A Review of the Department of Transportation Plan for Analyzing and Testing Electronically Controlled Pneumatic Brakes (2017) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 28-40
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 28... ...
20 tween modeling approaches might be explained, at least in part, by the assumptions made by the modelers. The DOT analysis and test plan, described next, is a proposed way to evaluate whether critical assumptions are justified.
|
From page 29... ...
21 Analysis of Existing Accident Data In identifying modeling factors to be analyzed or tested, it would be prudent and efficient to extract all the reasonably obtainable information from the existing data on train derailment accidents that have already produced tens of thousands of damaged tank cars. Logically, until all that is known about tank car derailment accidents that produce spillage is identified, efficient construction of a test program for filling in the knowledge gaps about such accidents is impossible.
|
From page 30... ...
22 or multivariate nonlinear regression) is beyond the scope of this discussion but would become apparent in the course of the analysis.
|
From page 31... ...
23 the soil as well as the track and ballast (usually crushed granite) as opposed to merely sliding over it.
|
From page 32... ...
24 sion still might be relevant if, for example, there is some structural bias, such as the trains using EOT brakes having a higher probability of being formed of better tank cars. If these two large groups of accidents are similar populations, the DOT modeling prediction of EOT braking system benefits over pneumatic braking without EOT devices could be compared directly with the observed benefits, if any, of EOT braking in real tank car derailment accidents involving both types of braking in the merged database.
|
From page 33... ...
25 1.1. Recommendation To ensure that appropriate pressure–time relationships are included in comparative analyses of braking systems, the performance of ECP systems relative to DP and EOT systems should be simulated by using one or more AAR-certified test racks.
|
From page 34... ...
26 2.3. Recommendation A multivariate regression model should be developed from the merged database to examine how tank car spillage relates to a set of specific circumstances of the accidents [e.g., number of cars derailed, number of broken couplers, the nature of damage to the track structure (including the length of damaged track)
|
From page 35... ...
27 Appendix A Biographical Information: Committee on the Review of Department of Transportation Testing of Electronically Controlled Pneumatic Brakes Louis J Lanzerotti, Chair, is Distinguished Research Professor in the Department of Physics at the New Jersey Institute of Technology.
|
From page 36... ...
28 Marshall Beck, of M Beck Consulting, LLC, is the former Senior Vice President of Marketing and Sales at New York Air Brake Company (retired)
|
From page 37... ...
29 Raúl Radovitzky is Associate Director, Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies, and a Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics, MIT. He joined MIT's Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics in 2001 as the Charles Stark Draper Assistant Professor.
|
From page 38... ...
30 Appendix B Statement of Task In the first phase of this project, an ad hoc committee will review a test and analysis plan prepared by DOT and comment in a letter report on whether the proposed tests will provide objective, accurate, and reliable results to test the assumptions that DOT has identified in its comparison of the emergency braking performance of railroad tank car electronically controlled pneumatic (ECP) brakes to conventional brakes or braking systems such as distributed power and two-way end-of-train devices.
|
From page 39... ...
31 Appendix C Information-Gathering Activities of the Committee In the course of preparing this report, the committee met four times. At one of those meetings, oral presentations were made by the following individuals in public session at the invitation of the committee: Kevin Kesler, FRA, DOT; Joe Brosseau, Transportation Technology Center, Inc.; N
|
From page 40... ...
32 Appendix D Acknowledgment of Reviewers This report has been reviewed in draft form by persons chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise in accordance with procedures approved by the NASEM Report Review Committee. The purposes of the independent review are to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards of objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.