Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2018-2
Development issues for impact safety of rail vehicles: Robustness of crashworthy designs,effect of structural crashworthiness on passenger safety and behaviour characterisation of vehicle materials
This paper supplements two previous papers written by the authors and addresses three issues arising from those papers. The three issues are follows: (1) the robustness of a crashworthy design in scenarios different from the design conditions, (2) the correlation of structural crashworthiness with passenger safety and (3) behaviour characterisation of vehicle materials in train collisions. The investigation of these issues provides an increased understanding of the research conclusions gained from a number of varied conditions, and targeting the development requirements in these three areas will promote crashworthiness applications in rail vehicles.
SuttonA. The development of rail vehicle crashworthiness. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit2002; 216: 97–108.
2.
ScholesALewisJH. Development of crashworthiness for railway vehicle structures. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit1993; 207: 1–16.
3.
CleonLM. Resistance passive application au TGV 2N. Revue Generale Des Chemins De Fer1993; 65F: 45–63.
4.
TyrellDC. Rail passenger equipment accidents and the evaluation of crashworthiness strategies. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit2002; 216: 131–147.
5.
TyrellDC. US rail equipment crashworthiness standards. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit2002; 216(F2): 123–130.
6.
CEN. Railway applications-crashworthiness requirements for railway vehicle bodies. EN 15227, 2011.
XueXSmithRASchmidFet al.Rail vehicle impact analysis: the instable propensity of structural responses and the critical scenarios of structural failures. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit2016; 230(3): 681–696.
11.
XueXRobinsonMSchmidFet al.Rail vehicle impact analysis: a critique of the suitability of the rigid wall model and the assumption of symmetrical behaviour. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit2015; 229(2): 173–185.
12.
XueXIngletonSRobertsJet al.Qualitative comparison of the characteristics of articulated and non-articulated trains and their effects on impact. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit2011; 225(1): 24–37.
13.
RSSB Web. Review of interior crashworthiness research 1989–2009. Report T910, www.rssb.co.uk (2012, accessed 4 October 2016).
14.
RSSB Web. Strategic European rail research project – SAFEINTERIORS. Report T610, www.rssb.co.uk (December 2010, accessed 4 October 2010).
15.
Severson K and Tyrell D. Comparison of interior crashworthiness observed in passenger train accidents and 8G dynamic seat sled tests. In: Proc. ASME/ASCE 2012 Joint Rail Conference, Philadelphia, USA, JRC2012-74154, 17–19 April 2012.
16.
KotsikosGRobinsonMZanganiDet al.Investigation of the weld unzipping failure mode during collisions of welded aluminium vehicles. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit2008; 222: 59–68.
17.
CarruthersJJKettleAPRobinsonAM. The energy absorption capability and crashworthiness of composite material structures: a review. Appl Mech Rev1998; 51: 635–649.
18.
MamalisAGRobinsonMManalakosDEet al.Crashworthy capability of composite material structures: a review. Compos Struct1997; 37: 109–134.
