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

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

Summary of Train-level Criteria CFRConcernLoad CasePass/Fail Criteria Collision with conventional equipment Alternatively-designed train collision with conventional locomotive-led train (a)20 mph, cab car led (b)25 mph, locomotive led Preserve occupant volumes Truck attachment Trucks remains attached Colliding car override Alternatively-designed equipment collision with conventional locomotive, (a) aligned and (b) with 3 inch vertical/3 inch lateral offsets Underframes remain engaged Minimize wheel lift Connected equipment override Alternatively-designed equipment collision with conventional locomotive, (a) aligned and with 2 inch vertical/2 inch lateral offsets of first car-to-car connection Underframes remain engaged Minimize wheel lift DRAFT

Summary of Car-level Criteria CFRConcernLoad CasePass/Fail Criteria Occupant volume integrity (a) 800 kips, or (b) 1000 kips, or (c) 1200 kips on design load path (a) No perm. def. (b) Limited perm. def. (c) Without crippling Fluid entryBased on design review(a) Equiv. to ½” 25 ksi steel (b) Inhibits entry of fluids (c) Affixed to structure and 213 End structure integrity of cab end (a) Absorb135 ft-kip of energy for impact offset 19 inches from centerline (b) Absorb 120 ft-kip of energy for impact aligned with sidewall No more than 10 inches of longitudinal, permanent deformation Non-cab end corner post (a) 150 kips at floor height (b) 30 kips 18 inches above floor (c) 20 kips at ceiling height (a) Without failure (b) Without perm. def. (c) Without failure Roof integrityCar upside down, supported by roof(a) No occ. vol. intrusion (b) ½ yield or buckling Side structure integrity Design requirements on sidewall stiffness and material properties Vert. modulus (in 3 ) > 0.3 x L Hor. modulus (in 3 ) > 0.2 x L DRAFT

Summary of Interior Criteria CFRConcernLoad CaseCriteria Interior fixture attachment Fixtures: 8/4/4 Longitudinal/ lateral/ vertical quasi-static load Seats: 8 G longitudinal dynamic pulse Fixtures and seats remain attached (APTA)Occupant protection features 8 G longitudinal dynamic pulseInjury criteria within accepted limits 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.

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. 12

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

Ad Hoc CEM Working Group 14 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 – 2 nd Meeting: consensus reached on scenarios and discussion of evaluation procedures –3 rd Meeting: consensus reached on evaluation procedures and discussion on evaluation criteria –4 th Meeting: consensus reached on criteria and discussions held on existing standards Over 4 Months

CEM Procurement Specification 15 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 Cab End Non Cab End/Trailer Car

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

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

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

SCRRA Applied CEM 20 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

Conclusion* 21 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

Conclusion 22 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