs at the front end during a collision. In one particular incident, a cab car buckled laterally near the back end of the car. The buckling of the car caused both lateral and vertical accelerations, which led to unanticipated injuries to the occupants. A three-dimensional collision dynamics model of a multi-level passenger train has been developed to study the influence of multi-level design parameters and possible train configuration variations on the reactions of a multi-level car in a collision.This model can run multiple scenarios of a train collision. This paper investigates two hypotheses that could account for the unexpected mode of deformation. The first hypothesis emphasizes the non-symmetric resistance of a multi-level car to longitudinal loads. The structure is irregular since the stairwells, supports for tanks, and draglinks vary from side to side and end to end. Since one side is less strong, that side can crush more during a collision. The second hypothesis uses characteristics that are nearly symmetric on each side. Initial imperfections in train geometry induce eccentric loads on the vehicles. For both hypotheses, the deformation modes depend on the closing speed of the collision. When the characteristics are non-symmetric, and the load is applied in-line, two modes of deformation are seen. At low speeds, the couplers crush, and the cars saw-tooth buckle. At high speeds, the front end of the cab car crushes, and the cars remain in-line. If an offset load is applied, the back stairwell of the first coach car crushes unevenly, and the cars saw-tooth buckle. For the second hypothesis, the characteristics are symmetric. At low speeds, the couplers crush, and the cars remain in-line. At higher speeds, the front end crushes, and the cars remain in-line. If an offset load is applied to a car with symmetric characteristics, the cars will saw-tooth buckle.

On March 23, 2006, a full-scale test was conducted on a passenger train retrofitted with newly developed cab and coach car crush zone designs. This test was conducted as part of a larger testing program to establish the degree of enhanced performance of alternative design strategies for passenger rail crashworthiness. The alternative design strategy is referred to as Crash Energy Management (CEM) where the collision energy is absorbed in defined unoccupied locations throughout the train in a controlled progressive manner. By controlling the deformations at critical locations, the CEM train is able to protect against two very dangerous modes of deformation: override and large scale lateral buckling.The CEM train impacted a standing locomotive-led train of equal mass at 30.8 mph on tangent track. The interactions at the colliding interface and between coupled interfaces performed as designed. Crush was pushed back to subsequent crush zones, and the moving passenger train remained in-line and upright on the tracks with minimal vertical and lateral motions.This paper evaluates the functional performance of the crush zone components during the CEM test. The paper discusses three areas of the CEM consist: the leading cab car end, which interacts with a standing locomotive; the coupled interfaces, which connect the CEM non-cab end; and the trailing cab car end, which interacts with the attached trailing locomotive. The paper includes a description of the crush zone features and performance.The pushback coupler must absorb energy in a controlled progressive manner and prevent lateral buckling by allowing the ends of the cars to come together. The deformable anticlimbers are required to resolve non-longitudinal loads into planar loads through the integrated end frame while minimizing the potential for override. The energy absorbers must absorb energy in a controlled progressive manner. The engineer's space must be preserved so that the engineer can ride out the event. The passenger space must be preserved so that the passengers can ride out the event. The prototype CEM design presented in this paper met all the functional design requirements. This paper describes how the crush zones perform at three different interfaces. Areas for potential improvements include the design of the primary energy absorbers, the placement of the engineer's compartment, and the interaction between the last coach car and the trailing locomotive.

In support of the Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA) Railroad Equipment Safety Program, a full-scale dynamic test of a collision post of a state-of-the-art (SOA) end frame was conducted on April 16, 2008. The purpose of the test was to evaluate the dynamic method for demonstrating energy absorption and graceful deformation of a collision post.The post aims to protect the operators and passengers in the event of a collision where only the superstructure, not the underframe, is loaded. Methods for improving the performance of collision and corner posts were prompted by accidents such as the fatal collision in Portage, Indiana in 1998, where a coil of steel sheet metal penetrated the cab car through the collision post.The improvements made for the SOA end frame structure include more substantial corner and collision posts, robust post connections to the buffer beam and anti-telescoping (AT) beam, and corner and collision posts integrated with a shelf and bulkhead sheet. Full length side sills improved support for the end frame. This test focused on one collision post because of its critical position in protecting the operator and passengers in an impact with an object at a grade-crossing.For the test, a 14,000-lb cart impacted a standing cab car at a speed of 18.7 mph. The cart had a rigid coil shape mounted on the leading end that concentrated the impact load on the collision post. The requirements for protecting the operator's space state that there will be no more than 10 inches of longitudinal crush and none of the attachments of any of the structural members separate.During the test, the collision post deformed approximately 7.4 inches and absorbed approximately 138,000 ft-lb of energy. The attachment between the post and the AT beam remained intact. The connection between the post and the buffer beam did not completely separate, however the forward flange and both side webs fractured. The post itself did not completely fail. There was material failure in the back and the sides of the post at the impact location. Overall, the end frame was successful in absorbing energy and preserving space for the operators and the passengers. INTRODUCTIONAs a result of consideration of both a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for improved cab car multiple unit (MU) locomotive equipment and the accepted industry standard, a series of tests were planned to demonstrate examples of conducting such tests to shows equivalence between testing protocols. Three test scenarios are taken from the FRA's proposed rule [1]. This paper covers the dynamic test of a collision post. There are two quasi-static tests also being planned. The quasi-statics tests are on the collision post and the corner post.Both the proposed rule and the industry standard improve crashworthiness performance due to increased static load requirements, as well as minimum energy absorption and maximum allowable intrusion into the cab. By encouraging improved energy absorption capabilities for the end frames, the rule aims to improve survivability for ...

Crash energy management (CEM) is a type of equipment design that is intended to protect occupant space during a collision. Structures at the front and back of each car act as crumple zones that absorb the collision energy. CEM is intended to distribute the damage from a collision throughout a consist to unoccupied areas. This paper describes how factors that vary in the operation of passenger trains affect the crashworthiness performance of conventional and CEM trains.Crush and secondary impact velocity are introduced as measures of crashworthiness performance. The collision scenario selected for this study includes a standing locomotiveled freight train and a cab led passenger train with an initial velocity. The passenger train contains either all CEM or all conventional equipment, and is either a multiple unit (MU) train with no locomotive, or push-pull train. The influence of consist type (MU or push-pull,) car weight, and the number of cars in a train-to-train crashworthiness are explored.The crashworthy speed is that speed at which all of the passenger train occupants are predicted to survive in the selected collision scenario. For both conventional and CEM equipment, MU trains have slightly higher crashworthy speeds than push-pull trains. Trains with heavier cars have lower crashworthy speeds for both conventional and CEM equipment. Longer trains also have lower crashworthy speeds, although the decrease crashworthy speed is less for CEM trains than for conventional trains. In all cases evaluated, the CEM trains have significantly higher crashworthy speed than the conventional trains; the crashworthy speed of CEM trains is typically twice that of conventional trains, and in some cases is nearly three times greater.