替代铁路客运设备耐撞性策略的有效性

K. Jacobsen, K. Severson, B. Perlman
{"title":"替代铁路客运设备耐撞性策略的有效性","authors":"K. Jacobsen, K. Severson, B. Perlman","doi":"10.1115/JRC2006-94043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Crashworthiness strategies, which include crash energy management (CEM), pushback couplers, and push/pull operation, are evaluated and compared under specific collision conditions. Comparisons of three strategies are evaluated in this paper: push versus pull operation (cab car led versus locomotive led consists); conventional versus CEM consists; and incremental CEM versus full-CEM. Rail cars that incorporate CEM are designed to absorb collision energy through crushing of unoccupied structures within the car. Pushback couplers are designed to recede into the draft sill under collision loads and enable the car ends to come into contact, minimizing the likelihood of lateral buckling. Push/pull operation refers to operating either a locomotive (pull mode) or a cab car (push mode) at the leading end of the train. Five cases using combinations of these three strategies are evaluated. The basic collision scenario for each case analyzed in this paper is a train-to-train collision between like trains. Each train has a locomotive, four coach cars, and a cab car. The impact velocity ranges from 10 to 40 mph. The following five cases are evaluated: (1) all conventional cars with a cab car leading (baseline case); (2) all conventional cars with a locomotive leading; (3) conventional coach cars with pushback couplers, with CEM cab car leading; (4) all CEM cars with a cab car leading: (5) all CEM cars with a locomotive leading. A one-dimensional lumped-mass collision dynamics model is used to evaluate the effectiveness of each strategy, or combination of strategies, in terms of preserving survivable space for occupants and minimizing secondary impact velocity (SIV). Test data is used to correlate SIV with head, chest, and neck injury. Probability of serious injuries and fatalities are calculated based on calculated car crush and injury values. The maximum crashworthy speed, or the maximum impact speed at which everyone is expected to survive, is calculated for each case. Of the five cases evaluated, the scenario of a cab car led conventional consist represents the baseline level of crashworthiness. The highest levels of crashworthiness are achieved by a consist of all CEM cars with a locomotive leading, followed by all CEM cars with a cab car leading. The results indicate that incremental improvements in collision safety can be made by judiciously applying different combinations of these crashworthiness strategies. A CEM cab car leading conventional cars that are modified with pushback couplers enhances the level of crashworthiness over a conventional cab car led consist and provides a level of crashworthiness equal to a locomotive leading conventional passenger cars","PeriodicalId":292357,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE/ASME Joint Rail Conference","volume":"133 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectiveness of alternative rail passenger equipment crashworthiness strategies\",\"authors\":\"K. Jacobsen, K. Severson, B. Perlman\",\"doi\":\"10.1115/JRC2006-94043\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Crashworthiness strategies, which include crash energy management (CEM), pushback couplers, and push/pull operation, are evaluated and compared under specific collision conditions. Comparisons of three strategies are evaluated in this paper: push versus pull operation (cab car led versus locomotive led consists); conventional versus CEM consists; and incremental CEM versus full-CEM. Rail cars that incorporate CEM are designed to absorb collision energy through crushing of unoccupied structures within the car. Pushback couplers are designed to recede into the draft sill under collision loads and enable the car ends to come into contact, minimizing the likelihood of lateral buckling. Push/pull operation refers to operating either a locomotive (pull mode) or a cab car (push mode) at the leading end of the train. Five cases using combinations of these three strategies are evaluated. The basic collision scenario for each case analyzed in this paper is a train-to-train collision between like trains. Each train has a locomotive, four coach cars, and a cab car. The impact velocity ranges from 10 to 40 mph. The following five cases are evaluated: (1) all conventional cars with a cab car leading (baseline case); (2) all conventional cars with a locomotive leading; (3) conventional coach cars with pushback couplers, with CEM cab car leading; (4) all CEM cars with a cab car leading: (5) all CEM cars with a locomotive leading. A one-dimensional lumped-mass collision dynamics model is used to evaluate the effectiveness of each strategy, or combination of strategies, in terms of preserving survivable space for occupants and minimizing secondary impact velocity (SIV). Test data is used to correlate SIV with head, chest, and neck injury. Probability of serious injuries and fatalities are calculated based on calculated car crush and injury values. The maximum crashworthy speed, or the maximum impact speed at which everyone is expected to survive, is calculated for each case. Of the five cases evaluated, the scenario of a cab car led conventional consist represents the baseline level of crashworthiness. The highest levels of crashworthiness are achieved by a consist of all CEM cars with a locomotive leading, followed by all CEM cars with a cab car leading. The results indicate that incremental improvements in collision safety can be made by judiciously applying different combinations of these crashworthiness strategies. A CEM cab car leading conventional cars that are modified with pushback couplers enhances the level of crashworthiness over a conventional cab car led consist and provides a level of crashworthiness equal to a locomotive leading conventional passenger cars\",\"PeriodicalId\":292357,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE/ASME Joint Rail Conference\",\"volume\":\"133 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-04-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE/ASME Joint Rail Conference\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1115/JRC2006-94043\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE/ASME Joint Rail Conference","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1115/JRC2006-94043","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 11

摘要

在特定的碰撞条件下,对包括碰撞能量管理(CEM)、推回耦合器和推/拉操作在内的耐撞性策略进行了评估和比较。本文对三种策略进行了比较:推拉操作(出租车主导与机车主导);常规与CEM包括;渐进式CEM和全CEM。采用CEM的轨道车辆旨在通过粉碎车厢内的空结构来吸收碰撞能量。推回耦合器的设计目的是在碰撞载荷下退回到吃水区,使汽车两端能够接触,最大限度地减少侧向屈曲的可能性。推/拉操作是指在列车前端操作机车(拉式)或驾驶室(推式)。评估了使用这三种策略组合的五个案例。本文分析的每个案例的基本碰撞场景都是类似列车之间的列车碰撞。每列火车有一个火车头,四个客车车厢和一个出租车车厢。撞击速度在每小时10到40英里之间。评估了以下五种情况:(1)所有传统汽车都有出租车领先(基线情况);(2)所有有机车牵引的常规车厢;(3)常规客车带推挤式耦合器,以CEM驾驶室为主;(4)所有以出租汽车为首的澳电汽车;(5)所有以机车为首的澳电汽车。采用一维集总质量碰撞动力学模型来评估每种策略或策略组合在为乘员保留生存空间和最小化二次碰撞速度(SIV)方面的有效性。测试数据用于将SIV与头部、胸部和颈部损伤联系起来。严重伤害和死亡的概率是根据计算出的汽车碰撞和伤害值来计算的。在每种情况下,都会计算出最大可碰撞速度,或者每个人都能存活的最大撞击速度。在评估的五个案例中,出租车主导的传统组件的场景代表了耐撞性的基线水平。最高水平的耐撞性是由所有CEM汽车组成的,机车领先,其次是所有CEM汽车,出租车领先。结果表明,通过明智地应用这些耐撞策略的不同组合,可以逐步提高碰撞安全性。CEM驾驶室的抗撞性比传统驾驶室的抗撞性高,其抗撞性与机车的抗撞性相当
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Effectiveness of alternative rail passenger equipment crashworthiness strategies
Crashworthiness strategies, which include crash energy management (CEM), pushback couplers, and push/pull operation, are evaluated and compared under specific collision conditions. Comparisons of three strategies are evaluated in this paper: push versus pull operation (cab car led versus locomotive led consists); conventional versus CEM consists; and incremental CEM versus full-CEM. Rail cars that incorporate CEM are designed to absorb collision energy through crushing of unoccupied structures within the car. Pushback couplers are designed to recede into the draft sill under collision loads and enable the car ends to come into contact, minimizing the likelihood of lateral buckling. Push/pull operation refers to operating either a locomotive (pull mode) or a cab car (push mode) at the leading end of the train. Five cases using combinations of these three strategies are evaluated. The basic collision scenario for each case analyzed in this paper is a train-to-train collision between like trains. Each train has a locomotive, four coach cars, and a cab car. The impact velocity ranges from 10 to 40 mph. The following five cases are evaluated: (1) all conventional cars with a cab car leading (baseline case); (2) all conventional cars with a locomotive leading; (3) conventional coach cars with pushback couplers, with CEM cab car leading; (4) all CEM cars with a cab car leading: (5) all CEM cars with a locomotive leading. A one-dimensional lumped-mass collision dynamics model is used to evaluate the effectiveness of each strategy, or combination of strategies, in terms of preserving survivable space for occupants and minimizing secondary impact velocity (SIV). Test data is used to correlate SIV with head, chest, and neck injury. Probability of serious injuries and fatalities are calculated based on calculated car crush and injury values. The maximum crashworthy speed, or the maximum impact speed at which everyone is expected to survive, is calculated for each case. Of the five cases evaluated, the scenario of a cab car led conventional consist represents the baseline level of crashworthiness. The highest levels of crashworthiness are achieved by a consist of all CEM cars with a locomotive leading, followed by all CEM cars with a cab car leading. The results indicate that incremental improvements in collision safety can be made by judiciously applying different combinations of these crashworthiness strategies. A CEM cab car leading conventional cars that are modified with pushback couplers enhances the level of crashworthiness over a conventional cab car led consist and provides a level of crashworthiness equal to a locomotive leading conventional passenger cars
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
An autonomous, low cost, distributed method for observing vehicle track interactions Simplified representation of rigging efficiency in brake force calculation Managing the gross weight on rail A computer vision system for monitoring the energy efficiency of intermodal trains Practical issues of system integration on the Taipei MRT System
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1