Improved Crashworthiness of Rail Passenger Equipment in the United States

D. Tyrell1, T. Tsai2, 1Volpe Center, Cambridge, USA; 2Federal Railroad Administration, Washington, USA

Abstract
The Federal Railroad Administration has been conducting research to develop strategies for improved passenger
protection in train accidents. Crash energy management (CEM) has been developed as a strategy for structural
crashworthiness. Interior strategies that have been developed to work in concert with CEM include improved
workstation tables and optimized commuter seats. The purpose of this research is to develop the technical
information required for passenger equipment specifications, standards, and regulations. Research results are being
applied by METROLINK commuter railroad in their current efforts to procure new equipment. The American
Public Transportation Association is planning to develop industry standards from these research results.

Alternative strategies for structural crashworthiness and occupant protection are first evaluated for potential
effectiveness. For strategies that appear promising, designs are developed; test articles are built and then tested. The
effectiveness studies define the crashworthiness design requirements; the design studies show what is feasible. The
design studies result in drawings, which are used to build test articles. The construction of test articles requires that
the designs be sound. The tests confirm the design performance; the test conditions are derived from the
effectiveness studies; and the test results are used to refine the effectiveness studies. This research methodology
results in the information required to develop specifications, standards, and regulations.

For some collision conditions, CEM equipment can protect all of the occupants for closing speeds that are more than
twice the speed for conventional equipment. Preserving the space for the occupants does marginally increase the
deceleration of the CEM cab car. For trailing equipment, the decelerations are similar in CEM and conventional
trains. The improved workstation table and optimized commuter passenger seat designs have been developed to
mitigate the marginal increase in deceleration. The research on workstation tables has been carried out
cooperatively with the United Kingdom’s Rail Safety and Standards Board. Crashworthiness can be incrementally
improved by the strategic addition of CEM and occupant protection features.

Full-scale impact tests have been arranged to allow direct comparison of the crashworthiness performance of
conventional and alternative strategies. Single-car and two-car impact tests of conventional and CEM equipment
have been conducted. These tests have shown that CEM can preserve the occupant volume and limit the likelihood
of derailment. In these tests, the conventional equipment lost occupant volume and derailed. In the train-to-train
tests, a cab car led train traveling at 30 mph impacts a standing locomotive led train. In the conventional equipment
test, the space for 48 occupants was eliminated. The CEM equipment test is planned for March 23, 2006. It is
expected that the space for all of the occupants will be preserved and that injury criteria values will remain within
survivable limits. Instrumented test dummies in the cab and first coach cars will be used to confirm these
expectations.

What’s new?
Conventional and CEM equipment can safely be used in the same trains and CEM equipment can be introduced on
a car-by-car basis, rather than a train-by-train basis.
1. Introduction
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), with assistance from the Volpe Center, has been conducting research
on passenger rail equipment crashworthiness [1] to develop technical information needed by FRA to promulgate
passenger rail equipment safety regulations [2]. The principal focus of passenger rail equipment crashworthiness
research has been the development of structural crashworthiness and interior occupant protection strategies. Two
collision scenarios have been addressed in passenger rail equipment crashworthiness research, a cab car to
locomotive train-to-train collision [3] and a cab car to steel coil grade-crossing collision [4, 5]. Full-scale passenger
rail equipment impact tests have been conducted to allow direct comparison of conventional and alternative
crashworthiness strategies [5, 6]. Relatively simple models are initially developed to plan the tests. If these models
do not provide sufficient detailed information, more complex models are used to address specific issues. The
models are verified using the test results. They are then used to extrapolate from the test conditions.

Structural crashworthiness strategies developed by the research include:

- Cab end and non-cab end crush zones that essentially double the survivable speed (i.e., the maximum
collision speed for which all of the occupants are expected to survive) for cab car-to-locomotive train-to-
train collisions [7, 8, 9]
- Optimized cab car end frames that increase the survivable speed by 50 percent in grade-crossing collisions
[10]

Occupant protection strategies developed include:

- Improved workstation tables which limit abdominal loads to survivable levels [11, 12]
- Optimized commuter seats which minimize head decelerations, neck loads, and chest decelerations, both
forward-facing and rearward-facing [13]
- Seats incorporating lap and shoulder belts to restrain intercity and commuter passengers [14]
- Inflatable structures to compartmentalize the operator [15]

2. Accident Observations
The behavior of a train during a collision is influenced by the interactions of the colliding cars, the nature of the
coupling between the cars, and the crush behavior of the individual cars. The interactions of the impacting cars can
result in one car overriding the other car. Override is often associated with substantial loss of occupant volume and
consequent fatality.

For conventional North American rail passenger equipment, the coupling between cars can lead to lateral buckling
of the trainset as a consequence of a collision. When viewed from above, the cars in the train form an accordion
pattern. The structural damage tends to be focused on the colliding cars and those cars immediately trailing the
colliding cars. Cars away from the colliding cars often remain structurally intact.

Even in a train collision that is nominally head-on -that is the impacting cars are initially in-line and their centerlines
coincident-one impacting car may override the other or the impacting cars may laterally deflect past each other. The
tendency to override or laterally deflect depends upon how the structures of the cars crush and the dynamic
responses of the cars in the train to the impact force, as well as the initial conditions of the impact. The mode of
crushing of some car structures may effectively form a ramp, leading to vertical or lateral forces that are sufficient to
cause override or lateral deflection. The dynamic motions of the car can potentially contribute to misalignment of
the underframes, amplifying the tendency toward override or lateral deflection.

Figure 1 shows a photograph of an incident which occurred on January 26, 2005 in Glendale, California, in which a
cab car led commuter train derailed due to an impact with an SUV on the track, and subsequently collided with a
freight train parked in a siding. During the collision with the freight train, the cab car led train raked a locomotive
led commuter train on the adjacent mainline track.
 Figure 1. Aerial Photograph of Glendale Incident

The results of train incidents such as Glendale show that to preserve the occupant volume, it is important to restrain
coupled car interactions to limit lateral buckling and to control the colliding interface to prevent override. These
goals can be achieved by designing structures that gracefully deform when overloaded. By managing the energy
absorption during a collision, the occupant volumes can be better preserved while the decelerations of the occupant
volumes can be limited.

3. Structural Crashworthiness
Cab car led trains present a challenging situation in collisions. The presence of passengers in cars of lighter weight
and lower strength in comparison with locomotives presents a potential hazard in the event of a collision. To address
this exposure, FRA has conducted research on strategies intended to improve the crashworthiness of cab cars [16, 17, 18, 19, 20].
One alternative strategy is not to permit cab car led trains and require a locomotive in the lead. Another alternative strategy is to
use equipment with crash energy management (CEM) [18, 21]. CEM improves crashworthiness with crush zones at the ends of
the cars. These zones are designed to collapse in a controlled fashion during a collision, distributing the crush among the
unoccupied ends of the cars of the train. This technique preserves the occupied spaces in the train and limits the decelerations of
the occupant volumes. A third alternative strategy is to combine a locomotive in the lead with CEM.

The crashworthiness provided by the three alternative strategies has been compared with that of the baseline
conventional cab car led train [22]. A collision with a locomotive led train has been used for the comparison. Loss
of occupant volume and secondary impact velocity (SIV) has been used to estimate fatalities as a function of closing
speed for the baseline and three alternative strategies. The higher the SIV, the more likely the occupants will be
injured due to striking an interior surface. The research has shown that a CEM cab car led train has greater
crashworthiness than a conventional locomotive led train and that a locomotive led CEM train provides the highest
level of crashworthiness.

These research results show that passenger train crashworthiness can be incrementally increased by first
incorporating CEM in the cab car, then by modifying the coach cars with pushback couplers, and finally by
incorporating CEM in the coach cars.

Evaluation of the crashworthiness of trains made up of mixed CEM and conventional equipment has shown that a
mixed CEM-conventional train is always at least as crashworthy as an all-conventional train and is more
crashworthy when the CEM equipment is nearest the impact [23]. The modeling results indicate that the least
crashworthy consists are ones in which a conventional cab car is leading any combination of vehicles. The
conventional cab car incurs nearly all the damage and prevents trailing cars from participating in energy absorption,
whether they are conventional or CEM. The most crashworthy consists are ones in which a CEM cab is leading.
The CEM cab can absorb a significant amount of energy without intruding into the occupied volume. The CEM cab
also allows trailing cars to participate in energy absorption, which provides further occupant protection.

Figure 2 shows simulation results for the amount of occupant volume lost in the impact cab car for closing speeds up
to 40 mph, for a cab car led train collision with a locomotive-led train of equal weight. The passenger equipment
modeled is single level with end vestibules. This figure contains plots for an all-conventional train, a train with a
CEM cab car with conventional coach cars, a train with a CEM cab car with conventional coaches modified with
pushback coupler, and an all CEM train. By changing only the cab car from conventional to CEM, the crashworthy
speed (the maximum speed for which there is no occupant volume crush) increases from 15 mph to 25 mph. A
substantial increase in crashworthiness can be achieved by including crush zones one car in the train. By further
changing the coach cars to have pushback couplers, but otherwise conventional structures, the crashworthy speed
can be further increased to 28 mph. A pushback coupler allows for a relatively modest amount of energy absorption
under collision conditions. This result suggests that a further increase in crashworthiness can be achieved by
relatively minor modification to existing equipment. The fourth plot on the graph shows that an all CEM train has a
crashworthy speed of 38 mph.

20
All Conventional Train, Cab Car Leading
CEM Cab Car Leading, with Conventional Coaches
CEM Cab Car Leading, with Conventional Coaches with Pushback Couplers
of Most Damaged Passenger Car, feet

All CEM Train, Cab Car Leading

15
Occupant Volume Crush

10

Crashworthy Speed
CEM Cab Car Leading,
with Conventional
Coaches with Pushback
Couplers
5
Crashworthy Speed Crashworthy Speed Crashworthy Speed
All Conventional Train, CEM Cab Car Leading, All CEM Train, Cab Car
Cab Car Leading with Conventional Leading
Coaches

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Closing Speed, mph

Figure 2. Occupant Volume Crush Results for Varying Closing Speeds

These research results suggest that a railroad can incrementally increase structural crashworthiness as it purchases
and overhauls equipment. When new equipment is purchased, it should be to first replace existing cab cars with
CEM cab cars. When existing equipment is overhauled, relatively minor modifications can be made to retrofit the
equipment with pushback couplers. These changes will bring the crashworthiness speed of the trains up to the same
level as adding a lead locomotive. After the conventional cab cars are replaced with CEM cab cars, the coach cars
can be replaced with CEM coach cars. An all CEM train has a higher crashworthiness speed than a conventional
locomotive led train.

4. Occupant Protection
In the FRA’s crashworthiness research, SIV has been used to calculate injuries caused by an occupant impacting an
interior part of the car. SIV refers to the velocity at which an occupant strikes some part of the interior, such as the
forward seat back. To estimate occupant injury, test data have been used to correlate SIV with head, chest and neck
injury for specific interior arrangements. Figure 3 shows a representative SIV plot for a cab car in a 35 mph train-
to-train collision. The figure shows various seating configurations in relation to allowable travel distances.
Typically, a shorter travel distance correlates to a lower SIV, as less time is allowed to build up relative velocity.
 30 mph
Rear-
Facing Open Bay
Seats Seats
< 1 foot > 4 feet
Velocity 20 mph
Seats
Behind
Bulkhead
3 to 4 feet
Forward-

Seats @
10 mph

Tables
Facing Seats
1½ to 3 feet

1 ft 2 ft 3 ft 4 ft

Displacement
Figure 3. Representative SIV Plot Corresponding to Various Seating Configurations

The plot in Figure 4 shows the severity of SIVs and the possible measures for mitigating the likelihood for injury. A
secondary collision environment of less than 18 mph SIV is survivable with conventional interior equipment.
Between 18-25 mph SIVs, the interior environment is deemed survivable if compartmentalization is ensured and
passive safety modifications are provided in the seat and table designs. Above 25 mph, active protection features
(i.e. air bags, inflatable structures, seatbelts, etc.) are necessary to reduce the risk of injury.

30 mph Air bags, lap and shoulder

> 25 mph belts, advanced restraint
systems, etc.
Velocity

18 to 25 Passive safety,
20 mph mph compartmentalization

10 mph < 18 mph Conventional seating is

sufficient to prevent
fatalities

1 ft 2 ft 3 ft 4 ft

Displacement
Figure 4. Example SIV Plot with Injury Interpretation

Trains with CEM cab cars leading are expected to have SIVs in the 18 to 25 mph range in the cab car for train- to -
train collisions at primary collision speeds greater than 25 mph. Trains with conventional cab cars are expected to
have SIVs of less than 18 mph in the cab car. (The SIV is typically lower than the primary collision speed because
the occupant generally impacts the interior before the primary collision is finished.) Trailing equipment is expected
to have SIVs below 18 mph, regardless of the leading equipment–CEM cab, conventional cab, or conventional
locomotive. Occupant protection measures greater than those provided by conventional interior fixtures are required
in CEM cab cars to mitigate the potential for occupant injury in train-to-train collisions with closing speeds above
25 mph.
The probability of injury in CEM cab cars can be mitigated by incorporating better interior designs, such as rear-
facing seats with high enough head rests that protect against neck injury. Referring back to Figure 3, rear-facing
seats allow for a travel distance of between zero and 1 foot and, consequently, results in a low SIV. Optimized
commuter seats, which provide more energy absorption capacity than conventional seats [13], and improved
workstation tables [12], which limit the load into the occupant’s abdomen, have been developed to reduce injury due
to secondary impacts for unrestrained passengers. These strategies can protect passengers in a CEM cab car at least
as well as conventional fixtures in a conventional cab car.

5. Design and Build

Cab and non-cab end crush zones, optimized commuter seats, and improved workstation tables have been designed
and built. A key product of the design development is a detailed description of the design requirements. These
requirements describe the functions of the design. Construction of test articles shows that it is practical to build
equipment and components with these functions.

5.1 Crush Zones

The principal goal for both the cab car and coach car crush zone design is to protect the passenger volume. To
achieve this goal, the coach car crush zone is required to absorb 2.5 million ft-lbs of energy per car end and to
deform gracefully when it crushes, minimizing vertical and lateral car motions [8]. The cab car crush zone is
required to absorb 3.0 million ft-lbs per cab end. In addition, it must crush gracefully and manage the impact with
colliding equipment, to prevent override [9].

Figure 5 shows a photograph of a cab end crush zone test article that was developed as part of the research. The key
elements of the design include features to control the colliding interface interaction, a fixed/sliding sill interface that
allows push back of the entire front end structure of the cab car into the service closet space, and a set of primary
and roof energy absorbers. The elements that help manage the interactions of coupled cars are the pushback coupler
and the coupled end load distributor. The coupled end load distributor acts to transmit the longitudinal collision load
between cars. The pushback coupler is designed to translate longitudinally and allow the ends of the equipment to
come together, without developing sufficient lateral load to derail the equipment. The elements that help manage
the interaction with colliding equipment are the pushback coupler and the cab end load distributor. The cab end load
distributor is deformable and acts to resolve off-axis loads from the impact into loads that can be supported by the
integrated end frame, which in turn imparts suitable loads to the energy absorbers.

Figure 5. Crush Zone Final Design

5.2 Workstation Tables
Strategies to mitigate the potential for injury due to impacts with workstation tables are being developed through a
cooperative agreement between FRA of the United States and the Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB) of the
United Kingdom [11]. RSSB and FRA have shared the results of ongoing work to improve the safety of passengers
seated at tables. RSSB has loaned the FRA its test dummy, the H3RS. This test dummy includes sensors to
measure the loads imparted by workstation tables under collision conditions. This test dummy has been used to
measure the performance of the baseline table and will be used to measure the performance of the improved table.

The improved workstation table was designed to meet crashworthiness performance, functionality, and geometry
requirements [12]. Once the table is fabricated, it will be tested both quasi-statically and dynamically, including two
occupant experiments on the full-scale train-to-train impact test of CEM equipment. Figure 6 shows a sketch of the
design.

Figure 6. Preliminary Design of an Improved Workstation Table

This design builds from a center support I-beam, which is cantilevered from the car wall, and extends laterally from
the wall to the aisle. The center support I-beam is designed to remain attached under the impact loads from two
occupants during a collision, ensuring that the occupants remain compartmentalized. It also supports the table under
service loads. The table edge is constructed of a crushable, energy-absorbing aluminum honeycomb, oriented so
that cells are aligned in the vertical direction. This allows for the table edge to achieve the target force-crush
characteristic while remaining stiff enough to meet the service load requirements. The melamine tabletop provides a
rigid surface to preserve the functionality of the table. Connections between the tabletop and the aluminum
honeycomb edge provide additional support in meeting the service load requirements. During impact, the melamine
top is designed to break away in such a manner that it will not adversely affect the force-crush characteristic. The
rubber edge distributes the load from the melamine top and the aluminum honeycomb to provide a benign impact
surface to the occupants during a collision.

6. Full-Scale Tests
The crush zone and improved workstation table designs have been developed and built for full-scale testing. Crush
zones have been tested in single-car and two-car impact tests. Crush zones will be further tested in the train-to-train
test of CEM equipment on March 23, 2006. The improved workstation table will be tested concurrently during the
train-to-train test of CEM equipment.

The results from the full-scale impact tests to date show that the CEM design has superior crashworthiness
performance over conventional equipment. In the single car test of conventional equipment, the car crushed by
approximately 6 feet, intruding into the occupied area, and lifted by about 9 inches, raising the wheels of the lead
truck off the rails [25]. Under the same single-car test conditions, the CEM trailer car crushed approximately 3 feet,
preserving the occupied area, and its wheels remained on the rails [26].
In the two-car test of conventional equipment, the impacting conventional car again crushed by approximately 6 feet
and lifted about 9 inches as it crushed; in addition, the coupled cars sawtooth-buckled, and the trucks immediately
adjacent to the coupled connection derailed [27]. In the two-car test of CEM equipment, the cars preserved the
occupant areas and remained in-line, with all of the wheels on the rails [28].

In the train-to-train test of conventional equipment, the colliding cab car crushed by approximately 22 feet and
overrode the locomotive [29]. The space for the operator’s seat and for approximately 47 passenger seats was lost.
Figure 7 shows a comparison between the conventional train-to-train test and the predictions of a crush model for
the CEM train-to-train test. Computer simulations of the train-to-train test of CEM equipment indicate that the front
of the cab car will crush by approximately 3 feet and that override will be prevented [30]. Structural crush will be
pushed back to all of the trailer car crush zones, and all of the crew and passenger space will be preserved. The
train-to-train test of CEM equipment, which is planned for March 23, 2006, is expected to confirm these predictions.

Figure 7. Conventional Train-to-Train Test Result and CEM Train-to-Train Test Prediction

On the CEM full-scale two-car impact test conducted on February 26, 2004, two experiments involved the facing-
seats with intervening workstation tables [31]. These experiments used advanced test dummies to measure the
abdominal response to the table impact. Figure 8 shows stills from the high-speed movies taken during this test, for
both the RSSB’s Hybrid 3RS and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration’s THOR advanced
test dummies. This test confirmed the need for crashworthiness improvements in the design of the workstation
table. Additionally, these test results serve as a point of reference to evaluate the performance of an improved
design.

Figure 8. Hybrid 3RS Response during Two-Car Test

7. Summary and Application of Research Results
The modeling performed as part of the research shows the potential benefits of alternative crashworthiness
strategies. The full-scale testing is used to confirm the effectiveness of the most promising strategies. Development
of designs implementing these strategies results in detailed requirements. Fabrication of the test articles shows that
such designs can be practically built. Information on costs to design and build is consequently developed while
designing and building the test articles. This cost information is currently being used with information from the
FRA field study and extrapolations from the full-scale testing to evaluate the economics of applying CEM.

At the time of the Glendale train incident on January 26, 2005, in which 11 commuter train occupants were fatally
injured, METROLINK was preparing to purchase new equipment. As part of its response to the incident,
METROLINK decided to apply recent results of the FRA’s research into passenger train crashworthiness in this
procurement. In coordination with the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), METROLINK
approached FRA and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). FRA, FTA, and APTA decided to form the ad hoc
CEM Working Group in May 2005. This Working Group included participants from the rail industry, including
passenger railroads, suppliers, unions, and industry consultants. Many of the participants in this Working Group
also participate in the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee’s [34] Crashworthiness/Glazing Task Force and in the
APTA Construction/Structural Subcommittee. The CEM Working Group developed recommendations for crush
zones in passenger rail cars for METROLINK to include in its procurement specification. METROLINK released
its specification, including the recommendations from the Working Group, on September 16, 2005, as part of an
invitation for bid.

The specification prescribes performance for the train, the cab and trailer cars, and the mechanisms [33]. Each
requirement includes quantitative criteria for evaluation of compliance. The Working Group extensively discussed
various evaluation methodologies, including non-linear large deformation finite element analysis and dynamic
component tests, and worked to assure that practical evaluation methodologies are available for each requirement.
For components critical to the functioning of the crush zone, tests are required.

These research results suggest that a railroad can incrementally increase crashworthiness as it purchases and
overhauls equipment. When new equipment is purchased, it should be to first replace existing cab cars with CEM
cab cars. When existing equipment is overhauled, relatively minor modifications can be made to retrofit the
equipment with pushback couplers. These changes will bring the crashworthiness speed of the trains up to the same
level as adding a lead locomotive. After the conventional cab cars are replaced with CEM cab cars, the coach cars
can be replaced with CEM coach cars. Strategically incorporating CEM incrementally increases the crashworthiness
speed and provides a practical solution for improvement in the rail industry.

The Standing Committee on Rail Transportation (SCORT) has expressed interest in adapting the METROLINK
specification to its needs. During the final meeting of the ad hoc CEM Working Group, APTA stated its intention to
use the METROLINK specification as a starting point for an industry standard, after METROLINK is close to
accepting delivery of its new equipment, to be sure that any issues with the specification have been resolved. FRA
is currently considering regulations for CEM.

Acknowledgements
The research described in this paper was performed as part of the Equipment Safety Research Program sponsored by
FRA Office of Research and Development. The authors would like to thank Claire Orth, Chief, Equipment and
Operating Practices Division, for her support. The authors would also like to thank Gunars Spons, FRA Resident
Manager at the Transportation Technology Center, for managing the full-scale test effort. Jo Strang, Acting
Associate Administrator, Office of Safety, FRA, led the ad hoc CEM Working Group. Grady Cothen, Deputy
Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program Development, has coordinated FRA’s regulations
development and the passenger rail equipment crashworthiness research since the inception of this research.

Eloy Martinez, Senior Engineer, Volpe Center, has led the effort to develop the coach and cab car crush zones.
Karina Jacobsen, Mechanical Engineer, Volpe Center, has led the effort to predict the collision dynamics of the
train-to-train test of CEM equipment. Daniel Parent, Mechanical Engineer, Volpe Center, has led the effort to
develop the improved workstation table. Kristine Severson, Senior Engineer, Volpe Center, has led the effort to
develop the optimized commuter seat. Professor a. Benjamin Perlman has provided technical guidance to these
efforts.
References
[1] Tyrell, D., Tsai, T., "Passenger Rail Equipment Research in the U.S.," Proceedings of the 3rd International
Symposium on the Passive Safety of Rail Vehicles, Berlin, March 21-22, 2002.
[2] Tyrell, D., "U.S. Rail Equipment Crashworthiness Standards," Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit, Proceedings
Part F, Institute of Mechanical Engineers, August 2002.
[3] Tyrell, D., Severson, K., Perlman, A.B., Brickle, B., VanIngen-Dunn, C., "Rail Passenger Equipment
Crashworthiness Testing Requirements and Implementation," Rail Transportation, American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, RTD-Vol. 19, 2000.
[4] Martinez, E., Tyrell, D., Zolock, J., "Rail-Car Impact Tests with Steel Coil: Car Crush," American Society of
Mechanical Engineers,Paper No. JRC2003-1656, April 2003.
[5] Jacobsen, K., Tyrell, D., Perlman, A.B., "Rail-Car Impact Tests with Steel Coil: Collision Dynamics," American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, Paper No. JRC2003-1655, April 2003.
[6] 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.
[7] 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.
IMECE2005-70045, March 2005.
[8] Martinez, E., Tyrell, D., Perlman, A.B. , "Development of Crash Energy Management Designs for Existing
Passenger Rail Vehicles," American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Paper No. IMECE2004-
61601, November 2004.
[9] Martinez, E., Tyrell, D., Rancatore, R., Stringfellow, R., Amar, G., "A Crush Zone Design for An Existing
Passenger Rail Cab Car," American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Paper No. IMECE2005-
82769, November 2005.
[10] Mayville, R., Johnson, K., Tyrell, D., Stringfellow, R., "Rail Vehicle Cab Car Collision and Corner Post
Designs According to APTA S-034 Requirements," American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Paper No.
MECE2003-44114, November 2003.
[11] Parent, D., Tyrell, D., Perlman, A.B., "Evaluating Abdominal Injury in Workstation Table Impacts,"
Compendium of Papers, 84th Annual Meeting, Transportation Research Board, January 2005.
[12] Parent, D., Tyrell, D., Rancatore, R., Perlman, A.B., "Design of a Workstation Table with Improved
Crashworthiness Performance," American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Paper No. IMECE2005-
82779, November 2005.
[13] Severson, K., Tyrell, D., Rancatore, R., "Crashworthiness Requirements for Commuter Rail Passenger Seats,"
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Paper No. IMECE2005-82643, November
2005.
[14] VanIngen-Dunn, C., "Single Passenger Rail Car Impact Test Volume II: Summary of Occupant Protection
Program," U.S. Department of Transportation, DOT/FRA/ORD-00/02.2, March 2000.
[15] Zolock, J., Tyrell, D., "Locomotive Cab Occupant Protection," American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
Paper No. IMECE2003-44121, November 2003.
[16] Mayville, R.A., Stringfellow, R.G., Rancatore, R.J., Hosmer, T.P., "Locomotive Crashworthiness Research,
Volumes 5: Cab Car Crashworthiness Report, " DOT/FRA/ORD-95/08.5, 1996.
[17] Tyrell, D.C., Severson, K.J., Mayville, R.A., Stringfellow, R.G., Berry, S., Perlman, A.B., "Evaluation of Cab
Car Crashworthiness Design Modifications," Proceedings of the 1997 IEEE/ASME Joint Railroad Conference,
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Catalog Number 97CH36047, 1997.
[18] Tyrell, D.C., Severson, K.J., Marquis, B.J., "Crashworthiness of Passenger Trains," U.S. Department of
Transportation, DOT/FRA/ORD-97/10, 1998.
[19] Mayville, R.A., Hammond, R.P., Johnson, K.N., "Static and Dynamic Crush Testing and Analysis of a Rail
Vehicle Corner Structural Element," American Society of Mechanical Engineers, AMD Vol. 237/BED Vol. 45,
1999.
[20] Stringfellow, R.G., Mayville, R.A., Rancatore, "A Numerical Evaluation of Protection Strategies for Railroad
Cab Car Crashworthiness," American Society of Mechanical Engineers, AMD Vol. 237/BED Vol. 45, 1999.
[21] Tyrell, D.C., Perlman, A.B., "Evaluation of Rail Passenger Equipment Crashworthiness Strategies,"
Transportation Research Record No. 1825, pp. 8-14, National Academy Press, 2003.
[22] Jacobsen, K., Severson, K., Perlman, A.B., “Effectiveness of Alternative Rail Passenger Equipment
Crashworthiness Strategies,” American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Paper No. IMECE2006-94043, April
2006.
[23] Severson, K., Tyrell, D., Perlman, A.B., "Analysis of Collision Safety Associated with Conventional and Carsh
Energy Management Cars Mixed Within a Consist," American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Paper No.
IMECE2003-44122, November 2003.
[24] Severson, K. Tyrell, D., Rancatore, R., "Crashworthiness Requirements for Commuter Rail Passenger Seats, "
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Paper No. IMECE2005-82643, November 2005.
[25] Tyrell, D., Severson, K., Perlman, A.B., "Single Passenger Rail Car Impact Test Volume I: Overview and
Selected Results," U.S. Department of Transportation, DOT/FRA/ORD-00/02.1, March 2000.
[26] Jacobsen, K., Tyrell, D., Perlman, A.B. , "Impact Test of a Crash-Energy Management Passenger Rail Car,"
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Paper No. RTD2004-66045, April 2004.
[27] Tyrell, D., Severson, K., Zolock, J., Perlman, A.B., "Passenger Rail Two-Car Impact Test Volume I: Overview
and Selected Results," US Department of Transportation, DOT/FRA/ORD-01/22.I, January 2002.
[28] 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.
[29]Tyrell, D., "Passenger Rail Train-to-Train Impact Test Volume I: Overview and Selected Results," U.S.
Department of Transportation, DOT/FRA/ORD-03/17.I, July 2003.
[30] 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.
IMECE2005-70045, March 2005.
[31] Severson, K., Parent, D., Tyrell, D., "Two-Car Impact Test of Crash Energy Management Passenger Rail Cars:
Analysis of Occupant Protection Measurements," American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Paper No.
IMECE2004-61249, November 2004.
[32] Cothen, G., Schulte, C., Horn, J., Tyrell, D., "Consensus Rulemaking at the Federal Railroad Administration,"
TR News, Transportation Research Board, Number 236, January-February 2005.
[33] Tyrell, D., Martinez, E., Severson, K., Jacobsen, K., Parent, D., Priante, M., and Perlman, A.B., "Overview of a
Crash Energy Management Specification for Passenger Rail Equipment," American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, Paper No. IMECE2006-94044, April 2006.