A design approach for a crash energy management (CEM) system for a N13-type railway passenger car used by the Turkish State Railway Company is developed in this paper. The components of the CEM system are honeycomb-structured boxes, primary energy absorbers, shear bolts, a sliding sill mechanism and a fixed sill mechanism that are located in the passenger-free space at the end of the passenger car. In order to investigate the benefits provided by the CEM system, a full-scale railway passenger car collision with a rigid wall is simulated by using dynamic/explicit finite element (FE) methods. The crushing force, secondary impact velocity, acceleration and velocity curves, and deformation modes are computed to allow a comparison of the crashworthiness performance of a passenger car equipped with the proposed CEM system with that of a conventional passenger car. Comparisons of FE analysis results show that a passenger car incorporating the CEM system has a superior crashworthiness performance to that of the conventional passenger car.
ScholesA. Railway passenger vehicle design loads and structural crashworthiness. Proc IMechE1987; Part F 201: 201–207.
2.
Mayville R, Stringfellow R, Rancatore R and Johnson K. Development of a passenger rail vehicle crush zone. In: The IEEE/ASME joint railroad conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Dallas, TX, USA 13–15 April 1999: 94–101.
3.
SimicGLucaninVMilkovicD. Elements of passive safety of railway vehicle in collision. J Crashworthiness2006; 11: 357–369.
4.
LewisJHRasaiahWGSholesA. Validation of measures to improve rail vehicle crashworthiness. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail Rapid Transit1996; 210: 73–85.
5.
TyrellDCSeversonKJMarquisBP. Analysis of occupant protection strategies in train collisions. ASME Appl Mech Div1995; 210: 539–557.
SunYQColeCDhanasekarMThambiratnamDP. Modelling and analysis of the crush zone of a typical Australian passenger train. Veh Syst Dyn: J Veh Mech Mobility2012; 50(7): 1137–1155.
XueXSchmidFSmithRA. A study of modeling approaches for rail vehicle collision behavior. J Crashworthiness2004; 9: 515–525.
10.
XueXSchmidFSmithRA. Analysis of the structural characteristics of an intermediate rail vehicle and their effect on vehicle crash performance. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail Rapid Transit2007; 221: 339–352.
11.
ScholesALewisJ. Development of crashworthiness for railway vehicle structures. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail Rapid Transit1993; 207: 1–16.
12.
Cleon LM, Legait J and Villemin M. SNCF structural crashworthiness design strategy. In: The conference on rail vehicle crashworthiness, US Department of Transportation, Federal RailroadAdministration, Office of Research and Development, Cambridge, MA, US, 24–26 June 1998.
13.
Kishore S. Emerging development project patterns in management of rolling stock safety. In: The railway safety conference, International Railway Safety Council, Goa, India, 30 September–6 October. 2007. http://www.intlrailsafety.com/GoaConference.html.
14.
Jacobsen K, Tyrell D and Perlman B. Impact test of a crash-energy management passenger rail car. In: The ASME/IEEE joint rail conference, US Department of Transport, Cambridge, MA, Baltimore, MD, 6–8 April 2004, paper no. RTD2004-66045.
15.
Nemeth I, Kovacs K, Reimerdes HG and Zobory I. Crashworthiness study of railway vehicles developing of crash elements. In: The eighth conference on vehicle system dynamics, Budapest, Hungary, 291–304 11–13 November 2002. http://www.railveh.bme.hu/Publikaciok/Nemeth-Ko-Reim-Zob.pdf.
16.
AmraeiMShahraviMNooriZLenjaniA. Application of aluminium honeycomb sandwich panel as an energy absorber of high-speed train nose. J Composite Materials2013. DOI: 10.1177/0021998313482019.
17.
Mehryari LimaRIsmarrubieZNZainudinESTangSH. Effect of length on crashworthiness parameters and failure modes of steel and hybrid tube made by steel and GFRP under low velocity impact. J Crashworthiness2012; 17(3): 319–325.
18.
HanHSKooJS. Simulation of train crashes in three dimensions. Veh Syst Dyn2003; 40: 435–450.
19.
GrassoM. About the preliminary design of a self-aligning energy absorber system for railway vehicles. J Crashworthiness2013; 18(5): 544–557.
20.
XieSTianH. Dynamic simulation of railway vehicle occupants under secondary impact. Veh Syst Dyn: J Veh Mech Mobility2013; 51(12): 1803–1817.
21.
SuttonA. The development of rail vehicle crashworthiness. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail Rapid Transit2001; 216(2): 97–108.
22.
Laberge-NadeauCBellavanceFMessierS. Occupant injury severity from lateral collisions:a literature review. J Saf Res2009; 40: 427–435.
23.
WangWZhangGZhaoHLuZ. Second impact effect of chair distance of high-speed train on occupant injury. Comput Aided Engng2008; 17: 1–3.
24.
XieSCTianHQ. Influencing factors and sensitivity analysis of occupant impact injury in passenger compartment. Traffic Injury Prevent2013; 14(8): 816–822.
25.
Hosseini-TehraniPBayatV. Study on crashworthiness of wagon’s frame under frontal impact. J Crashworthiness2011; 16(1): 25–39.
26.
Tyrell D, Severson K and Perlman AB. Single passenger rail car impact test. Volume I: overview and selected results. Report no. DOT/FRA/ORD-00/02.1, March 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation.
27.
XueXRobinsonMSchmidFSmithR. Rail vehicle impact analysis: a critique of the suitability of the rigid wall model and the assumption of symmetrical behavior. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail Rapid Transit. Epub ahead of print 24 September 2013. DOI: 10.1177/0954409713504393.
28.
BaykasogluCSunbulogluEBozdagE. Railroad passenger car collision analysis and modifications for improved crashworthiness. J Crashworthiness2011; 16(3): 319–329.
29.
APTA SS-C&S-034-99: 2006. Standard for the design and construction of passenger railroad rolling stock.
30.
EN 15227: 2008. Railway application-crashworthiness requirements for railway vehicle bodies.
31.
LuGYuT. Energy absorption of structures and materials, First ed. Abington. Cambridge, UK: Woodhead, 2003, pp. 162–162.
32.
Dausault Systems Inc. ABAQUS user’s manual, Version 6.10, 2010.
33.
Partovi MeranAToprakTMuğanA. Numerical and experimental study of crashworthiness parameters of honeycomb structures. J Thin-Walled Struct2014; 78: 87–94.
34.
BaykasogluCMuganASunbulogluE. Rollover crashworthiness analysis of a railroad passenger car. J Crashworthiness2013; 18(5): 492–501.
35.
KangKTChunHJParkJC. Design of a composite roll bar for the improvement of bus rollover crashworthiness. Compos Part B-Engng2012; 43(4): 1705–1713.
36.
RiaziSFeiziMMHosseini-TehraniP. Improving crashworthiness in railcar against rollover. Trans Can Soc Mech Engng2012; 36(4): 383–397.
37.
United Nations. Uniform technical prescriptions concerning the approval of large passenger vehicles with regard to the strength of their superstructure: Regulation No. 66, Revision.1,www.unece.org.
38.
EN 12663-1: 2010 Railway applications - structural requirements of railway vehicle bodies. Feb 22, 2006.
39.
Carolan M, Tyrell D and Perlman A. Performance efficiency of a crash energy management system. In: The ASME/IEEE joint rail conference & internal combustion engine spring technical conference, ASME, Colorado, US, 105–115 March 2007.
