RAILWAY PASSIVE SAFETY

IN EUROPE

Railway Passive Safety

1990 1995 2000 2005

TRAINCOL

SAFETRAIN

SAFETRAM

SAFEINTERIORS

Crashworthinessdesign tools

Passive safetyMethodologyFor trains

Passive safetyMethodologyFor trams

EN StandardsEN1557

CEN TC256EN15227-2007CrashworthinessRequirementsFor railwayVehicle bodies

CEN TC256EN15227-2007CrashworthinessRequirementsFor railwayVehicle bodies

Train InteriorPassive safety

Ensure survival space (collision energy management, overriding protection)Improve interior environment (reduce deceleration, safe interior)Avoid derailment after collision (Obstacle deflection, lateral stability)

Railway Crashworthiness

Develop effective and reasonable design requirementsDevise and demonstrate a safe environmentfor occupants during identified collisionscenarios

Establish a standard validation process

Significant reduction of the annual total number of fatalities and serious injuries

Research Goals

Design tools for crashworthiness

Numerical tools Experimental results

TRAINCOL - Crash test vs. modelling

TRAINCOL - Crash test vs. modelling

TRAINCOL Crash Test - (New design)

TRAINCOL Crash Test - (Old design)

BiomechanicsErgonomics & scenariosInjury criteriaPassenger & crew modellingComponent testsCrash simulation

European StandardizationCEN TC256 – WG2

Accident & risk analysisTrain energy management

Design requirements

Design processInitial ideasDetailed designManufactureComponent testsCrash simulation

Static & Dynamic tests

Conclusions & Recomendations

Project SAFETRAIN Methodology

Train Accident & Risk Study

Sub-category 1.1 1.2 1.3-1.4 2.1 2.2 2.3-2.4 Number of accidents 31 69 21 28 80 3

Frequency (/1012 passenger.km) 38 85 26 35 99 3.7

Total severity Dead 49 3 0 3 8 0

Dead + seriously injured 166 64 7 8 42 1

Dead x 10-11 6 0.37 0 0.37 0.99 0 Risk / passenger x km Dead+seriously injured x 10-

11 20.5 7.9 0.86 1 5.2 0.12

1.1 Head-on collision1.2 Rear-end collision1.3+1.4 Side collision + others 2.1 Collision with a car2.2 Collision with truck, bus or tractor2.3+2.4 Other collisions at a level crossing

ERRI B205

Tram Accident & Risk Study

1.0E-10

1.0E-09

1.0E-08

1.0E-07

1.0E-06

1.0E-05

0.1110100

Accident Severity

Acc

iden

t Fre

quen

cy

Risk=E-05

Risk=E-06

Risk=E-07

Risk=E-08

Risk=E-09

Risk=E-010

Tram

Car

Truck

Bycicle

Pedestrian

Obstacle

No collision

Emergency Bracking

LRV Statistics

Scenarios & collision speeds

P1) Collision against a rail vehicle (80 t freight wagon with UIC 526-1 buffers). 25 km/h

P2) Collision against a regional train (129 t train). 23 km/h. P3) Collision against an identical periurban tram. 36 km/hP4) Collision against a 16.5 t rigid truck on level crossing. 40 km/h

Periurban trams

C1) Emergency braking. Not applicableC2) Collision with an identical city tram. 20 km/hC3) Collision against a light rigid truck (3t). 30 km/hC4) Collision against a 55 t periurban tram with appropriate compatibility. 12

km/h

City trams

S1) Train vs. train - V70% = 36 km/hS2) Train vs. buffer stops - V70% = 36 km/hS3) Train vs. deformable obstacle In level crossing V90% = 120 km/h.

Trains

Collision scenariosRollling stock

Representative train types

Length 20m 26m 26m 26m 26m 26m 26m 26m Mass 68T 51T 34T 34T 34T 34T 34T 51T

Length 26m 25m 25m 25m 25m 25m 25m 26m Mass 55T 53T 53T 45T 45T 53T 53T 55T

Length 20m 20m 20m Mass 42T 45T 42T

Length 26m Mass 50T

Type A

Type B

Type C

Type D

Main line

Main line

Regional

Motor coach

340 t

412 t

129 t

50 t

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 2 3

1 1

Representative tram types

BOMBARDIER S1000 type

ALSTOM’s CITADIS Tram

City Tram

Multiple-articulated tram configurations Masses of 20, 35 and 45 t.Crushing length: 0.5 m Buffer load: 200kN Maximum Compressive force: 470kN

Periurban Tram

Multiple-articulated configurations Mass 55 t. Crushing length: 0.7 m Buffer load: 600kNMaximum compressive force:1400kN

Optimization of train & tram sets

Safety objectivesA mean acceleration level should not exceed 5gNo permanent deformation in the passenger compartment

Design parametersPlastic load levels of vehicle extremities

Design constraintsLoad gap of 500 kN between consecutive plastic load levels

Analysis of train sets

Horiz. accelEnergy

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Analysis of overriding

Dynamics of overriding depend onCrushing behaviour of extremities and vehicle structuresVertical anti-climber crushing behaviour;Suspension characteristics with emphasis in jounce stop strokes;Centre of mass offsets;Collision speeds. Anti-climbing device localization

Localtechnique

(clim.)

Power car side Trailer car side

Energy absorbingdeviceBufferRivet

Normal running

Maximum compression

Prevention of climbing

LEE – FE modelling

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

0 200 400 600 800 1000

d [mm]

F [k

N]

simulationspecification

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2.0

0 200 400 600 800 1000

d [mm]E

[MJ]

simulationspecification

High energy end prototype

Anti-penetration wall

Aluminium Honeycomb Absorber

Lateral Absorber & Anti-Climber

Obstacle Deflector

Cant-rail

DoorWindow

Corrugated sheets

Head-Stock Welded Boxes

Stiff A-Pillar

(HEE) 4.6 MJ 1800 mm

HEE – Static test

Dynamic test 1

Collision Scenario 1• 4.6 MJ total energy absorption• Stroke 1.8 m• Energy absorbing coupler• Shear-off mechanism • Coupler trap• Obstacle deflector, • Anticlimber withstanding 150 kNvertical forces and 100 mm offset

CNTK Zmigród Test Ring - 2nd August 2000

Dynamic test Train vs. wagon

Total Structural Deformation: 400mmEnergy Absorption: 1470 kJ

Buffers fixed (No Climbing)

Cabin “undeformed”

Dynamic test 3 - LEA: 59.5 tA: 59.5 t C: 30.1 tC: 30.1 t B: 69.5 tB: 69.5 t

55 km/h

•Each extremity: 1.4 MJ total energy absorption stroke 660 mm

• Energy absorbing coupler• Shear-off mechanism • Coupler trap • Obstacle deflector• Anticlimber withstanding 150 kN vertical forces and 100 mm offset.

Dynamic test 3 - LE

Project SAFETRAM

Standard EN 15227

Design categories of railway vehiclesDesign collision scenariosStructural passive safety

General principlesOverriding

RequirementsDesign guidelines (Informative)

Survival space, intrusion and egressRequirementsDesign guidelines (Informative)

Deceleration limit/collision pulseRequirementDesign guidelines (Informative)

Obstacle deflectorRequirementDesign guidelines (Informative).

Validation of crashworthinessAnnex A Parameters of design collision scenariosAnnex B (normative) Requirements of a validation programme

Test specificationsTest programmeAcceptance criteria for calibration/validation testsNumerical simulationsNumerical model validation

Project SAFETRAM Standing passenger

Project SAFEINTERIORS

Project SAFEINTERIORS

Project SAFEINTERIORS

RequirementsSimpleHigh speed TSI & New standardRepresentative of risk resultsCommercial and economic aspectsInteractions with other standards

IMPROVED RISK ANALYSISINTERIOR FEATURE AGGRESSIVENESSINJURY CRITERIASURVIVAL SPACEFURNITURE & INTERIOR DESIGN

Number of passenger fatalities per year EU25 – 2000 149EU25 – 2020 70

Projected transport demand in 2020 7600 *109 Passenger kms (43 per cent more than 2000)

Railway, a safe transport mode for the future

Safe and sustainable railSystems for a connectedEurope