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

Priante, Michelle

doi:10.1115/jrc2008-63053

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The cab operator test acceleration pulse has an SIV similar to the SIV from the multi-level single car test [2]. In this test, a single car impacted a fixed wall at 36.6 miles per hour.…”

Section: Secondary Impact Velocitymentioning

confidence: 91%

Prototype Design of an Engineer Collision Protection System

Muhlanger

Severson

Perlman

et al. 2012

2012 Joint Rail Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research program was sponsored by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Office of Research and Development in support of the advancement of improved safety standards for passenger rail vehicles. In a train collision, the cab or locomotive engineer is in a vulnerable position at the leading end of the vehicle. As cars with increased crashworthiness are introduced into service, there is a greater potential to preserve the space occupied by the engineer following an accident. In particular, full-scale impact tests have demonstrated the engineer's space can be preserved at closing speeds up to 30 mph. When sufficient survival space is preserved, the next objective is to protect the engineer from the forces and accelerations associated with secondary impacts between the engineer and the control cab. Given the hard surfaces and protruding knobs in a control cab, even a low speed collision can result in large, concentrated forces acting upon the engineer.Researchers have designed a passive (i.e., requiring no action by the operator) interior protection system for cab car and locomotive engineers. The occupant protection system will protect engineers from the secondary impact that occurs following a frontal train impact, when the engineer impacts the control console. The protection system will result in compartmentalization of a 95th percentile anthropomorphic test device (ATD), and measured injury criteria for the ATD's head, chest, neck, and femur that are below those currently specified in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 208 [1].The system that has been developed to protect the engineer includes a specialized airbag and a knee bolster with energy absorbing honeycomb material and deformable brackets. Finite element and lumped mass-spring analyses show the effectiveness of the system in limiting the injury criteria to survivable limits. Component tests have measured the key characteristics of the airbag and the knee brackets and have provided test data necessary to validate the analyses.Two tests were conducted to validate the airbag model. A static deployment test of the airbag measured the inflation progression, the inflated shape and the internal pressure of the airbag. A drop tower test of the airbag measured the force-crush and energy absorbing characteristics of the airbag. The knee bolster assembly consists of two components. Separate quasistatic tests of the aluminum honeycomb and the knee bolster bracket measured the force-crush and energy absorbing characteristics. The component test results were used to improve the computer model and permit analysis of the entire system. This paper discusses the prototype design, including background research, baseline definition and prototype development. The initial prototype design is analyzed using computer models. The components are tested to verify and improve the computer models. The test and analysis results are presented. Future work is planned for fabrication of the cab desk and prototype system to be used in a sled test with a 95 th ...

show abstract

“…The cab operator test acceleration pulse has an SIV similar to the SIV from the multi-level single car test [2]. In this test, a single car impacted a fixed wall at 36.6 miles per hour.…”

Section: Secondary Impact Velocitymentioning

confidence: 91%

Prototype Design of an Engineer Collision Protection System

Muhlanger

Severson

Perlman

et al. 2012

2012 Joint Rail Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Model input data was based on test data from similar equipment [6] and data gathered at the scene of the accident. The acceleration time history for each car was integrated to produce a plot of relative This material is declared a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States.…”

Section: Figure 4 Schematic Of Initial Conditions In Chatsworth Accimentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Interior Crashworthiness Observed in Passenger Train Accidents and 8G Dynamic Seat Sled Tests

Severson

Tyrell

2012

2012 Joint Rail Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Office of Research and Development of the Federal Railroad Administration conducts engineering research to address protection of passengers and crew during train accidents. This research includes accident investigations and dynamic seat testing to assess occupant injury during simulated accident conditions. Observations from selected accident investigations are compared with dynamic seat test results, based on the requirements in the Standard for Passenger Seats in Passenger Rail Cars, APTA-SS-C&S-99-016 [1], referred to simply as the Seat Standard. The Seat Standard requires sled testing of rail passenger seats to demonstrate that seats provide a minimum level of crashworthiness in the event of an accident. The interior crashworthiness comparisons between accidents and seat tests are based on the deceleration time history (crash pulse), damage to seats and/or tables, injury type and severity, and occupant kinematics. These comparisons have been made to assess the degree to which current test practice produces injury measurements and interior fixture damage that are consistent with the injuries and equipment damage observed in accidents. When test results and accident observations do not compare well, revisions to the prescribed test conditions may be warranted. The following three accidents have been selected for comparison in this paper. They were selected from accident investigations in which the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center participated, the amount of relevant data collected during the investigation, and the dynamic seat test data that was available for comparison of the specific type of seats or tables involved in the accidents. The accidents represent a range of accident speeds, type of equipment, and collision severity: - passenger train to freight train collision with a closing speed of 80 mph in Chatsworth, California, on September 12, 2008 [2]; - passenger train to freight train collision with a closing speed of 33 mph in Chicago, Illinois, on November 30, 2007 [3, 4]; - passenger train to freight car collision with a closing speed of 23 mph in Canton, Massachusetts, on March 25, 2008. A companion paper provides detail on the structural crashworthiness of the cars in the same three accidents, and describes the computer models that were developed to estimate the crash pulse, or acceleration-time history, for each rail car in the accidents [5].

show abstract

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

Cited by 2 publications

References 3 publications

Prototype Design of an Engineer Collision Protection System

Prototype Design of an Engineer Collision Protection System

Comparison of Interior Crashworthiness Observed in Passenger Train Accidents and 8G Dynamic Seat Sled Tests

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About