6913G626Q300057 Glazing SOW.pdf

6913G626Q300057 V3332135

1/2

Statement of Work (SOW)

Evaluation and Standardization of Retention Capacity of Rail Equipment Glazing Systems

A. Introduction

The work described in this SOW seeks to continue Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) research on passenger rail glazing retention concept development, testing methodology, and performance requirements, and provide support to develop industry safety standard.

Numerous fatalities have been attributed to ejection through rail car window openings during passenger train accidents. One such accident is the commuter train derailment in Spuyten Duyvil, New York on December 1, 2013. Four passengers were fatally injured in that accident due to their ejection through window openings. Results of the FRA’s accident investigation indicate that the exterior rubber gaskets holding the windowpanes in place were pulled out when the cars slid on their sides after leaving the track. The windows were pushed inside the cars, creating openings. Victims appear to have been pulled out when they contacted the ground through window openings, as the cars continued to slide. Nearly all the polycarbonate windowpanes remained substantially intact, even those that were pushed inside the car, as did the car sidewalls.

After its investigation, NTSB issued a recommendation for more effective passenger containment by glazing systems in derailments. The mode of passenger ejection found in the Spuyten Duyvil investigation were also found in other derailments, such as the Amtrak derailments in Crescent City, FL, on April 18, 2002, Philadelphia, PA on May 12, 2015, and Joplin, MT on Sept 25, 2021. Windows typically remain in place and contain passengers when derailing cars do not slide on their sides for significant distances.

A more recent accident illustrates a different challenge to the glazing system. On May 11, 2022, a Chicago Metra train collided with a truck at a grade crossing. The collision resulted in very minor damage to the front of the leading cab car, however the impact caused the truck to rotate and impact the side of the cab car causing a large breach in the sidewall. As a result of this impact, a passenger was thrown toward a window on the opposite side of the car which dislodged from its securement, allowing the passenger to be ejected from the car.

In addition to functioning as a window, glazing systems are also expected to be impact resistant, provide emergency egress/access, be fire resistant, and provide occupant containment. FRA regulation 49 CFR Part 223 requires glazing to be compliant with small object impacts, large object impacts, emergency egress/access, and fire resistance. For each of these features, a need for improvement became apparent during accident investigations, research was performed, and regulations promulgated. For example, after the collision of a MARC commuter train and an Amtrak intercity train in Silver Spring, MD on February 16, 1996, FRA issued Emergency Order 20 for marking and inspecting emergency exits and NTSB issued R-96-4, a recommendation for removable windows as emergency exits. Eight passengers were killed when the MARC train caught fire after a collision with an Amtrak train. The passengers were unable to evacuate the commuter train. EO 20 and R-96-4 led to FRA’s current regulations for:

● emergency egress, which require all (single-level) passenger cars to have at least four emergency window exits (49 CFR 238.113(b)) that “shall be designed to permit rapid and easy

2/3 removal from the inside of the car during an emergency situation without requiring the use of a tool or other implement” and

● emergency access, which require all passenger cars to have at least two rescue access windows (49 CFR 238.114(a)(1)) that must be capable of being removed without unreasonable delay by an emergency responder using either -

(1) A provided external mechanism; or

(2) Tools or implements that are commonly available to the responder in a passenger train emergency.

In a passenger car, windows may serve both purposes (i.e., provide emergency egress and access). All window types (emergency egress/access and non-emergency windows) that utilize gaskets for retention have been dislodged in rollover accidents in which passengers were ejected from windows. Since any window type that uses gaskets may be dislodged during a rollover event this research program does not distinguish window functionality. That is, each window type poses the same risk from the point of view of occupant containment.

This research is intended to augment the technical information available on rail passenger equipment glazing system safety with special emphasis on standardizing enhanced occupant containment capacity.

B. Background

Previously FRA contracted Sharma & Associates, Inc. (Sharma) to research and evaluate the retention performance of glazing systems commonly used in U.S. passenger rail equipment under derailment and rollover conditions and to assess the potential of alternative securement concepts. Three distinct glazing retention systems were selected to represent a cross-section of current U.S. passenger rail practice.

These configurations vary significantly in how glazing is mounted, secured, and retained.

• Type I: Adhesive-Bonded Channel Frame System with Exposed Rubber Gaskets

• Type II: Mechanically-Fastened Frame System with Inner Rubber Gasket

• Type III: Rubber Gasket-Only System

Three test methods, developed as part of prior research, were employed to assess the retention performance of the selected glazing systems:

• Push-Through Test evaluated resistance to perpendicular loads from both inside and outside directions.

• Pry Test simulated concentrated prying loads along the vertical window edges (leading and trailing) caused by abrasive, irregular debris such as ballast, trees/shrubs, and wayside equipment.

• Ballast Drag Test simulated sustained abrasive and compressive contact with gravel surfaces, representative of a train car sidewall sliding along the ground post-derailment.

The development and demonstration of the effectiveness of these test methods on a single glazing system design1 laid the foundation for follow-on research.

These tests not only replicated derailment-relevant load conditions but also revealed the failure modes of each glazing retention system. The results clearly demonstrate that glazing systems with structural

1 Integrity of Rail Passenger Equipment Glazing Systems, DOT/FRA/ORD-22/21 https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/integrity-rail-passenger-equipment-glazing-systems https://railroads.dot.gov/elibrary/integrity-rail-passenger-equipment-glazing-systems

3/4 retention provide superior resistance to failure compared to systems relying solely on rubber gaskets.

Configurations with unexposed and frame-supported gaskets showed significantly better retention performance during both push-through and ballast drag tests. The push-through test was especially valuable for identifying and quantifying internal weaknesses, while the ballast drag test effectively simulated edge-focused loading and abrasion, revealing vulnerabilities at the gasket-glass interface, particularly in designs with exposed rubber gaskets and poor retention capacity, normal to the plane of the glass.

In addition to experimental testing, the finite element analysis (FEA) conducted provided critical insights into the structural behavior of glazing systems. The FEA results were instrumental in guiding the refinement of the prototype design by identifying areas of potential weakness and optimizing the placement and geometry of key retention elements.

Building upon these findings, a series of performance requirements were proposed to serve as benchmarks for evaluating glazing retention systems under derailment-like scenarios. These proposed requirements encompass five critical test conditions: push-through from inside and outside, pry attempts from both leading and trailing edges, and ballast drag simulation. Together, they provide a robust framework for guiding design modifications and improving retention of glazing systems.

Based on insights from testing and observed failure mechanisms, a new prototype was conceptualized, fabricated, and tested. The prototype was subjected to ballast-drag and push-through test conditions to evaluate its retention performance. The test results validated the enhanced retention capability of the new design and supported its suitability for mitigating occupant ejection risks while maintaining regulatory compliance. In addition to meeting structural retention objectives, the design complies with emergency egress and access requirements, incorporating features to allow safe release during emergencies.

C. Objective

The objective of this effort is to continue and build on the prior research conducted on the retention capacity of rail equipment glazing systems by the contractor. In the previous research effort, Sharma delivered a final report that detailed their evaluation of the retention performance of glazing systems, their test and simulation results, recommendations for performance requirements, as well as a prototype design that meets these requirements. In the base contract of this PR, Sharma will anonymize the commercial glazing samples tested in the previous FRA contract and finalize this report for publication (Task 1). Based on validated FE models of the push test, Sharma will develop a simplified finite element model to simulate the full ballast drag test (Task 2). Sharma will engage with industry to gather feedback, refine the performance requirements, and establish a framework for improving both new and existing glazing systems (Task 3). If the option is exercised, Sharma will enhance their simplified FE model of the ballast drag test to capture additional details as necessary and validate the detailed model with existing test data.

D. Base Contract Tasks

The work plan is comprised of the following Tasks in the Base Contract:

Base Task 1: Finalize FRA Report for Publication Sharma shall edit and finalize the FRA Report, “Evaluation of Retention Capacity of Passenger Rail Equipment Glazing Systems”, detailing the previous research results on glazing retention. Selected elements in the report shall be anonymized to make the report ready for public release. All

4/5 commercial names of the glazing articles shall be removed from the report, as well as any mention of features that identify that the glazing articles come from a specific company.

Base Task 2: Simplified Finite Element Model of Ballast Drag Test Sharma shall build upon their progress of finite element (FE) modeling for glazing system testing by simulating a ballast drag test with a simplified representation of the dynamic ballast-glazing interaction, allowing for modeling of combined loading effects, and loss of glazing retention. The FE model results shall compare favorably (within 30%) with previous glazing test results.

Enhanced simulation tools can significantly reduce the need for costly physical testing in future design cycles and provide a robust analytical foundation for evaluating glazing system performance. Additionally, these tools can provide detailed insights that support the refinement of performance standards. Sharma shall generate a presentation of the results of their research, including all FE model development to date, performance requirements, prototype configuration, and proposed evaluation standards.

Base Task 3: Industry Engagement and Updated Performance Requirements Sharma shall give the presentation generated in Task 2 at least once to relevant industry groups such as APTA working groups, car builders, and transit agencies. Key actions in this task include:

• Gathering feedback from industry stakeholders on the practicality, compatibility, and maintainability of the proposed design.

• Refining the proposed performance requirements based on technical input and field experience.

• Establishing a framework for improving both new and existing glazing systems, using the performance metrics developed in this study as a foundation.

Engaging with industry partners will help ensure alignment with operational realities and regulatory pathways for future adoption.

Sharma shall prepare an Interim Report and Presentation documenting Task 3 activities, including the information collected, contact information of industry professionals, the updated performance requirements, and the framework for improving both new and existing glazing systems. The Interim Report shall be prepared in a format suitable for integration with Interim Reports from subsequent Tasks to create the Final Report.

Option Task 4: Documentation of Results

Sharma shall prepare a Draft Report documenting all the activities performed during Tasks 2 and 3 of the contract. The report shall be prepared in accordance with the FRA Technical Report template which will be provided by the COR. The Draft Report shall be provided at least 6 weeks in advance of the contract period of performance end date to allow review by the COR.

Sharma shall prepare a Final Report documenting all the activities performed during Tasks 2 and 3 of the contract, incorporating any comments or edits identified during the COR Draft Report review. The Final Report shall be provided at least 2 weeks in advance of the contract period of performance end date to allow review by the COR. Sharma shall also prepare a Final Presentation summarizing the results of Tasks 2 and 3. This document shall be presented to the APTA working group as part of the glazing retention standard development process.

5/6

Option Task 5: Ballast Drag Test Finite Element Model Enhancements and Validation with Test Data If it is determined that a simplified ballast drag model is not adequate to correlate the performance requirements for the push and pry tests with the ballast drag tests, then Sharma shall build upon their progress in the accuracy of the finite element (FE) model developed in Base Task 2, including additional model details to represent dynamic ballast-glazing interaction with increased fidelity. The FE model results shall be validated against the ballast drag test data and compare favorably (within 20%) with previous test results. Sharma shall update the Task 4 Final Report and Presentation including documentation of activities performed in Task 5

E. Deliverables and Schedule

The results of the studies in the Base Contract shall be described in an FRA Report, a Presentation to be given to relevant industry groups, an Interim Report and Presentation, a Draft Report, and Final Report and Presentation, as described in Table 1. If awarded, the results of the Option Task shall be described in an updated Final Report and Presentation. The Deliverable Schedule is presented as the number of months following the date of contract award.

Table 1. Deliverables and Schedule

TASK Deliverable /Format Due Date (Time from Award)

Task 1: Finalize FRA Report for Publication

FRA Report, “Evaluation of Retention Capacity of Passenger Rail Equipment Glazing Systems”, detailing the anonymized previous research results on glazing retention.

2 months

Task 2: Development of Simplified Finite Element Model

Presentation documenting results of previous research including all FE model development to date, performance requirements, prototype configuration, and proposed evaluation standards, to be presented to relevant industry groups such as APTA working groups, car builders, and transit agencies

8 months

6/7

Task 3: Industry Engagement and Updated Performance Requirements

Interim Report and Presentation documenting Task 2 and 3 activities, including the information collected, contact information of industry professionals, the updated performance requirements, and the framework for improving both new and existing glazing systems.

12 months

Option Task 4: Documentation of Results

Draft Report documenting all the activities performed during Tasks 2 and 3. 11 months#

Final Report and Presentation documenting all the activities performed during Tasks 2 and 3.

12 months #

Option Task 5: Documentation of Results including Development of Detailed Validated Finite Element Model

Updated Final Report and Presentation including documentation of the updated FE model and validation performed in Task 5.

6 months*

# Time from Option Task 4 award.

* Time from Option Task 5 award.

E.1 Quarterly Summary Management Status Report For the duration of the period of performance of each Task, Sharma shall prepare and submit within 15 days of the end of each quarter an electronic copy of a Quarterly Summary Management Status Report.

It shall describe the work accomplished during the reported quarter, problem areas encountered, action(s) taken and work planned for the next reporting period. The report shall compare planned progress vs. actual activity on a quarterly and cumulative level. Status Reports shall be provided in MS Word format or Adobe Acrobat format files and shall be emailed to the COR.

E.2 Meetings and Oral Presentations Sharma shall meet with the COR no less than monthly via teleconference to keep the COR informed and up to date on the progress of work related to this contract. Meetings may take place at mutually agreed times. Meetings are expected to last approximately 2 hours. The invitees for such meetings will be at the sole discretion of the U.S. Government.

E.3 Acceptance All deliverables shall be delivered in electronic format using MS PowerPoint for any presentations, MS Word for the final report, MS Word or Adobe Acrobat for the Status Reports and native format for any software. Presentations and reports shall be emailed to the COR. All software developed in the performance of this statement of work shall be delivered to the COR on a memory stick in advance of the termination of the period of performance.

E.4 Period of Performance The period of performance of this contract is as shown in Table 1 or approximately 15 months from the date of award of Task 1. All work shall be completed within this period.

7/7

E.5 Place of Performance The place of performance is the contractor’s facilities.