Work is currently underway to develop strategies to protect rail passengers seated at workstation tables during a collision or derailment. Investigations have shown that during a collision, these tables can present a hostile secondary impact environment to the occupants. This effort includes the design, fabrication, and testing of an improved workstation table. The key criteria for the design of this table are that it must compartmentalize the occupants and reduce the risk of injury relative to currently installed tables. Strengthening the attachments between the table and the passenger car body will ensure compartmentalization. Employing energy-absorbing mechanisms to limit and distribute the load imparted on the abdomen of the occupant will reduce injury risk. This paper details the design requirements for an improved workstation table, which include service, fabrication, and occupant protection requirements. Service requirements define the geometry of the table, the performance of the table under normal service loads, and the maintenance of the table over the period of installation. Fabrication requirements define the limitations on material usage and construction costs. Occupant protection requirements define the ability of the table to reduce injury risk to the occupants under collision loads. The table must also conform to federal regulations pertaining to interior structures on passenger rail equipment. Four design concepts are evaluated against these design requirements. These concepts present different modes of deformation or displacement that absorb energy during impact. These concepts have been evaluated, and the highest-ranking concept involves a crushable foam or honeycomb table edge attached to a rigid center frame. Preliminary results from a computer simulation demonstrate the effectiveness of this concept in reducing the injury risk to the occupants.

Volume Subject Area:
Rail Transportation
Topics:
Crashworthiness, Design, Risk, Wounds, Collisions (Physics), Manufacturing, Stress, Rails, Automobiles, Computer simulation, Construction, Deformation, Displacement, Geometry, Honeycomb structures, Maintenance, Regulations, Testing
1.
Tyrcll, D.C., Severson, K.J., Marquis, B.J., “Crashworthiness of Passenger Trains,” U.S. Department of Transportation, DOT/FRA/ORD-97/10, 1998.
2.
Parent
D.
,
Tyrell
D.
,
Perlman
A. B.
, “
Crashworthiness Analysis of the Placentia, CA Rail Collision
,”
International Journal of Crashworthiness
, Volume
9
, Issue 5, pp.
527
–
534
, March 8,
2004
.
3.
National Transportation Safety Board, “Collision of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Freight Train With Metrolink Passenger Train, Placentia, California, April 23, 2002,” Railroad Accident Report NTSB/RAR-03-04, adopted on 10/7/2003.
4.
Jacobsen, K., Tyrell, D., Perlman, A.B., “Impact Tests of Crash Energy Management Passenger Rail Cars: Analysis and Structural Measurements,” American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Paper No. IMECE2004-61252, November 2004.
5.
Parent, D., Tyrell, D., Perlman, A.B., Matthews, P., “Evaluating Abdominal Injury in Workstation Table Impacts,” Transportation Research Board 84th Annual Meeting, Paper No. 05-1348, Washington, DC, January 9–13, 2005.
6.
Severson, K., Tyrell, D., Rancatore, R., Perlman, A.B., “Crashworthiness Requirements for Commuter Rail Passenger Seats,” American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Paper No. IMECE2005-82643, November 2005.
7.
National Transportation Safety Board, “Collision of Anitrak Train No. 88 with Rountree Transport and Rigging, Inc., Vehicle on CSX Transportation, Inc., Railroad Near Intercession City, Florida, November 30, 1993,” Railroad Accident Report NTSB/HAR-95/01, adopted on 5/16/1995.
8.
National Transportation Safety Board, “Collision Between Metrolink Train 210 and Ford Crew Cab, Stake Bed Truck at Highway-Rail Grade Crossing, Burbank, California, January 6, 2003,” Highway Accident Report NTSB/HAR-03/04, adopted on 12/2/2003.
9.
Smith, G., Zahniser, D., Krasnowski, M., “11 Killed in 3-Train Wreck Near L.A.,” The San Diego Union-Tribune, January 27, 2005.
10.
Rouhana
S. W.
,
Hardy
W. N.
, and
Schneider
L. W.
, “
Abdominal Impact Response to Rigid-Bar, Seatbelt, and Airbag Loading
,”
Stapp Car Crash Journal
, Volume
45
, November
2001
, pp.
1
–
32
.
11.
Rouhana, S.W., Viano, D.C., Jedrzejczak, E.A., and McCleary, J.D., “Assessing Submarining and Abdominal Injury Risk in the Hybrid III Family of Dummies,” Proc. 33rd Stapp Car Crash Conference, pp. 257–279. SAE Technical Paper No. 892440, October 1989.
12.
Wallace, W.A. and Srinivasan, S.C.M., “Rail Passenger & Crew Survivability Studies - Part 2,” November 2002.
13.
Viano
D. C.
, and
Lau
I. V.
, “
A Viscous Tolerance Criterion for Soft Tissue Injury Assessment
,”
Journal of Biomechanics
, Vol.
21
, p.
387
387
,
1988
.
14.
Vanlngen-Dunn, C., “Commuter Rail Seat Testing and Analysis of Facing Seats,” DOT/FRA/ORD-02/XX, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, June 2002.
15.
Code of Federal Regulation, Title 49, Part 238, Section 233: Interior fittings and surfaces.
16.
Tyrell, D., Jacobsen, K., Parent, D., Perlman, A.B., “Preparations for a Train-to-Train Impact Test of Crash-Energy Management Passenger Rail Equipment,” American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Paper No. RTD2005-70045, March 2005.
17.
MADYMO, Version 6.1, TNO Automotive, Delft, The Netherlands.
18.
Tyrell, D.C., Severson, K.J., Marquis, B.J., “Analysis of Occupant Protection Strategies in Train Collisions,” ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, AMD-Vol. 210, BED-Vol, 30, pp. 539–557, 1995.
19.
Code of Federal Regulation, Title 49, Part 2.38, Section 103: Fire safety.
20.
APTA SS-C&S-016–99, Rev. 1, Standard for Row-to-Row Seating in Commuter Rail Cars, The American Public Transportation Association, Washington, D.C.
21.
ATOC Vehicles Standard AV/ST9001, “Vehicle Interior Crashworthiness,” Part B, Section 10, February 2002.
This content is only available via PDF.
Copyright © 2005
 by ASME
You do not currently have access to this content.