Content uploaded by David Tyrell
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by David Tyrell on Apr 19, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Published in the Proceedings of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers Volume 216 Part F: Journal of Rail
and Rapid Transit, 2002
U.S. rail equipment crashworthiness standards
D C Tyrell
Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, U.S. Department of Transportation, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA
Abstract: In 1999 the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
issued new regulations and the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) issued new
standards for rail passenger equipment crashworthiness. These new regulations and standards include
conventional strength-based requirements for equipment used below 200 kph (125 mph), crash-energy
management for equipment used above 200 kph (125 mph), and dynamic sled testing of occupant seats.
Keywords: crashworthiness, buff strength, crash energy management, regulations, standards
1 INTRODUCTION
In the United States there has been substantial activity
in the last ten years to develop and refine
crashworthiness standards for both passenger trains
and freight locomotives. Much of the activity in
developing and refining crashworthiness standards has
come about because of interest in high-speed
passenger rail, increased rail traffic, the application of
equipment built to specifications different from U.S.
practice, and because accidents continue to happen.
(See a companion paper for a detailed discussion of
rail passenger accidents in the U.S. [1].) Amtrak has
recently introduced the high-speed Acela trainset for
service from Boston to New York to Washington, with
speeds up to 241 kph (150 mph). The Maryland Area
Rail Commuter Service has recently introduced
commuter service at speeds up to 200 kph (125 mph).
Commuter rail service has recently been started in
Seattle, Washington. The Massachusetts Bay
Transportation Authority (MBTA) recently reopened
the Old Colony line from Boston to the south shore.
The state of Washington has purchased Talgo trainsets
originally developed for service in Spain. Increased
traffic, which can increase the likelihood of the
occurrence of train collisions, increased equipment
speed, which can increase the severity of train
collisions, and the application of equipment developed
for operating environments that includes smaller and
lighter equipment than the freight equipment used in
the U.S. have raised concerns about the
crashworthiness of rail equipment.
Fatalities and injuries occur as a result of train
collisions and derailments. The crashworthiness
features of the train are intended to provide protection
to the passengers and crew in the event of a collision
or derailment. Crashworthiness standards are intended
to assure that the rail equipment includes features that
provide at least a minimum level of protection for the
occupants.
Crashworthiness standards can be described as either
design standards or performance standards. Design
standards prescribe requirements that are not
necessarily directly related to the conditions expected
in a collision. For example, current industry standards
for interior equipment require that the attachment be
able to support a longitudinal static load equal to eight
times the weight of the equipment. The load supported
by an attachment during a collision is dynamic, and is
related to the stiffness of the attachment as well as the
deceleration time-history. Compliance with design
standards can generally be evaluated using classical
closed-form structural analysis techniques or non-
destructive testing. Performance standards attempt to
prescribe desired performance under conditions closely
related to the conditions expected in a collision. For
example, current rail passenger industry standards
require that human injury criteria remain within
survivable levels when an interior seating arrangement
with test dummies is decelerated with a pulse
representative of the occupant volume deceleration
expected in an in-line train to train collision.
Demonstration of compliance with performance
standards generally requires detailed computer
simulation or destructive testing. The principal
advantages of performance standards are that they
require fewer assumptions on the design approaches or
details of the equipment and that required performance
is more closely related to the desired performance
under collision conditions.
Computers and computer-aided engineering tools
allow accurate simulation of rail equipment
crashworthiness, and have minimized the need for
relatively expensive destructive tests. Such tools have
also increased the utility of those destructive tests, by
allowing extrapolation of the test results to a wide
range of conditions. By being relatively inexpensive
and accurate, these tools have allowed adoption of
crashworthiness performance standards for rail
equipment. Activities to develop and refine
crashworthiness standards for rail equipment have
resulted in new performance standards, as well as in
refinement of existing design standards.
1.1 Background
Organizations in the U.S. that participate in the
development of rail equipment crashworthiness
regulations, standards, and recommended practices
include the federal government, industry organizations,
labor unions, and passenger organizations. The FRA
represents the federal government, along with the
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). The
Association of American Railroads (AAR) represents
the interests of the freight railroad operators, while the
American Public Transportation Association (APTA)
represents the interests of the passenger railroad
operators. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers,
the Brotherhood of Railway Carmen, the United
Transportation Union, and the Transportation Workers
Union of America, represent the operators and train
crewmembers. Other organizations that also
participate include the Railway Progress Institute, an
organization representing the equipment
manufacturers, the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, and the
National Association of Railroad Passengers.
The FRA regulates the rail industry in order to assure
safe operation. The FRA has jurisdiction over rail
operations on the general system of railroad
transportation. (The Federal Transit Administration
has the safety oversight of rapid transit operations on
dedicated track in urban areas.) The regulations
promulgated by the FRA have the force of law, and
include crashworthiness regulations for freight and
passenger rail equipment. The FRA regulates all
aspects of railroad safety, including operations, track,
and equipment. Equipment safety includes brake
performance, vehicle trackworthiness, and other
aspects as well as crashworthiness.
In the rail freight industry, the AAR publishes a
manual of standards and recommended practices [2],
and in the rail passenger industry, the APTA publishes
a manual [3]; both manuals address equipment
crashworthiness. These standards and recommended
practices principally address safety, but they also
address other aspects of railroad operation, such as
interchange. In general, the industry standards and
recommended practices are intended to compliment
the federal regulations, to provide an even greater level
of safety. Compliance with industry standards is
voluntary, however, compliance is understood to be
nearly universal.
1.2 Recent Standards Development
In recent years, the FRA, APTA and AAR have led
efforts to develop crashworthiness regulations,
standards and recommended practices. On May 12,
1999, the FRA published passenger equipment safety
standards in the Federal Register [4]. In July 1999,
APTA published its manual of standards and
recommended practices [3]. Currently, the FRA is
working with the AAR and APTA to develop
recommendations for crashworthiness requirements for
both freight and passenger locomotives [5, 6]. The
FRA regulations and APTA Manual cover other
aspects of rail passenger equipment safety, such as fire
safety, in addition to crashworthiness. These
organizations have also been active in other areas of
railroad safety., for example, the safe implementation
of positive train control.
In 1994 the FRA worked with Amtrak to develop the
safety-related specifications for Amtrak’s high-speed
trainset, including the crashworthiness specifications.
These crashworthiness specifications included
performance requirements for energy absorbing crush
zones in the locomotives and coach cars. This
specification later became the basis for the
crashworthiness regulations that apply to passenger
equipment used at speeds greater than 125 mph, issued
on May 12 1999 [4].
On June 7, 1995, with a mandate from Congress [7],
the FRA convened a working group to draft passenger
equipment regulations. This group included
participants from the railroads, the unions, the rail
equipment suppliers, as well as the NTSB. An
advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM)
was published in the Federal Register on June 17, 1996
[8]. This ANPRM articulated the areas that the FRA
intended to address in its final rule. These issues
included fire safety, emergency egress, brake
performance, and equipment crashworthiness. A
notice of proposed rulemaking was published on
March 19, 1997 [9]. This notice included a draft of the
final rule. The final rule was published on May 12,
1999 [4].
In 1998, APTA organized the Passenger Rail
Equipment Safety Standards (PRESS) Committee to
develop its manual of standards and recommended
practices. This group included participants from the
railroads, the unions, and the rail equipment suppliers.
This committee includes four subcommittees: the
Electrical Subcommittee, the Passenger Systems
Subcommittee, the Mechanical Subcommittee, and the
Construction/Structural Subcommittee. The
Construction/Structural Subcommittee is responsible
for developing crashworthiness standards and
recommended practices. The APTA/PRESS Manual
of Standards and Recommended Practices was first
published in July 1999 [3]. The construction/structural
standards were revised and consolidated on January
11, 2000 [10]. The committee continues to meet
yearly, and the Construction/Structural Subcommittee
continues to meet quarterly.
The FRA organized the Railway Safety Advisory
Committee (RSAC) in 1996 with the purpose of
developing recommended solutions to safety issues for
the rail industry. The RSAC is a government/industry
committee that includes all segments of the rail
community – the railroads, the suppliers, and the
unions. The Locomotive Crashworthiness Working
Group was formed in 1998 and is currently developing
recommendations on locomotive crashworthiness. The
Working Group is currently considering alternative
means of specifying crashworthiness: with design
loads and with descriptions of performance under
impact conditions. The Working Group has not yet
finalized its recommendations, which will address both
passenger and freight locomotives.
1.3 Role of Research in Developing
Crashworthiness Standards
In the late 1980’s high-speed passenger train service,
with train speeds up to 320 kph (200 mph), was
proposed (and subsequently cancelled) for Texas on a
triangular route with San Antonio, Houston, and
Dallas/Fort Worth at the corners. In the early 1990’s
Amtrak demonstrated the German ICE and Swedish
X200 in the Northeast Corridor. In 1989, in response
to growing interest in high-speed passenger rail, the
Federal Railroad Administration initiated a program of
research into the safety aspects of high-speed
passenger train systems. Collision safety – the
balancing of collision avoidance measures of the
system with the crashworthiness features of the train –
was part of this program of research. One of the first
results of this research was a risk-based approach for
assessing collision safety [11]. This approach was
used in the development of the crashworthiness
specifications for Amtrak’s high-speed trainset, which
is now in service in the Northeast Corridor. Additional
studies of alternative crashworthiness approaches and
occupant protection measures were also carried out to
support the development of the high-speed trainset
crashworthiness specifications [12, 13, 14].
The scope of the crashworthiness research was later
broadened to include inter-city and commuter rail
passenger trains operated at speeds less than 200 kph
(125 mph). In 1996, a Rail Equipment
Crashworthiness Symposium was held at the Volpe
Center, with sessions on collision risk, structural
crashworthiness, and occupant protection. Researchers
from England and France made presentations, as did
researchers from the U.S. [15]. This Symposium was
held to support the development of the FRA passenger
equipment safety standards. A number of other studies
on occupant protection [16] and structural
crashworthiness [17] were also carried out in support
of this rulemaking effort.
The results of the FRA’s research on rail equipment
crashworthiness were made available to APTA for
development of its Manual of Standards and
Recommended Practices, by allowing ex officio
representation of the FRA and Volpe Center on APTA
Passenger Rail Equipment Safety Standard (PRESS)
Construction/Structural Subcommittee and by
conducting several studies requested by APTA.
Ongoing studies include cost/benefit analysis of
alternative structural crashworthiness strategies and
sled tests of commuter rail passenger seats.
As part of this research simulation models of
locomotive collisions were developed and exercised.
The results of that effort provided technical
information for a report to Congress on locomotive cab
safety and working conditions [18], published in 1996.
The information developed for the report to Congress,
as well as the results of efforts conducted specifically
to support the RSAC Locomotive Crashworthiness
Working Group [5, 19, 20], have been used by the
Working Group to draft recommendations [6].
Research studies on passenger equipment
crashworthiness are being carried out to develop the
base of information required for the next phase of
rulemaking. Ongoing research into rail equipment
crashworthiness ranges from field investigations of the
causes of occupant injury and fatality in train
accidents, to full-scale testing of existing and modified
designs under conditions intended to approximate
accident conditions [21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26], to
investigations of the fundamental mechanics of
structural crush.
2 OVERVIEW OF PASSENGER EQUIPMENT
REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
This section includes an overview of current federal
passenger equipment regulations and industry
standards and recommended practices for passenger
rail equipment crashworthiness, with discussions on
selected regulations, standards and recommended
practices. For application of the regulations,
standards, and recommended practices, careful review
of the actual regulations, standards, and recommended
practices is advised. It is within the purview of the
FRA Office of Safety Assurance and Compliance to
resolve any issues related to the application of federal
regulations, and the responsibility of APTA Member
Services Department to resolve any issued related to
the APTA standards and recommended practices.
2.1 Design Standards
Design standards typically call for a particular
structure to support a specified static load either
without permanent deformation or without failure.
Compliance with design standards can be generally
accomplished through structural analysis techniques
such as elastic beam analysis, elastic buckling analysis,
and limit-load analysis. Geometrically complex
structures, which are difficult to analyze with classical
analysis techniques, may require non-destructive tests
in order to demonstrate compliance. Elastic finite-
element analysis techniques may also be used to
demonstrate compliance.
The principal design standard for rail equipment
crashworthiness is the federal static end strength
regulation, 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §
238.203 [4]. A passenger rail car structure must be
able to support a longitudinal static compressive load
of 3.56 MN (800 kips) applied at the buff stops
without permanent deformation. Figure 1
schematically illustrates the application of such a load
to a single-level passenger coach car. This design
standard is intended to assure a least a minimum
strength of the occupied volume of the car.
Compliance with this regulation is typically
demonstrated by a non-destructive test or by a linear-
elastic finite-element analysis. For passenger
equipment without crush-zones, the APTA Standard
SS-C&S-034-99 adds a requirements for an end-
compression load of 2.22 MN (500 kips) applied at the
extreme ends of the car, vertically centered on the
underframe [10]. Since the buff load is not applied at
the extreme ends of the car, but instead about 1.8 m
(six feet) inboard at the buff stops, it is possible to
design a car with end structures which crush in a
controlled fashion and meet the static end strength
requirement.
The static end strength requirement is based on
longstanding practice, and originated in specifications
for U.S. Railway Postal Office (RPO) cars [27, 28] in
the 1940’s. Numbers of earlier RPO cars, which were
built to lower static end strength requirements, were
crushed in train collisions. These cars were placed in
freight trains, often with many trailing freight cars,
with postal workers on board sorting the mail to be left
at the various train stops. During a collision
substantial compressive loads would be applied to such
cars. For cars not built to the 800 kip static end
strength requirement, the results could be catastrophic,
with structural collapse of the cars and many postal
workers killed [27]. The introduction of cars that met
the static end strength requirement effectively
eliminated this type of complete structural collapse.
In addition to the static end strength requirement,
there are also federal regulations and industry
standards for the strength of the end structure, the
strength of the truck attachment, the strength of
interior equipment attachment, the strength of exterior
equipment attachment, and the strength of the anti-
climber arrangement. These structural
crashworthiness requirements all implicitly rely on the
main structure strength prescribed by the static end
strength requirement. The FRA regulations and APTA
standards both require that a static load be supported
Fig. 1 Schematic drawing of static end strength load applied to a single-level passenger coach car
Fig. 2 Schematic drawing of collision post loads for
cab ends of locomotives, cab cars, multiple-unit
cars
by the corresponding structure without permanent
deformation or without failure. Generally, the APTA
standards specify more load cases than the
corresponding FRA requirements.
Figure 2 shows a schematic of the federal collision
post load regulation, 49 CFR § 238.211, for the cab
ends of locomotives, cab cars, and self-powered
multiple-unit cars. Collision posts at the lead end of
such equipment must be able to support a 2.22 MN
(500 kip) longitudinal force at the top of the
underframe, and a 890 kN (200 kip) longitudinal force
762 mm (30 inches) above the top of the underframe,
without failure [4]. Compliance with this regulation is
typically demonstrated with closed-form limit-load
analysis, assuming that the post is fixed at the base and
pinned at the roof. The APTA standard also requires
that the post be able to support these loads when
oriented 15 degrees from the longitudinal, as well as a
167 kN (60 kip) load at any height, oriented within 15
degrees of longitudinal.
2.2 Performance Standards
Demonstration of compliance with performance
standards generally requires either detailed numerical
simulation or destructive testing. Evaluation
techniques – both numerical simulation and destructive
testing techniques – are available for evaluating car
crush under prescribed conditions, behavior of the
entire train during a collision, and the response of
occupants inside the train. These evaluation
techniques are illustrated in Figure 3. The principal
objectives of the car crush evaluation are to determine
the load required to crush the car (i.e., the force/crush
characteristic) and the mode of crush (i.e., the
changing geometry of the structure as it crushes.) The
principal objectives of the train collision dynamics
evaluation are to determine the distribution of the
crush among the cars in the train, and to determine the
trajectories of the cars during the collision, including
the decelerations of the occupied areas. The principal
objective of the evaluation of the occupant response is
to determine if the forces and decelerations imparted to
the occupants remain within survivable levels.
Car crush can be analyzed using closed-form limit-
load analysis for relatively simple geometries and
loading conditions; more complex geometries and
loading conditions require detailed elastic-plastic
Fig. 3 Illustration of evaluation techniques for demonstrating compliance with performance requirements
large-deformation finite element analysis [6, 19]. Car
crush can be destructively tested either in full-scale or
subscale using substructure components as test
specimens [29], or entire cars [21]. If subscale or
substructure testing is done, analyses can be used to
extend the test results to full-scale or the entire
structure. Figure 3 shows a detailed finite element
analysis of a passenger car impacting a fixed barrier.
The principal results of the car crush evaluation – the
force crush characteristic and the mode of crush -- are
used to develop the train collision dynamics analysis.
Train collision dynamics can be analyzed using
lump-mass parameter models, with non-linear force
characteristics developed from crush analysis of the
cars [14, 18, 20, 26]. Such models may be one-
dimensional, planar, or three-dimensional, depending
upon the details of the equipment and collision
condition being analyzed. Analyses based on
conservation of momenta and conservation of energy
can also provide useful information on the trajectories
and crush of the equipment during a collision. Train
collision dynamics can also be tested in full-scale [21,
24] and subscale [30]. Figure 3 shows a three-
dimensional lumped-parameter model of a passenger
train impacting a fixed barrier. The barrier has been
removed from the figure to show the behavior of the
train. Results of train collision dynamics evaluations
include loss of occupant volume, which can be used to
estimate the number of fatalities. Results also include
decelerations of the occupant volumes, which is used
in test and analysis of occupant dynamics.
Occupant dynamics can be evaluated using lumped-
parameter models, with non-linear characteristics to
represent the behavior of human joints under impact
conditions [12]. A relatively simple one-dimensional
model can also be used to evaluate the potential for
head injury due to impact with a compliant surface
[14]. Dynamic sled tests of interior configurations,
with instrumented test dummies to measure the forces
and decelerations that would be imparted to occupants
can also be used to evaluate occupant dynamics [16].
Interior configurations with test dummies can also be
used as part of the full-scale tests of rail cars and trains
[22, 25]. Figure 3 shows a photograph from a sled test
of rows of commuter passenger seats. Results of
occupant dynamics evaluations include the forces and
decelerations that would be experienced by occupants
under the conditions analyzed or tested. The
likelihood of injury and fatality can be estimated from
the forces and decelerations experienced by the
occupants [13, 14].
For passenger equipment operated at speeds below
200 kph (125 mph), performance standards include
49CFR § 238.201 Scope/alternative compliance,
49CFR §238.203 Static end strength (grandfathering),
and 49 CFR § 238.211 (c) Collision Posts (exemption
for articulated equipment), and 49CFR§ 238.233
Interior fittings and surfaces [4]. The first three
regulations only apply to equipment that does not
comply with one or more of the design regulations.
Alternative compliance allows for exception to all of
the design regulations except buff strength, if an
equivalent level of safety to equipment compliant with
the design regulations can be shown. The
grandfathering provision allows equipment that is not
compliant with the 3.56 MN (800 kip) static end
strength requirement to remain in service, if it was in
operation when the rule became effective and if it can
be shown that such service “is in the public interest
and consistent with railroad safety.” Articulated
equipment may be exempted from the collision post
design requirements if it can be shown “that the
articulated connection is capable of preventing
disengagement and telescoping to the same extent as
equipment satisfying the anti-climbing and collision
post” design requirements. The APTA recommended
practices SS-C&S-034-99 Section 7.0 Analysis and
SS-C&S-034-99 Section 8.0 Tests [10] provide
guidance on approaches that may be used to show
compliance with the performance requirements. The
regulation for interior fittings and surfaces apply to
essentially all passenger equipment operated at speeds
less than 200 kph (125 mph). This regulation requires
that the seats remain attached when an interior seating
arrangement with test dummies is decelerated with a
prescribed crash pulse. The APTA standard SS-C&S-
016-99, Standard for Seating in Commuter Rail Cars,
adds requirements that the human injury criteria for
such a situation remain within survivable levels [3].
For passenger equipment operated at speeds greater
than 200 kph (125 mph), performance standards
include 49CFR § 238.403 Crash energy management,
and 49 CFR § 238.435 Interior fittings and surfaces
[4]. These regulations apply to all equipment operated
above 200 kph (125 mph). The crash energy
management regulation requires, where practical, that
the unoccupied sections of the train be designed to
collapse in a controlled fashion. The train must be
capable of absorbing 13 MJ of energy, with the leading
end of the locomotive capable of absorbing 5 MJ, the
trailing end of the locomotive capable of absorbing 3
MJ, and the leading end of the first passenger car
behind the locomotive capable of absorbing 5 MJ. The
deceleration of the passenger cars must not exceed 8
G’s for a 48 kph (30 mph) head-on collision with an
identical train, when the crash pulse is filtered with a
50 Hz low-pass filter. The crash energy management
regulation is illustrated schematically in Figure 4. The
APTA PRESS Manual includes SS-C&S-034-99
Section 6.0 Crash Energy Management Recommended
Practice [10]. This recommended practice does not
prescribe crashworthiness performance, but rather
outlines a general approach for developing crash
energy management equipment.
Fig. 4 Schematic illustration of crash energy
management requirements for high-speed
passenger trains
3 SUMMARY
Specifications for crashworthiness can be either design
standards or performance standards. Design standards
prescribe requirements under some intermediate
condition, not necessarily directly related to the
conditions expected in a collision, while performance
standards attempt to prescribe desired performance
under conditions closely related to the conditions
expected in a collision. Compliance with design
standards can be verified with relatively simple closed-
form calculations or non-destructive tests. Compliance
with performance standards typically requires detailed
numerical simulation, destructive tests or some
combination. The principal advantages of
performance requirements is that they require fewer
assumptions on the design approaches or details of the
equipment and that required performance is more
closely related to the desired performance under
collision conditions.
Modern computers and computer-aided engineering
tools allow accurate simulation of rail equipment
crashworthiness, and have minimized the need for
relatively expensive destructive tests. Passenger
equipment regulations and industry standards have
recently been introduced; these regulations, standards,
and recommended practices contain performance
requirements as well as enhancements to previously
existing design requirements. The RSAC Locomotive
Crashworthiness Working Group is currently
considering alternative means of specifying
crashworthiness, including specifying equipment
performance under prescribed impact conditions.
Specifying crashworthiness with performance under
impact conditions is also likely to be considered in the
next phase of passenger equipment rulemaking by the
FRA.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to thank Dr. Tom Tsai, Program
Manager, and Ms. Claire Orth, Division Chief,
Equipment and Operating Practices Research Division,
Office of Research and Development, Federal Railroad
Administration, for their support. The author would
also like to thank Mr. Grady Cothen, Deputy Associate
Administrator for Safety Standards and Program
Development, Federal Railroad Administration, for his
efforts to coordinate the regulations and standards
development with the crashworthiness research.
Finally, the author would like to thank Ms. Kristine
Severson, Senior Engineer, Volpe Center, Mr. Eloy
Martinez, Senior Engineer, Volpe Center, and
Professor A. Benjamin Perlman, Tufts University, for
reviewing this paper.
REFERENCES
1 Tyrell, D., “Rail Passenger Equipment Accidents and the
Evaluation of Crashworthiness Strategies”, Institute of
Mechanical Engineers, May 2001.
2 Association of American Railroads, Technical Services
Division, Mechanical Section - Manual of Standards and
Recommended Practices, “Locomotive Crashworthiness
Requirements, Standard S-580,” Adopted: 1989, Revised,
1994.
3 American Public Transportation Association, Member
Services Department, Manual of Standards and
Recommended Practices for Passenger Rail Equipment, Issue
of July 1, 1999.
4 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad
Administration, “49 CFR Part 216 et al., Passenger
Equipment Safety Standards; Final Rule,” Federal Register,
May 12, 1999.
5 Tyrell, D., Severson, K., Marquis, B., Martinez, E.,
Mayville, R., Rancatore, R., Stringfellow, R., Hammand,
R., Perlman, A.B., 1999, “Locomotive Crashworthiness
Design Modifications Study,” Proceedings of the 1999
IEEE/ASME Joint Railroad Conference, April 13-15, 1999,
IEEE Catalog Number 99CH36340, ASME RTD Volume 16.
6 Martinez, E., Tyrell, D., “Alternative Analyses of
Locomotive Structural Designs for Crashworthiness,”
presented at the 2000 International Mechanical Engineering
Congress and Exposition, November 6, 2000, Orlando,
Florida.
7 49 United States Code 20133, Swift Rail Development Act,
November 2, 1994.
8 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad
Administration, “49 CFR Parts 223, 229, 232, and 238
Passenger Equipment Safety Standards; Proposed Rule,”
Federal Register, June 17, 1996
9 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad
Administration, “49 CFR Part 216 et al., Passenger
Equipment Safety Standards; Proposed Rule,” Federal
Register, September 23, 1997.
10 American Public Transportation Association, Member
Services Department, APTA SS-C&S-034-99 Standard for
the Design and Construction of Passenger Railroad Rolling
Stock, Authorized January 11, 2000.
11 Bing, A., 1993, "Collision Avoidance and Accident
Survivability, Volume 4: Proposed Specifications"
DOT/FRA/ORD-93-02.IV, FRA, U.S. Department of
Transportation.
12 Tyrell, D.C., Severson, K.J., Marquis, B.J., 1995,
"Analysis of Occupant Protection Strategies in Train
Collisions," ASME International Mechanical Engineering
Congress and Exposition, AMD-Vol. 210, BED-Vol. 30, pp.
539-557.
13 Tyrell, D.C., Severson, K.J., Marquis, B.J., 1995, "Train
Crashworthiness Design for Occupant Survivability," ASME
International Mechanical Engineering Congress and
Exposition, AMD-Vol. 210, BED-Vol. 30, pp. 59-74.
14 Tyrell, D.C., Severson, K.J., Marquis, B.J.,1998,
“Crashworthiness of Passenger Trains”, U.S. Department of
Transportation, DOT/FRA/ORD-97/10.
15 Tyrell, D.C., Rubin, A., editors, 1998, “Proceedings of the
Symposium on Rail Vehicle Crashworthiness, June 1996”,
U.S. Department of Transportation, DOT/FRA/ORD-97/08.
16 Tyrell, D., Severson, K.J., “Crashworthiness Testing of
Amtrak’s Traditional Coach Seat”, U.S. Department of
Transportation, DOT/FRA/ORD-96/08, October 1996.
17 Tyrell, D.C., Severson, K.J., Mayville, R.A., Stringfellow,
R.G., Berry, S., Perlman, A.B., 1997, "Evaluation of Cab
Car Crashworthiness Design Modifications," Proceedings of
the 1997 IEEE/ ASME Joint Railroad Conference, IEEE
Catalog Number 97CH36047.
18 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad
Administration, “Locomotive Crashworthiness and Cab
Working Conditions Report to Congress”, Office of Safety
Assurance and Compliance, 1996.
19 Tyrell, D.C., Martinez, E.E., Wierzbicki, T.,
“Crashworthiness Studies of Locomotive Wide Nose Short
Hood Designs,” Crashworthiness, Occupant Protection and
Biomechanics in Transportation Systems, American Society
of Mechanical Engineers, AMD Vol. 237/BED Vol. 45, 1999.
20 Tyrell, D., Severson, K., Marquis, B., Perlman, A.B.,
“Simulation of an Oblique Collision of a Locomotive and an
Intermodal Container,” Crashworthiness, Occupant Protection
and Biomechanics in Transportation Systems, American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, AMD Vol. 237/BED Vol.
45, 1999.
21 Tyrell, D., Severson, K., Perlman, A.B., March, 2000,
“Single Passenger Rail Car Impact Test Volume I: Overview
and Selected Results,” U.S. Department of Transportation,
DOT/FRA/ORD-00/02.1.
22 VanIngen-Dunn, C., March 2000, “Single Passenger Rail
Car Impact Test Volume II: Summary of Occupant Protection
Program,” U.S. Department of Transportation,
DOT/FRA/ORD-00/02.2.
23 Tyrell, D., Severson, K., Perlman, A.B., Brickle, B.,
VanIngen-Dunn, C., “Rail Passenger Equipment
Crashworthiness Testing Requirements and Implementation,”
presented at the 2000 International Mechanical Engineering
Congress and Exposition, November 6, 2000, Orlando,
Florida.
24 Severson, K., Tyrell, D., Perlman, A.B., “Rail Passenger
Equipment Collision Tests: Analysis of Structural
Measurements,” presented at the 2000 International
Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, November
6, 2000, Orlando, Florida.
25 Tyrell, D., Zolock, J., VanIngen-Dunn, C., “Rail Passenger
Equipment Collision Tests: Analysis of Occupant Protection
Measurements,” presented at the 2000 International
Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, November
6, 2000, Orlando, Florida.
26 Severson, K., “Development of Collision Dynamics Models
to Estimate the Results of Full-scale Rail Vehicle Impact
Tests,” Tufts University Master’s Thesis, November 2000.
27 White, J.H., Jr., “The American Railroad Passenger Car,”
The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978.
28 Woodbury, C.A., 3rd, “North American Passenger
Equipment Crashworthiness: Past, Present, and Future,” in
“Rail Vehicle Crashworthiness Symposium,”
DOT/FRA/ORD-97/08, 1998.
29 Mayville, R.A., Hammond, R.P., Johnson, K.N., 1999,
“Static and Dynamic Crush Testing and Analysis of a Rail
Vehicle Corner Structural Element,” Proceedings of the 8th
ASME Symposium on Crashworthiness, Occupant Protection
and Biomechanics in Transportation November 14-19, 1999;
Nashville, Tennessee.
30 Holmes, B.S. and Colton, J.D., “Application of Scale
Modeling Techniques to Crashworthiness Research,” Kenneth
J. Saczalski, et al. Editors, Aircraft Crashworthiness,
Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia, 1975.
