FP6-031-260 | Publishable Final Activity Report 1 | 14 Contract No. FP6 – 031260 SAFEINTERIORS Train Interior Passive Safety for Europe Specific Target Research Project (STREP) PRIORITY 6 Sustainable Development, Global Change and Ecosystems Sustainable Surface Transport Publishable Final Activity Report Period covered from 11.07.06 to 10.07.10 Date of preparation 01.08.10 Start date of the project 11.07.06 Duration 48 months Project coordinator name Roberto Palacin Project coordinator organisation name UNEW Revision Final
14
Embed
Publishable Final Activity Report - transport …transport-research.info/sites/default/files/project/documents/... · interoperability which aims at opening any railway network to
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
FP6-031-260 | Publishable Final Activity Report 1 | 14
Contract No. FP6 – 031260
SAFEINTERIORS
Train Interior Passive Safety for Europe
Specific Target Research Project (STREP)
PRIORITY 6
Sustainable Development, Global Change and Ecosystems
Sustainable Surface Transport
Publishable Final Activity Report
Period covered from 11.07.06 to 10.07.10 Date of preparation 01.08.10
Start date of the project 11.07.06 Duration 48 months
Project coordinator name Roberto Palacin
Project coordinator organisation name UNEW Revision Final
FP6-031-260 | Publishable Final Activity Report 2 | 14
Fig. 4. methodology included in the SafeInteriors “Tool Kit”
From this analysis a major conclusion is that transverse seating and fixed tables are
the main components for providing occupant containment, therefore optimising their
characteristics is the most effective approach for reducing injury severity.
In the design, testing and validation phases a number of case scenarios representative
of vehicle interior layouts were selected to demonstrate the procedures adopted in the
project. A systematic procedure for the evaluation of the vehicle interiors in terms of
its passive safety features was carried out and suitability of new test methods,
measuring tools and injury criteria for railway secondary impacts was assessed.
FP6-031-260 | Publishable Final Activity Report 8 | 14
Design scenario Investigation Results
Inline seating with
cantilever (application
in the project with more
serious injuries expected on the window side) or
conventional seats (more typical configuration).
Energy absorption with longitudinal
stiffness and fixing
strength.
Estimation of the
injury level.
Head and leg impacts, with neck injury.
Improvement by providing
energy absorption at the knee level and padding
located on the upper part of
the seat or with smoothed shapes.
Low back seating for
passenger vehicles other
than long distance trains (passengers travelling in
the opposite direction of
travel or in the case of a rear impact).
Evaluation of the
whiplash injury values
of seated passengers in relation to the seat
height and stiffness.
Reduction of the relative
motion between head and
thorax.
Improvement by increasing
the seat back height and a
padded seat back (back seat thickness and
stiffness).
Inline seating with
backrest tables representing one of the
major risks of
abdominal impact.
Evaluation of the
abdomen injury of seated passengers
according to the table
absorption, shape, size, and stiffness.
Estimation of the other injury criteria.
Improvement of the table
design (decrease of the length, smooth of the
edges, introduction of
hinges or deformation mechanisms) and the pitch
(distance between the seats).
Application of the
improvements of the previous inline seating
scenario with cantilever or
conventional seats.
Grab poles in standing
areas of metros, trams
and interurban trains.
Estimation of the potential for energy
absorption in relation
to stiffness and fixing strength.
Estimation of head
and/or chest injuries resulting from an
impact on the pole (or
specific studied object).
Improvement of the pole design (influence of the
diameter and the thickness
with respect to the stiffness and aggressiveness) with
the possibility of energy
absorption (friction, deformation).
Bay seating with fixed
table for passenger
vehicles mainly used on long distance trains and
regional traffic.
Evaluation of thorax
and abdomen injury of
seated passengers in relation to the table
absorption, shape,
size, and stiffness.
Estimation of the loss
of survival space and other injury criteria.
Improvement of the table
design resulting from an
enlarged impact surface (limitation of the impact
force and the
corresponding injuries) or
the reinforced sidewall
attachment (respect of the survival space of opposite
passengers) with the
application of possible controlled deformation.
Table 1. Summary of scenarios assessed by SafeInteriors and their main outcomes
FP6-031-260 | Publishable Final Activity Report 9 | 14
The project has used the Hybrid III „RS‟ ATD (Anthropomorphic Test Devices, i.e
test dummies), a rail specific ATD for testing of rail interiors previously developed by
RSSB. The RSSB ATD is uniquely adapted for rail vehicle occupant kinematics and
Injury mechanisms. SAFEINTERIORS delivered a numerical model of this device to
allow the cost effective development of Rail vehicle components.
SAFEINTERIORS has developed a family of validated models for the representative
layouts of the train interiors and a process for passive safety design and validation of
interior layouts.
The accident database, the tool kit to assess potential occupant injury levels in the rail
environment, the proposal of representative limited number of layout/scenarios and a
robust methodology for design and validation constitute the basis for a swift adoption
of passive safety technical requirements and implementation of the necessary
standards at European level.
The structure of the SAFEINTERIORS consortium, involving 7 countries, 3 railway
operators, the 3 leading train manufacturers in Europe and the Railway manufacturers
association, 2 test houses, 2 railway interior equipment providers, 3 universities and a
railway Safety Agency, has provided the right expertise in the development of the
research and the conditions for a quick market uptake of the results of the
SAFEINTERIORS project.
Main conclusions
The work performed by SAFEINTERIORS has produced very interesting results that
can be grouped into the following outcomes:
An accident database and structure providing a methodology for
standardisation of post-accident injury data collection;
A tool kit including a defined set of injury criteria with limits, test devices,
and test methods, to assess potential occupant injury levels in all
foreseeable rail applications;
A family of validated models for the representative vehicle interior layouts
as well as a process for passive safety design and validation of such
interior layouts.
The results of SAFEINTERIORS have been processed with a focus on delivering
valid and viable recommendations. Exhaustive details of these results and
recommendations can be found throughout the deliverables produced but especially
on D6.1 & D6.2. As a summary, the following recommendations can be made:
FP6-031-260 | Publishable Final Activity Report 10 | 14
Key target Main recommendation
Passenger containment Compartmentalisation and limitation of both global motion (impact velocity) and local motion (relative deformation and rotations).
Use of grabpoles, grabhandles or handholds (mainly for standing occupants).
survival space Stop any components or part of components from impacting occupants.
Control the interactions between occupants.
Allow enough space for easy egress from seats and doorways.
Fixings and containment
of features
Components and accessories must remain attached with an associated control of the deformation
during the collision (limitation to the material ultimate stress in dynamic conditions: no rupture or fracture surface).
Containment of features such as heavy luggage or unsecured objects must be ensured.
Aggressiveness of features Limit the effects of the shape of rigid objects or surfaces exposed to occupants during impact (with
sufficient radius, areas, thickness, soft material covering).
Limit the effects of the stiffness of rigid objects or surfaces exposed to occupants during impact
with energy absorption devices/materials or fuse/sliding/pushing/folding elements (care must be taken of kinematics modification).
Injury Criteria The reference injury criteria corresponds to the levels from moderate to severe of the general
population of 50th percentile adult rail passengers (based on the AIS1 classification system). The 6
year old child criteria based on geometrical scaling is also available.
interior improvements must aim at achieving results within the moderate thresholds of the AIS
scale where possible. Alternatively, results should not exceed the serious limit (AIS level 03).
The specific Head Injury Criterion (HICd) has to be applied for standing occupants.
Egress Ability Consideration of the folding tables, rotating armrest, survival space for seated or standing
occupants must be taken in order to facilitate egress.
Principe of the validation After the identification of the reference configurations (with the crash pulse and occupant
surroundings definition), tests and numerical simulations on well defined and calibrated arrangements and equipments are used to verify the previous assessment criteria.
For cost efficiency reason, it is recommended to limit the number of configurations tested for the
evaluation of the occupant protection; use of numerical simulations on validated models.
Design scenarios
The result of the current design practices, the accident analysis and the identification of the need
for improvement highlight that the transverse seating (in the travelling or opposite direction of the
train) and tables (fixed bay tables and backrest tables) are the main components for providing occupant containment, therefore optimising their characteristics is the most effective approach for
reducing injury severity. Additional areas to improve safety identified in the project correspond to
the impacts of the standing occupant (grab poles) and the similar approach for the limitation of components aggressiveness (stiffness and shape).
The selected scenarios are:
1. Inline seating with cantilever or conventional seats (forward impact):
Reduction of head and leg impacts, with neck injury.
Improvement by providing energy absorption at the knee level and padding located on the upper part of the seat or with smoothed shapes.
2. Low back seating (rear impact):
Reduction of the relative motion between head and thorax (whiplash).
1 AIS: Abbreviated Injury Scale. This classification was originally developed for the automotive sector: 01-minor/02-moderate/03-Serious/04-Severe/05-Critical/06-
potentially non-survivable
FP6-031-260 | Publishable Final Activity Report 11 | 14
Improvement by increasing the seat back height (minimum of 30 mm over de centre of gravity) and a padded seat back (Back Seat Thickness and Stiffness).
3. Inline seating with backrest tables:
Reduction of the abdomen injury
Table design improvements (decrease length, smoothing of the edges, introduction of hinges or deformation mechanisms) and pitch improvements (distance between seats),
with the issue of the abdomen criteria application in numerical simulations and tests.
4. Grab poles in standing areas:
Reduction of the head and/or the chest injuries resulting from an impact on the pole.
Pole design improvements (influence of the diameter and the thickness with respect to the stiffness and aggressiveness) with the possibility of energy absorption (friction,
deformation, …).
5. Bay seating with fixed table:
Reduction of the thorax and abdomen injury with respect of the survival space.
Improvement of the table resulting from an enlarged impact surface (limitation of injuries), with a width more than 50 mm; or the reinforced sidewall attachment (respect
of the survival space of opposite passengers), with the application of possible controlled deformation.
The number of design scenarios depend on the necessity of their consideration in a specific vehicle
interior design (defined with the project “tool kit”).
Crash Pulse The recommended values for deceleration and final speed are(inc. tolerances to limit their change):
Deceleration equal to minimum 5g, with a maximum of 6g
Final speed equal to minimum of 5m/s, with a maximum of 6m/s.
Occupant size/location
For the application of the assessment criteria in the reference design scenarios, the following main
principle shall be applied :
Use a 50%ile male occupant (75 kg) for the injury criteria assessment ;
Use a 95%ile male occupant (100 kg) for the survival space respect, fixings and
features strength, containment capacity and egress ability.
The aggressiveness of the features can be dealt with the use of the different range of population to
define the impact zones to verify and improve if necessary (adult from 5th%ile female to 95th%ile
male and child of 3 and 6 years old).
For a cantilever double seats, the study presents slightly higher injury level for the occupant seated
alone on the window side (not sensitive for other configurations).
For the standing occupant, the head impact on the grabpole corresponds to 1.75m from the floor (50th percentile, with a head angle at 24.5°).
Tests
The general Anthropomorphic Test Device (ATD) required for testing is the Hybrid III, with
specific application of hybrid III RID (Rear Impact Dummy) in the case of rear impact (low back seat) and Hybrid III RS in the case of lower chest or abdominal impact (backrest or fixed tables).
The sled tests used for seated occupant must represent the design scenarios, with the corresponding
number of dummies, seats (fully equipped with the representative pitch/gap) and components (tables, for instance) on the test rig under dynamic acceleration (the fixture is rigid and the layout
generally fixed on).
The ATD must be positioned for the tests in a precise, transferable, recordable, and reproducible
manner, to ensure test repeatability and allow a good validation between physical testing and
virtual modelling (project procedure).
Others recommendations on the measuring instruments calibration (with temperature effects), filtering, the connecting cabling interference, adjustment of the dummy joints, pre-test and post-
test elements have to be verified.
For the standing occupant, a gravity or drop rig can be used with a NHTSA Free- Motion Headform (FMH) of 4.55 kg (same dimensions as a 50th percentile human head). A particular
procedure must be applied to guide the headform almost until its impact (repeatability of the
impact position, velocity, angle) and for the free flight at the time of impact. This simple test can be extended to the assessment of the other equipments used in railway transportation.
FP6-031-260 | Publishable Final Activity Report 12 | 14
Numerical simulations
Existing commercial software such as ABAQUS, LSDYNA, MADYMO, PAMCRASH, RADIOSS are sufficiently reliable and provide results close to those of reality for biomechanical
simulations (with direct or indirect approach on MADYMO dummy use or not).
For the calibration of the numerical models, the reliability of the kinematics, impacts, components behaviour and injury criteria of the corresponding tests have to be verified (with the corresponding
initial positioning method).
The application of the dummies must take into account the sensitivity of management of multiple contacts creating sources of numerical error, the sensitivity of the frictions and contacts on the
kinematics, the numerical stability for the dummy positioning, …
For the impact of the standing occupant on the grab pole, the numerical model is equivalent to the NHTSA Free-Motion Headform, without necessary modification.
To carry out analysis of the bio-mechanical criteria with a user-friendly interface, the
biomechanical criteria analysis tool CIMBA (Criteria Injury Matrix for Biomechanical Analysis) of the project can be used under “Excel” format.
Accident database The methodology for collecting data and recommended datasets presented in the project can then
be used when reporting accidents (information sent already to the European Rail Agency).
PRM recommendations The recommendations on the protection of the Persons of Reduced Mobility (PRM) in relation to surrounding train furniture, has to consider the application of the current regulation for PRM
(mainly true for the larger clearways and free spaces required to ensure accessibility).
The priority seating with respect to the PRM TSI can be used to define the “Worst case” as the wider spacing which maximises the dummy head velocity in all testing and so increases the
possible injury levels.
The excursion of the passenger in a wheelchair has to be limited by:
Their back to the direction of travel: the back features have to limit both the neck
rotation over the back of the wheelchair and the severity of head impact.
Restrained system in case of forward facing: the abdominal injury risk must be limited
and the structure of the wheelchair must resist collapse under the restraining forces.
Table 2. Synthesis summary of SafeInteriors main recommendations
The SAFEINTERIORS findings show that transverse seating and fixed tables are the
main components for providing occupant containment, therefore optimising their
characteristics is the most effective approach for reducing injury severity.
It would seem that there are existing test devices available to measure all of the
recommended injury criteria. The direct consequence of this is that no new devices or
development of existing devices are needed, and there will be no device development
and efforts should be allocated to critique the available devices and develop the
testing methodologies for rail applications. For some injury criteria a number of test
devices are available to measure them, and it will be necessary to decide which tools
are the most appropriate.
ATD‟s are mainly suitable for sled tests which represent a single, well defined
accident scenario. For example, this could be a seated occupant, or one standing close
to an impact hazard such as a screen or pole.
SAFEINTERIORS has shown that standing passengers make up a significant
proportion of occupants on some types of service. In addition, train crew must stand
to carry out their duties. Injury assessment must therefore address both seated and
standing postures. The question of how to use ATD‟s in this situation is open. A few
ATD‟s can be positioned in a standing posture, but they are not necessarily the best
candidates if other features are considered. SAFEINTERIORS delivered a
methodology whereby this and similar issues could be resolved, it found that by
conducting a simple headform test, the case of standing occupants could be
adequately assessed.
FP6-031-260 | Publishable Final Activity Report 13 | 14
Consortium
The SafeInteriors consortium is formed by the following partners:
Project Partner Short name Country Type
Bombardier Transportation BT UK IND
Alstom Transport Alstom France IND
Association of Train Operating Companies ATOC UK ORG
University of Bolton Bolton UK UNI
Fundación para la Investigación y Desarrollo en
Automoción
CIDAUT Spain RES
Deutsche Bahn AG DB Germany IND
Grupo Antolin Transport GAT France SME
Institut National de Recherche sur les Transports et leur
Sécurité
INRETS France RES
Instituto Superior Técnico IST Portugal UNI
MIRA Ltd. MIRA UK RES
Rail Safety and Standards Board. RSSB UK ORG
Siemens AG Transportation Systems SIEMENS Germany IND
Société nationale des chemins de fer français (SNCF) SNCF France IND
The European Railway Industries (UNIFE) UNIFE Belgium ORG
VÚKV a.s. VUVK Czech
Republic
IND
Newcastle University UNEW UK UNI
Contact
For more information, please contact SafeInteriors Coordination: