See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/342051657

Selection and ranking of rail vehicle components for optimal lightweighting

using composite materials

Article  in  Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part F Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit · June 2020
DOI: 10.1177/0954409720925685

CITATION READS

1 704

3 authors, including:

Preetum Jayantilal Mistry Michael Johnson

University of Nottingham University of Nottingham
5 PUBLICATIONS   6 CITATIONS    43 PUBLICATIONS   659 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Lightweighting of rail vehicles using composite materials View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Preetum Jayantilal Mistry on 10 June 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Original Article

Proc IMechE Part F:

J Rail and Rapid Transit
Selection and ranking of rail vehicle 0(0) 1–13
! IMechE 2020

components for optimal lightweighting Article reuse guidelines:

using composite materials sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0954409720925685
journals.sagepub.com/home/pif

PJ Mistry1 , MS Johnson1 and UIK Galappaththi2

Abstract
The current performance requirements for the global rail industry demand that trains are more reliable, efficient and can
accommodate an increased capacity for more passengers. Lightweight construction of rail vehicles is thus required to
meet these requirements. This paper has identified the key components for lightweighting of rail vehicles using fibre
reinforced polymer composite materials. A methodology used to select and rank those metallic components suitable for
redesign in composite, developed as part of the ACIS (Advanced Composite Integrated Structures) UK project is
described. From the audit, five demonstrator components – a cantilevered seat bracket, luggage rack module, inter-
mediate end structure, body side structure and roof structure – were identified by the consortium using the method-
ology. These are components that the consortium believes to be the most suitable to demonstrate the benefit of a
composite replacement in terms of integration potential, lightweighting benefits and commercial viability. Furthermore,
rail car body structural components, forming the primary structure of a rail vehicle, were determined to be the most
optimal components to replace in composites for maximum lightweighting of the sprung mass. It was estimated that a
composite redesign of these components would result in a mass savings of 57% for intermediate end structures, 47% for
body side structures and 51% for roof structures.

Keywords
Rail vehicle audit, lightweighting, car body structures, composite materials, energy consumption

Date received: 21 September 2019; accepted: 18 April 2020

UK rail network coupled with trends of increasing

Introduction
mass of rail vehicles,5 accentuates the necessity for
The drive to reduce greenhouse gases associated lightweighting of rail vehicles. These heavier vehicles
with carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions is particularly have an adverse effect on the rail network which
relevant to the global transport industry, which manifests itself as track damage. This ultimately
accounts for approximately 25% of the total emis- results in increased infrastructure maintenance and
sions generated.1 renewal costs. This damage arises from both the
Specific emissions targets for European railways gross vehicular weight (GVW) bearing on the track
were agreed and highlighted in the European Rail as well as impact forces associated with dynamic
Sector Sustainable Mobility Strategy 2010.2 This action of the unsprung vehicle mass.
strategy provides a unified approach to environmental In comparison to the aerospace, automotive and
and sustainability topics echoed in the UK’s Rail marine industries, the railway industry has been
Technical Strategy 2012.3 Rail vehicle lightweighting perceived as slow to integrate lightweight materials
using fibre reinforced polymer (FRP) composite
materials is central to both strategies. This is recog- 1
Composites Research Group, Faculty of Engineering, University of
nised as a means of reducing CO2 production through Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
lower energy consumption to deliver improved rail 2
Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
capacity and performance. University of Ruhuna, Galle, Sri Lanka
In 2018–2019, 1.76 billion rail passenger journeys
Corresponding author:
were made in Great Britain, amounting to 67.7 billion
PJ Mistry, Composites Research Group, Faculty of Engineering,
passenger kilometres. This was a 2.2% increase com- University of Nottingham, Advanced Manufacturing Building, Jubilee
pared to the previous year and is the highest rate of Campus, Nottingham, NG8 1BB, UK.
growth since 2015–16.4 This growing demand on the Email: [email protected]
2 Proc IMechE Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 0(0)

(primarily FRP composites) into their structures. The rail applications. While these glass fibre composite
main barriers to the widespread adoption of FRP structures are lightweight, the lack of fibre alignment
composites have been cost, fire performance and in the formats currently used, limits the structural
issues of maintenance in the railway environment performance.
and over the lifetime of the vehicle. However, com- In terms of resin selection, thermosetting resins
posite design can reduce manufacturing costs (from a such as polyester, vinylester and epoxies are most
life-cycle costing perspective) by reducing the number commonly used for rail applications.9 However, an
of parts, assembly steps and assembly time.6 issue with these resins is their FST performance. For
The ACIS (Advanced Composite Integrated example, the unsaturated form of polyester burns
Structures) UK rail project (funded by the Rail easily resulting in smoke and toxic fumes. To over-
Safety and Standards Board, RSSB/13/EIT/1744) come this, fillers and additives are used to improve fire
sought to address this challenge of rail vehicle light- retardancy. However, this tends to increase the viscos-
weighting. A team of engineers from Bombardier ity of the resin making it difficult to process and thus
Transportation (lead), the University of Nottingham, limits the widespread use of this resin for rail applica-
Haydale Composite Solutions and the National tions. Phenolic resins are inherently fire retardant and
Composites Centre developed a methodology to iden- evolve low levels of smoke and toxic fumes. These are
tify the most commercially viable components of a rail typically used for rail vehicles designed to operate in
vehicle to be lightweighted by redesign in composites. tunnels, such as on the London Underground. The
This paper provides a focussed review of composites in most stringent FST requirements for rail vehicle
the railway industry and presents the findings of the design are those specified for the London
ACIS project. Underground. They require rail vehicles to comply
with the superseded British standard BS 6853,10 cat-
A review of composites in the railway egory 0 and 1a performance levels which are more
rigorous than the Hazard level 3 category, stated in
industry the current British European standard BS EN 45545-
Steel and aluminium have long been used as structural 2.8,11 However, phenolic resins cure by a condensation
materials for rail vehicles. These metallic materials reaction which leads to porosity within the matrix,
possess good strength, formability and weld-ability resulting in brittleness. This makes phenolics unsuit-
properties coupled with a relatively low cost, which able for structural components.
makes them a versatile option. However, the desire to Figure 1 provides a summary of reinforcement
achieve a lightweight design and reduce production fibres and matrix resins commonly used in the manu-
costs are the main two driving forces behind the intro- facture of composite components for rail vehicles.
duction of new materials in rail.7 FRP composites are Although the source is a snapshot from 1997,9 it
one such material system that meets these aims. These still provides a useful summary of the relative usages
materials have high specific properties and can form as discussed above.
complicated, three-dimensional profiles suited to rail A rail vehicle is typically fabricated with either
vehicle design. lightweight, stiff panels or more commonly, sand-
Rail vehicle design is typically separated into major wich panel structures (consisting of two FRP skins
modules such as the intermediate end, body side, roof, encapsulating a lightweight core). Sandwich panel
cab front, underframe and bogies. Composites for structures are used for cab ends, body sides and
semi-structural interior applications tend to utilise flooring using polymer foams, balsa and honeycomb
glass fibres and low-cost grades of thermoset poly- cores. Balsa, a low density sustainable wood, is a
mers. Only for bespoke projects, such as high-speed common choice due its low cost and was used for
trains, where weight reduction is a necessity, are the C20 Stockholm metro car (which commenced ser-
carbon fibre and higher-performance resins, such as vice in December 1997) supplied by Adtranz.9
epoxies used. Another example is the flooring panels of the Kuala
Lumpur Monorail manufactured by Flexadux Plastics
in the UK. End-grain balsa clad in a phenolic lamin-
Composite materials for railway applications ate was used to fabricate large (approximately
The fire, smoke and toxicity (FST) requirements spe- 3  3 m) floor panels.9
cific to the rail industry as stated in the British Moreover, sandwich panel structures utilising
European standard BS EN 45545-28 severely restrict honeycomb cores have become the preferred fabricat-
material choice, and the introduction of novel mater- ing route for rail vehicle bodies and interior panelling.
ials. In terms of reinforcement fibres, glass fibres are These have high strength, good impact and energy
most commonly used for rail applications due to good absorption properties. Examples of sandwich panelled
mechanical properties and their low cost in compari- rail vehicles include: Schindler Waggon’s Revvivo,
son to carbon and aramid fibres. These fibres are usu- Munico and Neitec vehicles,12 the Korean Tilting
ally used in the form of chopped strand mat (CSM) Train eXpress (TTX)13 and Bombardier’s C20
and continuous filament mat (CFM) for most interior FICAS.14
Mistry et al. 3

Figure 1. Summary of (a) reinforcement fibres and (b) matrix resins used, in terms of volume, in the manufacture of composite
components for rail vehicle applications.9

Figure 2. Summary of composite manufacturing processes used in the production of composite rail vehicle applications, adapted
from research presented by Robinson et al.9

percentage distributions may vary today, it is still a

Composite manufacturing processes used in rail
useful comparison.
Composite manufacturing processes used within Other common methods include vacuum infusion
the rail industry are driven by the requirements for which is suited to larger parts and low volume
simplicity and low cost. Since the majority of rail production (<500 parts/year). This was used for the
components fall between the range of 50–5000 parts manufacture of the roofs on the Bombardier
produced per year,15 the low volume production dic- TALENT trains in Germany, 2003. Resin transfer
tates mainly manual lay-up (used for part production moulding (RTM), a liquid moulding technique, is
of <100 parts/year) and spray lay-up techniques to be another process (typically used for medium volume
used which are simple but labour intensive. A sum- production of <30,000 parts/year) which has been
mary of the manufacturing processes used in the rail- used for production of the Strasbourg light rail vehi-
way industry is shown in Figure 2. This process cles (Bombardier FLEXITY). This vehicle features
breakdown is a snapshot from 1997,9 so while the both seat components and sliding doors
4 Proc IMechE Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 0(0)

manufactured in the UK by Aztec. Matched die- bodies of rail vehicles. In particular, the greatest use
moulding of sheet moulding compound (SMC) has of FRP composite materials by volume in rail vehicle
been used to fabricate seat shells, where the large design have been focussed on the car body structures.
volume of production has been able to justify the Pertinent research into the use of advanced
high tooling costs. composite materials for rail vehicle car body
There have been a few notable examples of large- structures has been carried out by The Tokyo Car
scale manufacturing of composite structures in rail Corporation, and the East Japan Railway Company
vehicle design in the production of rail vehicle car investigating the use of carbon fibre reinforced plastic
body structures. These examples represent bespoke (CFRP) roof shells fixed into an aluminium frame
projects where the manufacturing volume was low structure using a novel transition welded joint.17
(typically one-off production) and, therefore cost Similarly, the Japanese Railway Technical Research
was not a constraining requirement. The transition Institute has developed and tested hybrid alumi-
towards automated composite manufacturing pro- nium-CFRP structures. An automated pultrusion
cesses is currently hindered by the low maturity of process was used to produce the CFRP panels,
composite use within the rail industry and lack of which were then riveted onto an aluminium frame.18
knowledge in this area. SNCF (France) investigated the use of lightweight
structures consisting of carbon and glass reinforced
epoxy around a foam or honeycomb core for use in
Composite rail projects their double decker TGV high-speed trains.19
Research into advanced composite structures for pas- In terms of monolithic car body construction of
senger rail vehicle bodyshells, bogies, and wheelsets is rail vehicles, there are three main projects which
predominately led by Europe, Korea and Japan. The have been undertaken, detailed in Table 2.
current research is driven by the need for lightweight The composite car body structures described above
and energy absorbent composite structures to replace were for mainline rolling stock applications and were
metallic structures. produced in low volume or one-off conditions. The
As part of the modular urban guided rail systems methods used to produce these car body structures
(MODURBAN) European rail project, the mass are costly for mass production. In comparison, the
breakdown of a typical six-car-set metro vehicle was light railway sector (monorail and tram systems) has
quantified (see Figure 3).16 It concluded that the bogies implemented composite solutions for primary load-
and car body structures are the two largest mass con- bearing structures in a variety of monorail vehicles
tributors for a typical passenger rail vehicle, accounting (see Table 3). The benefits of a composite car body
for 65% of the total tare mass. They are thus prime structure for the light railway sector are well estab-
candidates for lightweighting in rail vehicles. lished, but not without its challenges.
Table 1 summarises the key composite rail projects There are numerous benefits resulting from a com-
in terms of the car body and bogie catergories. posite rail car body construction. Firstly, a reduction
As seen from Table 1, there are numerous examples in mass of the primary structure can provide a cascad-
of composites incorporated into the bogies and car ing mass saving benefit for the rest of the vehicle and

Figure 3. A typical mass breakdown for a passenger rail vehicle, adapted from research presented by Carruthers et al.16 HVAC
refers to heating, ventilation and air condition systems.
Mistry et al. 5

Table 1. Summary of composites in rail vehicle design.7

Category Subcategory Rail vehicle example

Car body Drivers front cab  Intercity 125 (UK)

 ETR 500 and 460 (Italy)
 ICN (Switzerland)
 C20 (Sweden)
Interior fittings  Electrostar train (UK)
 KTX (Korea)
 Amtrak Surf Liner (USA)
Structures  Schindler Waggon (Switzerland)
 TTX (Korea)
 CG Rail prototype body shell
Bogies Bogie frames/axles  Carbon fibre bogie (CAFIBO) frame (UK)
 Kawasaki efWING bogie leaf spring (Japan)
 British Rail carbon fibre reinforced axle (UK)

Table 2. Examples of monolithic composite construction of rail vehicle car bodies.

CG Rail – The Chinese-German

Research and Development
Center for Rail and Traffic Korean Tilting Train Schindler Waggon prototype
Project Engineering Dresden eXpress (TTX) 3 car tilting train

Date 2018 2001 1995

Country Germany Korea Switzerland
Construction Pultrusion of large, single-piece Upper body structure made of Filament wound all composite
multi-chamber CFRP profiles carbon fibre/epoxy aluminium bodyshell
with walls up to 25 mm thick and honeycomb sandwich panels,
22 m long for car body struc- manufactured within an
tures (70% CFRP) autoclave
Benefits Weight reduction of 30% com- Weight reduction of 38% on the Virtually fully automated pro-
pared to a conventional metallic upper car body as compared to duction process, completing
design the steel reference vehicle 1 bodyshell in 8 days
20 13,21,22 12
Source

components in terms of the traction system, suspen- However, limited research has been conducted to
sion and brakes.29 This would in turn reduce track quantify the mass saving potential of composite
infrastructure damage and wear on the wheels and rail vehicle component replacement and to deter-
bearings.30 Secondly, a total rail vehicle mass savings mine whether such a replacement is commercially
of 20–30% is estimated for composite car body con- feasible.
struction. This correlates to reduced energy consump-
tion during the use phase and an estimated reduction
Selection and ranking methodology
of approximately 5% of CO2 emissions.31,32 Thirdly,
the life cycle costing (including operational and main- As part of the ACIS UK rail project (funded by the
tenance costs) is expected to significantly decrease. Rail Safety and Standards Board, RSSB/13/EIT/
Blanc et al.33 carried out a life cycle costing analysis 1744), a selection and ranking methodology for com-
on the Korean Tilting Train eXpress (TTX). The esti- posite replacement of rail vehicle components
mated energy savings of this high-speed train with was developed to identify key components for light-
different material car body constructions were deter- weighting. A comprehensive rail vehicle audit of
mined. This analysis showed that a composite car a Bombardier Electrostar (EMU passenger train)
body scenario is 42% less energy demanding than a was carried out. The focus of the audit was on the
stainless steel scenario, and 21% less energy demand- sprung mass of passenger rail vehicles. Bogies and
ing than an aluminium scenario. propulsion equipment (unsprung mass) were not
In conclusion, the literature regarding the bene- included within the scope of this project.
fits of mass reduction of rail vehicles has been inves- The methodology was developed to evaluate vehicle
tigated, quantified and well documented.31,34,35 components consisting of three main steps: (1)
6 Proc IMechE Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 0(0)

Table 3. Composite car body structures used in the light railway sector.23,24

Example Construction Source

25
Very light rail (VLR) system  Carbon fibre composite braided tubular structural
(Coventry council, UK) vehicle frame for bodyshell prototype (designed by
University of Warwick Manufacturing Group, UK)
26
Monorail (Las Vegas, Nevada,  Sandwich construction of bodyshell with nomex aramid
USA) core faced with E-glass/epoxy prepreg skins
 All composite solutions for floor, roof, sidewalls and
bulkhead components, complete with apertures for
windows and doors
27,28
Monorail (Walt Disney World  Car bodies designed using a variety of materials which
complex, Florida, USA) included honeycomb, carbon and glass fibres using
epoxy and phenolic resins
23
Metropolitan trains  Carriage bodyshells of glass and carbon-reinforced
(Copenhagen, Denmark) polyester that are moulded in one shot using vacuum-
assisted resin transfer moulding (VARTM)
23
Combino trains (Amsterdam,  Front ends made of glass fibre reinforced composite/
Netherlands) foam core sandwich construction
 Rigid aluminium-cored roofs
 Vehicle underframe and sidewalls are made of alumin-
ium, bonded to the composite elements

Figure 4. Selection and ranking methodology used to evaluate the commercial viability for a composite replacement of rail vehicle
components (including the outcomes for example components).

Preliminary component ranking, (2) Economic poten- included the potential for part integration, improved
tial for a composite component and (3) Composite mechanical properties and corrosion resistance.
component evaluation, as shown in Figure 4. A com- Within this step, baseline part information and
prehensive description of this methodology is provided annual market potential of the components were iden-
below using the vehicle audit as the source of initial tified as inputs to allow direct benchmarking within
component identification. step two of the methodology. These inputs included
details on component cost, design life, overall dimen-
sions, component mass, parts per car and quantity
Step one – Preliminary component ranking
produced per annum. Candidate components identi-
The aim of this first step is to identify which of the fied in the vehicle audit were subjected to preliminary
existing metallic components would benefit from component screening to determine whether replace-
lightweighting. Additional factors considered ment in composite was feasible technically. The
Mistry et al. 7

preliminary component selection and ranking con- composite replacement and are evaluated in step
sisted of evaluation against the following criteria: three to determine suitable demonstrator components.
These are components that the consortium believes to
. Relative size be the most suitable to demonstrate the benefit of a
. Sufficient production volume composite replacement in terms of integration poten-
. Integral component tial, lightweighting benefits and commercially viabil-
. Other competing composite components ity. The criteria for evaluating the composite
component replacements to choose suitable demon-
strators consisted of the following:
Step two – Economic potential for a composite
. Suitable supplier capacity in the UK
component . Ease of demonstrator manufacture
The components identified from step one required . Reasonable total cost of demonstrator
an economic analysis to determine a total vehicle . Impact within the rail industry
cost savings for a composite replacement by account- . Demonstration of composite benefits
ing for recurring (cost of component) and non- . Technical readiness level (TRL) of 6
recurring (tooling and plant investment) costs. This
cost saving is expressed in terms of estimated energy
savings and reduction in track infrastructure damage.
Furthermore, the estimation of the mass saving
Results
opportunity is to be identified and compared against This section details the results of the selection and rank-
the annual volume production in the identification of ing methodology used to determine the demonstrator
commercially viable components. The economic components. The data gathered during this audit per-
potential for a composite component consisted of taining to the Bombardier Electrostar EMU is propri-
evaluation against the following metrics: etary information. Therefore, the results contain
arbitrary values as metrics used to compare the compo-
. Cost saving potential over vehicle life nents against a threshold. The following seven example
. Mass saving potential components have been chosen for evaluation using the
. Increased functionality metrics in the methodology (shown in Tables 4 to 6):
. Maintenance benefit intermediate end structures, controlled emissions tank,
. Repairability tables, window frames, partitions, driver door leaves
. Reduced part count and air ducts for transformer cooling systems. The rela-
. Increased component life tive mass and relative structural performance indices are
. End of life costs used in each step of the methodology to rank compo-
nents for a comparison in the context of lightweighting.

Step three – Composite component evaluation Initial component selection

The commercially viable components identified from Seventy components were identified from the vehicle
step two were considered prime candidates for a audit for the initial component selection. These

Table 4. Preliminary component selection and ranking, step one, for a representative set of components.
(6) Driver
(1) Intermediate (4) Window (5) door leafs (7) Air ducts
Criterion type end structure (2) Controlled frames Partitions (Group: for transformer
(‘‘Eliminatory’’ (Group: Car emissions tank (3) Tables (Group: (Group: Car Exterior cooling systems
or body (Group: Car (Group: Car body body door (Group:
‘‘Ranking-only’’) Criterion Threshold structures) body fittings) Interiors) fittings) structures) systems) Propulsion)

Ranking-only Relative mass Not applicable 5 1 2 2 3 4 1

Ranking-only Relative Not applicable 5 1 2 1 4 4 1
structural
performance
Eliminatory Relative size 3 5 3 3 3 4 4 3
Eliminatory Sufficient 3 4 3 4 3 4 1 3
production
volume
Eliminatory Integral 4 5 4 5 4 4 4 3
component
Eliminatory Other 2 5 3 4 4 4 3 4
competing
composite
components
8 Proc IMechE Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 0(0)

Table 5. Economic potential for a composite component selection and ranking, step two, for a representative set of components.
(1) Intermediate
end structure (2) Controlled (5) Partitions
Criterion type (Group: Car emissions tank (3) Tables (4) Window (Group: Car
(‘‘Eliminatory’’ body (Group: Car (Group: frames (Group: body
or ‘‘Ranking-only’’) Criterion Threshold structures) body fittings) Interiors) Car body fittings) structures)

Ranking-only Relative mass Not applicable 5 1 2 2 3

Ranking-only Relative structural Not applicable 5 1 2 1 4
performance
Eliminatory Cost saving potential 4 4 4 4 3 3
over vehicle life
Eliminatory Mass saving potential 4 5 5 4 1 3
Eliminatory Increased functionality 2 3 3 3 2 2
Eliminatory Maintenance benefit 3 3 4 3 2 3
Eliminatory Repairability 3 3 4 3 2 3
Eliminatory Reduced part count 4 4 4 4 2 3
Eliminatory Increased component life 2 3 3 3 2 2
Eliminatory End of life costs 3 3 3 4 3 3

Table 6. Composite component evaluation selection and ranking, step three, for a representative set of components.

(1) Intermediate (2) Controlled

Criterion type end structure emissions tank (3) Tables
(‘‘Eliminatory’’ (Group: Car (Group: Car (Group:
or ‘‘Ranking-only’’) Criterion Threshold body structures) body fittings) Interiors)

Ranking-only Relative mass Not applicable 5 1 2

Ranking-only Relative structural performance Not applicable 5 1 2
Eliminatory Suitable supplier capacity in the UK 3 4 3 3
Eliminatory Ease of demonstrator manufacture 4 4 5 4
Eliminatory Reasonable total cost of demonstrator 3 3 4 3
Eliminatory Impact within the rail industry 3 5 4 2
Eliminatory Demonstration of composite benefits 4 5 3 2
Eliminatory Technical readiness level (TRL) of 5–6 4 5 4 4

components were grouped into similar categories: car From Table 4, two components were eliminated
body structures, car body fittings, propulsion, braking from step one (highlighted in grey as not being tech-
system, interiors, piping and cabling system and heat- nically feasible). Driver door leaves were eliminated
ing, ventilation and air condition systems (HVAC) due to their low component volume and air ducts for
compared in Figure 5. It is evident from Figure 5 transformer cooling systems were eliminated since
that car body structures and exterior door system they are bespoke components that cannot be further
components would benefit most from lightweighting. integrated with other assemblies.

Technically feasible components Commercially viable components

During the preliminary component ranking in step During the economic potential for a composite
one, only 44 components were determined to be tech- component in step two, only 16 components
nically feasible and improved by manufacture using were determined as having the potential to be com-
composite materials. The component categories are mercially feasible either today or at some point in
shown in Figure 6. the future. The component categories are shown in
In addition to a reduction of the component pool, Figure 7.
the categories have reduced. The auxiliaries and exter- The components within the HVAC, piping and
ior door systems categories were eliminated. The cabling system and propulsion categories were elimi-
results of the preliminary component ranking (step nated. The remaining 16 commercially viable compo-
one) are illustrated in Table 4, for the seven represen- nents are encompassed within the braking system, car
tative components with ranking and eliminatory cri- body fittings, interior and car body structures
teria together with associated thresholds. categories.
Mistry et al. 9

Figure 5. Initial 70 components identified from the vehicle audit grouped into categories shown as ‘bubbles’. The ‘bubble’ size
corresponds to the number of components in that group. Where HVAC refers to heating, ventilation and air condition systems.

Figure 6. The 44 technically feasible components identified from step one of the selection and ranking methodology grouped into
categories shown as ‘bubbles’. The ‘bubble’ size corresponds to the number of components in that group. Where HVAC refers to
heating, ventilation and air condition systems.

The results of the economic potential of a compo- geometry and potentially the need for handedness
site component (step two) are shown in Table 5, for increase tooling costs making them impractical
the representative set of components with ranking and commercially.
eliminatory criteria together with associated
thresholds.
From Table 5, two components were eliminated
Demonstrator components
from step two (highlighted in grey as not being com- The results of the composite component evaluation of
mercially feasible): window frames and partitions. the commercially viable components (step three) are
The low structural requirements for window frames illustrated in Table 6 for a representative set of com-
permit them to be low mass as metallic components, ponents with ranking and eliminatory criteria
negating the benefit of composite substitution. The together with associated thresholds.
elimination of partitions is less obvious as these are Both controlled emissions tanks and interior tables
large semi-structural components. However, unique have been eliminated during step three of the
10 Proc IMechE Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 0(0)

Figure 7. The 16 commercially viable components identified from step two of the selection and ranking methodology grouped into
categories shown as ‘bubbles’. The ‘bubble’ size corresponds to the number of components in that group. Where CET refers to
controlled emissions tanks.

Table 7. Demonstrator component attributes based on an EMU passenger rail vehicle.

Cantilever Luggage rack Intermediate Body side

seat bracket module end structure structure Roof structure

Number per car 30 16 1.5 6 1

Quantity of parts 3840 2048 192 768 128
per annum
Existing mass (kg) 14 25 938 189 2393
Existing Cast aluminium Aluminium brackets Aluminium Extruded Extruded
construction fabrication with perforated fabricated aluminium aluminium
aluminium plate structure fabrication fabrication
with with air
superformed conditioning
outer skin well
Composite design Carbon Pultruded luggage Vacuum infused E-glass double Carbon
fibre/epoxy rack with single skin skin foam fibre/epoxy
fabrication brackets with bonded cored design double skin
backplate cored design
Approximate 2.3  current 0.5  current 0.85  current 3.1  current 3.5  current
first cost cost cost cost cost cost
Mass savings 73% 50% 57% 47% 51%

Figure 8. Interior structural demonstrator components: (a) cantilever seat bracket and (b) luggage rack module (source:
Bombardier Transportation).
Mistry et al. 11

Figure 9. Car body structural demonstrator components: (a) intermediate end structure, (b) body side structure and (c) roof
structure (source: Bombardier Transportation).

methodology. While it is beneficial to manufacture improving dynamic stability. Similarly, a composite

controlled emission tanks using composites to take intermediate end is estimated to cost 15% less
advantage of superior corrosion resistance and insul- and offer 57% mass savings when compared to the
ation properties, the mass advantage is minimal com- current metallic version. While the number of compo-
pared to a metallic version. Interior tables are nents per car may vary for different types of rolling
potentially good demonstrators; however, they do stock, all five demonstrator components selected
not clearly showcase the advantages of composites were both technically and commercially viable candi-
in terms of complex geometry. dates for lightweighting in rail vehicles by composite
The deep draw of intermediate end structures design. However, due to the significant mass contri-
makes them costly to manufacture as a single piece bution of the metallic car body structural components
metallic component. Adoption of composites for this to the total vehicle mass (as seen in Table 7), these
structure is well suited due to the geometry exhibiting are considered as the most optimal components for
double curvature. In addition to intermediate end composite lightweighting of the sprung mass of
structures, the consortium chose another four compo- rail vehicles.
nents which they determined as suitable demonstra-
tors at the time. These were determined to be the most
commercially viable components of a rail vehicle to be
Conclusions
lightweighted utilising composite materials. The attri- This paper has identified key components for light-
butes of the five demonstrator components are weighting of a rail vehicle. To achieve this, a method-
detailed in Table 7, indicating the approximate first ology was proposed, which was developed as part of
cost and estimated mass savings achievable for a com- the ACIS project. The vehicle audit was undertaken
posite design. on a Bombardier Electrostar (EMU passenger train)
The chosen demonstrator parts were grouped into to establish those metallic components suitable for
interior structural components (cantilever seat redesigning using FRP composites according to an
bracket and luggage rack module) – see Figure 8, overarching motivation for vehicle lightweighting in
and car body structural components (intermediate areas demanding high structural performance.
end structure, body side structure and roof structure) The selection and ranking methodology was devel-
– see Figure 9. oped to evaluate vehicle components consisting of
Out of the five demonstrator components, canti- three main steps: (1) Preliminary component ranking,
levered seat brackets showed the greatest potential (2) Economic potential for a composite component
for mass savings of approximately 73% when rede- and (3) Composite component evaluation. The meth-
signed in composites. However, the relative first cost odology relied upon criteria derived by the rail indus-
of the redesigned component is 130% greater than the try to assess the components through each step to
current design. The luggage rack module and inter- determine the technically feasibility, commercially
mediate end structure components were deemed to viability and suitability as demonstrator components.
be the two most suitable demonstrators for a compos- From the audit, five demonstrator components – a
ite redesign based on mass savings and approximate cantilevered seat bracket, luggage rack module, inter-
first cost currently. A composite luggage rack module mediate end structure, body side structure and roof
is estimated to cost 50% less and offer 50% mass structure, were identified by the consortium using the
savings when compared to the current metallic ver- methodology. These are components that the consor-
sion. Removal of mass at cantrail level is effective tium believes to be the most suitable to demonstrate
in reducing the centre of mass of the car body and the benefit of a composite replacement in terms of
12 Proc IMechE Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 0(0)

integration potential, lightweighting benefits and 8. BS EN 45545-2:2013þA1:2015: railway applications.

commercial viability. Fire protection on railway vehicles. Requirements for
However, in terms of maximum lightweighting of fire behaviour of materials and components.
the sprung mass of rail vehicles, car body structural 9. Robinson M. 6.20 – applications in trains and
railways. In: Kelly A and Zweben C (eds)
components (intermediate end, body side and roof
Comprehensive composite materials. Oxford:
structure) were determined to be the most optimal Pergamon, 2000, pp.395–428.
components to replace in composites. It was estimated 10. BS 6853:1999: Code of practice for fire precautions in
that a composite redesign of these components would the design and construction of passenger carrying
result in a mass savings of 57% for intermediate end trains.
structures, 47% for body side structures and 51% for 11. Orange M. Cecence – applying proven FST composite
roof structures. solutions for mass transportation to the construction
sector. In: Fire performance of FRP composites.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests Moreton-in-Marsh, Gloucestershire: Fire Service
College, 2019.
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
12. Brooks N. Schindler is on track with FRP trains. Reinf
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of
Plast 1995; 39: 28–32.
this article.
13. Seo SI, Kim JS and Cho SH. Development of a hybrid
composite bodyshell for tilting trains. Proc IMechE,
Funding Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 2008; 222: 1–13.
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial 14. Knutton M. Bombardier develops game-changing tech-
support for the research, authorship, and/or publication nology. Int Rail J 2003; 43: 28–29.
of this article: The rail vehicle audit and methodology was 15. Helps I and Samel R. Composites gain ground in
developed as part of the ACIS (Advanced Composite Europe’s rail industry. Reinf Plast 1998; 42: 28–31.
Integrated Structure) project, funded by the Rail Safety 16. Carruthers JJ, Calomfirescu M, Ghys P, et al. The
and Standards Board, UK [Grant number: RSSB/13/EIT/ application of a systematic approach to material selec-
1744]. The author would like to acknowledge the funding tion for the lightweighting of metro vehicles. Proc
support of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research IMechE, Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit 2009; 223:
Council through the: ‘‘EPSRC Future Composites 427–437.
Manufacturing Research Hub [Grant number: EP/ 17. Matsuoka S and Nakumura T. Development of carbon
P006701/1]’’ and ‘‘EPSRC Industrial Doctorate Centre in fiber reinforced plastic carbody shell. In: Proceedings of
Composites Manufacture [Grant number: EP/L015102/1]’’. the international conference on speedup technology for
railway and maglev vehicles, Yokohama, Japan, 22–26
November 1993, pp.464–468. Japan: Japan Society of
ORCID iD Mechanical Engineering.
PJ Mistry https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1891-0988 18. Suzuki Y and Satoh K. Weight reduction of a railway
car body shell by applying CFRP. In: Proceedings of the
References 3rd Japan international SAMPE symposium, Nippon
1. International Energy Agency. CO2 Emissions From Fuel Convention Center, Chiba, Japan, 7–10 December
Combustion Highlights 2018. IEA statistics, https://web- 1993, pp.143–143.
store.iea.org/co2-emissions-from-fuel-combustion- 19. Cléon LM. Lightening of body structures: research with
2018-highlights (2018). composite materials. Eur Rail Rev 1995; 10: 66–71.
2. Loubinoux J-P and Lochman L. Moving towards sus- Japan: Society for the Advancement of Material and
tainable mobility: a strategy for 2030 and beyond for the Process Engineering.
European railway sector. Paris, France: International 20. JEC Group Composites. A train made of carbon-fiber-
Union of Railways (UIC), 2012. reinforced plastic components, http://www.jeccompo-
3. The Technical Strategy Leadership Group (TSLG). The sites.com/knowledge/international-composites-news/
future railway: the industry’s rail technical strategy. train-made-carbon-fiber-reinforced-plastic-components
London: Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB), (2018, accessed 12 June 2019).
2012. 21. Soo-Hyun K, Sang-Guk K, Sang-Eui L, et al. Analysis
4. Ramyead A. Pasenger rail usage 2018-19 Q4 statistical of the composite structure of tilting train eXpress
release. London, UK: Office of Rail and Road (ORR), (TTX). In: Proceedings of the KSR conference, 2005,
2019. pp.657–662. Korean Society for Railway.
5. Ford R. Transport mass: weight saving and structural 22. Kim J-S, Kim N-P and Han S-H. Optimal stiffness
integrity of rail vehicles. In: Institution of mechanical design of composite laminates for a train carbody by
engineers seminar, Derby, UK, 25 September 2007. an expert system and enumeration method. Compos
6. Larrodé E, Miravete A and Fernández FJ. A new con- Struct 2005; 68: 147–156.
cept of a bus structure made of composite materials by 23. Marsh G. Can composites get firmly on the rails? Reinf
using continuous transversal frames. Compos Struct Plast 2004; 48: 26–30.
1995; 32: 345–356. 24. Robinson M, Matsika E and Peng Q. Application of
7. Shin KB. 10 – ageing of composites in the rail industry. composites in rail vehicles. In: 21st International
In: Martin R (ed) Ageing of composites. Swaston, UK: Conference on Composite Materials (ICCM), Xi’an,
Woodhead Publishing, 2008, pp.285–310. China, 20–25 August 2017.
 Mistry et al. 13

25. Winnett J, Hoffrichter A, Iraklis A, et al. Development 30. Wennhage P. Structural-acoustic optimization of sand-
of a very light rail vehicle. In: Proceedings of the wich panels. Doctoral dissertation, Royal Institute of
Institution of Civil Engineers-Transpor, 2017, pp.231– Technology, Sweden, 2001.
242. London: Thomas Telford Ltd. 31. Rochard BP and Schmid F. Benefits of lower-mass
26. Stone TJ, Kimmel J and Banchik C. Las Vegas MGM trains for high speed rail operations. Proc Inst Civil
grand to Bally’s Monorail System. In: Proceedings of Eng 2004; 157: 51–64.
the 6th international Conference on Automated People 32. European Commission - CORDIS. Lightweight materi-
Movers (APMs), Las Vegas, Nevada, 9–12 April als provide opportunities for the next generation of rail-
1997, pp.284–296. Reston: American Society of Civil way vehicles, https://cordis.europa.eu/news/rcn/124886/
Engineers. en (2016 accessed 12 December 2018).
27. Stebbins JM. New Mark VI monorail system at the walt 33. Blanc I, Schwab-Castella P, Gomez-Ferrer M, et al.
disney world resort complex in Orlando, Florida. In: Towards the eco-design of a tilting train in Korea:
Compendium of technical papers, 43rd annual meeting – applying LCA to design alternatives. In: 2nd
institute of transportation engineers, Boise, Idaho, 5–18 International Congress with Innovation Fair,
July 1990, pp.362–367. Washington, D.C.: Institute of Sustainable management in action, SMIA Genève,
Transportation Engineers. Switzerland, 5 September 2005, p.6.
28. Robinson M and Carruthers J. Composites make 34. Eickhoff B and Nowell R. Determining the benefit of
tracks in railway engineering. Reinf Plast 1995; 39: train mass reduction. In: 9th world congress on railway
20–26. research–WCRR RSSB, London, 24 May 2011.
29. Kim J-S, Lee S-J and Shin K-B. Manufacturing and 35. Helms H and Lambrecht U. The potential contribution
structural safety evaluation of a composite train car- of light-weighting to reduce transport energy consump-
body. Compos Struct 2007; 78: 468–476. tion. Int J Life Cycle Assessment 2007; 12: 58–64.

View publication stats