Original Article

Proc IMechE Part F:

J Rail and Rapid Transit
Equivalence study involving rail vehicle 2019, Vol. 233(1) 73–89
! IMechE 2018

collision test conditions Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0954409718779940
journals.sagepub.com/home/pif

Shuguang Yao, Kaibo Yan, Sisi Lu and Ping Xu

Abstract
In the context of rail vehicle collision tests, which incur high costs and consume substantial time and energy, the
equivalence between a single vehicle crashing into a rigid wall and two identical vehicles colliding with each other was
studied. Taking the car body as a rigid body, a three-dimensional multi-body dynamic model was built to simulate a single-
vehicle impact and a collision between two identical vehicles; the results showed that the condition of a single vehicle
crashing into a rigid wall at a speed of v=2 can be used to replace the condition of one vehicle moving at a speed of v and
crashing into an identical vehicle that is stationary. However, the actual collision is a strong nonlinear process, and it is
necessary to conduct the equivalent test of the condition of collision. Based on the similarity theory, the scaled equiva-
lent vehicle model is established. Through a series of scaled model tests, the following conclusion is drawn: if one vehicle
moving at a speed of vcrashes into another identical vehicle that is stationary, one can equivalently use a single vehicle
with a speed of v 0 ¼ 0:5248v þ 0:1608 (units: m/s) that crashes into a rigid wall. This study provides practical support for
the equivalence of vehicle collision test conditions and holds great value for engineering applications.

Keywords
Collision test, equivalence, multibody dynamics, similarity theory, scaled model

Date received: 19 December 2017; accepted: 5 May 2018

Introduction Standard EN15227 to design energy absorption

With the increasing speed of railway vehicles, solving
the resultant safety problems has become an urgent
issue. The purpose of studying railway collisions is
primarily to ensure the safety of passengers by opti-
mizing design parameters for crashworthy trains
through the analysis of structural dynamic responses,
such as deformation, acceleration, impact force, and
energy absorption.1–3 Thus, impact tests on the energy
absorption structure of railway vehicles and whole
vehicle impact tests are particularly important; such
tests have become an essential part in the design pro-
cess of railway vehicles. Through this process, the
energy absorption capabilities are evaluated such
that the integrity of the passenger compartment is
ensured, and minimal accelerations are transferred
to the occupants.4,5 Therefore, studying the crash-
worthiness of railway vehicles is of great significance
in improving the passive safety protection ability of
such vehicles. Presently, two main methods exist for
studying crashworthiness: one is based on the crash
energy management (CEM) method proposed in Title
49 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations
to design the energy absorption capability of each
interface of the train,6 and the other refers to the col-
lision scene specified in International Railway
devices through simulation and testing.7 A large
number of tests are required, regardless of the selec-
tion of research methods noted above; in addition, the
development of various collision safety projects also
requires many tests to provide major support. The
CEM equipment includes numerous features, such
as deformable anticlimbers and pushback couplers
to inhibit override, lateral buckling, and other detri-
mental collision consequences.8 Full-scale tests are
conducted by the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) to study the performance of rail equipment
for an idealized scenario and collect data of the key
metrics to compare the baseline equipment perform-
ance to the performance of alternative designs.
The study of overall crashworthiness is categorized
Key Laboratory of Traffic Safety on Track, Ministry of Education, School
of Traffic & Transportation Engineering, Central South University,
Changsha, China
Corresponding author:
Ping Xu, Key Laboratory of Traffic Safety on Track, Ministry of
Education, School of Traffic & Transportation Engineering, Central
South University Railway Campus of Central South University,
Shaoshan Road, Changsha, Hunan 410075, China.
Email: yzzlss@csu.edu.cn
74
into two aspects: structural crashworthiness and the
interior occupant environment.9 Tyrell and Martinez
provided an overview of the in-line, full-scale impact
tests conducted by the FRA (which included single-
vehicle impact into a fixed barrier, two-vehicle impact
into a fixed barrier, and cab car-led train collision
with a standing locomotive-led train) and discussed
a strategy for preventing override between colliding
equipment. Their results showed that under the
same impact conditions, the CEM equipment pre-
served the integrity of the space for all occupants.10,11
Five interior occupant experiments were conducted as
part of the two-car impact test of CEM equipment.
The preliminary test results confirmed that the sec-
ondary impact environment in the two-car CEM test
is indeed more severe than that of the previous tests.12
A prototype CEM coach car design has been devel-
oped and successfully tested in two full-scale tests.
The design showed significant improvements over
the conventional equipment similarly tested.13,14
British researchers have conducted full-scale tests to
validate concepts for energy absorption in crush zone
designs. The tests included a train-to-train impact that
demonstrated the energy absorption capabilities and
crush distribution through the train. The results of a
car-to-car impact showed that the crush zone, which
included pushback couplers and anticlimbers, pre-
vented override.15 In 1994–1996, the French
National Railway Company (SNCF) sponsored mul-
tiple full-scale tests of TGV equipment to qualify the
crashworthiness features in the bi-level TGV and the
XTER DMU.16 Similarly, the UIC sponsored
a research effort called SAFETRAIN, in which
a series of tests were planned to test the program’s
prototype design in 2000.17–19 The Indian Railway
conducted full-scale tests of redesigned GS and SLR
passenger railcars that included crush zones and con-
cluded that particular attention must be paid to
the collision loads that the crush zone support struc-
ture must sustain.20 In addition, a large number
of tests must be performed for the collision
safety project TRAINCOL, SAFETRAM, and
SAFEINTERIORS.21 The above-described experi-
mental studies involve multiple car-to-car impact
tests. In fact, the test of single vehicle impacting
rigid wall is often carried out to evaluate the crash-
worthiness of energy absorber which was fixed on
the test vehicle.2,22 However, in order to evaluate
the energy absorption capability of train head car,
not only car-impact rigid-wall tests but also car-to-
car impact tests must be carried out,23 which incur
high costs and consume substantial time and energy.
In this paper, a series of studies are carried out to
discuss how to simplify the car-to-car impact test con-
dition. A possible approach to simplify the test con-
ditions is to replace the conditions of car-to-car
impact tests with the conditions of car-impact rigid-
wall tests. This approach can not only save time and
reduce test costs but can also improve the efficiency of
Proc IMechE Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 233(1)
experimental research and thus expand the content of
experimental research to address the lack of research
in this area; for instance, the force sensor which was
fixed on rigid wall can be introduced in car-impact
rigid-wall tests to obtain the impact force during the
collision.
The SAFETRAIN team conducted a coasting test
in the laboratory of the British Automobile
Manufacturing Industry Research Association to
verify the multibody dynamics and finite element cal-
culation; in this work, the C2 condition (two identical
city trams colliding at a speed of 20 km/h) is simplified
to a single vehicle with a test driver’s cab impacting a
rigid wall at a speed of 14 km/h.24 Chen proposed that
when two urban rail vehicles collide at a speed of
20 km/h, the energy absorption of the head car can
be calculated using the formula Ed ¼ 0:1875 Mv2
(proposed by Lu25and Lu and Ronghua26), which is
equivalent to an urban rail vehicle impacting a rigid
wall at a speed of 12.25 km/h. Similarly, when two
urban rail vehicles collide at a speed of 30 km/h, the
energy absorption of the head car is equivalent to an
urban rail vehicle impacting a rigid wall at a speed of
18 km/h.27 These conditions are different from each
other; thus, there should be an exact method to sim-
plify the test conditions. However, it is almost impos-
sible to conduct a full-scale train crash test because of
the high cost; therefore, as reported in this paper, a
scaled equivalent model test was conducted to deter-
mine how to simplify the test conditions.
The scaled equivalent model was established based
on the similarity theory. Scaled model tests have been
widely used in ship design, aerospace industry, bridge
structure engineering, traffic design, bullet explosion
shock analysis, bridge and tunnel deformation failure
analysis, and other engineering problems. Simplified
small-scale model motor coaches were designed and
tested under both static and dynamic loading, and
attempts were made to relate the results to a full-
scale collision by Lowe et al.28 Kao and Chan29
and Barley and Mills30 conducted a 1/10 and a 1/2
automobile scaled model test to study automobile
crashworthiness. Jiang et al.31 studied the scaled col-
lision law of a metal cone specimen. Wang et al.32
studied local damage effects in a concrete target
under the impact of projectiles. Xu et al.33 showed
that scaled models represent real models if appropri-
ate similarity coefficients are applied. Rui et al. tested
a one-eighth-scale model of train-to-train collisions
for a three-car set and simulated one-eighth-scale
train collisions for three-, five-, and eight-car sets;
the simulation results indicated that train sets do
not significantly affect the energy absorption and
energy dissipation patterns. The energy-absorbing
structure at the front of a train plays a major role in
collisions.4
In this study, based on similarity theory, selecting
length, force, and time as the basic dimensions,
according to the Buckingham  theory, which is the
Yao et al. 75

Figure 1. Collision conditions. (a) Condition 1 and (b) condition 2.

basis of the majority of dimensional analysis, scaled

the main physical parameters such as size, mass, and
load, a one-ninth-scale model of a vehicle was estab-
lished to study how to simplify the test conditions.

A study based on multibody dynamics

Theoretical deduction
To avoid a substantial impact of the peak force that Figure 2. Energy absorption curves.
would cause the train acceleration to be excessively
high, during the process of designing the vehicle, com-
ponents that have stable energy-absorbing character- M1
v2 ¼ v20 þ ð1 þ eÞðv10  v20 Þ ð5Þ
istics are chosen, i.e. the energy absorber has a stable M1 þ M2
energy absorption curve. As a result, when we per-
form a theoretical analysis, the vehicle energy absorp- thus, the loss energy of the system during collision is
tion curve consists of an oblique line with a slope of k    
and a horizontal straight line. 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
E ¼ M1 v10 þ M2 v20  M1 v1 þ M2 v2
The designed collision conditions are shown in 2 2 2 2
Figure 1, and their energy absorption curves are 1 M1 M2
shown in Figure 2. For condition 1, which specifies ¼ ð1  e2 Þðv10  v20 Þ2 ð6Þ
2 M1 þ M2
a moving car with a speed of v impacting an identical
car that is stationary, it is assumed that the total When e ¼ 0, a completely inelastic collision occurs,
deformation of the energy absorbers of the two cars and the loss of kinetic energy of the impact system is
is . In addition, the total deformation of the energy at its maximum. For two identical classifications
absorbers of the oblique line with the slope of k1 is . of cars with the mass of M, with one car moving at
The initial velocity is v and the initial total energy is speed v crashing into a stationary car, the energy dis-
sipated in the energy absorber during the collision is
1
Wi1 ¼ Mv2 ð1Þ as follows
2
1
Wd1 ¼ Mv2 ð7Þ
Ideally, according to the conservation of momen- 4
tum law, we have
According to the energy absorption curve, the
M1 v10 þ M2 v20 ¼ M1 v1 þ M2 v2 ð2Þ
energy absorbed is calculated as
In the formula, M1 and M2 are the masses of cars 1
and 2, respectively, and v10 and v20 are the initial crash 1 1
Wa1 ¼ k1 2 þ k1   ð  Þ ¼ k1   k1 2 ð8Þ
velocities of cars 1 and 2, respectively. We define the 2 2
impact recovery factor e as
v2  v1 as all dissipative energy is absorbed by the energy
e¼ ð04e41Þ ð3Þ absorber, so
v10  v20
The velocity after impact calculated by formulas Wd1 ¼ Wa1 ð9Þ
(2) and (3) is
thus
M2
v1 ¼ v10  ð1 þ eÞðv10  v20 Þ ð4Þ
M1 þ M2 1 1
Mv2 ¼ k1   k1 2 ð10Þ
4 2
76 Proc IMechE Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 233(1)

where For the loading curve of the energy absorbers of

the two cars in condition 1 with the energy absorber
Mv2  of the single car in condition 2, we have
¼ þ ð11Þ
4k1  2 
k1 ¼ k2 =2, ¼ ð19Þ
Thus, the deformation of each car’s energy absor- 2

ber is Mv2 Mv2 
¼ 
þ2¼ þ ð20Þ
8  2k1  2 2 8k1  4
 Mv2 
s¼ ¼ þ ð12Þ
2 8k1  4 That is
For condition 2, a car crashing into a rigid wall, if

the total deformation of the energy absorber is , the ¼ ð21Þ
deformation of oblique line is , and the initial vel- 2
ocity is v=2, then the initial total energy is The above theoretical deduction operates under the
assumption of no friction. A single car crashing into a
1  v2 1
rigid wall with the speed of v=2 can be used to replace
Wi2 ¼ M  ¼ Mv2 ð13Þ
2 2 8 the condition of one car moving at speed v crashing
into an identical stationary car. This technique can
For the case of a car crashing into a rigid wall, the help simplify the experiments and improve efficiency.
car will be static at the end of the test. Thus, the final
total energy is 0, and we obtain the following
Design of multibody model
1 To verify the theoretical deduction, using the software
Wd2 ¼ Mv2 ð14Þ
8 MADYMO, we established a three-dimensional mul-
tibody dynamic model to simulate both conditions, as
According to the energy absorption curve, the shown in Figure 3. In this model, parameters are
energy absorbed is calculated as

1 1
Wa2 ¼ k2    þ k2   ð  Þ ¼ k2   k2 2 ð15Þ
2 2

as all dissipative energy is absorbed by the energy

absorber, so

Wd2 ¼ Wa2 ð16Þ

thus

1 1
Mv2 ¼ k2   k2 2 ð17Þ
8 2

where

Mv2 
¼ þ ð18Þ Figure 4. Loading curve.
8k2  2

Figure 3. Dynamics model of the vehicle.

Yao et al. 77

Figure 5. Displacement–time curve and velocity–time curve in condition 1.

Figure 6. Displacement–time curve and velocity–time curve in condition 2.

Figure 7. Detailed number of wheels.

mc: moving car; sc: stationary car.

entered that collectively represent the initial state of
the actual rail vehicle of the initial position
(0 m, 25 m), initial velocity (18 km/h for single car
impacting a rigid wall condition, 36 km/h for car-to-
car impact condition), and mass of each vehicle
(60,000 kg). Connection between bogie components
and connection between bogie and car body are simu-
lated by springs and dampers. The dynamic friction
coefficient of the wheel–rail contact is set to 0.03. The
coupler is considered a nonlinear spring that incorp-
orates the loading and unloading characteristics of the
buffers and crushing tubes. The energy absorption
78 Proc IMechE Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 233(1)

Figure 8. Vertical displacement–time curve of wheels in condition 1. (a) Moving car and (b) stationary car.
mc: moving car; sc: stationary car.

characteristics of the buffers and the crushing tubes of

the car can be simulated using the loading curve of the
coupler, as shown in Figure 4.
EN15227 specifies the impact velocity of the same
train unit to be 36 km/h.7 Therefore, we set the speed
of the moving car to 36 km/h to impact an identical
car that is stationary in condition 1 and a single car
with a speed of 18 km/h crashing into a rigid wall in
condition 2.

Discussion
For condition 1, which specifies a moving car with a
speed of 36 km/h impacting an identical car that is
stationary, the calculated values of the total displace-
ment of the two vehicles and the speed change of the
two vehicles during the course of the collision are
shown in Figure 5.
For condition 2, which specifies a single moving car
with a speed of 18 km/h crashing into a rigid wall, the
calculated values of the displacement of the vehicle
and the speed change of the vehicle during the
course of the collision are shown in Figure 6.
Based on Figures 5 and 6, we conclude the follow-
ing: (1) the collision duration is approximately 150 ms
in both conditions; (2) for the two-car collisions, the
speed of the stationary car is slightly greater than that
of the moving car after collision, but each is close to
5 m/s; and (3) for a single car crashing into a rigid
wall, the car has a small rebound speed after the
collision. According to the simulation results, in the
collision process of two cars, the total deformation of
the energy absorber is 816.74 mm; thus, the deform-
ation of the energy absorber of each car is 408.37 mm;
in the process of a single car crashing into a rigid wall,
the deformation of the energy absorber is 408.04 mm,
i.e. the error is only 0.33 mm. We can conclude that a
Figure 9. Vertical displacement–time curve of wheels in
condition 2.
mc: moving car.
single car crashing into a rigid wall with the speed of
v=2 can be used to replace the condition of one car
moving at speed v crashing into an identical station-
ary car. This approach can help simplify experiments
and improve efficiency.
The derailment stability of trains is considered in
many recent studies,34–36 and it has been studied in
this paper with the help of a three-dimensional multi-
body dynamic model used in the ‘‘Design of multi-
body model’’ section. The wheels are numbered such
as mc1-1 (moving car 1-1), sc1-1 (stationary car 1-1),
and the detailed number of wheels is shown in
Figure 7.
The calculation results of vertical displacement of
wheels in conditions 1 and 2 are shown in Figures 8
and 9. As for moving car in condition 1, the vertical
Yao et al. 79

Figure 12. The simplified collision scene (two lumped mass

blocks connected by a spring and a damper).

In fact, the collision scene of a moving car crashing

into a stationary car can be idealized as two lumped
mass blocks connected by spring in the former theor-
etical deduction, as shown in Figure 11; assuming that
Figure 10. Comparison of vertical displacement of wheels in the vehicles move in the same direction when they
conditions 1 and 2. collide, the velocities of cars 1 and 2 are V1 and V2 ,
mc: moving car. respectively.
Supposing the longitudinal absolute displace-
ments of the center of gravity of cars 1 and 2 are
X1 and X2 , respectively, the motion differential equa-
tion is
(
M1 X€ 1 þ k1 ðX1  X2 Þ ¼ 0
ð22Þ
M2 X€ 2  k1 ðX1  X2 Þ ¼ 0

The relative displacement

 between
 the two cars is
Figure 11. The simplified collision scene (two lumped mass l ¼ ðX1  X2 Þ; thus, l_ ¼ X_ 1  X_ 2 , and equation (22)
blocks connected by a spring). can be expressed as
 
1 1
l€ þ k1 þ l¼0 ð23Þ
M1 M2
displacement of wheel near the impact interface of  
each bogie is relatively large, and the opposite is Supposing K1 ¼ k1 M11 þ M12 , equation (23) can be
true for the stationary car – the maximum vertical simplified as
displacement of wheel of a stationary car is slightly
larger than that of a moving car. For moving car in l€ þ K1 l ¼ 0 ð24Þ
condition 2, the vertical displacement of wheel near
the impact interface of each bogie is also relatively The circular frequency of the vehicle longitudinal
large. vibration is
The comparison of vertical displacement of wheels
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
in conditions 1 and 2 is shown in Figure 10; we can pffiffiffiffiffiffi k1 ðM1 þ M2 Þ
find that for the same wheel position, the maximum !n1 ¼ K1 ¼ ð25Þ
M1 M2
vertical displacement of wheel in condition 2 is
slightly greater than that in condition 1. So we can
conclude that the impacting vehicle under the rigid The general solution of differential equation (24) is
wall impact condition is more susceptible to derail-
ment. If we equivalently use a single vehicle that lðtÞ ¼ C1 cos !n1 t þ C2 sin !n1 t ð26Þ
crashes into a rigid wall to replace the test condition
of one vehicle crashing into an identical vehicle that is The initial conditions of the collision are
stationary, the possibility of derailment of trains can X1 ¼ X2 ¼ 0, X_ 1 ¼ V1 , and X_ 2 ¼ 0; thus, l ¼ 0,
be evaluated to the greatest extent. It is also one of the l_ ¼ V1 , and the special solution of differential equa-
advantages of a single vehicle crashing into a rigid tion (24) is
wall test.
However, because the conditions of actual collision V1
lðtÞ ¼ sin !n1 t ð27Þ
are complex, the simplification of the rail vehicle col- !n1
lision condition must be further studied.
80 Proc IMechE Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 233(1)

During the collision, the maximum relative dis- Table 1. Scaling parameters.
placement of the two vehicles is
Physical parameter Dimension Scaling factor
V1 Length (L) L s
s1 ¼ ð28Þ
!n1 Area (S) L2 s2
Volume (V) L3 s3
Supposing the mass of each vehicle is the same, Density () FT2L4 1.0
qffiffiffiffiffi
!n1 ¼ 2k
M1 , and the deformation of the energy absor-
1
Mass (m) FT2L1 s3
ber of each vehicle is Load (F) F s2
Elastic modulus (E) FL2 1.0
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Stress () FL2 1.0
s1 M1 V21
1 ¼ ¼ ð29Þ Strain (") – 1.0
2 8k1
Displacement () L s
For the condition of a single car crashing Velocity (v) LT1 1.0
into a rigid wall, it is assumed that the mass of the Time (t) T s
stationary car is infinite, i.e. M2 ! þ1, and M12 ! 0; Elastic and plastic energy (W) FL s3
k2 pffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffi
k2 Kinetic energy (E) FL s3
thus, K2 ¼ M 1
, !n2 ¼ K2 ¼ M 1
, and the deform-
ation of the energy absorber of the moving vehicle is  
1 1
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  Supposing
 that K 1 ¼ k1 M 1
þ M 2
and C1 ¼ c1
1 1
V3 M1 V23 M1 þ M2 , equation (32) can be simplified as follows
2 ¼ ¼ ð30Þ
!n2 k2
l€ þ C1 l_ þ K1 l ¼ 0 ð33Þ
The energy absorber in the condition of a moving The circular frequency of the vehicle longitudinal
car crashing into a stationary car can be considered as vibration in the undamped condition is
a series connection of energy absorbers of a single sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
car; for springs in series, we have k1 ¼ k22 . As a pffiffiffiffiffiffi k1 ðM1 þ M2 Þ
!n1 ¼ K1 ¼ ð34Þ
result, if the deformation of the energy absorber M1 M2
of each vehicle is the same, then 1 ¼ 2 ,
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi2 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi2 In the low-damping condition, the circular fre-
M1 V1 M1 V 3 V1
8k1 ¼ k2 , i.e. V3 ¼ 2 . quency of the vehicle longitudinal vibration is
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
We conclude that a single car with a speed of v=2 C1
!d1 ¼ 1  12 !n1 , and the damping ratio is 1 ¼ 2! .
crashing into a rigid wall can be used to replace the n1

condition of one moving car with a speed of v crash- The general solution of differential equation (33) is
ing into an identical car that is stationary.
If the collision scene of one moving car crashing lðtÞ ¼ e1 !n1 t ðC1 cos !d1 t þ C2 sin !d1 tÞ ð35Þ
into another stationary car is simplified as two lumped
mass blocks connected by a spring and a damper, The initial conditions of the collision are
as shown in Figure 12, supposing that the vehicles X1 ¼ X2 ¼ 0, X_ 1 ¼ V1 , and X_ 2 ¼ 0; thus, l ¼ 0,
are moving in the same direction when they collided, l_ ¼ V1 , and the special solution of differential equa-
the velocities of cars 1 and 2 are V1 and V2 , tion (33) is
respectively.
V1
Supposing that the longitudinal absolute displace- lðtÞ ¼ sin !d1 t ð36Þ
ments of the center of gravity of cars 1 and 2 are X1 !d1
and X2 , respectively, the motion differential equation During the collision, the maximum relative dis-
is placement of the two vehicles is
(   V1
M1 X€ 1 þ k1 ðX1  X2 Þ þ c1 X_ 1  X_ 2 ¼ 0 s1 ¼ ð37Þ
  ð31Þ !d1
M2 X€ 2  k1 ðX1  X2 Þ  c1 X_ 1  X_ 2 ¼ 0
Supposing that the mass of each vehicle is the
qffiffiffiffiffi
same, !n1 ¼ 2k
M1 , and the deformation of the energy
1

The relative displacement

 between
 the two cars is
l ¼ ðX1  X2 Þ; thus, l_ ¼ X_ 1  X_ 2 , and equation (31) absorber of each vehicle is
can be expressed as sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
    s1 M1 V21
1 1 _ 1 1 1 ¼ ¼ ð38Þ
l€ þ c1 þ l þ k1 þ l¼0 ð32Þ 2 8k1  M1 C21
M1 M2 M1 M2
Yao et al. 81

For the condition of a single car crashing into a The V3 represents the equivalent velocity in car-
rigid wall, it is assumed that the mass of stationary car impact rigid-wall condition.
is infinite; thus M2 ! þ1, and M12 ! 0; as a result, The energy absorber in the condition of a moving
k2 pffiffiffiffiffiffi qffiffiffiffiffi
k2
car crashing into a stationary car can be considered as
K2 ¼ M 1
, ! n2 ¼ K2 ¼ M 1
, and the deformation of a series connection of energy absorbers of a single car;
the energy absorber of the moving vehicle is for springs in series, we have k1 ¼ k22 . As a result, if the
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi deformation of the energy absorber of each vehicle is
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
V3 4M1 V23 M1 V21 4M1 V23
2 ¼ ¼ ð39Þ the same, then 1 ¼ 2 , and 8k M 2 ¼ 4k2 M1 C22
,
!d2 4k2  M1 C22 rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1 1 C1

8k M c2
i.e. V3 ¼ V21 8k 1M 14c22 .
1 1 1

We conclude that a single car crashing into a rigid

rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
8k M c2
wall with the speed of V2 8k 1M 14c22 can be used to
1 1 1

replace the condition of one car moving at speed v

crashing into an identical car that is stationary.

During the actual collision of the vehicles, the

spring stiffness k and damping coefficient are non-
linear and discontinuous, the above equations
become nonlinear differential equations, and a longi-
tudinal elastic constraint between the vehicles can
be idealized as a spring having a plurality of
stiffness. The above deduction remains true for the
stiffness per stage; thus, equation (33) can be trans-
lated into

0

l 0 1 l
Figure 13. Loading curves of a crushing tube and a ¼  _ ð40Þ
honeycomb.
_l K1 C1 l

Figure 14. Honeycomb used in the test. (a) 40  60 mm2, 3.3 MPa and (b) 40  60 mm2, 10 MPa.

Table 2. Comparisons of the corresponding parameters.

Parameter Scaled model car Full-scale car

Mass (kg) 135 98,415

Plastic deformation platform force of the first-degree energy absorber (kN) 8 648
Plastic deformation platform force of the second-degree energy absorber (kN) 24 1944
82
Figure 15. Test arrangement. (a) Car-to-car impact and (b) car crashing into rigid wall.
Numerical integration methods, such as the fourth-
order Runge–Kutta method, can be used to obtain the
solution of the above differential equation.
Because the actual collision is a strong
nonlinear process, it is necessary to conduct the
equivalent test of the collision condition. However,
it is almost impossible to perform a full-scale
train crash test because the cost is too high; as a
result, as reported here, a scaled equivalent model
test was conducted to study how to simplify the test
conditions.
Scaled equivalent model test
Similarity theory
If two systems are kinematically similar and have
similar mass distributions, then dynamic similarity
exists.37 Therefore, the similar model, which is estab-
lished based on similarity theory, can be used to study
Proc IMechE Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 233(1)
the large prototype in engineering. Dimensionless ana-
lysis is commonly used for testing models in practice in
situations where the equations related to the param-
eters of a process are unknown. To ensure that the
scale-test models are valid, according to the
Buckingham  Theory, which is the basis of the major-
ity of dimensional analysis, asserts that any complete
physical relationship can be expressed in terms of a set
of independent dimensionless products composed of
the relevant physical parameters,37 and we have
fðq1 , q2 ,   , qn Þ ¼ 0 ð41Þ
Assuming that qn , qn1 ,  , qnkþ1 are k independ-
ent base physical quantities, there are k groups of real
numbers an, i , an1, i ,  , ankþ1, i . Then, qi can be
expressed as
a a
qi ¼ i qann, i qn1
n1, i nkþ1, i
  qnkþ1 , i ¼ 1, 2,   , n  k ð42Þ
Yao et al. 83

Equation (42) can be converted to

qi
i ¼ a an1, i ankþ1, i ð43Þ
qnn, i qn1   qnkþ1

and since i represents dimensionless quantities, the

index is an, i , an1, i ,   , ankþ1, i .
In the problem of impact mechanics, there are
three basic dimensions: deformation, force, and
time. On this basis, a dimensionless analysis is per-
formed. The similarity ratios of important physical
Figure 16. Test scenario.

Figure 17. Displacement–time and velocity–time curves of the test of a car impacting a rigid wall. (a) Test A1 (v = 2.628 m/s), (b) test
A2 (v = 2.759 m/s), (c) test A3 (v = 3.143 m/s), (d) test A4 (v = 4.554 m/s), and (e) test A5 (v = 5.881 m/s).
84
Figure 17. Continued.
parameters were obtained in a previous study.38
A completely geometric similarity between a proto-
type and the scaled model is impossible; the less
important parameters, such as the angular velocity,
can be ignored. The similarity coefficients of the phys-
ical parameters are presented in Table 1.
Test design
Based on the similarity theory, a one-ninth-scale
model of the train is established.39 The mass of the
scaled equivalent model is 135 kg, so the mass of the
full-scale car is 98,415 kg, which is close to the mass of
a locomotive. The plastic deformation platform force
of a honeycomb material is stable,40,41 and the loading
curves of a crushing tube (energy absorber of vehicle)
and a honeycomb are shown in Figure 13; thus, an
aluminum honeycomb can be used to simulate the
energy absorber of vehicle. Honeycombs, each with
a cross-sectional area of 2400 mm2 (40  60 mm)
and under a stress of 3.3 MPa, are used to simulate
the first-degree energy absorber of the scaled equiva-
lent model car, the initial length is 50 mm, and honey-
combs, each with a cross-sectional area of 2400 mm2
Proc IMechE Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 233(1)
(40  60 mm2) and under a stress of 10 MPa, are used
to simulate the second-degree energy absorber of the
scaled equivalent model car, the initial length is
62.5 mm; the honeycomb is shown in Figure 14.
Comparisons of the corresponding parameters are
shown in Table 2. Since the mass and velocity of car
and force of energy absorbers have the greatest effect
on the collision energy absorption, the scaling factor
for velocity is 1.0, so this study mainly listed two
scaling parameters about the mass and force.
The test was conducted in the test bed for small-
scale models at the Central South University. For
condition 1, the moving car was launched by an air
gun, collided with the stationary car. For condition 2,
the moving car was launched by an air gun, crashed
into a rigid wall. The test arrangement is shown in
Figure 15 and the test scenario in Figure 16. The
entire collision process was recorded using a high-
speed camera; the displacement–time curves and vel-
ocity–time curves of honeycombs can be obtained by
subsequent processing of the high-speed camera data,
and the acceleration sensor was placed in the center of
gravity of the car body to obtain the acceleration data
during the collision.
Yao et al. 85

Analysis of the test results
This study considered nine groups of collision condi-
tions, of which four groups of test conditions are for
two-vehicle collisions and the remaining five groups of
test conditions are for a single car crashing into a rigid
wall. Processing the high-speed camera data obtained
for each vehicle test conditions, the changing process
of honeycomb deformation and vehicle speed are
shown in Figures 17 and 18, and the test data are
shown in Table 3.
As shown in Figure 17, after the collision of a
single car with a rigid wall, the vehicle has a smaller
rebound velocity. As shown in Figure 18, the speed of
the stationary car is slightly higher than that of the
moving car after collision, and the speeds of
the moving and stationary cars are close to half of

Figure 18. Displacement–time and velocity–time curves of the car-to-car impact test. (a) Test B1 (v ¼ 5:330 m=s), (b) test B2
(v ¼ 5:407 m=s), (c) test B3 (v ¼ 8:490 m=s), and (d) test B4 (v ¼ 9:927 m=s).
86 Proc IMechE Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 233(1)

Figure 18. Continued.

distribution of impact velocities is extensive, indirectly

Table 3. Test results. leading to the numerical distribution of the energy
Test Test speed Deformation of absorbers’ deformation also being wide; thus, subse-
Test condition number v (m/s) honeycomb (mm) quent processing of the data is required to ensure that
the precise methods of the two types of working con-
Car impact A1 2.628 34.632
ditions are equivalent. As shown in Table 4, A1, A2,
with rigid wall A2 2.759 36.535 A3, A4, and A5 represent the five tests of a single car
A3 3.143 40.616 impacting a rigid wall, and B1, B2, B3, and B4 repre-
A4 4.554 61.444 sent the four tests of the two-vehicle collision. First,
A5 5.881 88.115 we ensure the two conditions provide equivalent
Car-to-car B1 5.330 80.593 amounts of deformation, namely the equivalent
impact B2 5.407 82.077 deformation coefficient r ¼ ddAB ¼ 0:5. Next, we calcu-
B3 8.490 137.284 late the equivalent velocity coefficient k. According to
B4 9.927 154.326 the law of conservation of energy

1
Mv2 ¼ Fs þ Mgs ð44Þ
2
the test speed. These results are consistent with the
prior simulation results.
The acceleration–time curves of the cars in the Because
impact test are shown in Figure 19; because the
length of the first-degree energy absorber was Mgs 0:03  135  9:8
¼ ¼ 1:65375  103  0
50 mm, the acceleration curves in tests A1, A2, A3, Fs 24000
B1, B2 have one platform which represents the com- ð45Þ
pression of first-degree energy absorber. The acceler-
ation curves can be divided into two main stages in we can ignore the friction of Mgs and have
tests A4, A5, B3, B4. The first platform is the compres-
sion of the first-degree energy absorber, and the 1
Mv2A ¼ FsA ð46Þ
second platform is the compression of the second- 2
degree energy absorber. The plastic deformation plat-
form force of a honeycomb material is stable, so 1
Mv2B ¼ FsB ð47Þ
the acceleration curves are also stable. The first 2
platform acceleration is about 6 g and the second plat-
form acceleration is about 18 g for scaled model, so If we divide equation (46) by equation (47), we
the first platform acceleration is about 0.7 g and the have
second platform acceleration is about 2 g for
 2
prototype. vA sA
Because accurately controlling the collision speed ¼ ð48Þ
vB sB
before collision is challenging, the numerical
Yao et al. 87

Figure 19. Acceleration–time curves of the cars in the impact test. (a) Test A1, (b) test A2, (c) test A3, (d) test A4, (e) test A5, (f) test
B1, (g) test B2, (h) test B3, and (i) test B4.

If the two conditions are equivalent, then

Table 4. The acquisition of the equivalent relationship.
 2
Relationship Equivalent
k r
¼ ð49Þ
velocity vA =vB sA =sB
Combination vA =vB sA =sB coefficient, k
Thus, the equivalent velocity coefficient can be cal-
A1/B1 0.493058161 0.429714739 0.531850 culated as
A1/B2 0.486036619 0.421945247 0.529090
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
A2/B1 0.517636023 0.453327212 0.543630 r vA
k¼  ð50Þ
A2/B2 0.510264472 0.445130792 0.540799 sA =sB vB
A3/B1 0.589681051 0.503964364 0.587357
A3/B2 0.581283521 0.494852395 0.584300 Taking the equivalent coefficient of velocity as the
A4/B3 0.536395760 0.447568544 0.566944
sample points and fitting the sample points using the
linear least squares fitting function in MATLAB, we
A4/B4 0.458748867 0.408144188 0.514091
obtain the equivalent velocity relationship between
A5/B4 0.592424700 0.570966655 0.554387
two collision conditions as v0 ¼ 0:5248v þ 0:1608
88
Figure 20. Sample points and fitting curve.
(units: m/s). The fitting error sum square is 0.2268,
and the mean square deviation is 9.7761; thus, the
fitting degree is 0.9768. Figure 20 shows the fitting
curve and the sample points.
We conclude that we can use a single car with a
speed of v0 ¼ 0:5248v þ 0:1608 crashing into a rigid
wall to replace a moving car with a speed of v crashing
into an identical car that is stationary.
Conclusions
Presently, there are increasing numbers of research stu-
dies on the passive safety protection of rail vehicles, and
tests of the energy absorber and whole vehicle tests are
ongoing. However, the vehicle collision test cost is too
high and the test is too time consuming. The collision
between vehicles is a complex nonlinear process, and the
energy absorption in the process of collision is achieved
by both the energy absorber and the vehicle body. In
view of this characteristic, in order to evaluate the
energy absorption capability of a single car, we replaced
car-to-car impact conditions with a single car impacting
a rigid wall, and through simulations and experiments,
we found that a single vehicle with a speed of
v0 ¼ 0:5248v þ 0:1608 (units: m/s) crashing into a rigid
wall is equivalent to a moving car with a speed of v
crashing into an identical car that is stationary. If we
equivalently use a single vehicle that crashes into a rigid
wall to replace the test condition of one vehicle crashing
into an identical vehicle that is stationary, the possibility
of derailment of trains can be evaluated to the greatest
extent. This research provides practical support for the
equivalence of the collision test condition of the rail
vehicle and provides an effective method for studying
rail vehicle collisions in the future.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
Proc IMechE Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 233(1)
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial
support for the research, authorship, and/or publication
of this article: This work was supported by the National
Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number
51675537), the National Key Research and Development
Program of China (grant number 2016YFB1200404-04),
and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central
Universities of Central South University (grant numbers
2017zzts196, 2017zzts585).
ORCID iD
Ping Xu http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9670-9871
References
1. Bae HU, Yun KM and Lim NH. Containment capacity
and estimation of crashworthiness of derailment con-
tainment walls against high-speed trains. Proc
IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 2018; 232:
680–696.
2. Xu P, Yang C, Peng Y, et al. Crash performance and
multi-objective optimization of a gradual energy-
absorbing structure for subway vehicles. Int J Mech
Sci 2016; 107: 1–12.
3. Wood DP, Simms CK and Walsh DG. Vehicle-pedes-
trian collisions: validated models for pedestrian impact
and projection. Proc IMechE, Part D: J Automobile
Engineering 2005; 219: 183–195.
4. Li R, Xu P, Peng Y, et al. Scaled tests and numerical
simulations of rail vehicle collisions for various train
sets. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit
2016; 230: 1590–1600.
5. Peng Y, Hou L, Yang M, et al. Investigation of the
train driver injuries and the optimization design of
driver workspace during a collision. Proc IMechE,
Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 2017; 231: 902–915.
6. Tyrell DC. US rail equipment crashworthiness stand-
ards. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit
2002; 216: 123–130.
7. Technical Committee CEN/TC 256 Railway
Applications. BS EN 15227-2008 railway applications:
crashworthiness requirements for railway vehicle bodies.
London: British Standard Institution, 2008.
8. Hault-Dubrulle A, Robache F, Drazetic P, et al. Analysis
of train driver protection in rail collisions: part I.
Evaluation of injury outcome for train driver in desk
impact. Int J Crashworthiness 2013; 18: 183–193.
9. Karina JM. Collision dynamics modeling of crash energy
management passenger rail equipment. Medford, MA:
Tufts University, 2008.
10. Tyrell D and Martinez E. A train-to-train impact test of
crash energy management passenger rail equipment.
Volpe National Transportation Systems Center,
Massachusetts, USA, 2006.
11. Tyrell D, Jacobsen K, Martinez E, et al. Train-to-train
impact test of crash energy management passenger rail
equipment: structural results. In: ASME 2006 interna-
tional mechanical engineering congress and exposition,
Illinois, USA, 2006, pp.35–44. American Society of
Mechanical Engineers.
12. Severson KJ, Parent DP and Tyrell DC. Two-car
impact test of crash-energy management passenger rail
Yao et al.
cars: analysis of occupant protection measurements. In:
ASME 2004 international mechanical engineering con-
gress and exposition, California, USA, 2004, pp.87–96.
American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
13. Martinez E, Tyrell D and Perlman B. Development of
crash energy management designs for existing passenger
rail vehicles. In: ASME 2004 international mechanical
engineering congress and exposition, California, USA,
2004, pp.107–115. American Society of Mechanical
Engineers.
14. Jacobsen K, Tyrell D and Perlman B. Impact tests of
crash energy management passenger rail cars: analysis
and structural measurements. In: ASME 2004 interna-
tional mechanical engineering congress and exposition,
California, USA, 2004, pp.97–105. American Society
of Mechanical Engineers.
15. Lewis JH. Validation of measures to improve vehicle
safety in railway collisions. ASME Appl Mech Div
Publ AMD 1995; 210: 17–34.
16. Cleon LM, Legait J and Villemin M. SNCF structural
crashworthiness design strategy: design examples of
duplex TGV and XTER diesel multiple unit. In:
Tyrell DC and Rubin AH (eds) Symposium on rail vehi-
cle crashworthiness, France, 1996.
17. Train crashworthiness for Europe. SAFETRAIN Final
Report for the European Community under the
Industrial and Materials Technologies Programme,
Belgium, 27 July 2000.
18. SAFETRAIN B. EURAM Project n. BE-3092.
Dynamic tests. SAFETRAIN Technical Report,
Belgium.
19. SAFETRAIN B. EURAM Project n. BE-3092.
Mathematical modelling, Belgium.
20. Railway tests crash-worthy coaches. The Tribune,
India, 22 February 2006.
21. Wei Q, Wang Y and Wen B. Safety research on collision
of railway locomotives and rolling stock abroad.
Foreign Rolling Stock 2012; 5: 014.
22. Yan J, Yao S, Xu P, et al. Theoretical prediction and
numerical studies of expanding circular tubes as energy
absorbers. Int J Mech Sci 2016; 105: 206–214.
23. Reports for crash test of China standard EMU, http://
v.ifeng.com/oxygenvideo/special/160/index.shtml#_v_
www3 (2017, accessed 29 October 2017).
24. Hecht M. The crashworthiness of tramcar and LRV.
Foreign Rolling Stock 2005; 42: 39–41.
25. Lu G. Energy absorption requirement for crashworthy
vehicles. Proc IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit
2002; 216: 31–39.
89
26. Lu G and Ronghua XU. Energy absorption require-
ment for crashworthy vehicles. Foreign Rolling Stock
2006; 43: 8–13.
27. Chen S, Niu W and Wen T. Simulation of urban rail
vehicle crash and factors influencing anti-climbing abil-
ity of its anti-climber. J Mech Strength 2015; 37:
924–929.
28. Lowe WT, Al-Hassani STS and Johnson W. Impact
behaviour of small scale model motor coaches. Proc
Instn Mech Engrs 1972; 186: 409–419.
29. Kao GC and Chan GC. A scale model study of crash
energy dissipating vehicle structures. Wyle Laboratories,
Alabama, USA, 1968.
30. Barley GW and Mills B. A study of impact behaviour
through the use of geometrically similar models. Proc
Instn Mech Engrs 1969; 184: 26–33.
31. Jiang P, Tian CJ, Xie RZ, et al. Experimental investi-
gation into scaling laws for conical shells struck by pro-
jectiles. Int J Impact Eng 2006; 32: 1284–1298.
32. Wang M, Liu Z, Qiu Y, et al. Study on the similarity
laws for local damage effects in a concrete target under
the impact of projectiles. Shock Vib 2015; 16: 1–16.
33. Xu LJ, Lu XZ, Smith ST, et al. Scaled model test for
collision between over-height truck and bridge super-
structure. Int J Impact Eng 2012; 49: 31–42.
34. Ling L, Dhanasekar M and Thambiratnam DP.
Assessment of road-rail crossing collision derailments
on curved tracks. Aust J Struct Eng 2017; 18: 125–134.
35. Sun YQ, Cole C, Dhanasekar M, et al. Modelling and
analysis of the crush zone of a typical Australian pas-
senger train. Veh Syst Dyn 2012; 50: 1137–1155.
36. Ling L, Guan Q, Dhanasekar M, et al. Dynamic simu-
lation of train–truck collision at level crossings. Veh
Syst Dyn 2017; 55: 1–22.
37. Baker WE, Westine PS and Dodge FT. Similarity meth-
ods in engineering dynamics: theory and practice of scale
modeling. Spartan Books; [distributed by] Hayden Book
Co., USA, 1973.
38. Lu G and Yu TX. Energy absorption of structures and
materials. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2003.
39. Yao S, Yan K, Lu S, et al. Energy-absorption optimisa-
tion of locomotives and scaled equivalent model valid-
ation. Int J Crashworthiness 2017; 22: 1–12.
40. Wang Z, Liu J and Hui D. Mechanical behaviors of
inclined cell honeycomb structure subjected to compres-
sion. Compos Part B Eng 2017; 110: 307–314.
41. Wang Z, Tian H, Lu Z, et al. High-speed axial impact
of aluminum honeycomb-experiments and simulations.
Compos Part B Eng 2014; 56: 1–8.