Crush Analyses of Multi-Level Equipment

Martinez, Eloy; Zolock, John; Tyrell, David

doi:10.1115/imece2006-13214

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The finite element models predicted that crush could occur at either the leading end or the gooseneck [5]. A heuristic model, based on the collision in Placentia California, shows that the mode of deformation is dependent on the collision velocity [4].…”

Section: Pre-test Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Post Test Review of a Single Car Test of Multi-Level Passenger Equipment

Priante

2008

IEEE/ASME/ASCE 2008 Joint Rail Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In support of the Federal Railroad Administration's (FRA) Railroad Equipment Safety Program, a full-scale dynamic single car impact test of multi-level passenger equipment was conducted on October 2, 2007. The purpose of the test was to evaluate the crashworthiness performance of a multi-level car. The car struck the test barrier at 36.6 miles per hour (mph). Instrumentation on the car measured the deformations of critical structural elements; the vertical, lateral and longitudinal accelerations of the car body and trucks; and the suspension displacements.The structure of a multi-level car is different from that of a single level car or bi-level car. The underframe for single level cars and bi-level cars are straight. In a multi-level car, the underframe is at one level for the mezzanines, and at a lower level at the midsection. A transition structure, or gooseneck, connects the levels. Two passenger train incidents in the last few years have shown that multi-level cars deform in different modes from single level cars under dynamic loading conditions. In two separate collisions in Placentia and Glendale, CA, the gooseneck crushed.During the test, the most damage occurred in the draft sill. The gooseneck was beginning to hinge. The truck connections at both the leading and rear truck failed. Test results show that the multi-level car had a higher average force than the single level car. The secondary impact velocity is higher for the conventional multi-level car than in the conventional single level car. The multi-level car crushed approximately 2 feet during the test, 3 feet less than the single level car crushed.

show abstract

Section: Pre-test Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The finite element models suggest crush at two locations, both the leading end and the gooseneck [5]. Collision dynamics modeling suggests that the leading end or a combination of the leading end and the gooseneck will crush during the test [6,8].…”

Section: Potential Failure Modesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Post Test Review of a Single Car Test of Multi-Level Passenger Equipment

Priante

2008

IEEE/ASME/ASCE 2008 Joint Rail Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The forcecrush characteristics for the transitions structure, which are discussed later in this paper, come from the finite element model [9].…”

Section: Collision Dynamics Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Collision Dynamics Model of a Multi-Level Train

Priante

Tyrell

Perlman

2006

Rail Transportation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Crush Analyses of Multi-Level Equipment

Cited by 2 publications

References 7 publications

Post Test Review of a Single Car Test of Multi-Level Passenger Equipment

Post Test Review of a Single Car Test of Multi-Level Passenger Equipment

A Collision Dynamics Model of a Multi-Level Train

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About