Office of Research 

and Development 

Washington, DC 20590 

Occupant Protection Experiments in Support of 

A Full-Scale Train-to-Train Crash Energy 

Management Equipment Collision Test 

U.S. Department of 

Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Final Report

July 2009 

DOT/FRA/ORD-09/14 
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. 

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 

July 2009 

3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED 

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 

Occupant Protection Experiments in Support of a Full-Scale Train-to-Train Crash 

Energy Management Equipment Collision Test 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

Bob Rancatore, Patricia Llana, Caroline Van Ingen-Dunn, Chris Bradney 

5. FUNDING NUMBERS 

RR28/EB035 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

Armor Holdings Aerospace & Defense Group 

10016 S. 51st St. 

Phoenix, AZ 85044 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NUMBER 

DOT-VNTSC-FRA-09-06 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Office of Research and Development 

Washington, DC 20590 

10. SPONSORING/MONITORING 

 AGENCY REPORT NUMBER 

DOT/FRA/ORD-09/14 

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Research and Innovation Technology Administration 

John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 

55 Broadway 

Cambridge, MA 02142-1093 

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

This document is available to the public through the FRA Web site at www.fra.gov 

12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words) 

The Federal Railroad Administration sponsored a full-scale train-to-train crash energy management (CEM) technology test that was conducted on 

March 23, 2006, at the Transportation Technology Center in Pueblo, Colorado. The Volpe National Transportation Center directed and coordinated 

the contractors who implemented the test and developed the technical requirements for the test, including the conditions, the equipment tested, and 

the measurements made. This report describes the installation details and the results of the five occupant protection experiments conducted as 

part of Task Order Contract DTR S57-04-D-30008/TO6. The five experiments were conducted on board two commuter rail cars as part of the fullscale train-to-train CEM equipment collision test. 

15. NUMBER OF PAGES 

80 

14. SUBJECT TERMS 

Occupant protection, train-to-train, full-scale, strain gage, accelerometer, occupant 

configurations, head-on collision, Crash Emergency Management (CEM), 

Anthropomorphic Test Devices (ATDs), seat configuration loads, accelerations, 

displacements. 

16. PRICE CODE 

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 

 OF REPORT 

 Unclassified

18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

 OF THIS PAGE 

 Unclassified

19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 

 OF ABSTRACT 

 Unclassified

20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT 

NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) 

Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18 

298-102 
METRIC/ENGLISH CONVERSION FACTORS 

ENGLISH TO METRIC METRIC TO ENGLISH

LENGTH (APPROXIMATE) LENGTH (APPROXIMATE) 

1 inch (in) = 2.5 centimeters (cm) 1 millimeter (mm) = 0.04 inch (in) 

1 foot (ft) = 30 centimeters (cm) 1 centimeter (cm) = 0.4 inch (in) 

1 yard (yd) = 0.9 meter (m) 1 meter (m) = 3.3 feet (ft) 

1 mile (mi) = 1.6 kilometers (km) 1 meter (m) = 1.1 yards (yd) 

1 kilometer (km) = 0.6 mile (mi)

AREA (APPROXIMATE) AREA (APPROXIMATE) 

1 square inch (sq in, in2) = 6.5 square centimeters (cm2) 1 square centimeter (cm2) = 0.16 square inch (sq in, in2) 

1 square foot (sq ft, ft2) = 0.09 square meter (m2) 1 square meter (m2) = 1.2 square yards (sq yd, yd2) 

1 square yard (sq yd, yd2) = 0.8 square meter (m2) 1 square kilometer (km2) = 0.4 square mile (sq mi, mi2) 

1 square mile (sq mi, mi2) = 2.6 square kilometers (km2) 10,000 square meters (m2) = 1 hectare (ha) = 2.5 acres 

1 acre = 0.4 hectare (he) = 4,000 square meters (m2) 

MASS - WEIGHT (APPROXIMATE) MASS - WEIGHT (APPROXIMATE) 

1 ounce (oz) = 28 grams (gm) 1 gram (gm) = 0.036 ounce (oz) 

1 pound (lb) = 0.45 kilogram (kg) 1 kilogram (kg) = 2.2 pounds (lb) 

1 short ton = 2,000 pounds 

(lb) 

= 0.9 tonne (t) 1 tonne (t) =

=

1,000 kilograms (kg) 

1.1 short tons

VOLUME (APPROXIMATE) VOLUME (APPROXIMATE) 

1 teaspoon (tsp) = 5 milliliters (ml) 1 milliliter (ml) = 0.03 fluid ounce (fl oz) 

1 tablespoon (tbsp) = 15 milliliters (ml) 1 liter (l) = 2.1 pints (pt) 

1 fluid ounce (fl oz) = 30 milliliters (ml) 1 liter (l) = 1.06 quarts (qt) 

1 cup (c) = 0.24 liter (l) 1 liter (l) = 0.26 gallon (gal) 

1 pint (pt) = 0.47 liter (l) 

 1 quart (qt) = 0.96 liter (l) 

1 gallon (gal) = 3.8 liters (l) 

1 cubic foot (cu ft, ft3) = 0.03 cubic meter (m3) 1 cubic meter (m3) = 36 cubic feet (cu ft, ft3) 

1 cubic yard (cu yd, yd3) = 0.76 cubic meter (m3) 1 cubic meter (m3) = 1.3 cubic yards (cu yd, yd3)

TEMPERATURE (EXACT) TEMPERATURE (EXACT) 

[(x-32)(5/9)] F = y C [(9/5) y + 32] C = x F

QUICK INCH - CENTIMETER LENGTH CONVERSION

0 1 2 34

Inches

Centimeters 01 3 2 6 11 4 5 7 1 1098 12

5

3

QUICK FAHRENHEIT - CELSIUS TEMPERATURE CONVERSION

 -40° -22° -4° 14° 32° 50° 68° 86° 104° 122° 140° 158° 176° 194° 212°

 

°F

 °C -40° -30° -20° -10° 0° 10° 20° 30° 40° 50° 60° 70° 80° 90° 100°

For more exact and or other conversion factors, see NIST Miscellaneous Publication 286, Units of Weights and 

Measures. Price $2.50 SD Catalog No. C13 10286 Updated 6/17/98
Preface 

The work described in this report was performed as part of the Federal Railroad Administration’s 

rail equipment crashworthiness research under contract with the Volpe National Transportation 

Systems Center (Volpe Center). David Tyrell, Senior Engineer at the Volpe Center, managed 

the program. Daniel Parent and Kristine Severson, Project Engineers at the Volpe Center, 

developed the test requirements. This report describes the results of occupant protection 

experiments conducted on board during a full-scale train-to-train crash energy management 

collision test. 

iii
Table of Contents 

List of Figures.............................................................................................................................. viii 

List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ xii 

Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................1 

1. Introduction..........................................................................................................................3 

2. Program Objectives..............................................................................................................5 

3. Test Information...................................................................................................................7 

3.1 Seat and Table Installation...................................................................................................8 

3.2 Data Acquisition ..................................................................................................................8 

3.3 Lights and Cameras..............................................................................................................9 

3.4 ATDs..................................................................................................................................10 

4. Experiments .......................................................................................................................12 

4.1 Experiment 1.1: Rear-Facing Commuter Seats .................................................................12 

4.1.1 Objective..................................................................................................................... 12 

4.1.2 Configuration .............................................................................................................. 12 

4.1.3 Installation................................................................................................................... 12 

4.1.4 Data Acquisition ......................................................................................................... 16 

4.1.5 Lights and Cameras..................................................................................................... 18

4.1.6 ATDs........................................................................................................................... 19 

4.2 Experiments 1.2 and 1.3: Workstation Table Occupant Experiments...............................20 

4.2.1 Objective..................................................................................................................... 20 

4.2.2 Configuration .............................................................................................................. 21 

4.2.3 Installation................................................................................................................... 22 

4.2.4 Data Acquisition ......................................................................................................... 26 

4.2.5 Lights and Cameras..................................................................................................... 30

iv
Table of Contents (continued) 

4.2.6 ATDs........................................................................................................................... 32 

4.3 Experiment 2.1: Forward-Facing Intercity Seats...............................................................33 

4.3.1 Objective..................................................................................................................... 33 

4.3.2 Configuration .............................................................................................................. 34 

4.3.3 Installation................................................................................................................... 35 

4.3.4 Data Acquisition ......................................................................................................... 37 

4.3.5 Lights and Cameras..................................................................................................... 37

4.3.6 ATDs........................................................................................................................... 39 

4.4 Experiment 2.2: Forward-Facing Commuter Seats ...........................................................40 

4.4.1 Objective..................................................................................................................... 40 

4.4.2 Configuration .............................................................................................................. 41 

4.4.3 Installation................................................................................................................... 42 

4.4.4 Data Acquisition ......................................................................................................... 43 

4.4.5 Lights and Cameras..................................................................................................... 43

4.4.6 ATDs........................................................................................................................... 47 

5. Test Implementation ..........................................................................................................48 

5.1 Pretest Preparation .............................................................................................................48 

5.2 Post-Test Activity ..............................................................................................................48 

6. Results................................................................................................................................49 

6.1 Experiment 1.1: Rear-Facing Commuter Seats .................................................................50 

6.1.1 Seat Outcome–Experiment 1.1 ................................................................................... 50 

6.1.2 ATD Outcome–Experiment 1.1.................................................................................. 53 

6.2 Experiment 1.2: Workstation Table Occupant Experiment Using the RSSB 

Hybrid 3RS ........................................................................................................................53 

v
Table of Contents (continued) 

6.2.1 Table Outcome–Experiment 1.2 ................................................................................. 53 

6.2.2 ATD Outcome–Experiment 1.2.................................................................................. 55 

6.3 Experiment 1.3: Workstation Table Occupant Experiment Using the THOR ATD .........56 

6.3.1 Seat Outcome–Experiment 1.3 ................................................................................... 57 

6.3.2 ATD Outcome–Experiment 1.3.................................................................................. 60 

6.4 Experiment 2.1: Forward-Facing Intercity Seats...............................................................60 

6.4.1 Seat Outcome–Experiment 2.1 ................................................................................... 61 

6.4.2 ATD Outcome–Experiment 2.1.................................................................................. 61 

6.5 Experiment 2.2: Forward-Facing Commuter Seats ...........................................................62 

6.5.1 Seat Outcome–Experiment 2.2 ................................................................................... 63 

6.5.2 ATD Outcome–Experiment 2.2.................................................................................. 63 

7. Conclusions........................................................................................................................65 

Appendix A. Test-Equipment Matrix ...........................................................................................69

Appendix B. Camera Failure Report ............................................................................................73 

Appendix C. Pretest Target Measurements ..................................................................................77 

Acronyms and Symbols .................................................................................................................80 

vi
Illustrations 

Figure 1. Pretest Photograph of the CEM Passenger Train ............................................................5 

Figure 2. Schematic Showing the Locations of the Five Occupant Protection Experiments.........7 

Figure 3. Schematic Showing the Positioning of the Rear-Facing Commuter Seat in the Lead 

Cab Car (#9357) in Experiment 1.1 ..............................................................................13 

Figure 4. Pretest Photograph of Experiment 1.1...........................................................................14 

Figure 5. Floor-Attachment Spacer Blocks for Unoccupied Rebound Seat (left) and Load Cells 

for Occupied Front-Row Seat (right) in Experiment 1.1...............................................14 

Figure 6. Wall-Attachment Spacer Blocks for Unoccupied Seat (left) and Load Cells for 

Occupied Seat (right) in Experiment 1.1.......................................................................15 

Figure 7. Rugged Angle Iron Bolted to the Vertical Piece of the T-Shaped Load-Cell 

Attachment Plate and Bolted to the C-Channel That Formed the Base of the Seat 

Assembly .......................................................................................................................16 

Figure 8. Plywood Floor Installed around the Seat Installation Raising the Floor to the Level 

Where the Pedestal Base is Installed in Experiment 1.1 ...............................................17 

Figure 9. Four Data Bricks Installed behind the Aft-Facing Seating Experiment to Collect 29 

Channels of Data in Experiment 1.1 .............................................................................18 

Figure 10. Configuration of Lights and Cameras for Experiment 1.1..........................................19 

Figure 11. Reference Targets Placed on Each ATD at the Head, Shoulder, Elbow, and Knee 

Locations, and on the Seats along the Edge of the Headrest and Seat Back..............20 

Figure 12. Schematic Showing the Positioning of Facing Seats with Improved Workstation 

Table in the Cab Car (#9357) in Experiments 1.2 and 1.3.........................................22 

Figure 13. Overall View of Experiment 1.2 (background) and Experiment 1.3 (foreground).....23 

Figure 14. Pretest Photograph of Experiment 1.2.........................................................................23 

Figure 15. Pretest Photograph of Experiment 1.3.........................................................................24 

Figure 16. Window-Side Facing Seat Installation (left), and Aisle-Side Installation (right) for 

Experiments 1.2 and 1.3...............................................................................................25 

Figure 17. Two 20-Foot Bars were Welded Four-Inches Apart on Top of Vertical Bars............25 

vii
Illustrations(continued) 

Figure 18. Table Bolted to Three Individual Attachment Plates which were Bolted to the Load 

Cells ...........................................................................................................................26 

Figure 19. Nine Data Bricks Installed to Collect Data from 70 Channels Linked to Experiments 

1.2 and 1.3 ..................................................................................................................27 

Figure 20. Table Acceleration was Measured with an Accelerometer, and Table Crush and 

Displacement were Measured with Two Potentiometers...........................................28 

Figure 21. Potentiometer Cord for Table Crush, Stretched under Table to a Hook Bonded into 

the Honeycomb Where a Melamine Strip was Removed (left). Cord for Table 

Displacement, Stretched from the Unistrut to a Hook Bonded into the Facing 

Edge of the Table (right) in Experiments 1.2 and 1.3 ................................................30 

Figure 22. Forty-Eight Flood Lights were Installed along the Wall (left), with Two RS Cameras 

(right) Covering Both Experiments 1.2 and 1.3 .........................................................31 

Figure 23. Twelve Flood Lights and One U512 Camera, were Installed above for Experiment 

1.2 (left) and Experiment 1.3 (right) ..........................................................................31 

Figure 24. One RS Front View Camera was Installed to Capture the Combined Front View of 

Experiments 1.2 and 1.3.............................................................................................32 

Figure 25. One Instrumented Hybrid 3RS Occupied the Forward-Facing Window Seat in 

Experiment 1.2 (left) and One Instrumented THOR Occupied the Forward-Facing 

Window Seat in Experiment 1.3 (right) .....................................................................33 

Figure 26. Schematic Showing the Location of Experiment 2.1 ..................................................34 

Figure 27. Pretest Photograph of Experiment 2.1.........................................................................35 

Figure 28. Launch-Seat Installation for Experiment 2.1...............................................................36 

Figure 29. Impact-Seat Installation for Experiment 2.1 Aisle Side (left) and Window 

Side (right)..................................................................................................................36 

Figure 30. Plywood Floor Installed around Experiment 2.1.........................................................37 

Figure 31. Three Data Bricks and One Accelerometer, Installed behind Experiment 2.1 ...........38 

Figure 32. One APX Camera and 24 Flood Lights were Installed along the Wall (left) and One 

U512 Camera and 12 Lights were Installed along the Ceiling (right) in 

Experiment 2.1.............................................................................................................39 

viii
Illustrations (continued) 

Figure 33. Two Instrumented Hybrid III 95th Percentile ATDs Occupied the Two-Place 

Passenger Intercity Seat in Experiment 2.1................................................................40 

Figure 34. Schematic Illustrating the Positioning of the Forward-Facing Commuter Seat in 

the First Coach Car (#9358) in Experiment 2.2...........................................................41 

Figure 35. Pretest Photograph of Experiment 2.2.........................................................................42 

Figure 36. Floor Attachment Load Cells for the Impact Seat (left) and Spacer Blocks for 

the Launch Seat (right) in Experiment 2.2...................................................................42 

Figure 37. Top View of the Wall-Attachment Load Cells on the Unoccupied Impact Seat 

(left), and Underside View of Spacer Blocks on the Launch Seat (right) in 

Experiment 2.2 ...........................................................................................................43 

Figure 38. Rugged Angle Iron was Bolted to the Vertical Piece of the T-Shaped Load-Cell 

Attachment Plate, Then Bolted to the C-Channel That Formed the Base of the 

Seat Assembly..............................................................................................................44 

Figure 39. Plywood Floor Built around the Seat Installation Raising the Floor to the Level 

Where the Pedestal Base was Installed in Experiment 2.2.........................................45 

Figure 40. Four Data Bricks Installed behind Experiment 2.2 to Collect 32 Channels 

of Data ........................................................................................................................46 

Figure 41. One U512 Camera and 24 Flood Lights were Installed along the Wall and One 

U512 Camera and 12 Lights were Installed along the Ceiling...................................46 

Figure 42. Instrumented Hybrid III ATDs Occupied the Aisle and Window Seats. An 

Uninstrumented Hybrid II ATD Occupied the Middle Seat in Experiment 2.2.........47 

Figure 43. Post-Test Photograph of the Impact Interface.............................................................49 

Figure 44. Relative Velocity versus Relative Displacement ........................................................51 

Figure 45. Post-Test Photograph of Experiment 1.1.....................................................................51 

Figure 46. Weld Failure at the Pedestal Base which Caused the Seat to Collapse in 

Experiment 1.1 ...........................................................................................................51 

Figure 47. The Bolt Holding Seat Base at the C-Channel Pulled through. The Connection 

Holding the C-Channel to the Wall also Failed .........................................................52 

Figure 48. Post-Test Photograph of Experiment 1.2 (with Hybrid 3RS ATD) ............................54 

ix
x

Illustrations (continued) 

Figure 49. Interaction of the Knees with the Facing Seat Rubber Bumper Occured in 

Experiment 1.2.............................................................................................................56 

Figure 50. Post-Test Photograph of Experiment 1.3 (with THOR ATD).....................................57 

Figure 51. Evidence of Knee Interaction with the Facing-Seat Rubber Bumper in 

Experiment 1.3 ...........................................................................................................59 

Figure 52. Tears in the Rubber Bumper from Knee Interaction with the Facing Seat in 

Experiment 1.3 ...........................................................................................................59 

Figure 53. Post-Test Photograph of Experiment 2.1.....................................................................60 

Figure 54. Energy-Absorbing Struts Before the Test (left), Actuated Approximately 

0.75 in (right) to Help Reduce the Force of the Head Impacting the Seat Back........61 

Figure 55. Post-Test Photograph of Experiment 2.2.....................................................................62 

Figure 56. Weld Failure at Pedestal Base, which Caused the Seat to Rotate Forward and 

Allowed the ATDs to Fall into the Aisle in Experiment 2.2......................................63 
Tables 

Table 1. Summary of Experiment Results......................................................................................2 

Table 2. Instrumentation and SAE J211 Filter Classes...................................................................8 

Table 3. Camera Information........................................................................................................10 

Table 4. Instrumentation Requirements for Experiment 1.1.........................................................17 

Table 5. Cameras and Respective Fields of View for Experiment 1.1.........................................18 

Table 6. Instrumentation Requirements for Experiment 1.2.........................................................28 

Table 7. Instrumentation Requirements for Experiment 1.3.........................................................29 

Table 8. Cameras and Respective Fields of View for Experiments 1.2 and 1.3...........................30 

Table 9. Instrumentation Requirements for Experiment 2.1.........................................................38 

Table 10. Cameras and Respective Fields of View for Experiment 2.1.......................................39 

Table 11. Instrumentation Requirements for Experiment 2.2.......................................................45 

Table 12. Cameras and Respective Fields of View for Experiment 2.2.......................................46 

Table 13. Floor Attachment Loads and Accelerations in Experiment 1.1....................................52 

Table 14. ATD Measurements on Hybrid III 50th Percentile ATDs in Experiment 1.1..............53 

Table 15. Table Attachment Loads, Displacements, and Floor Accelerations in 

Experiment 1.2 ..............................................................................................................54 

Table 16. ATD Measurements on Hybrid 3RS in Experiment 1.2...............................................55

Table 17. Table Attachment Loads, Displacements, and Floor Accelerations for 

Experiment 1.3 ..............................................................................................................58 

Table 18. Injury Criteria Calculated for THOR ATD in Experiment 1.3.....................................60 

Table 19. Floor Accelerations in Experiment 2.1.........................................................................61 

Table 20. Injury Criteria for Hybrid III 95th Percentile ATDs in Experiment 2.1.......................62 

Table 21. Floor Attachment Loads and Accelerations for Experiment 2.2 ..................................64

xi
xii

Tables (continued) 

Table 22. Injury Criteria Calculated for the Hybrid III 50th Percentile ATDs in 

Experiment 2.2 ..............................................................................................................64 

Table 23. Summary of Test Results..............................................................................................65 
Executive Summary 

A full-scale train-to-train collision test of crash energy management (CEM) equipment was 

conducted on March 23, 2006, at the Transportation Technology Center (TTC) in Pueblo, 

Colorado. The CEM passenger train was subjected to a head-on collision with a stationary 

locomotive-led train at a speed of 30.8 mph. One of the objectives of this test was to carry out a 

number of occupant protection experiments that were placed on the first two cars of the cab carled consist comprising five passenger cars and a locomotive. 

Five occupant protection experiments were conducted. Two of these experiments tested the 

crashworthiness performance of a newly designed commuter seat. Another two tested the 

crashworthiness performance of a newly designed crushable workstation table between facing 

seats. The fifth experiment tested the crashworthiness performance of modified intercity seats. 

Each experiment included instrumented Anthropomorphic Test Devices (ATDs), measurement 

of occupant impact loading parameters, and high-speed digital cameras and lights to capture the 

occupant kinematics during the collision. Crashworthiness performance was based upon 

occupant compartmentalization and injury measurements. Ideally, the seats and tables should 

remain attached to the car body, the ATDs should be compartmentalized between rows of seats 

or between the seat and table, and the injury criteria calculated for the head, chest, neck, femur, 

and abdomen should be below accepted threshold values. The results of these experiments are 

summarized in Table 1. 

Three of the five experiments were conducted in the lead cab car (#9357). The experiments 

tested the following components: 

 Experiment 1.1–Rear-facing newly designed commuter passenger seat, 

 Experiment 1.2–Facing-seat pairs with newly designed workstation table and H3RS ATD, 

and 

 Experiment 1.3–Facing-seat pairs with newly designed workstation table and THOR ATD. 

Two experiments were conducted in the first coach car (#9358): 

 Experiment 2.1–Forward-facing intercity passenger seat, and 

 Experiment 2.2–Forward-facing newly designed commuter passenger seat. 

1
2

Table 1. Summary of Experiment Results 

Experiment 

No. 

Experiment 

Description 

Structural 

Crashworthiness 

Performance of 

Equipment 

Injury 

Criteria Met? 

ATDs 

Compartmentalized? 

1.1 Rear-Facing 

Commuter Seat 

Seat attachment 

failed at base of 

pedestal 

Yes No 

1.2 Crushable Table 

between Facing 

Seats with Hybrid 

3RS 

Table crushed as 

designed to 6.125 in 

Yes Yes 

1.3 Crushable Table 

between Facing 

Seats with THOR 

Table crushed as 

designed to 4.75 in 

Yes Yes 

2.1 Forward-Facing 

Intercity Seat 

E/A actuated as 

designed by 0.75 in 

No Yes 

2.2 Forward-Facing 

Commuter Seat 

Seat attachment 

partially failed at 

base of pedestal 

Yes Yes 
1. Introduction 

The Federal Railroad Administration sponsored a full-scale train-to-train crash energy 

management (CEM) technology test. The Volpe National Transportation Systems Center (Volpe 

Center) directed and coordinated the contractors who implemented the test. The Volpe Center 

also developed the technical requirements for the test, including the conditions, the equipment 

that was tested, and the measurements that were made.. 

This report describes the installation details and the results of the five occupant protection 

experiments conducted as part of Task Order Contract DTR S57-04-D-30008/TO6 on board two 

commuter rail cars as part of the full-scale train-to-train CEM equipment collision test. The test 

was conducted on March 23, 2006, at the Transportation Technology Center (TTC), a U.S. 

Department of Transportation test site located in Pueblo, Colorado. TIAX, LLC, and its 

subcontractors, Armor Holdings Aerospace & Defense Group, CVID Consulting Services, 

GMH, and Itronx (the TIAX team), coordinated the occupant protection test effort in 

collaboration with Transportation Technology Center, Inc. (TTCI), the operating manager of 

TTC, who was responsible for the overall coordination of the collision test (the structural portion 

in particular). The structural portion of testing included preparing the cars and their strain gage 

and accelerometer instrumentation, and reporting the measurements made with such 

instrumentation. 

The five experiments included two commuter seat experiments, two crushable table experiments, 

and one intercity seat experiment. The TIAX team provided technical services and support as 

the occupant protection contractor. In this role, the TIAX team’s major duties included setting 

up and preparing the car interiors and their table/seat/occupant configurations, and reporting the 

data produced by the Anthropomorphic Test Devices (ATD) as well as the selected table and seat 

configuration loads, accelerations, and displacements. 

3

5

2. Program Objectives 

The objective of this program was to implement the five occupant protection experiments 

described in the test requirements document provided by the Volpe Center as part of the fullscale train-to-train CEM equipment collision test task order request (TOR) for proposals. The 

five experiments were conducted on the first two cars of a cab car-led consist of five cars 

equipped with CEM crush zones and a locomotive. This consist was subjected to a head-on 

collision with a stationary locomotive-led consist at a speed of 30.8 mph. Figure 1 shows a 

pretest photograph of the CEM equipment. 

Figure 1. Pretest Photograph of the CEM Passenger Train 

As a part of this effort, the TIAX team’s responsibilities included: 

 Installation of the interior table and seat configurations and other components for the test, 

 Coordination with the government for the instrumented ATD types (provided as governmentfurnished equipment [GFE]), GFE seats, and instrumentation, 

 Planning, preparation, and execution of the occupant protection experiments, and 

 Reporting the occupant protection data gathered during the test. 

The data reported describe the occupant environment during the test and the corresponding 

occupant dynamics and injury likelihood. The objectives of the test included measurement of the 

secondary collision environment, such as the vertical, lateral, and longitudinal accelerations of 

the occupant volume at selected locations in the cars and determination of the effectiveness of 

each seat and table configuration in protecting the occupants. 

3. Test Information 

Five occupant protection experiments conducted. Two experiments examined the 

crashworthiness performance of a newly designed commuter seat. Two experiments examined 

the crashworthiness performance of a newly designed crushable workstation table between 

facing seats. One experiment examined the crashworthiness performance of previously modified 

intercity seats. Each experiment included instrumented ATDs, measurement of occupant impact 

loading parameters, and high-speed digital cameras and lights to capture the occupant kinematics 

during the collision. Three of the five experiments were conducted in the lead cab car (#9357). 

The experiments tested the following components: 

 Experiment 1.1–Rear-facing newly designed commuter passenger seat, 

 Experiment 1.2–Facing-seat pairs with newly designed workstation table and H3RS ATD, 

and 

 Experiment 1.3–Facing-seat pairs with newly designed workstation table and THOR ATD. 

Two experiments were conducted in the first coach car (#9358): 

 Experiment 2.1–Forward-facing intercity passenger seat, and 

 Experiment 2.2–Forward-facing newly designed commuter passenger seat. 

Figure 2 illustrates the locations of the five occupant protection experiments. 

Figure 2. Schematic Showing the Locations of the Five Occupant Protection Experiments

Direction of Travel

Exp. 1.1

Exp. 1.2 Exp. 1.3

Car #9357

Cab

end of

Lead

Car

Exp. 2.1

Exp. 2.2

Car #9358

Front

end of

Coach

Car

7
3.1 Seat and Table Installation 

The placement of each experiment was determined based on the location of structural attachment 

areas of the car, the location of the cameras (which were mounted on a heavy structure between 

the windows for the side views), and avoiding interferences (both structural and with 

instrumentation) on the car’s floor, walls, and ceiling. All references to seat locations are made 

with respect to their positions in the rail car. 

In general, for each experiment, steel bars were welded onto structures in the walls and the floor 

of the car to provide locations for mounting seat/table/load-cell attachments and to allow access 

to other structures as required. An existing mountable structure was not available as in previous 

full-scale tests due to the broad spacing between the structural beams in the floor of the rail cars. 

For example, the spacing between the 4.25-inch hat sections and the 1.5-inch right-angle sections 

was 2.5 ft, limiting the structural integrity of a steel bar bolted to these sections. Therefore, steel 

bars (6-inches wide x 3/8-inches thick) were welded onto these stringers (hat sections and rightangle sections) in the floor to provide a mountable structure for the seats. Steel load-cell adapter 

plates (4-inches wide x 0.75-inches thick) and attachment plates were then match-drilled to these 

welded bars and bolted in place. For each load cell, four 0.5-inch grade 8 bolts were used to 

mount the load-cell attachments to the bars. A 0.50-inch-thick backing plate was used to secure 

the bolts wherever possible. The seats were then mounted to these steel plates. A false floor was 

then installed for each experiment to raise the feet of the ATD to the same level that each seat 

base was installed. Because of the additional mounting hardware, the floor in each experiment 

was raised, requiring the feet of the ATD to be raised as well. 

3.2 Data Acquisition 

In total, the experiments (including the ATDs) used 23 accelerometers, 10 displacement 

transducers, and 36 load cells. Together, these sensors required a data acquisition system that 

collected data from 155 data channels. Appendix A provides the instrumentation matrix that was 

used to track the data acquisition requirements. 

To collect 155 channels of data, 20 calibrated data bricks were installed, each with the capability 

of acquiring up to eight channels. Each data brick was set to acquire data for a minimum of 0.1 

second (s) before impact and 4 s after impact. A class 1,000 anti-aliasing presample filter and a 

minimum sample rate of 10 kHz were selected to collect data in accordance with the Society of 

Automotive Engineers (SAE) J211/1, Revision March 1995, Sections 9.1 and 9.2. Table 2 lists 

the instrumentation and filter classes that were used. All transducers that were used were 

calibrated within the 12-month period before the test. 

Of the 155 data channels that were set up, 152 successfully recorded and downloaded data. 

Information will be provided in later sections on the channels that failed to record. 

Table 2. Instrumentation and SAE J211 Filter Classes 

Instrumentation Filter Class 

Rail Car Accelerations 60 

ATD Head Accelerations (x, y, and z) 1000 

8
Upper Neck Transducer–Forces 1000 

Upper Neck Transducer–Moments 600 

Chest Accelerations (x, y, and z) 180 

Femur Axial Loads 600 

Table Attachment Loads (x, y, and z) 60 

3.3 Lights and Cameras 

Rugged fixtures were fabricated and installed inside the rail cars to support the lights and 

cameras. The light arrays were custom-fabricated on site using a combination of unistrut and 

slotted-steel angle iron and were bolted and welded as required to hard-point structures on the 

walls and ceilings. The lights and cameras were mounted in predesignated areas to best capture 

the response of the seat/table configurations and the ATDs during impact. 

A total of 11 high-speed cameras were used for the occupant experiments. Each experiment was 

installed with two high-speed digital cameras, one providing an overhead view and one 

providing a side view. An additional camera was installed to provide a combined front view of 

the two workstation table experiments (Experiments 1.2 and 1.3). The video cameras operated at 

a rate of 500 or 1,000 frames per second and were set to record 0.5 s before impact and up to 4 

or 6 s after impact. The high-speed video cameras and the accompanying strobe lights used to 

indicate barrier impact were triggered using closure switches (tape switches). These were 

installed on the leading cab car’s coupler and triggered when this coupler made initial contact 

with the coupler of the stationary locomotive. Table 3 describes the cameras that were used and 

the parameters for each. 

All of the cameras were DC-powered with 12-volt batteries. One battery with an operational life 

of 5.6 hours powered the two cameras for Experiment 1.1. Two batteries powered the five 

cameras for Experiments 1.2 and 1.3: one, with an operational life of 6.0 hours, powered the 

front-view and two overhead cameras, and the other, with an operational life of 6.4 hours, 

powered the two side cameras. One battery with an operational life of 3.6 hours was used to 

power the four cameras installed for Experiments 2.1 and 2.2. 

Seven of the 11 cameras that were installed collected data effectively. Appendix B provides a 

report explaining the failure of the remaining four cameras. These camera failures resulted in a 

complete loss of footage for Experiment 2.1 (the forward-facing intercity passenger seat). 

One hundred-eighty 12-volt DC-powered floodlights (each 100 watts) provided the lighting for 

the experiments. Each experiment was equipped with 36 lights: 12 overhead lights and 24 sidemounted lights. The power source for each group of 12 lights consisted of a 12-volt DC battery 

and a trigger circuit containing three solid-state trigger relays (one relay for each set of four 

lights) and a trip that, when opened, supplied voltage to all 12 lights. The trigger circuit and the 

12-volt battery were mounted together on a fixture located as close as possible to each light 

array. A total of 15 of these systems were refurbished from previous tests and installed in the 

rail cars. Each battery pack was individually tested for all 12 lights by simultaneously tripping 

all three of its trigger relays. The cabling from the light arrays to the power supplies was 

carefully routed and secured in a manner to prevent them from being damaged before or during 

the test. 

9
The trigger/relay cabling was installed from the lights to the side of each car. The lights were 

switched on manually before the train left its starting point. This approach is different from that 

used in previous tests in which the lights were automatically switched on just seconds before 

impact while the train was traveling down the track. (A blade was strategically positioned on the 

side of the track to break the wire circuit on the rail car as it passed by, turning on the lights.) 

The lights were switched on manually at the starting point of this test because the cameras did 

not need to be triggered before impact as they were in previous tests. Since the cameras used in 

this test were all digital and did not require spool-up before impact as is the case with film 

cameras, they could be triggered immediately upon impact. The battery power for the lights 

lasted at least 15 minutes, which easily provided enough time for them to remain lit during the 

experiment. All lights were successfully turned on and stayed on during impact. 

Table 3. Camera Information 

Experiment View Camera Lens 

(mm) 

F-stop 

(Aperture)

Shutter 

Speed 

(1/s) 

Frame 

Rate (fps) 

1.1–RearFacing Side Ultima APX-1 

Color 

12.5 2.8 (8.0) 1/1500 500 

Overhead Ultima 512-1 

Mono 

4.8 1.8 1/4500 500 

1.2–FacingSeat H3RS Front Ultima APX-RS-1 

Mono 

25.0 5.6 1/2000 500 

Side Ultima APX-RS-2 

Color 

12.5 1.4 1/1500 1000 

Overhead Ultima 512-2 

Mono 

4.8 1.8 1/2000 1000 

1.3–FacingSeat THOR Side Ultima APX-RS-3 

Mono 

12.5 5.6 1/3000 1000 

Overhead Ultima 512-3 

Mono 

4.8 Wide open 1/2000 1000 

2.1–Intercity 

Seats 

Side Ultima APX-2 

Color 

12.5 2 1/1000 1000 

Overhead Ultima 512-4 

Color 

4.8 1.8 1/2000 1000 

2.2–ForwardFacing Side Ultima 512-5 

Color 

7.5 1.2 1/1000 500 

Overhead Ultima 512-6 

Color 

4.8 Wide open 1/1000 500 

3.4 ATDs 

Ten ATDs were used to evaluate occupant response characteristics. All ATDs were generously 

provided as GFE for the test. ATDs were in accordance with Title 49 Code of Federal 

10
11

Regulations Part 572, Subparts B & E, and positioned in their seats in accordance with SAE 

AS8049. The ATDs were equipped with the required accelerometers, load cells, and 

displacement transducers. The ATDs were delivered directly to TTC from the following 

sources: 

Vehicle Research and Test Center (VRTC)/National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA): 

 Four Hybrid III 50th percentile (instrumentation provided by VRTC), 

 Two Hybrid III 95th percentile (instrumentation provided by VRTC), and 

 Two Hybrid II 50th percentile (not instrumented). 

Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB) in the UK: 

 One Hybrid 3RS (instrumentation provided by GMH). 

GESAC: 

 One THOR (instrumentation provided by GESAC, arms and legs provided by GMH, femur 

load cells provided by Armor Holdings). 

Before the ATDs were positioned in the cars, they were given a functional check to ensure 

proper joint motion during the test. The ATDs in each experiment were clad in tight-fitting 

white stretch garments with shoes. 

Once the ATDs were installed at the correct locations for each experiment, the cables linking the 

ATD transducers to the data acquisition systems were bundled together to form an umbilical 

cable that was routed down the ATD’s back, along a leg to a knee, and then away from the ATD. 

Damage to the cables was avoided by tethering the ATDs to an attachment structure that was 

welded to the floor, thereby restraining the ATDs before they reached the end of the 

instrumentation umbilical cables or contacted other, unrelated test equipment/instrumentation. 

The tethers allowed enough slack so as not to interfere with the action of the ATDs. The ATDs 

in the experiments that were equipped with tables were not tethered. 

Yellow and black 3-inch-diameter targets were placed on the ATDs at points of interest, 

including the head, shoulders, knees, and ankles. Just before the test, the ATDs were 

individually secured with duct tape to their respective seats to prevent their inadvertent 

movement while the rail cars approached the stationary locomotive during the test. To do so, 

duct tape was wrapped around the seat back and across the chest region of each ATD in each 

experiment. The duct tape was wrapped around both ATDs in the intercity seat experiment 

(Experiment 2.1). To ensure that this tape wrap released upon impact, it was notched with a 1-

inch cut between the ATDs and the seats. 

To determine if and at what location the ATDs contacted the interior of the cars during the 

impact, a light coat of transfer chalk was applied to specific areas of the ATDs. Three colors 

were used to represent different ATD body locations: blue chalk was used to apply a 2-inch 

stripe to the forehead, orange chalk to apply a 6- x 8-inch patch to the chest region, and red chalk 

to apply a 2-inch stripe to the knees and shins. 
4. Experiments 

This section describes the objective and configuration of each experiment, along with the 

installation details, including information about the data acquisition equipment, lights, cameras, 

and ATDs. 

4.1 Experiment 1.1: Rear-Facing Commuter Seats 

4.1.1 Objective 

This experiment was designed to evaluate the crashworthiness performance of a newly designed 

version of the commuter seat with improved force/deflection. The experiment was intended to: 

 Measure the injury criteria from the instrumented ATDs, 

 Verify that the rear-facing commuter seat configuration can withstand secondary impact 

without significant structural failure, 

 Verify if the ATDs remain compartmentalized, and 

 Record ATD motion with a high-speed digital video camera. 

4.1.2 Configuration 

The interior configuration consisted of two rear-facing, newly designed, three-passenger 

commuter seats located in the forward left-hand-side of the lead cab car. The seats were 

designed with higher backs and a stiffened tubular frame to provide more energy-absorbing 

capability during impact. CR SafguardTM fire-resistant cushioning was incorporated. The seat 

design was the same as that used in Experiment 2.2 (forward-facing, newly designed commuter 

passenger seats). The seat pitch was set at 32 in. Seat-mounting hardware was consistent with 

in-service hardware. Three ATDs were used in this experiment: two instrumented Hybrid III 

50th percentile ATDs were seated in the aisle and window positions, and one uninstrumented 

Hybrid II 50th percentile was seated in the middle position. The ATDs were seated in the 

forward-most seat relative to the front (cab) end of the car. The seat located behind the occupied 

seat (relative to the cab end of the car) remained unoccupied. Figure 3 illustrates the location of 

the experiment. Figure 4 shows a pretest photograph of the experiment. 

4.1.3 Installation 

Seat Attachment to Floor: A steel bar measuring 96 x 6 x 0.375 in was welded to the stringers in 

the floor of the car, spanning two 4.25-inch-wide hat sections and two 1.5-inch-wide right-angle 

sections. A 70.75 x 4 x 0.75-inch attachment plate was bolted onto the welded bar with four 

pairs of bolts along its length. For the occupied front-row seat, two load cells were bolted onto 

the attachment plate. For the unoccupied rear-row seat, two spacer blocks were bolted onto the 

attachment plate. The spacer blocks were used to keep the aft-row seat the same height as the 

front-row seat. The bolt holes in the attachment plate were predrilled so that the spacing 

between the seats was 32 in when installed. Two rows of seats were then bolted at the bases of 

12
their pedestals to the top surfaces of the load cells, and the spacer blocks were bolted through 

smaller attachment plates. Figure 5 shows a photograph of the load cells and the spacer blocks. 

Figure 3. Schematic Showing the Positioning of the Rear-Facing Commuter Seat in the 

Lead Cab Car (#9357) in Experiment 1.1 

Direction of Travel

2 instrumented Hybrid III 50th ATDs (Window and Aisle)

1 uninstrumented Hybrid II 50th ATD (Center)

Front

of

Car

13
Figure 4. Pretest Photograph of Experiment 1.1 

Figure 5. Floor-Attachment Spacer Blocks for Unoccupied Rebound Seat (left) and Load 

Cells for Occupied Front-Row Seat (right) in Experiment 1.1 

14
Seat Attachment to Wall: A steel bar measuring 78 x 3 x 0.25 in was bolted onto the heater rail 

along the side of the rail car. For the occupied front-row seat, two load cells were bolted onto 

the attachment plate. For the unoccupied aft-row seat, two spacer blocks were bolted onto the 

attachment plate to keep this row the same height as the occupied row. The bolt holes in the 

attachment plate were predrilled to provide the required 32-inch seat pitch. Figure 6 shows a 

photograph of the load cells and the spacer blocks. A T-shaped load-cell attachment plate was 

bolted to the load cells through a four-hole bolt pattern that had been drilled to the flat surface of 

the upside-down T. A piece of rugged angle iron was bolted to the vertical piece of the T-shaped 

load-cell attachment plate, which was then bolted to the C-channel that formed the base of the 

seat assembly, as shown in Figure 7. 

Figure 6. Wall-Attachment Spacer Blocks for Unoccupied Seat (left) and Load Cells for 

Occupied Seat (right) in Experiment 1.1 

15
Figure 7. Rugged Angle Iron Bolted to the Vertical Piece of the T-Shaped Load-Cell 

Attachment Plate and Bolted to the C-Channel That Formed the Base of the Seat Assembly 

The forward-most rear-facing seat was equipped with load cells because it would be occupied. 

The seat behind it, which was unoccupied, was installed with spacers so that the two rows of 

seats were at equal heights above the floor. Additionally, a plywood floor was built around the 

seats and attachment points so that the ATD feet would be at the correct height (Figure 8). 

4.1.4 Data Acquisition 

Four data bricks were installed to collect 29 channels of data from five accelerometers (head, 

chest, and floor) and six load cells (neck, floor, and wall attachments). Table 4 lists the 

instrumentation requirements for Experiment 1.1. Figure 9 shows a photograph of the four data 

bricks installed on the floor closest to and in front of the experiment. 

16
Figure 8. Plywood Floor Installed around the Seat Installation Raising the Floor to the 

Level Where the Pedestal Base is Installed in Experiment 1.1 

Table 4. Instrumentation Requirements for Experiment 1.1 

ATD/Object ATD 

Location Transducers Measurement Channel Count 

HIII 50th Window Seat Triaxial Accelerometer Head G (x, y, z) 3 

HIII 50th Window Seat Triaxial Accelerometer Chest G (x, y, z) 3 

HIII 50th Window Seat 6-Axis Load Cell Upper Neck Forces (x, z) 

and Extension/Flexion 

Moment (My) 

3 

HIII 50th Aisle Seat Triaxial Accelerometer Head G (x, y, z) 3 

HIII 50th Aisle Seat Triaxial Accelerometer Chest G (x, y, z) 3 

HIII 50th Aisle Seat 6-Axis Load Cell Upper Neck Forces (x, z) 

and Extension/Flexion 

Moment (My) 

3 

Floor Acceleration Triaxial Accelerometer Floor G (x, y, z) 3 

Floor Attachment 

Loads 

3-Axis Load Cells (4) Force (x, z) at 4 

Attachment Points 

8 

Total Data Channels 29 

Total Data Bricks 4 

17
Figure 9. Four Data Bricks Installed behind the Aft-Facing Seating Experiment to Collect 

29 Channels of Data in Experiment 1.1 

4.1.5 Lights and Cameras 

Two cameras were installed to capture footage of Experiment 1.1. Table 5 lists the 

specifications of these cameras and their respective fields of view. 

Table 5. Cameras and Respective Fields of View for Experiment 1.1 

View Camera Lens 

(mm) 

F-stop 

(Aperture)

Shutter 

Speed 

(sec) 

Frame Rate 

(frames/sec)

Working 

Distance 

(ft) 

Field of 

View 

(X by Y, ft)* 

Side Ultima 

APX-1 

Color 

12.5 2.8 (8.0) 1/1500 500 5 6.96 x 6.96 

Overhead Ultima 512-

1 Mono 

4.8 1.8 1/4500 500 3 5.12 x 5.12 

*

X is the distance along the length of the car, and Y is the distance along the width of the car (in feet). 

Thirty-six 12-volt DC-powered floodlights (12 overhead lights and 24 side-mounted lights) 

provided the lighting for this experiment (of 100 watts each). Three 12-volt DC batteries and 

their trigger circuits (each battery had three solid-state trigger relays) were installed to light the 

18
experiment. The light arrays were custom-fabricated on site using a combination of unistrut and 

slotted-steel angle iron and were bolted and welded to hard-point structures on the walls and 

ceilings of the car. Figure 10 shows how the lights and cameras were configured for 

Experiment 1.1. 

Figure 10. Configuration of Lights and Cameras for Experiment 1.1 

4.1.6 ATDs 

Three ATDs were seated facing aft in the forward-most (relative to the cab end) commuter seat. 

Instrumented Hybrid III ATDs were placed in the aisle and window seats, and an uninstrumented 

Hybrid II ATD was placed in the middle seat. The instrumentation in the ATDs included a 

triaxial head accelerometer, a triaxial chest accelerometer, and a six-axis load cell in the neck 

that recorded Fx, Fz, and My. The ATDs were seated with their feet flat on the floor and their 

arms on top of their legs. They were each marked with blue, orange, and red chalk on their 

faces, chest, and knees, respectively. Reference targets were placed on each ATD at their head, 

shoulder, elbow, and knee, and on the seats along the edge of the headrest and seat back, as 

shown in Figure 11. Appendix C illustrates the relative dimensions that were measured between 

the targets for Experiment 1.1 before the test. 

19
Figure 11. Reference Targets Placed on Each ATD at the Head, Shoulder, Elbow, and 

Knee Locations, and on the Seats along the Edge of the Headrest and Seat Back 

4.2 Experiments 1.2 and 1.3: Workstation Table Occupant Experiments 

4.2.1 Objective 

Experiments 1.2 and 1.3 were identical in every aspect except for the ATD type and the position 

of the seat/table in the car. One experiment was installed with an RSSB Hybrid 3RS and the 

other with a THOR. The experiments were designed to estimate the crashworthiness 

performance of a newly designed workstation table for a facing-seat arrangement and were 

intended to support ongoing crashworthiness testing of common interior configurations. One 

ATD occupied the window seat in the forward-facing direction in each experiment. Each 

experiment was intended to: 

 Measure the force-displacement characteristic of the workstation table, 

 Measure the force-penetration characteristics of the table interaction with the abdomen of the 

ATD, 

 Obtain injury criteria from the ATD as part of a whole-vehicle-dynamics crash test program, 

 Allow comparison of the kinematics and injury criteria outcomes between the RSSB Hybrid 

3RS ATD and the THOR ATD, 

 Measure the table attachment loads and accelerations, 

 Measure the table displacement with respect to the car, 

 Measure the table-edge displacement with respect to the table, 

 Film the ATD kinematics, and 

 Verify whether the ATD remained compartmentalized. 

20
4.2.2 Configuration 

The configuration for each experiment consisted of a four-place facing seating system. Each 

facing pair of two-passenger seats comprised a welded aluminum base frame and a preassembled 

fiber-reinforced thermoplastic seat pan/back structure. A newly designed workstation table was 

installed between the two facing seats. The table was designed with a steel I-beam backbone 

along its centerline and a 3.5-inch-thick aluminum honeycomb core, potted to the I-beam with a 

two-part epoxy and sandwiched between two grooved melamine sheets, each 0.048-inch thick. 

Contact cement was used to bond the melamine to the honeycomb, which provided additional 

vertical strength to the table. The melamine was intended to fold at precut grooves and move out 

of the way as the table crushed so that the honeycomb could absorb the impact energy of the 

occupant. The edge of the table was designed with a protective 1/8-inch-thick layer of neoprene. 

The table was secured as a cantilever to the wall of the rail car through three attachment plates 

that formed a triangle on the wall. 

The front edge of the facing seat pan in each experiment was modified with a rubber bumper to 

help reduce the femur loads when the knees or shins of the forward-facing ATD (THOR or 

Hybrid 3RS) collided with the facing seat pan. The facing seat pan was modified by cutting off 

the front 2 in, leaving the edges intact. A rubber pad measuring 9 x 15.625 x 0.75 in was then 

wrapped around the cut front edge of the seat pan so that it extended beyond the cut edge by 2 in. 

Four 0.25-inch bolts secured the rubber bumper in place at the cut edge of the seat pan. Two 

steel plates, each measuring 15.5 x 1.0 in, sandwiched the rubber pad to the seat pan and were 

secured with the four bolts. 

The two experiments were located in the rear right-hand-side of the leading cab car. The launch 

seat of Experiment 1.2 was adjoined to the rear-facing seat of Experiment 1.3 behind it. The seat 

pitch was set to 65 in, with the workstation table centered between the facing seats. An ATD 

was positioned in the forward-facing window seat of each experiment in accordance with SAE 

AS8049. The seats did not incorporate occupant restraint belts. Figure 12 shows a schematic 

that illustrates the positioning of the workstation tables in the cab car. Figure 13 shows an 

overall view of both experiments. Figures 14 and 15 are pretest photographs. 

21
Figure 12. Schematic Showing the Positioning of Facing Seats with Improved Workstation 

Table in the Cab Car (#9357) in Experiments 1.2 and 1.3 

4.2.3 Installation 

Seat Attachment to Floor: In Experiments 1.2 and 1.3, the seats were attached only to the floor 

of the car. Two parallel steel bars, each measuring 15.5-feet long x 6-inches wide x 0.375-inch 

thick, were welded to the stringers in the floor of the car—one along the window side and one 

along the aisle side. These parallel bars were long enough to support the installation of three sets 

of back-to-back seats, as required for the two facing-seat experiments. In lieu of installing the 

seats directly to the wall of the rail car, three wall-side mounts were fabricated so the seats could 

be installed in a position that was aligned with the workstation tables, which were installed offset 

from the wall due to the load cells. The base of each wall-side mount was 36 x 4 x 0.75 in and 

the top of each mount was 27.5 x 2 x 0.75 in. The bases of these wall-side mounts were bolted to 

the welded bar. The metal tabs protruding from the bases of the seat pans were bolted to the tops 

of the wall mounts. On the aisle side, the bases of the pedestals were bolted to two smaller 2 x 3 

x 0.75-inch plates that were bolted to the welded bar along the aisle. Figure 16 shows a 

photograph of the floor attachments. 

Leading Cab Car #9357 

Facing seats with Table 

Leading Cab Car 

Direction of Travel

Front

of

Car

Exp. 1.2

Forward-facing

seats with table,

Hybrid 3RS ATD

Exp. 1.3

Forward-facing

seats with table,

THOR ATD

22
Figure 13. Overall View of Experiment 1.2 (background) and Experiment 1.3 (foreground) 

Figure 14. Pretest Photograph of Experiment 1.2 

23
Figure 15. Pretest Photograph of Experiment 1.3 

Table Attachment to Wall: In Experiments 1.2 and 1.3, the workstation tables were attached only 

to the wall of the car. Along the window-side of the rail car, two parallel bars, each measuring 

20-feet long x 5-inches wide x 0.375-inch thick, were welded to a series of nine vertical bars that 

had been welded to existing structural members in the wall. These vertical bars were each 22 x 2 

x 0.25 in and were spaced at intervals of 29 or 32 in, except at the center, where a 10-inch 

spacing occurred. The two 20-foot bars were welded 4-inches apart on top of these vertical bars, 

as shown in Figure 17. 

Each table attachment included an upper attachment plate measuring 50 x 4 x 0.5 in bolted to the 

upper welded bar and a lower attachment plate measuring 32 x 3.75 x 0.5 in bolted to the lower 

welded bar. Before installation, the upper attachment plate was predrilled with two load cells 

bolted to it, and the lower attachment plate was predrilled with one load cell bolted to it. 

Together, the load cells formed a triangle that matched the bolt pattern of the cantilevered/table 

wall attachments. The table was then bolted to three individual attachment plates, each 

measuring 7 x 7 x 1 in, which were bolted to the load cells, as shown in Figure 18. 

24
Figure 16. Window-Side Facing Seat Installation (left), and Aisle-Side Installation (right) 

for Experiments 1.2 and 1.3 

Figure 17. Two 20-Foot Bars were Welded Four Inches Apart on Top of Vertical Bars 

25
Figure 18. Table Bolted to Three Individual Attachment Plates which were Bolted to the 

Load Cells 

4.2.4 Data Acquisition 

Nine data bricks were installed to collect 70 channels of data from a combined total of eight 

accelerometers (head, chest, upper abdomen in Experiment 1.3, floor, and table tops), 14 load 

cells (neck, femur, and table attachments to the wall), and 10 potentiometers (lower abdominal 

CRUX, upper abdomen in Experiment 1.3, occipital condyle in Experiment 1.3, and tables). 

Figure 19 shows a photograph of the data bricks installed on the floor behind the two 

experiments. Tables 6 and 7 list the instrumentation requirements for Experiments 1.2 and 1.3, 

respectively. 

26
Figure 19. Nine Data Bricks Installed to Collect Data from 70 Channels Linked to 

Experiments 1.2 and 1.3 

A triaxial accelerometer was attached to each table top at its center along the aisle edge to 

measure table accelerations. A small piece of the melamine table surface was removed, and the 

accelerometer was bonded to the cleaned surface adhesive as shown in Figure 20. 

Two potentiometers were installed to measure table crush and table displacement. The table 

crush was measured with one string potentiometer, attached between a unistrut fixture that 

stretched across the length of the opposing seat and the underside of the table at the crush 

initiation point. At this location, a strip of the melamine table undersurface was removed and a 

metal hook was inserted and bonded into the honeycomb core with adhesive. The potentiometer 

cord stretched from the unistrut fixture, underneath the table, then attached to the hook (left-side 

photograph, Figure 21). A second string potentiometer was installed to measure the table 

displacement. This potentiometer was also attached to the unistrut fixture and the cord was 

stretched to the surface edge of the table, where a hook was inserted and bonded into the rubber 

protective covering and honeycomb core (Figure 20 and right-side photograph, Figure 21). 

27
Table 6. Instrumentation Requirements for Experiment 1.2 

ATD/Object ATD 

Location Transducers Measurement Channel Count 

HIII RS 50th Window Seat Triaxial Accelerometer Head G (x, y, z) 3 

HIII RS 50th Window Seat Triaxial Accelerometer Chest G (x, y, z) 3 

HIII RS 50th Window Seat 6-axis Load Cell Upper Neck Forces (x, z) and 

Extension/Flexion (My) 

3 

HIII RS 50th Window Seat Triaxial Displacement Abdomen, Left, Lower CRUX 3 

HIII RS 50th Window Seat Triaxial Displacement Abdomen, Right, Lower CRUX 3 

HIII RS 50th Window Seat Uniaxial Load Cell Femur, Left, Axial Load (Fz) 1 

HIII RS 50th Window Seat Uniaxial Load Cell Femur, Right, Axial Load (Fz) 1 

Floor Acceleration Triaxial Accelerometer Floor G (x, y ,z) 3 

Table WallAttachment 

Loads 

6-axis Load Cell (3) Force (x, y z) at 3 Wall-Mount 

Locations (forward, aft, lower 

mid) (z Channel Expendable) 

9 

Table Table Top 

Acceleration 

Triaxial Accelerometer Table G (x, y, z) 3 

Table Linear 

Displacement 

Uniaxial Displacement 2 String Pots 2 

Total 34 

Total Data Bricks (9 Total Data Bricks Shared between Experiments 1.2 and 1.3) 5 

Figure 20. Table Acceleration was Measured with an Accelerometer, and Table Crush and 

Displacement were Measured with Two Potentiometers 

28
Table 7. Instrumentation Requirements for Experiment 1.3 

ATD/Object ATD 

Location Transducers Measurement Channel Count 

THOR Window Seat Triaxial Accelerometer Head G (x, y, z) 3 

THOR Window Seat Triaxial Accelerometer Chest G (x, y, z) 3 

THOR Window Seat Uniaxial Upper 

Abdomen 

Abdomen, Upper 1 

THOR Window Seat 6-Axis Load Cell Upper Neck Forces (x, z) and 

Extension/Flexion (My) 

3 

THOR Window Seat Single-Axis Load Cell Front Neck Cable 1 

THOR Window Seat Single-Axis Load Cell Rear Neck Cable 1 

THOR Window Seat Potentiometer Occipital Condyle Pos. Sensor 1 

THOR Window Seat Triaxial Displacement Abdomen, Left, Lower CRUX 3 

THOR Window Seat Triaxial Displacement Abdomen, Right, Lower CRUX 3 

THOR Window Seat Uniaxial Displacement Upper Abdomen 1 

THOR Window Seat Uniaxial Load Cell Femur, Left, Axial Load (Fz) 1 

THOR Window Seat Uniaxial Load Cell Femur, Right, Axial Load (Fz) 1 

Floor Acceleration Share Triaxial 

Accelerometer 

Identified in Exp. 1.2 

Floor G (x, y, z) 0 

Table Wall 

Attachment 

Loads 

3-axis Load Cell (3) Force (x, y, z) at 3 Wall-Mount 

Locations (fwd, aft, lower mid) 

(z Channel is Expendable) 

9 

Table Table 

Acceleration 

Triaxial Accelerometer Table G (x, y, z) 3 

Table Linear Disp. Uniaxial Displacement 2 String Pots 2 

Total 36 

Total Data Bricks (9 total Data Bricks Shared between Experiments 1.2 and 1.3) 4 

29
Figure 21. Potentiometer Cord for Table Crush, Stretched under Table to a Hook Bonded 

into the Honeycomb Where a Melamine Strip was Removed (left). Cord for Table 

Displacement, Stretched from the Unistrut to a Hook Bonded into the Facing Edge of the 

Table (right) in Experiments 1.2 and 1.3 

4.2.5 Lights and Cameras 

Five cameras were installed to capture footage of Experiments 1.2 and 1.3. Table 8 lists those 

cameras and their respective fields of view. A total of 72 12-volt DC-powered floodlights (each 

100 watts) provided the lighting for these two experiments (48 side-mounted lights and 12 above 

each experiment). Six 12-volt DC batteries and their trigger circuits (each battery had three 

solid-state trigger relays) were installed to light the two experiments. These light arrays were 

custom-fabricated on site using a combination of unistrut and slotted-steel angle iron and were 

bolted and welded to hard-point structures on the walls and ceilings. Figures 22 and 23 show 

how the overhead and side lights and cameras were configured for Experiments 1.2 and 1.3. 

Figure 24 shows the front-view camera. 

Table 8. Cameras and Respective Fields of View for Experiments 1.2 and 1.3 

View Camera Lens 

(mm) 

F-stop 

(Aperture) 

Shutter 

Speed 

(sec) 

Frame Rate 

(frames/sec) 

Working 

Distance 

(ft) 

Field of View

(X by Y, ft)* 

1.2 Front RS-1 

Mono 25.0 5.6 1/2000 500 10 6.96 x 6.96 

1.2 Side RS-2 

Color 12.5 1.4 1/1500 1000 5 6.96 x 6.96 

1.2 Overhead U512-2 

Mono 4.8 1.8 1/2000 1000 3 5.12 x 5.12 

1.3 Side RS-3 

Mono 12.5 5.6 1/3000 1000 5 6.96 x 6.96 

1.3 Overhead U512-3 

Mono 4.8 Wide open 1/2000 1000 3 5.12 x 5.12 

*

X is the distance along the length of the car, and Y is the distance along the width of the car. 

30
Figure 22. Forty-Eight Flood Lights were Installed along the Wall (left), with Two RS 

Cameras (right) Covering Both Experiments 1.2 and 1.3 

Figure 23. Twelve Flood Lights and One U512 Camera, were Installed above for 

Experiment 1.2 (left) and Experiment 1.3 (right) 

31
Figure 24. One RS Front View Camera was Installed to Capture the Combined Front 

View of Experiments 1.2 and 1.3 

4.2.6 ATDs 

For each experiment, one ATD was seated in the forward-facing window seat. In Experiment 

1.2, the ATD was an instrumented Hybrid 3RS. The instrumentation in the Hybrid 3RS 

included: 

 A triaxial head accelerometer, 

 A triaxial chest accelerometer, 

 A six-axis load cell in the neck that recorded Fx, Fz, and My, 

 Two uniaxial femur load cells, and 

 A triaxial lower CRUX (abdomen) displacement transducer. 

The ATD used in Experiment 1.3 was an instrumented THOR. The instrumentation in the 

THOR included: 

 A triaxial head accelerometer, 

 A triaxial chest accelerometer, 

 A uniaxial upper abdominal accelerometer, 

32
 A six-axis load cell in the neck that recorded Fx, Fz, and My,

 Two uniaxial neck cable load cells, 

 Two uniaxial femur load cells, 

 A triaxial lower CRUX (abdomen) displacement transducer, 

 A uniaxial upper abdominal displacement transducer, and 

 A uniaxial occipital condyle potentiometer. 

Both ATDs were seated with their feet flat on the floor and their arms on their legs. They were 

each marked with blue, orange, and red chalk on their faces, chests, and knees, respectively. 

Reference targets were placed on each ATD at the head, shoulder, elbow, and knee, and on the 

aisle-side edge of each table. Figure 25 shows photos of the ATDs situated at the tables. 

Appendix C illustrates the relative dimensions between the targets that were measured before the 

test for Experiments 1.2 and 1.3. 

Figure 25. One Instrumented Hybrid 3RS Occupied the Forward-Facing Window Seat in 

Experiment 1.2 (left) and One Instrumented THOR Occupied the Forward-Facing 

Window Seat in Experiment 1.3 (right) 

4.3 Experiment 2.1: Forward-Facing Intercity Seats 

4.3.1 Objective 

This experiment was designed to estimate the crashworthiness performance of Amtrak intercity 

seats that were tested in four previous in-line full-scale conventional and CEM collision tests. 

Specifically, this experiment was conducted to: 

 Measure the injury criteria from the instrumented ATDs, 

 Verify that the impact seat can withstand secondary impact without significant structural 

failure, 

 Verify if the ATDs remain compartmentalized, and 

 Record ATD motion with high-speed digital video cameras. 

33
4.3.2 Configuration 

The interior configuration for this experiment consisted of two rows of modified, forward-facing, 

two-passenger Amtrak intercity seat pairs located in the front left-hand-side of the first coach car 

(second car in the consist). The seats used in the previous full-scale testing were refurbished 

with the same original modifications that were made to the intercity seat, with one exception: 

the upper seat back was modified with additional foam padding with the intent of reducing head 

impact loading. The seat pitch was 41 in. Seat-mounting hardware was consistent with inservice hardware. Two instrumented Hybrid III 95th percentile male ATDs were seated and 

unbelted in the rear launch seat. The seat in front remained unoccupied. Figure 26 illustrates the 

location of the experiment. Figure 27 shows a pretest photograph. 

Figure 26. Schematic Showing the Location of Experiment 2.1 

Direction of Travel

Two instrumented Hybrid III 95th ATDs

Front

of

Car

34
Figure 27. Pretest Photograph of Experiment 2.1 

4.3.3 Installation 

Seat Attachment to Floor: Two steel bars measuring 98 x 6 x 0.375 in were welded to the 

stringers in the floor of the car, each spanning two 4.25-inch-wide hat sections and two 1.5-inchwide right-angle sections. An 84 x 4 x 0.75-inch attachment plate was bolted onto each welded 

bar with four pairs of bolts along its length. Four spacer blocks were bolted onto each 

attachment plate where they had been predrilled with inset holes to fit the attachment points on 

the spacer blocks. In previous tests, load cells were installed to raise the level of the seats. To 

maintain consistency with previous tests and with the other tests on board this consist, spacer 

blocks were installed to keep the floor level as shown in Figures 28 and 29. When installed, the 

spacing between the seats was 41 in. A plywood floor was built around the seats and attachment 

points so that the ATD feet would be at the correct height as shown in Figure 30. 

35
Figure 28. Launch-Seat Installation for Experiment 2.1 

Figure 29. Impact-Seat Installation for Experiment 2.1 Aisle Side (left) and Window Side 

(right) 

36
Figure 30. Plywood Floor Installed around Experiment 2.1 

4.3.4 Data Acquisition 

Three data bricks were installed to collect 24 channels of data from five accelerometers (head, 

chest, and floor) and six load cells (neck and femur). Table 9 lists the instrumentation used in 

Experiment 2.1. Figure 31 shows a photograph of the three data bricks and the single 

accelerometer that were installed on the floor behind the experiment. 

4.3.5 Lights and Cameras 

Two cameras were installed to capture video footage of Experiment 2.1. Table 10 lists these 

cameras and their respective fields of view. Thirty-six 12-volt DC-powered floodlights (12 

overhead lights and 24 side-mounted lights) provided the lighting for this experiment (each 100 

watts). Three 12-volt DC batteries and their trigger circuits (each battery had 3 solid-state trigger 

relays) were installed to light the experiment. These light arrays were custom-fabricated on site 

using a combination of unistrut and slotted-steel angle iron and were bolted and welded to the 

interior car hard-point structures on the walls and ceilings. Figure 32 shows how the lights and 

cameras were configured for Experiment 2.1. 

37
Table 9. Instrumentation Requirements for Experiment 2.1 

ATD/Object ATD Location Transducers Measurement Channel 

Count 

HIII 95th Window Seat Triaxial Accelerometer Head G (x, y, z) 3 

HIII 95th Window Seat Triaxial Accelerometer Chest G (x, y, z) 3 

HIII 95th Window Seat 6-axis Load Cell 

Upper Neck Forces (x, z) and 

Extension/Flexion Moment 

(My) 

3 

HIII 95th Window Seat Uniaxial Load Cell Femur, Left, Axial Load (Fz) 1 

HIII 95th Window Seat Uniaxial Load Cell Femur, Right, Axial Load (Fz) 1 

HIII 95th Aisle Seat Triaxial Accelerometer Head G (x, y, z) 3 

HIII 95th Aisle Seat Triaxial Accelerometer Chest G (x, y, z) 3 

HIII 95th Aisle Seat 6-axis Load Cell 

Upper Neck Forces (x, z) and 

Extension/Flexion Moment 

(My) 

3 

HIII 95th Aisle Seat Uniaxial Load Cell Femur, Left, Axial Load (Fz) 1 

HIII 95th Aisle Seat Uniaxial Load Cell Femur, Right, Axial Load (Fz) 1 

Floor Acceleration Triaxial Accelerometer Floor G (x, z) 2 

Total 24 

Total Data Bricks 3 

Figure 31. Three Data Bricks and One Accelerometer, Installed behind Experiment 2.1 

38
Table 10. Cameras and Respective Fields of View for Experiment 2.1 

View Camera Lens 

(mm) 

F-stop 

(Aperture)

Shutter 

Speed 

(sec) 

Frame Rate 

(frames/sec)

Working 

Distance 

(ft) 

Field of 

View 

(X by Y, ft)* 

Side APX-2 Color 12.5 2 1/1000 1000 5 6.96 x 6.96 

Overhead Ultima 512-4 

Color 4.8 1.8 1/2000 1000 3 5.12 x 5.12 

*

X is the distance along the length of the car, and Y is the distance along the width of the car. 

Figure 32. One APX Camera and 24 Flood Lights were Installed along the Wall (left) and 

One U512 Camera and 12 Lights were Installed along the Ceiling (right) in Experiment 2.1 

4.3.6 ATDs 

Two instrumented Hybrid III 95th percentile ATDs occupied the aft row of this experiment. The 

instrumentation in the ATDs included a triaxial head accelerometer, a triaxial chest 

accelerometer, a uniaxial load cell in each femur, and a six-axis load cell in the neck that 

recorded Fx, Fz, and My. The ATDs were seated with their feet flat on the floor and their arms on 

their legs. They were each marked with blue, orange, and red chalk on their faces, chest, and 

knees, respectively. Reference targets were placed on each ATD at their head, shoulder, elbow, 

and knee and on the seats along the edge of the headrest and seat back. Figure 33 shows a 

photograph of the experiment. Appendix C illustrates the relative dimensions between the 

targets that were measured before the test for Experiment 2.1. 

39
Figure 33. Two Instrumented Hybrid III 95th Percentile ATDs Occupied the Two-Place 

Passenger Intercity Seat in Experiment 2.1 

4.4 Experiment 2.2: Forward-Facing Commuter Seats 

4.4.1 Objective 

This experiment was designed to estimate the crashworthiness performance of a newly designed 

version of the commuter seat with improved force/deflection. Specifically, the experiment was 

conducted to: 

 Measure the injury criteria from the instrumented ATDs, 

 Verify that the impact seat can withstand secondary impact without significant structural 

failure, 

 Verify whether the ATDs remain compartmentalized, and 

 Record ATD motion with a high-speed digital video camera. 

40
4.4.2 Configuration 

This interior configuration consisted of two forward-facing, newly designed, three-passenger 

commuter-seats located in the aft right-hand-side of the first coach car (second car in the 

consist). The seats tested in this experiment were identical to the seats tested in the rear-facing 

commuter seat experiment, Experiment 1.1. In this experiment, however, the seats faced 

forward. The seat pitch was set to 32 in, the same as that for the rear-facing commuter seat 

experiment. Seat-mounting hardware was consistent with in-service hardware. Three ATDs 

were used in this experiment. Instrumented Hybrid III 50th percentile ATDs were seated in the 

aisle and window positions, and an uninstrumented Hybrid II 50th percentile ATD was seated in 

the middle position. These ATDs were seated in the aft seat of the two seat rows, and the seat in 

front remained unoccupied. Figure 34 illustrates the positioning of the experiment in the first 

coach car. Figure 35 shows a pretest photograph of the experiment. 

Figure 34. Schematic Illustrating the Positioning of the Forward-Facing Commuter Seat in 

the First Coach Car (#9358) in Experiment 2.2 

Direction of Travel

2 instrumented Hybrid III 50th ATDs (Window and Aisle)

1 uninstrumented Hybrid II 50th ATD (Center)

Front

of

Car

41
Figure 35. Pretest Photograph of Experiment 2.2 

4.4.3 Installation 

Seat Attachment to Floor: A steel plate measuring 96 x 6 x 0.375 in was welded to the stringers 

in the floor of the car, spanning two 4.25-inch-wide hat sections and two 1.5-inch-wide rightangle sections. A 70.75 x 4 x 0.75-inch attachment plate was bolted onto the welded plate with 

four pairs of bolts spaced along its length. For the unoccupied front-row seat, two load cells 

were bolted onto the attachment plate. For the occupied aft-row seat, two spacer blocks were 

bolted onto the attachment plate. The spacer blocks were used to keep the aft-row seat the same 

height as the front-row seat. The bolt holes in the attachment plate were predrilled so that the 

spacing between the seats was 32 in when installed. Two rows of seats were then bolted at the 

bases of their pedestals to the top surfaces of the load cells and the spacer blocks through smaller 

attachment plates. Figure 36 shows a photograph of the load cells and the spacer blocks. 

Figure 36. Floor Attachment Load Cells for the Impact Seat (left) and Spacer Blocks for 

the Launch Seat (right) in Experiment 2.2 

42
Seat Attachment to Wall: A steel attachment plate measuring 78 x 3 x 0.25 in was bolted onto 

the heater rail along the side of the rail car. For the occupied front-row seat, two load cells were 

bolted onto the attachment plate. For the unoccupied front-row seat, two spacer blocks were 

bolted onto the attachment plate to keep this row the same height as the occupied row. The bolt 

holes in the attachment plate were predrilled to provide the required 32-inch seat pitch. Figure 

37 shows top and side photographs of the load cells and spacer blocks. A T-shaped load-cell 

attachment plate was bolted to the load cells through a 4-hole bolt pattern that had been drilled 

into the flat surface of the upside-down T. A piece of rugged angle iron was bolted to the 

vertical piece of the T-shaped load-cell attachment plate, which was then bolted to the C-channel 

that formed the base of the seat assembly, as shown in Figure 38. 

Figure 37. Top View of the Wall-Attachment Load Cells on the Unoccupied Impact Seat 

(left), and Underside View of Spacer Blocks on the Launch Seat (right) in Experiment 2.2 

The launch seat with the three occupants was equipped with spacer blocks. The impact seat in 

front of the launch seat was unoccupied and was equipped with load cells. The spacer blocks 

were installed so that the two rows of seats were at an equal height above the floor. A plywood 

floor was built around the seats and attachment points so that the ATD feet would be at the 

correct height, as shown in Figure 39. 

4.4.4 Data Acquisition 

Figure 40 shows four data bricks that were installed to collect 32 channels of data from five 

accelerometers (head, chest, and floor) and ten load cells (neck, femur, floor, and wall 

attachments). Table 11 lists the instrumentation used for Experiment 2.2. 

4.4.5 Lights and Cameras 

Two cameras were installed to capture video footage from Experiment 2.2. Table 12 lists the 

characteristics of these cameras and their respective fields of view. 

43
Thirty-six 12-volt DC-powered floodlights (12 overhead lights and 24 side-mounted lights) 

provided the lighting for this experiment (each 100 watts). Three 12-volt DC batteries and their 

trigger circuits (each battery had three solid-state trigger relays) were installed to light the 

experiment. These light arrays were custom-fabricated on site using a combination of unistrut 

and slotted-steel angle iron and were bolted and welded to the interior car hard-point structures 

on the walls and ceilings. Figure 41 shows how the lights and cameras were configured for 

Experiment 2.2. 

Figure 38. Rugged Angle Iron was Bolted to the Vertical Piece of the T-Shaped Load-Cell 

Attachment Plate, Then Bolted to the C-Channel That Formed the Base of the Seat 

Assembly 

44
Figure 39. Plywood Floor Built around the Seat Installation Raising the Floor to the Level 

Where the Pedestal Base was Installed in Experiment 2.2 

Table 11. Instrumentation Requirements for Experiment 2.2 

ATD/Object ATD 

Location Transducers Measurement Channel Count 

HIII 50th Window Seat Triaxial Accelerometer Head G (x, y, z) 3 

HIII 50th Window Seat Triaxial Accelerometer Chest G (x, y, z) 3 

HIII 50th Window Seat 6-Axis Load Cell 

Upper Neck Forces (x, z) and 

Extension/Flexion Moment 

(My) 

3 

HIII 50th Window Seat Uniaxial Load Cell Femur, Left, Axial Load (Fz) 1 

HIII 50th Window Seat Uniaxial Load Cell Femur, Right, Axial Load 

(Fz) 1 

HIII 50th Aisle Seat Triaxial Accelerometer Head G (x, y, z) 3 

HIII 50th Aisle Seat Triaxial Accelerometer Chest G (x, y, z) 3 

HIII 50th Aisle Seat 6-Axis Load Cell 

Upper Neck Forces (x, z) and 

Extension/Flexion Moment 

(My) 

3 

HIII 50th Aisle Seat Uniaxial Load Cell Femur, Left, Axial Load (Fz) 1 

HIII 50th Aisle Seat Uniaxial Load Cell Femur, Right, Axial Load 

(Fz) 1 

Floor Acceleration Triaxial Accelerometer Floor G (x, y, z) 2 

Floor Attachment 

Loads 3-Axis Load Cells (4) Force (x, z) at Four Locations 8 

Total 32 

Total Data Bricks 4 

45
Figure 40. Four Data Bricks Installed Behind Experiment 2.2 to Collect 32 Channels of 

Data 

Table 12. Cameras and Respective Fields of View for Experiment 2.2 

View Camera Lens 

(mm) 

F-stop 

(Aperture)

Shutter 

Speed 

(sec) 

Frame Rate 

(frames/sec)

Working 

Distance 

(ft) 

Field of 

View 

(X by Y, ft)*

Side Ultima 512-5 

Color 7.5 1.2 1/1000 500 5 5.46 x 5.46 

Overhead Ultima 512-6 

Color 4.8 Wide open 1/1000 500 3 5.12 x 5.12 

*

X ft. is along the length of the car, and Y ft. is along the width of the car. 

Figure 41. One U512 Camera and 24 Flood Lights Were Installed along the Wall and One 

U512 Camera and 12 Lights Were Installed along the Ceiling 

46
47

4.4.6 ATDs 

Three ATDs were seated facing forward in the aft row of this experiment. Instrumented Hybrid 

III ATDs were placed in the aisle and window seats. An uninstrumented Hybrid II ATD was 

placed in the middle seat. The instrumentation in the ATDs included a triaxial head 

accelerometer, a triaxial chest accelerometer, a uniaxial load cell in each femur, and a six-axis 

load cell in the neck that recorded Fx, Fz, and My. The ATDs were seated with their feet flat on 

the floor and their arms on their legs. They were each marked with blue, orange, and red chalk 

on their faces, chest, and knees, respectively. Reference targets were placed on each ATD at its 

head, shoulder, elbow, and knee and on the seats along the edge of the headrest and seat back, as 

shown in Figure 42. Appendix C illustrates the relative dimensions between the targets that were 

measured before the test for Experiment 2.2. 

Figure 42. Instrumented Hybrid III ATDs Occupied the Aisle and Window Seats. An 

Uninstrumented Hybrid II ATD Occupied the Middle Seat in Experiment 2.2 
5. Test Implementation 

5.1 Pretest Preparation 

After the experiments were completely installed, a dry run was successfully conducted. The results of 

the dry run ensured that all of the lights and digital cameras would trigger without overloading the 

power supplies or prematurely triggering the data acquisition system before impact of the passenger 

train with the stationary locomotive. Lighting and camera views were adjusted to account for the 

outdoor ambient light, and the trigger systems were verified to confirm that power would be supplied 

to the light arrays, cameras, strobes, and data-brick modules. 

The day before the test, a pretest inspection of each experiment and its related equipment was 

conducted and pretest photos were taken. Propane heaters were placed inside the cars to keep the 

ATDs as close to room temperature as possible. In the early morning of the test day, the passenger 

train was moved to the test site for final inspection and exterior camera setup. After inspection, it was 

pulled back to its starting point, where the cameras and the data bricks were set and armed and the 

lights were triggered. The impact with the stationary locomotive occurred at approximately 10:30 a.m. 

on Thursday, March 23, 2006. 

5.2 Post-Test Activity 

Immediately after the impact of the passenger train with the stationary locomotive, a representative of 

TTCI boarded the cars to inspect them for unsafe conditions and hazards. Once the cars were 

confirmed to be safe, Armor Holdings personnel boarded the rail cars and disconnected the power 

supplies. Extreme care was taken not to disturb the experiments. The data was uploaded from the 

data-brick modules, and the videos were downloaded onto laptop computers. Difficulties downloading 

images from some of the digital cameras occurred, which resulted in the loss of one camera view in 

Experiments 1.1 and 2.2 and both camera views of Experiment 2.1. Appendix B provides a report on 

the loss of this footage. Each experiment was examined and photographed. Notes were taken on the 

post-test condition of each experiment. 

48
6. Results 

The five-car cab car-led passenger train impacted the stationary locomotive (coupled with two 

ballasted freight cars) at approximately 30.8 mph. Figure 43 shows the post-test impact interface. 

Figure 43. Post-Test Photograph of the Impact Interface 

The collision conditions for the ATD experiments are determined by the crash pulse, i.e., the 

deceleration-time history of the rail cars, and the configuration of the interior seats and tables. The 

crash pulse affects the velocity at which the ATDs impact the interior structures. The severity of the 

crash pulse can be assessed more easily by plotting the relative velocity of an unrestrained ATD with 

respect to the car against the relative displacement of that ATD, assuming that the ATD continues to 

travel at the speed before impact. This plot approximates the velocity of the secondary impact over a 

range of occupant travel distances. The difference among crash pulses is more apparent when plotted 

in this manner, rather than comparing the acceleration-time histories. 

 

The crash pulse for the 1st coach car in the CEM train-to-train impact test is similar to the 8g, 250-

millisecond triangular crash pulse, which is specified in the American Public Transit Administration 

49
(APTA) SS-C&S-016-99, Rev. 1, Standard for Row-to-Row Seating in Commuter Rail Cars. The 

crash pulse for the cab car is more severe than that of the first coach. The cab car crash pulse is 

approximated by a 12G, 250-millisecond triangular crash. The relative velocity versus relative 

displacement plots associated with the crash pulses for the cab car and first coach car are plotted in 

Figure 44, along with the comparable curves for an 8G and 12G 250-millisecond crash pulses. 

Figure 44. Plots of Relative Velocity versus Relative Displacement 

Test results presented in this section include a post-test description of each experiment, the seat/table 

outcome, and the ATD outcome. These results were obtained from the occupant kinematics recorded 

on video by the onboard cameras and from the loads recorded by the seat and table attachment load 

cells and instrumented ATDs. 

6.1 Experiment 1.1: Rear-Facing Commuter Seats 

This experiment consisted of two rear-facing, newly designed, three-passenger commuter seats located 

on the forward left-hand-side of the leading cab car. Due to a failure of the pedestal that attached the 

seats to the floor, which caused the seats to collapse forward as shown in Figure 45, the ATDs in this 

experiment were not compartmentalized. 

6.1.1 Seat Outcome–Experiment 1.1 

The outcome of this experiment was a catastrophic failure of the seat-to-floor attachment and the wall, 

which caused the occupied seat to collapse under the inertial loading of the seats and ATDs. 

Specifically, the weld at the base of the pedestal failed, which caused the pedestal to separate from its 

base, as shown in Figure 46. Bolted attachments between the base of the seat pan and the C-channel 

and between the C-channel and the wall separated as shown in Figure 47. This was caused by the load 

that was transferred when the pedestal welds failed. 

50
Figure 45. Post-Test Photograph of Experiment 1.1 

Figure 46. Weld Failure at the Pedestal Base, which Caused the Seat to Collapse in Experiment 

1.1 

51
Figure 47. The Bolt Holding Seat Base at the C-Channel Pulled through. The Connection 

Holding the C-Channel to the Wall also Failed 

The seat-attachment load data indicates that, at 0.080 s, the pedestal bottom plate peeled away from the 

pedestal body in tension (+6,277 lbf) from the aft side of its attachment, producing a high compressive 

force (-5,563 lbf) at the front end of the pedestal as shown in Table 13. On pedestal failure, the load 

was transmitted to the wall attachment, resulting in failure of the seat pan at both a wall attachment 

bolt and a seat-frame attachment bolt. 

Table 13. Floor Attachment Loads and Accelerations in Experiment 1.1 

Description Position Relative to Car Maximum Minimum 

Floor Attachment Loads (lbf) Aisle–Fwd Fx

* 1842 -9 

Aisle–Fwd Fz 1970 -5563 

@ 0.080 sec 

Wall Attachment Loads (lbf) Window–Fwd Fx 1751 -1361 

Window–Fwd Fz 195 -2005 

@ 0.143 sec 

Floor Attachment Loads (lbf) Aisle–Aft Fx 2351 -1056 

Aisle–Aft Fz 6277 

@ 0.080 sec -227 

Wall Attachment Loads (lbf) Window–Aft Fx 2823 

@ 0.104 sec -517 

Window–Aft Fz 2712 

@ 0.152 sec -185 

Floor Acceleration (g) Gx 33.2 -48.7 

Gy 6.3 -6.9 

Gz 45.6 -63.1 *

Fwd is relative to the rail car, nearer the front end. 

52
6.1.2 ATD Outcome–Experiment 1.1

Due to the failure of the seat pedestal, the ATDs in this experiment were not compartmentalized. 

These rear-facing ATDs simply fell backward toward the front of the car, in unison with the seats that 

fell backward when their attachments to the rail car failed. The aisle ATD Neck Fz data channel failed 

to record; therefore, the Neck Nij could not be calculated for this ATD. Table 14 lists the ATD 

measurements. 

Table 14. ATD Measurements on Hybrid III 50th Percentile ATDs in Experiment 1.1 

Measure Injury Criteria Window Aisle 

50th (M)+ 50th (M) 50th (M) 

Upper Neck Tension / Compression 

Force (Fz) (lbf) 

+937 (4170N) / 

-899 (4000N) 

131.8 / -40.0 Unreliable Data 

Head Injury Criterion (HIC15) 700 23.3 11.8 

Neck Nij–Tension-Flexion 1.0 0.086 Unreliable Data 

Neck Nij–Tension-Extension 1.0 0.245 Unreliable Data 

Neck Nij–Compression-Flexion 1.0 0.037 Unreliable Data 

Neck Nij–Compression-Extension 1.0 0.218 Unreliable Data 

Chest Deceleration (Gx) over a 

3msec Clip(1) 

60 10.2 7.4

 + Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Part 571, Standard 208 Occupant Crash Protection, October 2002. 

6.2 Experiment 1.2: Workstation Table Occupant Experiment Using the RSSB 

Hybrid 3RS 

This experiment was one of the two workstation table experiments located in the cab car, each with 

one ATD seated in the forward-facing window seat. The Hybrid 3RS ATD in this experiment 

successfully impacted the workstation table, which caused the table to crush as expected during the 

collision. Figure 48 shows a post-test photo. 

6.2.1 Table Outcome–Experiment 1.2 

The outcome of this experiment was a successful crushing of the table when the ATD impacted it 

during the collision. A maximum crush of 6.125 in was measured after the test. The wall attachment 

load cells measured forces that were relatively evenly distributed. The two upper attachment points 

carried loads that were slightly higher than the loads that the lower wall attachment carried, as shown 

in Table 15. The table remained attached to the wall and kept the ATD compartmentalized. 

53
Figure 48. Post-Test Photograph of Experiment 1.2 (with Hybrid 3RS ATD) 

Table 15. Table Attachment Loads, Displacements, and Floor Accelerations 

in Experiment 1.2 

Description Position Relative to Car Maximum Minimum 

Table Attachment Loads (lbf) Near Wall, Fx 2063 -2248 

Near Wall, Fy 3103 -2762 

Near Wall, Fz 914 -949 

Table Attachment Loads (lbf) Far Wall, Fx 1961 -3025 

Far Wall, Fy 2125 -2386 

Far Wall, Fz 890 -725 

Table Attachment Loads (lbf) Lower Wall, Fx 1394 -1595 

Lower Wall, Fy 770 -1356 

Lower Wall, Fz 1065 -908 

Table Crush Displacement (inches) 6.1 - 

Table Edge Displacement (inches) 1.3 - 

Table Top Acceleration (g) Gx 82.2 -83.3 

Gy 12.5 -14.4 

Gz 27.9 -25.9 

Floor Acceleration (g) Gx 49.4 -38.8 

Gy 5.8 -7.2 

Gz 15.4 -16.9 

54
6.2.2 ATD Outcome–Experiment 1.2

The Hybrid 3RS in this experiment measured a chest deceleration of 63G. No indication was found 

that the head impacted the top of the table. The knees of the Hybrid 3RS, however, did impact the seat 

pan on the other side of the table. In anticipation of this interaction between the knee/shin of the ATD 

and the facing seat pan, a rubber bumper was installed around the edge of the facing seat pan. This 

bumper was intended to mitigate the femur loads experienced by the ATD. Table 16 lists the ATD 

injury data. Figure 49 shows how the knees interacted with the facing-seat rubber bumper. 

The value for the Upper Abdomen V*C was calculated by converting the average of the left and right 

CRUX measurements into a compression-time history. The compression-time history of the upper 

abdomen was divided by the undeformed depth of the abdomen and then multiplied by the 

compression velocity-time history. The maximum value of the resulting curve was scaled by 1.3 to 

determine the Upper Abdomen V*C value. 

Table 16. ATD Measurements on Hybrid 3RS in Experiment 1.2 

Measure Injury Criteria 

50th (M)+ 

Hybrid 3RS–Window 

50th (M) 

Upper Neck Tension / Compression Force (Fz) 

(lbf) 

+937 (4170N) / 

-899 (4000N) 

264 / -208 

Head Injury Criterion (HIC15) 700 157 

Neck Nij–Tension-Flexion 1.0 0.283 

Neck Nij–Tension-Extension 1.0 0.360 

Neck Nij–Compression-Flexion 1.0 0.248 

Neck Nij–Compression-Extension 1.0 0.363 

Chest Deceleration (Gx) over a 3msec Clip (g) 60 22.7

Femur Load (Right) (lbf) -2250 -795 

Femur Load (Left) (lbf) -2250 -226 

Upper Abdomen V*C (inches/sec)* 78 37.8 

Upper Abdominal Compression Ratio (%)++ 50 29 + Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Part 571, Standard 208 Occupant Crash Protection, October 2002. * Wallace, W.A. and Srinivasan, S.C.M., “Rail Passenger & Crew Survivability Studies–Part 2,” November 2002. ++ Rouhana, S.W., Viano, D.C., Jedrzejczak, E.A., and McCleary, J.D., “Assessing Submarining and Abdominal Injury 

Risk in the Hybrid III Family of Dummies,” Proc. 33rd Stapp Car Crash Conference, pp. 257-279, SAE Technical Paper No. 

892440, October 1989. 

55
Figure 49. Interaction of the Knees with the Facing Seat Rubber Bumper Occured in 

Experiment 1.2 

6.3 Experiment 1.3: Workstation Table Occupant Experiment Using the THOR ATD 

This experiment was the second of the two workstation table experiments located in the cab car. The 

THOR ATD in this experiment successfully impacted the workstation table, causing it to crush as 

expected during the collision. Figure 50 shows a post-test photograph. 

56
Figure 50. Post-Test Photograph of Experiment 1.3 (with THOR ATD) 

6.3.1 Seat Outcome–Experiment 1.3 

The outcome of this experiment was a successful crushing of the table caused by the ATD impact. A 

maximum crush of 4.75 in was measured after the test. The wall attachment load cells measured 

forces that were relatively evenly distributed. Two upper attachment points carried loads that were 

slightly higher than loads carried by the lower wall attachment as shown in Table 17. The table 

remained attached to the wall and kept the ATD compartmentalized. 

57
Table 17. Table Attachment Loads, Displacements, and Floor Accelerations for Experiment 1.3 

Description Position Relative to Car Maximum Minimum 

Table Attachment Loads (lbf) Near Wall, Fx 1769 -2421 

Near Wall, Fy 2884 -3499 

Near Wall, Fz 619 -641 

Table Attachment Loads (lbf) Far Wall, Fx 2589 -3097 

Far Wall, Fy 3647 -3135 

Far Wall, Fz 819 -582 

Table Attachment Loads (lbf) Lower Wall, Fx 1312 -1542 

Lower Wall, Fy 680 -1111 

Lower Wall, Fz 1053 -864 

Table Crush Displacement (inches) 4.7 – 

Table Edge Displacement (inches) 1.4 – 

Table Top Acceleration (g) Gx 95.3 -78.9 

Gy 9.9 -8.6 

Gz 21.3 -19.4 

6.3.2 ATD Outcome–Experiment 1.3 

Despite neck loads that were higher in this experiment than in Experiment 1.2, no indication was seen 

that the head impacted the top of the table. The knees of the THOR, however, did impact the seat pan 

on the other side of the table. In anticipation of this interaction between the knee/shin of the ATD and 

the facing seat pan, a rubber bumper was installed around the edge of the seat pan. This bumper was 

intended to mitigate the femur loads experienced by the ATD. Table 18 lists the ATD injury data. 

Figures 51 and 52 show how the knees interacted with the facing-seat rubber bumper. 

The value for the Upper Abdomen V*C was calculated by converting the average of the left and right 

CRUX measurements into a compression-time history. The compression-time history of the upper 

abdomen was divided by the original depth of the abdomen and then multiplied by the compression 

velocity-time history. The maximum value of the resulting curve was scaled by 1.3 to determine the 

Upper Abdomen V*C value. 

58
Figure 51. Evidence of Knee Interaction with the Facing-Seat Rubber Bumper in 

Experiment 1.3 

Figure 52. Tears in the Rubber Bumper from Knee Interaction with the Facing Seat in 

Experiment 1.3 

59
Table 18. Injury Criteria Calculated for THOR ATD in Experiment 1.3 

Measure Injury Criteria 

50th (M)+ 

THOR–Window

50th (M) 

Upper Neck Tension / Compression Force (Fz) (lbf) +937 (4170N) / 

-899 (4000N) 

376 / -96 

Head Injury Criterion (HIC15) 700 166 

Neck Nij–Tension-Flexion 1.0 0.246 

Neck Nij–Tension-Extension 1.0 0.289 

Neck Nij–Compression-Flexion 1.0 0.059 

Neck Nij–Compression-Extension 1.0 0.118 

Chest Deceleration (Gx) over a 3msec Clip (g) 60 33.7 

Femur Load (Right) (lbf) -2250 -1219 

Femur Load (Left) (lbf) -2250 -968 

Upper Abdomen V*C (inches/sec)* 78 44.5 

Upper Abdominal Compression Ratio (%)++ 50 26 + Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Part 571, Standard 208 Occupant Crash Protection, October 2002. * Wallace, W.A. and Srinivasan, S.C.M., “Rail Passenger & Crew Survivability Studies–Part 2,” November 2002. ++ Rouhana, S.W., Viano, D.C., Jedrzejczak, E.A., and McCleary, J.D., “Assessing Submarining and Abdominal Injury 

Risk in the Hybrid III Family of Dummies,” Proc. 33rd Stapp Car Crash Conference, pp. 257-279, SAE Technical 

Paper No. 892440, October 1989. 

6.4 Experiment 2.1: Forward-Facing Intercity Seats 

This experiment consisted of two rows of modified, forward-facing, two-passenger Amtrak intercity 

seat pairs located in the front left-hand-side of the first coach car (second car in the consist). The 

ATDs in this experiment were compartmentalized as shown in the post-test photograph in Figure 53. 

No seat attachment loads were recorded in this experiment. 

Figure 53. Post-Test Photograph of Experiment 2.1 

60
6.4.1 Seat Outcome–Experiment 2.1 

The aft-row seats (launch seats) used in this experiment were the original Amtrak seats from previous 

tests. The impact seats were the same refurbished seats that were used in previous full-scale testing for 

assessing the suitability of restraint systems. The seat pitch was 41 in, considerably longer than the 32-

inch seat pitch of the commuter seats tested in Experiment 1.1 and Experiment 2.2. The impact seats 

in this experiment were the original two-place passenger Amtrak seats whose backs had been modified 

to withstand the high forces produced by two occupants in 3-point restraints. The seats were also 

equipped with energy-absorbing (E/A) struts to help minimize the impact force on the head. Without 

occupants, all movement in the impact seats was caused by the impact of the occupants from the 

launch seats and the seat’s relatively smaller self-weight inertia loads. To help reduce the potential for 

high head-injury loads, a cushioned headrest was installed on the rear face of the impact seats. The 

E/A struts extended approximately 0.75 in each, indicating they performed as designed by reacting to 

the impact of the knees from behind as shown in Figure 54. Table 19 lists the recorded floor 

accelerations for Experiment 2.1. 

Figure 54. Energy-Absorbing Struts Before the Test (left), Actuated Approximately 0.75 in 

(right) to Help Reduce the Force of the Head Impacting the Seat Back 

Table 19. Floor Accelerations in Experiment 2.1 

Direction (Relative to Car) Maximum (g) Minimum (g) 

X-direction (Gx) 38.5 -65.2 

Z-direction (Gz) 26.5 -28.9 

6.4.2 ATD Outcome–Experiment 2.1 

Both 95th percentile ATDs were compartmentalized for this experiment. Failure to collect high-speed 

footage for this experiment prevented the observation of the kinematic response of the ATDs during 

the collision. The HIC15 criteria was exceeded for both the aisle and window ATDs. Table 20 lists the 

injury data that was recorded for Experiment 2.1. 

61
Table 20. Injury Criteria Calculated for Hybrid III 95th Percentile ATDs in Experiment 2.1 

Measure Injury Criteria 

95th (M)+ 

Window 

95th (M) 

Aisle 

95th (M) 

Upper Neck Tension / Compression 

Force (Fz) (lbf)*

+1131 (5033N) / 

-1089 (4846N) 

217 / -600 153 / -603 

Head Injury Criterion (HIC15) 700 1478 1305 

Neck Nij–Tension-Flexion 1.0 0.542 0.599 

Neck Nij–Tension-Extension 1.0 0.307 0.259 

Neck Nij–Compression-Flexion 1.0 0.806 0.959 

Neck Nij–Compression-Extension 1.0 0.359 0.361 

Chest Deceleration (Gx) over a 3msec 

Clip (g) 

55 17.1 15.0 

Femur (Right) (lbf) -2850 -815 -769 

Femur (Left) (lbf) -2850 -799 -515 *

Nahum and Melvin, Accidental Injury: Biomechanics and Prevention, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1993, pp. 82-83. + Eppinger, R., Sun, E., Kuppa, S., and Saul, R., “Development of Improved Injury Criteria for the Assessment 

of Advanced Automotive Restraint Systems–II,” Supplement to NHTSA Docket No. 1998-4405-9, 2000. 

6.5 Experiment 2.2: Forward-Facing Commuter Seats 

This experiment consisted of two forward-facing, newly designed, three-passenger commuter seats 

located in the aft right-hand-side of the first coach car (second car in the consist). The ATDs were 

compartmentalized in this experiment, as shown in a post-test photograph in Figure 55. 

Figure 55. Post-Test Photograph of Experiment 2.2 

62
6.5.1 Seat Outcome–Experiment 2.2 

The outcome of this experiment was a partial failure of the seat attachment to the floor, which caused 

the ATDs in the center and aisle seats to fall into the aisle of the car. Specifically, some of the welds at 

the base of the pedestal failed, which caused the pedestal to partially separate from its base as shown in 

Figure 56. Unlike the seat in Experiment 1.1, the bolt attachment of the seat base to the wall did not 

separate, which helped to keep the ATDs compartmentalized. 

Figure 56. Weld Failure at Pedestal Base, which Caused the Seat to Rotate Forward and 

Allowed the ATDs to Fall into the Aisle in Experiment 2.2 

The seat attachment loads indicated that, at 0.214 s, some of the pedestal welds failed in tension with 

the vertical load at the aft attachment point reaching 6,796 lbf, while the vertical load at the forward 

attachment point reached-7,151 lbf, as shown in Table 21. Upon pedestal failure, the load was 

transmitted to the wall attachment. Unlike the seat in Experiment 1.1, however, the seat base remained 

attached to the side wall. 

6.5.2 ATD Outcome–Experiment 2.2 

All three ATDs in this experiment were compartmentalized. The partial failure of the pedestal 

attachment allowed the center and aisle-side ATDs to collapse into the aisle after the secondary impact, 

which is acceptable under the definition of compartmentalization in the APTA Safety Standard SSC&S-016-99, Rev. 1 Standard for Row-to-Row Seating in Commuter Rail Cars. The data channel 

tracking the chest acceleration in the Gx direction for the window-side ATD failed to record. 

63
64

Table 21. Floor Attachment Loads and Accelerations for Experiment 2.2 

Description Position Relative to Car Maximum Minimum 

Floor Attachment Loads (lbf) Aisle–Fwd Fx

* 2300 -1574 

Aisle–Fwd Fz 1133 -7151 

 @ 0.213 sec 

Wall Attachment Loads (lbf) Window–Fwd Fx 2890 -448 

Window–Fwd Fz 513 -1967 

Floor Attachment Loads (lbf) Aisle–Aft Fx 2545 -656 

Aisle–Aft Fz 6796 

@ 0.214 sec 

-552 

Wall Attachment Loads (lbf) Window–Aft Fx 961 -1801 

Window–Aft Fz 1646 -374 

Floor Acceleration (g) Gx 86.6 -96.6 

Gz 37.3 -36.2 *

Fwd is relative to the rail car, nearer the front end. 

Table 22. Injury Criteria Calculated for the Hybrid III 50th Percentile ATDs in Experiment 2.2 

Measure Injury Criteria 

50th (M)+ 

Window 

50th (M) 

Aisle 

50th (M) 

Upper Neck Tension / Compression 

Force (Fz) (lbf) 

+937 (4170N) / 

-899 (4000N) 

86 / -201 93 / -144 

Head Injury Criterion (HIC15) 700 301 220 

Neck Nij–Tension-Flexion 1.0 0.346 0.224 

Neck Nij–Tension-Extension 1.0 0.205 0.381 

Neck Nij–Compression-Flexion 1.0 0.393 0.195 

Neck Nij–Compression-Extension 1.0 0.162 0.433 

Chest Deceleration (Gx) over a 3 msec 

Clip* (g)

60 Unreliable Data 20.2 

Right Femur Load (lbf) -2250 -444 -633 

Left Femur Load (lbf) -2250 -724 -374 + Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Part 571, Standard 208 Occupant Crash Protection, October 2002. 
7. Conclusions 

Table 23 provides a summary of results of the occupant protection experiments on board the full-scale 

train-to-train CEM collision test. 

Table 23. Summary of Test Results 

Experiment 

No. 

Experiment 

Description 

Structural 

Crashworthiness 

Performance of 

Equipment 

Injury Criteria 

Met? 

ATDs 

Compartmentalized? 

1.1 Rear-Facing 

Commuter Seat 

Seat failed at base 

of pedestal 

Yes No 

1.2 Crushable Table 

between Facing 

Seats with Hybrid 

3RS ATD 

Table crushed as 

designed to 6.1 in 

Yes Yes 

1.3 Crushable Table 

between Facing 

Seats with THOR 

ATD 

Table crushed as 

designed to 4.7 in 

Yes Yes 

2.1 Forward-Facing 

Intercity Seat 

E/A struts actuated 

as designed by 

0.75 in 

No Yes 

2.2 Forward-Facing 

Commuter Seat 

Seat failed at base 

of pedestal 

Yes Yes 

These results indicate that the newly designed crushable table performed as intended. It appears that 

the Hybrid 3RS in Experiment 1.2 may have crushed the table to the point of bottoming out on the Ibeam at the center of the table, which caused the higher chest deceleration. The ATDs of the rearfacing commuter-seat experiments were not compartmentalized due to the failure of the seat-base 

welds at the floor attachments. The ATDs of the forward-facing commuter seat and intercity seat 

experiments were effectively compartmentalized. 

65

Appendix A 

Test-Equipment Matrix 

Table A-1. Distribution of Test Equipment 

Test Number 

Test Description 

Modified Intercity 

Seats 

Commuter Seats 

Facing-Seat Pairs 

Tables 

Hybrid III 50th ATD 

Instrumented 

Hybrid III 95th ATD 

Instrumented 

Hybrid II 50th ATD 

Not Instrumented 

Hybrid III RS ATD 

THOR ATD 

Digital High-Speed 

Cameras 

Accelerometers 

Load Cells 

Displacement 

Transducers 

ATD Data Channels 

Seats/Table/Floor 

Data Channels 

Total No. of Data 

Channels 

1.1 Rear-Facing 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 5 6 0 18 11 29 1.2 H3RS-Facing Seats with Table 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 4 6 4 17 17 34 1.3 THOR-Facing Seats with Table 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 4 8 6 22 14 36 2.1 Forward-Facing Intercity Seats 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 5 6 0 22 2 24 2.2 Forward-Facing Commuter Seats 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 5 10 0 22 10 32 

Total 2 4 4 2 4 2 2 1 1 11 23 36 10 101 54 155 

10 ATDs 

67
68

Table A-2. Distribution of Instrumentation/ATDs 

#9357 #9358 

1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 2.2 TOT 

ATDs Source of Equipment 

Hybrid III 50th 1 1 VRTC Hybrid III 50th 1 1 VRTC Hybrid III 50th 1 1 VRTC Hybrid III 50th 1 1 VRTC Hybrid III 95th 1 1 VRTC Hybrid III 95th 1 1 VRTC Hybrid II 50th 1 1 VRTC Hybrid II 50th 1 1 VRTC Hybrid 3RS 1 1 RSSB, fully assembled, instrumentation fTHOR 1 1 GESAC, fully instrumented; arms and low

Total 3 1 1 2 3 10 

Accelerometers Triaxial (Head) 2 1 1 2 2 8 VRTC, GESAC for THOR, GMH for 3RS Triaxial (Chest) 2 1 1 2 2 8 VRTC, GESAC for THOR, GMH for 3RS Triaxial (Floor) 1 1 0 1 1 4 Simula Triaxial (Table top) 1 1 2 Simula Uniaxial (U-Abdomen) 1 1 GESAC 

Total 5 4 4 5 5 23 

Load Cells 

6-axis (Head/Neck) 2 1 1 2 2 8 VRTC, GESAC for THOR, GMH for 3RS Uniaxis Neck Cables 2 2 GESAC Uniaxial (Femur) 2 2 4 4 12 VRTC, GMH for 3RS dummy and THOR Uniaxial (Table Edge) 0 0 0 Not needed Triaxial (Table Attachment) 3 3 6 Simula Triaxial (Seat/Floor Attachment) 4 4 8 Simula 

Total 6 6 8 6 10 36 

Displacement Trans. 

Triaxial (LCrux) 2 2 4 RSSB, GESAC Uniaxial (UAbdomen) 1 1 GESAC Uniaxial (OC position) 1 1 GESAC Uniaxial (Table top) 2 2 4 Simula 

Total 0 4 6 10 
Table A-3. Total Number of Data Channels 

 Experiment 

1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 2.2 TOT 

Accelerometers 

Triaxial (Head) 6 3 3 6 6 24 

Triaxial (Chest) 6 3 3 6 6 24 

Triaxial (Floor) 3 3 0 2 2 10 

Triaxial (Table top) 3 3 6 

Uniaxial (U-Abdomen) 1 1 

Total 15 12 10 14 14 65 65 

Load Cells 

6-axis (Head/Neck) 6 3 3 6 6 24 

Uniaxis Neck Cables 2 2 

Uniaxial (Femur) 2 2 4 4 12 

Uniaxial (Table Edge) 0 0 0 

Triaxial (Table 

Attachment) 9 9 18 

Triaxial (Seat/Floor 

Attachment) 8 8 16 

Total 14 14 16 10 18 72 72 

Displacement Trans. 

Triaxial (LCrux) 6 6 12 

Uniaxial (U-Abdomen) 1 1 

Uniaxial (OC Position) 1 1 

Uniaxial (Table top) 2 2 4 

Total 0 8 10 18 18 

 29 34 36 24 32 155 

Required No. of Data 

Bricks 3.63 4.25 4.50 3.00 4.00 19.38 

70 

8.8 

Actual No. of Data 

Bricks 4 9 3 4 20 

69 

Appendix B 

Camera Failure Report 

This report addresses several problems that occurred with the cameras during the collision test 

conducted on March 23, 2006. 

Test Day Procedures 

With instructions that the test was a “go” and to expect the crash to occur at 10:15 a.m., the 

camera crew (comprised of two people) began to arm and configure the cameras at 9:50 a.m., 

completing their task at 10:05 a.m. Before leaving the train, the crew checked that each camera 

was set correctly and armed. This included the cameras for Experiments 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.1, and 

2.2. All cameras were operational and armed. Arming the cameras consisted of connecting the 

positive battery post for each camera group, checking each camera with a video monitor to make 

sure it booted, setting each camera to pre-trigger 0.5 s before impact, and validating frame rate 

and shutter speed. 

Lesson 1: Conduct a final check of the cameras with lights on to ensure that the lens settings, 

camera settings, and light level will produce a good image. This can be done during the final 

check on each camera and takes less than 5 min. 

After the crash, the camera crew proceeded to the train and waited for the all-clear signal. A 

minor detail had been overlooked; the crew had to wait for ladders to board the train. Once on 

board, the two-person crew worked independently, each with a small battery video monitor and 

keypad as well as a laptop to download the cameras one at a time. 

Camera Issues in the Leading Cab Car 

Camera for Experiment 1.1–Side View (Ultima APX Color) 

The day before the test, the ambient light from bright sun washed out the image on the side and 

overhead cameras. The side camera was adjusted from f1.4 to f2.8, and the shutter speed was 

increased from 1/1000 to 1/1500, with a frame rate of 500 fps. The camera crew reviewed the 

changes with the test engineer and project engineer. Everyone agreed the image looked good 

with the lights on after the adjustment. 

After the test, images from the side camera (Color APX) were dark. When the lens was checked, 

it was at f8, not f2.8. One might conclude that it had mistakenly been set to f8. However, the 

lens setting had been reviewed and then taped. The desired field of view (known as FOV) had 

been adjusted by changing the pretest 12.5 mm lens to a 7 mm lens. This lens was so long that 

some concern occurred about stability during the high-G loads of the test. To lower the risk, the 

lens was secured with duct tape to the camera safety strap. The lens setting could have been 

accidentally changed at this time. No live test was conducted with lights after this point except 

during the actual test. It is conceivable that this was a human error that resulted in the sidecamera view being underexposed. 

71 
Recovery of the image data to a sufficient level may be possible by using the SAI tracking 

software with pre-image processing set such that color is removed, the image is brightened, and 

some contrast adjustment may be required. Even with the dark image, quad targets can be seen. 

Camera for Experiment 1.1–Overhead View (Ultima 512 Mono) 

No issues were found. Good images were obtained. In addition, these images validated that the 

lights were on during the test. 

Camera for Experiment 1.2–Front View(Ultima APX-RS Mono) 

No issues were found. Images downloaded without a problem. 

Cameras for Experiment 1.2–Side View (Ultima APX-RS Color) 

This camera had two issues. The first issue was that the image was soft, meaning it was slightly 

out of focus. This camera had been reviewed in the same manner as the Experiment 1.1 side 

camera the day before the test. The lens had been locked with tape and was not touched. After 

the test, however, the tape on the lens was not as tight as it had been the previous night. This 

allowed the lens to rotate slightly in a high-G jolt. The lens had been set on infinity, but after the 

test it was slightly off from this position. The only possible conclusion is that the lens had 

rotated during the collision and that the use of minimal tape is not sufficient in this high-G test. 

Lesson 2: The lens should be locked during a high-g test. Supporting a lens in a high-g

environment is advisable. A recommendation for the future is to provide a lens support similar 

to the one GMH used on the Vision Research cameras. 

The second issue and the most difficult problem was that the camera responded to keypad 

instructions but did not respond to the PC program. This meant that digital images could not be 

downloaded. The camera crew worked to gain control of this camera by contacting the 

manufacturer’s customer support to find out if they could troubleshoot the problem. The camera 

crew called several sales people about the specific camera history and then reloaded interface 

software. A second communication cable was obtained. Several PCs and I-394 interface cards 

were tried. However, none of these options worked. Images could be viewed on the video 

monitor but could not be downloaded. One option was to back up the images with videotape, 

however, a videotape recorder was not immediately available. More than 30 min of searching 

was required to locate a videocassette recorder (VCR). 

Lesson 3: For a high-G test, it is necessary to have a VCR on site to download analog images as 

a backup to the digital images. 

With the VCR, a video backup of the images was downloaded. At this point, the camera crew 

was approaching the critical limit on the amp-hour rating of the battery. An AC power and a 

battery charger were requested at this time; however, none were on site. By the time a generator 

was provided, an option was present to jumper the battery with one of the light batteries. No 

means to accomplish this existed however, so one of the DC power cables was cut and jumpered 

between secondary batteries. At that time, a battery charger arrived. At this point, however, the 

cameras in the second car needed a backup. A request was made to provide a charger for the 

battery powering the cameras in the second car. 

72 
The camera crew concluded that the communication issue was with the camera and not with the 

cables or the PC. The camera safety strap was removed and the camera was jolted with 

minimum force on the side in the direction opposite the g-loading. The camera began 

communicating and the images were downloaded. 

Lesson 4: Suggest to the camera manufacturer that they further reinforce the camera by using an 

RTV sealant on the connectors such that high-g loading will not disconnect them. 

Cameras for Experiment 1.2—Overhead View (Ultima 512 Mono) 

No issues. Images downloaded without a problem. 

Camera for Experiment 1.3—Side View (Ultima APX-RS Mono) 

Some unexpected trouble occurred getting this camera to communicate through the GigE 

interface. This interface had been tested and was found to be working the day before the 

experiment. A specific PC had been assigned to download the data from this camera; however, 

the images could not be downloaded. The camera crew made many attempts, including using a 

new cable, reloading software, and reviewing the network connections to the camera. Finally, 

the Gateway discovered on the camera was different than the PC. Once they were made the 

same, the camera and the PC were able to communicate with one another and the images from 

this camera were downloaded and found to be exceptional. 

Camera for Experiment 1.3—(Ultima 512 Mono) 

No issues. Images downloaded without a problem. 

Camera Issues in the Second Car 

Two experiments were in the coach car: Experiments 2.1 and 2.2. Each experiment had an 

overhead and a side-view camera. Experiment 2.1 used an APX camera and a 512 camera. 

Experiment 2.2 used a pair of 512 cameras. One 12-volt DC battery supplied power to all four 

cameras, which were armed, rechecked, and working properly before the test. 

The camera crew attempted to download the video data after the test with only partial success: 

 Experiment 2.1, side view—no data recovered, 

 Experiment 2.1, overhead view—no data recovered, 

 Experiment 2.2, side view—all data recovered successfully, and 

 Experiment 2.2, overhead view—no data recovered. 

Cameras for Experiment 2.2—Overhead and Side Views 

Experiment 2.2 was considered the more important of the two experiments, and since the 512 

cameras would be quicker to download, they were tried first. The top-view camera would not 

communicate with the computer via the 1394 port. The side-view camera worked normally and 

images were downloaded. 

Cameras for Experiment 2.1—Overhead and Side Views 

Neither the APX camera nor the 512 camera for Experiment 2.1 would communicate via the I394 interface. One (possibly both) of the cameras still had data in memory, which could be 

displayed on a local NTSC display under keypad control. An NTSC-compatible video recorder 

73 
74 

was requested in an attempt to recover the video data without computer communication. As 

Experiment 2.1 was considered as having the least priority, the VCR was initially used 

successfully on one of the cab-car cameras, which was experiencing similar problems. 

Different software drivers were tried without success. Another computer was used (with a 

different software revision that had been used in the past successfully with both the 512 and APX 

systems). By the time the VCR became available, the cameras had stopped responding to 

keypad commands and it became obvious that the battery power had decayed below limits. 

It appears that the problems were due to battery-power decay. Unanticipated delays occurred 

between the time the cameras were armed and the start of downloading. Battery-power failure 

was attributed to the following causes: 

 The batteries were cold; temperatures before the test were about 40 °F. 

 It was some time before AC generator power became available. When the battery charger 

was connected, it tripped. The reason for this was the battery had decayed significantly and 

the cameras were trying to run entirely from the charger, which had exceeded its capacity. 

 Both cameras (APX and 512) failed; this was the greater power requirement case. 

Summary 

The lead car had the same type of cameras that were in the second car. The cameras in the lead 

car functioned properly. Although some difficulty with one of the RS cameras in the lead car 

occurred, a similar camera did not exist in the second car. The conclusion is that the power drain 

on the battery in the second car was the highest. The amp-hour calculation for this battery 

indicated that the battery life was sufficient at over 3 hr. The time between arming the cameras 

and the collision was 1 hr, which minimized the amount of time available to download the 

cameras after the test. The attempt to keep the battery charged by hooking up the battery charger 

may have had a detrimental effect on the voltage output temporarily. This could have caused the 

cameras to be unresponsive. 
Appendix C 

Pretest Target Measurements 

A B C

D E

G

F

H 

I 

K 

J 

36 in. 

19-3/4 in 

32-3/8 in. 

36 in. 

45-3/4 in. 

51 in. 

18 in. 

52-1/4 in. 

38-3/4 in. 

59-3/4 in. 

36 in. 

Figure C-1. Target Dimensions for Experiment 1.1 

75 
Figure C-2. Target Dimensions for Experiment 1.2

76 
77 

Figure C-3. Target Dimensions for Experiment 1.3
Figure C-4. Target Dimensions for Experiment 2.1 

78 
79 

Figure C-5. Target Dimensions for Experiment 2.2 

80 

Acronyms and Abbreviations 

ATD Anthropomorphic Test Devices 

CEM crash energy management 

E/A energy absorbing 

GFE Government-Furnished Equipment 

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

RSSB Rail Safety and Standards Board 

SAE Society of Automotive Engineers 

THOR Advanced crash test dummy developed by NHTSA 

Research and Development Office 

TTC Transportation Technology Center 

TTCI Transportation Technology Center, Inc. 

VNTSC and Volpe Center Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 

VRTC Vehicle Research and Test Center