D Rail versus Aerospace - a comparison
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
12 Novemb er 2013
Railway Interiors Expo, Cologne
D
By: Reinoud Hermans
Rail versus Aerospace
a comparison
© 2013 ADSE B.V. 1
Agenda
Agenda
1. Introduction: Why this presentation?
2. Rail vs. Aerospace: Key Commonalities & Differences
3. Design Example: Lavatory
4. Design Example: Seats
5. Design Example: Luggage
6. Suppliers in Rail & Aerospace
7. Final Remarks & Conclusions
© 2013 ADSE B.V. 2
1. Introduction
About ADSE
• Independent Consulting & Engineering since 1996
• Markets: Rail, Aerospace, Defense
• EASA Approved Design Organization & Qualified Entity
• We apply & share best practices across market domains
Our Added Value
• Specification, integration and certification of technical
solutions
• Hands-on ‘make-it-work’ approach: We structure,
develop & find solutions together with our customers
© 2013 ADSE B.V. 3
1. Introduction
ADSE Holding:
ADSE BV,
Hoofddorp (NL)
Moving Dot,
Hoofddorp (NL)
ADSE AG,
Reinach (CH)
© 2013 ADSE B.V. 4
1. Introduction
About me
• Since 1999 at ADSE Consulting & Engineering, NL
• Projects in Aerospace:
Commercial interiors
VIP conversions
Certification
• Projects in Rail:
Interior modernization of rolling stock
Reliability performance and
life cycle cost (RAMS/LCC)
© 2013 ADSE B.V. 5
1. Introduction
Why this presentation?
• Rail and Aerospace have many things in common
• Interiors in Rail and Aerospace are very different
• What drives these differences?
• What can we learn from the differences and the
similarities?
This presentation is about
Interiors
© 2013 ADSE B.V. 6
1. Introduction
Rail & Aerospace, Two different Worlds?
Gisborne, New Zealand
© 2013 ADSE B.V. 7
2. Rail vs. Aerospace
What do Rail and Aerospace have in Common?
Train = A set of interconnected busses on rails
Airplane = A pressurized bus in the air
© 2013 ADSE B.V. 8
2. Rail vs. Aerospace
What are Key Differences between Trains and Airplanes?
A. Across the Border: Airplanes can fly between continents,
all over the world. Harmonization is vital.
B. Fire Safety: Airplanes don’t fly through tunnels
C. Social Control: Trains are open to the general public and
typically don’t have cabin attendants
D. PRM: Trains are far better equipped for Persons with
Reduced Mobility (PRM)
E. Weight: Weight and range of an airplane have a direct
link: An airplane flies further with a lighter interior
What are the consequences of these differences?
© 2013 ADSE B.V. 9
2. Rail vs. Aerospace
A. Across the Border: Harmonization
Rail:
• Early interoperability standards for rail date back to
1867. Well before the Wright brothers flew the first
powered aircraft in 1903
• Today, rail regulations are still dominated by national
standards
• Example: Many different standards for platform heights.
• Example: Today 5 different national standards for fire
safety exist (British, French, German, Italian, Polish)
• New EU standard EN45545:2013 mandatory from 2016
© 2013 ADSE B.V. 102. Rail vs. Aerospace
A. Across the Border: Harmonization
Aerospace:
• Harmonization between countries is vital in a global
aviation industry
• There is complete harmonization within Europe (EASA)
and between Europe and the United States (FAA).
• ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization)
coordinates world wide harmonization of aircraft
operations.
• Lessons learned from incidents and safety findings are
shared world wide
© 2013 ADSE B.V. 112. Rail vs. Aerospace
B. Fire Safety Requirements Full-scale fire test in train tunnel
(Tunnels) METRO project. Arvika, Sweden
Rail:
• Train coaches are often
separated by doors, which
gives passengers a
temporary escape.
• Requirements assume
possible long evacuation
times. Consequently,
toxicity requirements get
high attention.
2011
© 2013 ADSE B.V. 122. Rail vs. Aerospace
B. Fire Safety Requirements
Aerospace:
• Requirements revolve around first 90 sec. after incident.
• Focus is on smoke density requirements.
• Strict rules for mat. and locations that can’t be reached
in-flight, e.g. thermal & acoustic insulation, cargo comp.
• Requirements for the intensity in which cabin materials
release their energy in case of fire (heat release).
• No requirements from authorities for toxicity! Only from
aircraft manufacturers (e.g. Boeing, Airbus, etc.)
• Don’t forget: Airplanes carry their own fuel!
© 2013 ADSE B.V. 132. Rail vs. Aerospace
B. Fire Safety Requirements
• Everybody survived!
Air France A340, Toronto, Canada (2005)
On board: 297 passengers & 12 crew.
© 2013 ADSE B.V. 142. Rail vs. Aerospace
C. Cabin Attendants:
Role in Cabin
Rail:
• Trains have no cabin
attendants overlooking all
passengers. Consequently,
the lack of social control
makes railway interiors
vulnerable to vandalism.
Aerospace:
• Cabin attendants play a vital role in passenger safety and
play an active role during evacuations.
• Their presence makes vandalism in Aerospace rare.
© 2013 ADSE B.V. 152. Rail vs. Aerospace
D. PRM: Accessible Lavatories
Rail:
• National PRM standards exist for decades. European
PRM standard since 2007.
• Facilities for people with disabilities, like accessible
lavatories, ramps and braille signs, very common in rail.
Aerospace:
• Requirements for Persons with Reduces Mobility in
aerospace only exist since 2009!
• They require an accessible toilet is available in wide
body (dual aisle) aircraft.
• The rail sector is far ahead on this subject!
© 2013 ADSE B.V. 162. Rail vs. Aerospace
E. Weight: Range, Center of Gravity, Payload
Rail:
• To a certain extend, weight is necessary for correct axle
loads and center of gravity
• Payload: between 15 and 20 % of total weight
Aerospace:
• Center of gravity is very critical w.r.t. safe operation
• Weight is directly linked to range: Airplanes are only
cost-effective if they are as light as possible
• Payload: between 20 and 25 % at take off
(figure improves during flight with fuel burn!)
© 2013 ADSE B.V. 172. Rail vs. Aerospace
E. Weight: Range, Center of Gravity, Payload
© 2013 ADSE B.V. 182. Rail vs. Aerospace
What are the Main Design Drivers for Interiors?
Rail Aerospace
• Vandalism and • Weight
cleanability
• People with reduced • Fire safety
mobility
• Tunnel safety in relation • Crashworthiness
to fire worthiness
• Weight and energy
conservation only recently
a topic of interest
How can we inspire each other?
© 2013 ADSE B.V. 192. Rail vs. Aerospace © 2013 ADSE B.V. 20
3. Design Example: PRM Lavatory
Rail solution for Persons
with Reduced Mobility
(PRM)
• Design represents
“minimum space
solution” of PRM
lavatory for rail
applications.
• Regulations assume
completely
autonomous use by
traveler with wheel
chair.
© 2013 ADSE B.V. 213. Design Example: PRM Lavatory
Rail solution for Persons with Reduced Mobility (PRM)
© 2013 ADSE B.V. 223. Design Example: PRM Lavatory
Aerospace solution for
Persons with Reduced
Mobility (PRM)
• Design concept with
foldable partition to
convert two single ~ 675 mm
lavatories into one
large PRM lavatory.
• Meant for wide-body
aircraft, located
between cabin aisles.
• Regulations assume
assistance for traveler
with wheel chair.
© 2013 ADSE B.V. 233. Design Example: PRM Lavatory
Aerospace solution for Persons with Reduced Mobility (PRM)
Airbus A320 narrow body. TAM Airlines (Brazil).
Two single lavatories One PRM lavatory
© 2013 ADSE B.V. 243. Design Example: PRM Lavatory
Conclusion:
• Aerospace is far behind compared to Rail
• An airplane passenger still needs assistance to use the
PRM lavatory
• But due to very limited space, aerospace solutions for
PRM lavatory are very creative
© 2013 ADSE B.V. 254. Design Example: Seats
Rail
• 20 kg per passenger
• Mostly aluminum alloy
frame. Sometimes steel.
• Typically floor + sidewall
mounted. Sometimes free
hanging from sidewall.
• Fixed position
• Shall meet 3g or 5g
forward static load
requirements
• Cost: € ±300,- per
passenger
© 2013 ADSE B.V. 264. Design Example: Seats
Aerospace
• 12 kg per passenger.
• Aluminum base frame.
• Typically two legs on seat
track. Sometimes, one
seat stack is on sidewall.
• Flexible position
• Shall meet 16g forward
dynamic load req’s.
• Baggage restraint under
seat.
• Cost: € ±2000,- per
Source: RECARO
passenger
© 2013 ADSE B.V. 274. Design Example: Seats
Why are railway seats so much heavier than aircraft seats?
• Much higher resistance against vandalism
• Sidewall mounting and cleanability increases weight
• Passenger comfort often higher than aircraft seats
• Trains run forward and backward. Airplanes only fly
forward (backward crash load condition: only 1.5g)
Why are aircraft seats so much more expensive?
• 16g dynamic load: engineering & test process
• Very challenging weight targets
• Very demanding certification & production paperwork
© 2013 ADSE B.V. 304. Design Example: Seats
Conclusion
• Weight savings come at a very high price!
• Differences in requirements between rail and aerospace
are enormous
• Railway seats have to be much more resistant against
contamination, cleaning and vandalism than airplane
seats
• The rail industry can benefit from experience of
aerospace w.r.t. development methods for light-weight
design
© 2013 ADSE B.V. 315. Design Example: Luggage
Luggage in Trains
• Typically, no dedicated, closed cargo compartment
• Very few rules and regulations w.r.t. weight and sizes
• Luggage in passenger compartment mostly poorly
restrained
Bangkok (2013)
© 2013 ADSE B.V. 325. Design Example: Luggage
Luggage in Aircraft
• Dedicated cargo compartments under cabin floor
prevent heavy items flying through the cabin
• Over-head stowage compartments and stowage under
the seats are designed to restrain luggage during crash
• Restrictions w.r.t. size & weight for carry-on luggage
© 2013 ADSE B.V. 335. Design Example: Luggage
Trade-off: Safety vs. Design
• In modern train interiors, design and aesthetics
sometimes seem to get a higher priority than safety.
Conventional
Modern
© 2013 ADSE B.V. 345. Design Example: Luggage
Conclusion
• Due to the nature of rail transport, luggage in train
compartments will always remain a primary hazard in
case of an accident
ICE, Germany ICE, Germany
Luggage stowage Folding bicycle
© 2013 ADSE B.V. 356. Suppliers in Rail & Aerospace
Only very few companies serve both the rail and aerospace
market with the same products. Examples:
• Sabic Thermoplastics
• Botany Weaving, Forbo and Schneller flooring products
• Zodiac (EVAC) toilet systems
• Aerolux galley equipment
• Bombardier builds both trains and aircraft, but in
completely separate plants and with different processes.
Why so few?
• Synergy is difficult due to very different requirements.
Production from same production line almost impossible.
© 2013 ADSE B.V. 367. Final Remarks & Conclusions
RAMS/LCC:
• Reliability, Availability , Maintainability & Safety (RAMS)
and Life Cycle Cost (LCC) are common topics in
aerospace. They only recently get attention in rail.
Certification:
• Aerospace has very accurately defined certification
procedures and means to show compliance.
• In Aerospace, the supply chain shares the certification
responsibility.
© 2013 ADSE B.V. 377. Final Remarks & Conclusions
What Rail can learn from Aerospace?
• Learn from design methods, for instance to save weight.
Application of end products like seats is not a logical
route due to vast differences in requirements.
• Harmonization and co-development is far more
advanced in aerospace. It makes requirements much
more clear and integration less of a gamble.
• Passive safety for passengers has much more attention
in aerospace.
What Aerospace can learn from Rail?
• Facilities for Persons with Reduced Mobility are far more
mature in rail.
© 2013 ADSE B.V. 387. Final Remarks & Conclusions
What will the Future of Rail Transport look like?
Levitation train concept, Japan 2012
© 2013 ADSE B.V. 39D
Thank you
Address: Contact:
Scorpius 90 +31 23 554 2255
2132 LR Hoofddorp reinoud.hermans@adse.eu
The Netherlands www.adse.eu
© 2013 ADSE B.V. 40You can also read
