RSAC Engineering Task Force Results

1. RSAC Engineering Task Force Results PRIIA 305 Technical Sub Committee April 22, 2010 Chicago, Illinois Robert Lauby & Eloy Martinez

2. Crashworthiness Goals • Preserve Occupant Volume • Maintain Safe Space; Minimize Local Compartment Penetration; and Ensure Occupant Containment • Limit Forces and Decelerations to Survivable Levels • Limit Deceleration of Occupant Volume; Restrict Secondary Impact Forces; and Maintain Secure Interior Fittings • Note: Survivability Depends on Many Factors – Goal is to Preserve Volume and Limit Forces for Moderate and Low Speed Collisions

3. Need for RSAC ETF:Clarity Needed on Waiver Process • Issue: current standards present difficulties in application towards new designs that implement Crash Energy Management or built to alternative standards • Industry is approaching FRA with waiver requests: • Caltrain Commuter Rail, CA • California High Speed Rail, CA • Desert Express, NV • Capital Metro Transit Austin, TX • Denton County Transportation Authority, TX • Dallas Area Rapid Transit, TX • Others… • Some perceive waivers as high risk and inefficient processes with potentially inconsistent review Everyone wants an exception!

4. Other Issues • Carbuilders looking for additional guidance before making major investments • Operating authorities looking for new car procurements to replace older fleets for: • Increased efficiency (weight savings) versus other designs • Compatibility when mixing different equipment types on same corridor • New operational requirements – ADA, low floors, etc… • Both passenger rail operators and carbuilders need additional guidance (early in the procurement process) to eliminate the risk of ordering equipment that will not be waived and/or accepted by FRA.

5. Desired Metrics of Success • Preservation of occupied space • For collision scenarios preserve space up to a minimum safe closing speed • Apply traditional load requirements for other aspects of car designs (e.g. side and roof loading, etc) • For both cases maintain occupant containment • Maintain survivable environment within interior of cars

6. RSAC Engineering Task Force • Mission Statement: • Produce a clear set of technical evaluation criteria and procedures to provide means of comparing crashworthiness performance of new trainset designs with compliant Tier I equipment • Technical evaluation criteria defined for: overall train, individual car, and interior level performance

7. Scope • Structural crashworthiness • At train and individual car levels • Preserve occupied volume • Limit secondary impact environment • Occupant Protection • Compartmentalize Occupants • Limit Forces Imparted to Occupants

8. Approach • Performance Criteria for Prescribed Impact Scenarios • e.g., Train-to-train Collision, Grade-crossing Collision, etc. • Assess Crashworthiness Performance with Tests and Computer Simulations • Design Criteria for Fundamental Features • e.g., Occupant Volume Integrity • Verify Fundamental Aspects with Nondestructive Tests and Manual Calculations

9. Summary of Train-level Criteria DRAFT

10. Summary of Car-level Criteria DRAFT

11. Summary of Interior Criteria DRAFT Note: Existing Glazing Standards, 49 CFR 223 Safety Glazing Standards – Locomotives, Passenger Cars and Cabooses, also to be applied to alternatively designed passenger equipment.

12. Scope of ETF Guidelines ETF Guidelines: • Applies only to trainsets. • Identifies performance considered equivalent to conventional designs. • Allows qualifying equipment to operate under a waiver.

13. SCRRA Procurement Process Purpose was to add Crash Energy Management to a conventional FRA compliant rail car.

14. Ad Hoc CEM Working Group • Ad Hoc Committee Formed to Develop CEM Procurement Specification for SCRRA • Technology Transfer Symposium held to present technical basis for inclusion of CEM • 1st Meeting: developed consensus on energy absorption levels and discussion of scenarios • 2nd Meeting: consensus reached on scenarios and discussion of evaluation procedures • 3rd Meeting: consensus reached on evaluation procedures and discussion on evaluation criteria • 4th Meeting: consensus reached on criteria and discussions held on existing standards Over 4 Months

15. CEM Procurement Specification • SCRRA Released Specification on September 16, 2005 • Train Level Performance – survive series of collision scenarios (no intrusion into occupied space and limit SIVs) • Car Level Performance – crush zones on cab and non-cab ends to absorb 3.0 and 2.0 million ft-lbs of energy respectively • Component Level Performance – manage kinematics at coupled and colliding interfaces

16. Crash Energy Management Structural Features Non Cab End/Trailer Car Cab End

17. Structural Testing B/R-End Underframe Absorbers, Upper Absorbers, Roof Absorbers and Sliding Sill F-End Underframe Absorber, LTM PEAM, Frangible Element and Sliding Sill F-End Loading at coupler 800kips B/R-End Loading at coupler 800kips

18. Component Testing –Energy Absorbers Pre-test Pre-test Post-test Deformation State Post-test Deformation State

19. Component Testing –Interior Occupant Protection Pre-Test 8g Sled Post-Test 8g Sled Energy Absorbing Seats Energy Absorbing Tables

20. SCRRA Applied CEM • New Cab Cars and Trailer Cars with CEM structure and Components • New Interior Equipment based on CEM technology • Applying CEM research to optimize train configuration • Modification of existing fleet with CEM components and techniques * Taken from “Practical Application to Passenger Equipment” at APTA Rail Conference June 17, 2009 in Chicago, IL

21. Conclusion* • The passenger rail industry now has the opportunity to adopt advances in crashworthiness that improve the safety of the traveling public in collisions and derailments. • The advances have been successfully tested and have been shown to be practical for production. • Industry should plan to update the CEM design standard for consistent application of the advances using designs that have been verified to provide improved crashworthiness performance. * Taken from “Practical Application to Passenger Equipment” at APTA Rail Conference June 17, 2009 in Chicago, IL

22. Conclusion • Application of work from RSAC Engineering Task Force applicable to comparison of trainset designs • Current PRIIA 305 mandate specific to equipment classes – e.g. bi-level coach, single level coach, etc.. • Addressing individual car design specification better modeled after CEM procurement specification developed by Ad Hoc Working Group • CEM designs lend themselves to use of standardized components attached in a modular fashion

23. Questions? Robert Lauby Eloy Martinez