on-track mark nordling qualification and apta rail ... test results for items not measured such as...
TRANSCRIPT
Transportation Technology Center, Inc., a subsidiary of the Association of American Railroads
© TTCI/AAR, 1/10/2013. p1
On-Track
Qualification and
Acceptance Testing
APTA Rail Conference
Philadelphia, PA
June, 2013
Mark Nordling
© TTCI/AAR, 1/11/2013. p2
® Abstract
♦ Because it has been found that actual vehicle characteristics as assembled
can vary considerably from the published design and measured individual
components, the on-track assessment of safety, crashworthiness, ride
quality, durability and derailment avoidance of conventional and high
speed rail passenger equipment is a fundamental concern to regulators,
vehicle designers and manufacturers, and rail operators.
♦ This is a review of the mandated and optional dynamic and static on-track
testing currently in use for conventional equipment, and envisaged for
high speed vehicles soon to be designed and manufactured. Also included
is the accompanying role of simulation using validated mathematical
models in the process.
© TTCI/AAR, 1/11/2013. p3
® Consent Disclaimer
Tests and projects discussed here were chosen as
representative and illustrative of the types of work done
by the Transportation Technology Center, Inc.
Each is shown with the consent of the TTCI customer
involved.
TTCI does not disclose either the existence or results of
any test or project without the express consent of the
customer.
© TTCI/AAR, 1/11/2013. p4
® What do we test?
♦ Structural strength and crash tests
♦ Braking and acceleration performance
♦ Noise and vibration
♦ Vehicle - Track Interaction and High Speed Stability
♦ Wheel Load Equalization and Static Lean
♦ Ride quality
♦ Endurance testing
♦ Fatigue
♦ Component tests
© TTCI/AAR, 1/11/2013. p6
®
Where do we test?
♦ Test laboratories
♦ Revenue service track
♦ Dedicated test facilities
●Laboratories
●Test Tracks
♦ Manufacturers facilities
Bus fatigue test on the
Simuloader (SMU)
Longitudinal Squeeze Test
© TTCI/AAR, 1/11/2013. p7
® What is the Role of Mathematical
Modeling?
♦ Optimize vehicle designs prior to manufacture
♦ Develop test plans and extend the range of testing:
●Wider range of conditions, parametric variations, wear conditions
●Identify most important test conditions and locations for test instrumentation such as strain gages
●Extrapolate test results for items not measured such as Wheel/Rail forces
●Simulate conditions not possible to test such as failure conditions, derailment, ETC
♦ Simulations required by some specifications such as:
●FRA CFR 213.345 vehicle qualification
●APTA SS-C&S-034-99 crash energy management
© TTCI/AAR, 1/11/2013. p8
® What types of Modeling?
♦ Vehicle-Track Interaction and Vehicle Dynamics
●NUCARS®, VAMPIRE®, SIMPACK
●Theoretical inputs such as FRA 213.333 Minimally Compliant Analytical Track (MCAT) or AAR CH 11
●Measured track geometry from actual routes
●Low speed derailment in sharp curves and turnouts/crossovers with large crosslevel deviations
♦ Structural
●Linear FEA: Fatigue
●Non-Linear FEA: Structural failure, Crash Energy Management
© TTCI/AAR, 1/11/2013. p9
® How are the tests and modeling
validated?
♦ Vehicle and Component Characterization Tests
●Ensure mass and inertial parameters, and stiffness and damping inputs to model are realistic
●System resonance tests
●Component tests
♦ Comparison between laboratory and on-track test
results and simulation results to demonstrate validity
●APTA SS-M-0140-06 wheel load equalization
●Measured track geometry from actual test track location
▲Specific track geometry designed to excite dynamic response, such as FRA MCATs and AAR CH 11
▲Actual revenue service route or qualification test location
© TTCI/AAR, 1/11/2013. p10
® Vehicle Characterization Tests
♦ Some examples of
characterization test
results
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
-20 -10 0 10 20
Forc
e (
kip
s)
Velocity (in/s)
Lateral Cab-End Left
Secondary with traction Rods Secondary without traction rods Primary Suspension
kips/inch Per Corner kips/inch Per Corner kips/inch Per Axlebox
Longitudinal 24.1 NA 17.1*
Lateral 1.87 1.57 8.75
Vertical 3.19 2.89 3.75
*Primary Longitudinal Stiffness Measurement Affected by Equalizer Beams
Direction
y = -6.1319x + 45.714R² = 0.9996
38
40
42
44
46
48
0 0.5 1 1.5
Forc
e (
kip
s)
Displacement (inches)
Secondary Stiffness_CabEnd_Right
force on bogie kips
Linear (force on bogiekips)
Mode w/TractionRods W/o TractionRods
Pitch 1.16 1.11
Bounce 1.04 0.98
Yaw 1.08 0.90
Lower Center Roll 0.51 0.48
Upper center roll 1.38 1.20
© TTCI/AAR, 1/11/2013. p12
® NUCARS®
verification of perturbed track
test: Articulated Low Floor LRV
L/V Ratios at Track
Perturbation (negative
values indicate flanging
force)
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0 100 200 300 400
Distance (ft)
Dis
pla
ce
me
nt
(in
)
Test Model
-1.2
-1.0
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
0 50 100 150 200
Distance (ft)
Wh
ee
l/R
ail L
/V R
ati
o
Test Model Strain Gauges
Air Suspension
Vertical Deflection
Dark line = test data
Light line = model
Strain Gaged Rails
© TTCI/AAR, 1/11/2013. p13
® Who says we have to?
♦ FRA – rules (CFRs)
♦ FTA – recommendations
♦ APTA – recommendations
♦ Transit agency procurement specifications
●ISO
●UIC
●Consultant-defined
♦ Other regulatory authorities
© TTCI/AAR, 1/11/2013. p14
® For whom do we do the tests?
♦ Car and Locomotive Builders
● Adtranz
● Alstom
● Bombardier
● Brookville Locomotive
● CAF
● GE
● EMD
● Hyundai Rotem
● Kawasaki
● Kinkisharyo
● Motive Power
● Nippon Sharyo
● Siemens
● Talgo
♦ Railroads and Operators
● Amtrak
● BART
● Denver Transit Partners
● Long Island Railroad
● MBTA
● METRA
● Metro North Railroad
● NYCTA
● PATH
● Texas Central HSR
● Via Rail
● Washington Group
● WMATA
© TTCI/AAR, 1/11/2013. p15
®
♦ Government
● ERDC
● FBI
● FRA
● FTA
● ORR (UK)
● RSSB (UK)
● TCRP
● UIC (Europe)
● Victoria DOI (Australia)
● Volpe Center
♦ Contractors and Consultants
● Arup
● BAH
● DenSpie
● ENSCO
● Foster Miller
● HDR
● Interfleet Technologies
● LTK
● NRC
● Parsons Brinckerhoff
● Systra
● TMG
For whom do we do the tests? (continued)
© TTCI/AAR, 1/11/2013. p16
® TTCI Test Facilities
♦ Railroad Test Track
●13.5 miles (21.9 km)
●165 mph (267 kph)
● Overhead electrification
♦ Transit Test Track
● 9.1 miles (14.7 km)
● 80 mph (130 kph)
● 3rd rail electrification
♦ Small radius loops
♦ Track Geometry Perturbations
●AAR CH 11 and FRA MCAT
♦ Crash wall
♦ Structural squeeze test
© TTCI/AAR, 1/11/2013. p17
® Acela Testing and Qualification
♦ Customer - Bombardier/Alstom
♦ Fitted with TTCI’s high speed instrumented wheelsets
♦ Testing at TTC followed by testing on the NEC
♦ Annual requalification tests
© TTCI/AAR, 1/11/2013. p18
® New Jersey Transit / Agence
Metropolitaine de Transport
Locomotive
♦ Bombardier’s NJT and Montreal AMT new Dual Power
Locomotive ALP 45DP
© TTCI/AAR, 1/11/2013. p19
® NYCT R142 Crash Testing
♦ Kawasaki subway car tested for compliance with NYCT
requirements for:
● Safety
● Crashworthiness
● Energy management
♦ Impact with the crash wall at TTC
© TTCI/AAR, 1/11/2013. p20
® FRA Passenger Car Crash Testing
♦ Measurements of strain, acceleration, displacement and coupler
force to validate computer models
♦ Anthropomorphic Test Devices used to measure passenger
response
♦ Impact wall tests
● Single and double Pioneer type (SEPTA)
♦ Train to other tests
● Pioneer car (SEPTA), two M1 cars (LIRR) and T-car (FRA) into freight locomotive
● Standard and modified Pioneer car into steel coil
© TTCI/AAR, 1/11/2013. p21
® Massachusetts Bay Transportation
Authority
♦ Problem – articulated car derailments
♦ NUCARS® modeling including independently rotating
wheels
♦ New wheel and rail profiles designed
♦ Revised track geometry standards and speed limits
© TTCI/AAR, 1/11/2013. p22
® Oregon DOT / Amtrak Cascade
Service Testing
♦ Customer - Talgo
♦ Static testing
♦ Dynamic testing
● Ride quality
● High speed stability
● Curve compatibility
● Brake testing
© TTCI/AAR, 1/11/2013. p23
® Sampling of Upcoming TTCI Projects
♦ California – Illinois PRIIA 305 bi-level cars
♦ Next generation Amtrak NEC high speed trains
♦ New Amtrak electric locomotives
♦ Long Island Railroad new generation cars (M9)
♦ New MBTA locomotives
♦ Toronto Metrolinx and California SMART DMUs
© TTCI/AAR, 1/11/2013. p24
® What do we learn?
♦ Identify vehicles performance characteristics
● Comply with statutory requirements
● Comply with safety parameters
● Meet specifications
● Appropriate wheel – rail interface
● Crashworthiness
♦ Identify needed modifications
♦ Identify and remedy dynamic problems after revenue
service has begun
© TTCI/AAR, 1/11/2013. p25
®
Conclusions
♦ Wide range of passenger rail vehicle testing and
simulation requirements
♦ Requirements vary considerably by type of vehicle and
expected operating environment
●Light rail and streetcars
●Heavy rail (subway/metro)
●Commuter rail
▲Below 90 mph
▲Above 90 mph