U.S. Department of Transportation Safety Evaluation of High-Speed Rail Bogie Federal Railroad Concepts Administration Office of Research and Development Washington, DC 20590 DOT/FRA/ORD-13/42 Final Report October 2013 NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. Any opinions, findings and conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the United States Government, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the United States Government. The United States Government assumes no liability for the content or use of the material contained in this document. NOTICE The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188 Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503. 1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED October 2013 Final Report 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS Safety Evaluation of High-Speed Rail (HSR) Bogie Concepts: Comparative evaluations of HSR bogie design concepts for operation up to 125 mph 6. AUTHOR(S) and FRA COTR Adrian Gorski, Dennis Richter, Andrew Smith, Jingjun Zhang , David Watson, and Robert Spinelli Jr. 7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION GE Transportation REPORT NUMBER 2901 East Lake Road Erie, Pennsylvania 16531 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING U.S. Department of Transportation AGENCY REPORT NUMBER Federal Railroad Administration DOT/FRA/ORD-13/42 Office of Research and Development Washington, DC 20590 11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES COTR: S.K. (John) Punwani 12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE This document is available to the public through the FRA Web site at www.fra.dot.gov, or by calling (202) 493-1300. 13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words) The study defines the basic design concepts required to provide a safe, reliable, high-speed bogie for the next generation PRIIA passenger locomotive. The requirements and conditions for the U.S. market create unique design challenges that currently cannot be addressed by a U.S.-based manufacturer. A global survey identified dominant design trends focused on reducing P2 forces and optimizing bogie stability, curving performance, and ride quality. A likely design configuration with Bo-Bo arrangement was defined for the Task 2 stability analysis. The design of experiments, response surface techniques, and design space method used for the stability analysis demonstrated that a feasible design space of suspension variables could be identified for the conditions evaluated. The coinciding requirements for a higher horsepower engine, Tier 4 emissions, and crashworthiness equipment will add significant weight to the next generation locomotive. In order to meet the P2 limit of 82,000 pounds force at 125 mph, the next generation passenger locomotive will require a frame-hung traction motor, most likely with fully suspended drivetrain, and a disc brake system added to the already existing tread brake and dynamic brake systems. A preliminary safety FMEA concluded the new drivetrain would likely not increase safety risk. 14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES High-Speed Rail (HSR), bogie, concepts, Bo-Bo arrangement, Pareto plot, stability analysis, P2 158 force, PRIIA locomotive 16. PRICE CODE 17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT OF REPORT Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18 298-102 i Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 4 1.1 Background ................................................................................................................. 4 1.2 Objectives .................................................................................................................... 5 1.3 Overall approach ......................................................................................................... 5 1.4 Scope ........................................................................................................................... 6 1.5 Organization of the report ........................................................................................... 6 2. Reports ......................................................................................................................... 8 2.1 Task 1 - Technology Survey of High-Speed Bogie Concepts ..................................... 8 2.2 Task 2 - HSR Bogie Running Stability Summary Report ......................................... 27 2.3 Task 3 - Dynamic Load Summary Report ................................................................. 65 2.4 Task 4 - Braking Capability Summary Report .......................................................... 76 2.5 Task 5 - Wheel and Axle Summary Report .............................................................. 91 2.6 Task 6 - Locked Axle Safety Risk Assessment Summary Report ............................ 99 3. Report Conclusions ................................................................................................. 104 4. References ............................................................................................................... 106 Appendix A. Truck Design Fundamentals................................................................................. 107 Appendix B. Survey results tables – Truck design parameters ................................................. 120 Appendix C. Basic configurations of surveyed trucks............................................................... 125 Appendix D. Task Modeling Results ......................................................................................... 129 Abbreviations and Acronyms ..................................................................................................... 150 ii Illustrations Figure 2.1.1-a: Interaction between wheel and rail geometries ...................................................... 8 Figure 2.1.3-a: Bo-Bo wheel arrangement .................................................................................... 12 Figure 2.1.3-b: Surveyed locomotive truck speeds ....................................................................... 12 Figure 2.1.3-c: Surveyed locomotive truck speeds ....................................................................... 13 Figure 2.1.3-d: Wheel diameters ................................................................................................... 14 Figure 2.1.3-e: Types of fabricated truck frames .......................................................................... 15 Figure 2.1.3-f: Surveyed wheel bases ........................................................................................... 15 Figure 2.1.3-g: Axle guiding device ............................................................................................. 16 Figure 2.1.3-h: Traction links ....................................................................................................... 16 Figure 2.1.3-i: Motor suspensions ................................................................................................ 18 Figure 2.1.3-j: Survey results of motor suspensions ..................................................................... 19 Figure 2.1.3-k: Relation between unsprung mass and locomotive weight for P2 force limit of 82,000 lb (track parameters are from PRIIA spec) ............................................................... 20 Figure 2.1.3-l: Brake arrangements .............................................................................................. 21 Figure 2.1.3-m: Wheel-mounted disc brake ................................................................................. 21 Figure 2.1.3-n: Axle mounted disc brake ...................................................................................... 22 Figure 2.1.3-o: Hollow-shaft (quill) mounted disc brake (Bombardier ALP45 DP) .................... 22 Figure 2.1.3-p: Discs mounted on separate shaft (Siemens SF1) ................................................. 22 Figure 2.1.3-q: Truck/Body traction connections ......................................................................... 24