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. p5

® FRA CFR 213.329 Static Lean Test

Load Cells

© 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. p11

® Example Resonance “Drop” Test

♦ Test = Red, Model = Blue

© 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

© TTCI/AAR, 1/11/2013. p26

®

Questions?