performance improvement for vehicles on track

`

D5.8 – Assessment Report of Processes and Procedures Allowing Virtual Certification of Brakes

PIVOT-TSK5.5-D-KNR-081-08

GA No. 777629 P1 of 194

Performance Improvement for Vehicles On Track


Date (per DoA) 30/09/2019

Issue date 30/09/2019

Document code PIVOT-TSK5.5-D-KNR-081-08

Document Leader Johannes Gräber, KB

Key words Vehicle authorisation, field tests, bench tests, simulation, Hardware-in-the-Loop (HiL), Software-in-the-Loop (SiL), virtual validation and certification, accreditation, EN ISO/IEC 17025

Confidentiality level

Status

Public

Final

Document history (Version of the document to be identical as per CT4)

Version Date Description Reason of change

01 02/04/2019 Initial draft

02 16/07/2019 First draft of chapter 4 by KB, first draft of chapter 7 by KB, very first draft of chapter 8 by KB

03 23/07/2019 First draft of chapter 9 by DB, first draft of chapter 5 by ALSTOM, chapter 8 updated by KB, first draft of chapter 6 by FTI, editorial finalization of chapter 2 by KB

04 26/07/2019 Update and review during 2-day workshop (team meeting 08)

05 07/08/2019 Final version for project (task 5.5) internal review

06 23/08/2019 Final input for “Comments resolution meeting”

07 29/08/2019 Final version for TMT review

08 30/09/2019 Final version after TMT approval for delivery to EC

This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 Programme

Research and Innovation action under grant agreement No 777629.

This document reflects the views of the author(s) and does not necessarily reflect the views or policy of the European Commission. Whilst efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy and completeness of this document, the PIVOT consortium shall not be liable for any errors or omissions, however caused.

`



GA No. 777629 P2 of 194

List of participants PIVOT (participants in Task 5.5 highlighted in bold)

Participant No

Participant organisation name Acronym Country

1 (Coordinator) BOMBARDIER TRANSPORTATION GMBH BT Germany 2 Aernnova Aerospace S.A.U. ANN Spain 3 FUNDACION PARA LA INVESTIGACION,

DESARROLLO Y APLICACION DE MATERIALES COMPUESTOS

FIDAMC Spain

4 FUNDACION TECNALIA RESEARCH & INNOVATION

TECNALIA Spain

5 ALSTOM TRANSPORT S.A. ALSTOM France 6 Construcciones y Auxiliar de Ferrocarriles, S.A. CAF Spain 7 DEUTSCHE BAHN AG DB Germany 8 Comboios de Portugal, EPE CP Portugal 9 FAIVELEY TRANSPORT TOURS FTT France

Implemented by FT Italy FTI Italy 10 KNORR-BREMSE SYSTEME FÜR

SCHIENENFAHRZEUGE GMBH KB Germany

11 NETWORK RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED NR UK 12 SIEMENS AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT SIE Germany 13 SNCF MOBILITES SNCF-M France 14 PATENTES TALGO SL TALGO Spain 15 TRAFIKVERKET - TRV TRV Sweden 16 Kompetenzzentrum - Das Virtuelle Fahrzeug,

Forschungsgesellschaft mbH VIF Austria

Main Contributors

Name Beneficiary Description of contribution

Oliver Urspruch KB

Initial provision & maintenance / update of the document regarding chapter 3 ”Determination & Review of Status Quo”, chapter 4 “Concept”, chapter 7 “KB Proof of Concept (WSP)” and chapter 8 “Adaptation of Functional Standards”, participation in team meetings, Review D5.8

Stefan Schneider KB Maintenance / update of the document regarding chapter 7 “KB Proof of Concept (WSP)”

Johannes Gräber KB

Initial provision & maintenance / update of the document regarding chapter 1 “Executive summary” and chapter 2 “Introduction”, organisation of team meetings, Review D5.8 & PIVOT task 5.5 lead

`



GA No. 777629 P3 of 194


Jürgen Eisenblätter DB Initial provision & maintenance / update of chapter 9, participation in team meetings, Review D5.8

Francesco Fumarola

Denis Emorine ALSTOM

Regional & Commuter Homologation Test Plan, Financial Benefits, initial provision & maintenance / update of chapter 5, participation in team meetings, Review D5.8

Richard Chavagnat SNCF-M HST Homologation Dynamic Tests, participation in team meetings, Review D5.8

Matteo Frea

Felipe Spoturno

Salvatore Perna

FTI

Brake System Validation Cost Break-Down, initial provision & maintenance / update of chapter 6 “FTI Proof of Concept (WSP)”, participation in team meetings, Review D5.8

Paulo Ferrão CP Participation in team meetings, Review D5.8 - acceptance without change requests

Stefan Dörsch DB Review D5.8

Brian Boucher BT Participation in team meetings, Review D5.8

Constance Roy SIE Participation in team meetings

`



GA No. 777629 P4 of 194

Table of Content List of participants PIVOT (participants in Task 5.5 highlighted in bold) .................................................. 2

Main Contributors ............................................................................................................................................ 2

Table of Content .............................................................................................................................................. 4

Table of figures ................................................................................................................................................ 8

Glossary ......................................................................................................................................................... 10

1 Executive summary ............................................................................................................................... 18

2 Introduction (Lead: KB) ......................................................................................................................... 20

2.1 Project Overview .............................................................................................................. 20

2.2 Project Organization - Overview of subtasks .................................................................... 21

2.3 Project Organization - Description of subtasks ................................................................. 21

2.3.1 Subtask 5.5.1 “Project Management” (M01 – M24) ........................................................ 21

2.3.2 Subtask 5.5.2 “Determination and Review of Status Quo” (M01 – M09) ..................... 22

2.3.3 Subtask 5.5.3 “Concept” (M09 – M24) .............................................................................. 23

2.3.4 Subtask 5.5.4 “Virtual validation benefits” (M04 – M24) ................................................. 24

2.3.5 Subtask 5.5.5a “Proof of Concept (WSP)” – FTI (M12 – M24) ...................................... 24

2.3.6 Subtask 5.5.5b “Proof of Concept (WSP)” – KB (M12 – M24)....................................... 25

2.3.7 Subtask 5.5.6 “Adaptation of Functional Standards” (M12 – M24) ............................... 25

2.3.8 Subtask 5.5.7 “Accreditation of simulation procedure necessary for virtual certification” (M06 – M24) .................................................................................................................... 25

3 Determination and Review of Status Quo (Lead: KB) ........................................................................ 26

3.1 Summary .......................................................................................................................... 26

3.2 Introduction to scope and objective .................................................................................. 26

3.2.1 Project Objective ................................................................................................................... 27

3.2.2 Project Scope ........................................................................................................................ 27

3.2.3 Regulations & Standards ..................................................................................................... 28

3.3 Process Description .......................................................................................................... 31

3.3.1 Stakeholders & Context ....................................................................................................... 31

3.3.2 Overall Process ..................................................................................................................... 33

3.3.3 V Model .................................................................................................................................. 34

3.3.4 Certification Test Execution ................................................................................................. 37

3.3.5 Generic Regional & Commuter Certification Test Plans ................................................. 41

3.3.6 Generic High-speed Train Homologation Test Plan ........................................................ 45

`



GA No. 777629 P5 of 194

3.3.7 Brake System Validation Cost Break-Down ..................................................................... 46

3.3.8 Guiding Principles for Effective Cost Reduction .............................................................. 48

3.3.9 Proposal for Key Performance Indicators (KPI) ............................................................... 48

3.4 Simulation in the Railway Sector ...................................................................................... 49

3.4.1 EN 15595 - Wheel Slide Protection Test Facilities .......................................................... 49

3.4.2 EN 14363 – Vehicle Dynamics Simulation & Certification .............................................. 50

3.4.3 Driver Training Simulators ................................................................................................... 51

3.5 Simulation in the Aerospace Industry ............................................................................... 53

3.6 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 54

4 Concept (Lead: KB) ............................................................................................................................... 56

4.1 Stakeholder Requirements ............................................................................................... 56

4.2 Concept Description ......................................................................................................... 60

4.2.1 Use Cases .............................................................................................................................. 60

4.2.2 Interaction with Environment ............................................................................................... 62

4.2.3 Structural Overview .............................................................................................................. 64

4.2.4 Virtual Tools Validation Processes - Workflow ‘Calibration & Validation’ .................... 66

4.2.5 Virtual Tools Validation Processes - Workflow ‘Basic Adaptation’ ................................ 68

4.2.6 Virtual Tools Validation Processes - Workflow ‘Accreditation’ ....................................... 68

4.2.7 Vehicle Validation Processes - Workflow ‘Commissioning’ ............................................ 69

4.2.8 Vehicle Validation Processes – Workflow ‘Homologation’ ............................................. 71

4.2.9 Further Conceptual Aspects ................................................................................................ 73

4.3 Complete Requirements Traceability ............................................................................... 78

4.3.1 Not Considered Requirements ........................................................................................... 78

4.3.2 Rejected Requirements ....................................................................................................... 78

4.3.3 Cost / Effort Reduction ......................................................................................................... 78

4.3.4 Requirements 2/3 – European Legislation Compliance .................................................. 79

4.3.5 Requirements 23/29 - NoBo Acceptance & Localization ................................................ 79

4.3.6 Requirements 41/42 - Reliability & Accuracy ................................................................... 79

4.3.7 Requirement 13 - Virtual Tools Accreditation Process ................................................... 80

4.3.8 Requirement 14 - Railway Vehicles Certification Process ............................................. 80

4.4 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 80

5 Virtual validation benefits (Lead: ALSTOM) ....................................................................................... 81

`



GA No. 777629 P6 of 194

5.1 Global validation/Certification/homologation plan necessary for commuter / regional train . .......................................................................................................................................... 81

5.1.1 Crosscheck to standards ..................................................................................................... 81

5.1.2 Technical evaluation from expert: ...................................................................................... 82

5.2 Benefits that could bring virtual validation: ....................................................................... 82

5.2.1 What does the standards require? ..................................................................................... 82

5.3 Overview and conclusion .................................................................................................. 83

5.3.1 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 84

6 Proof of Concept FTI WSP (Lead: FTI) ................................................................................................ 85

6.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 85

6.2 Scope ............................................................................................................................... 85

6.3 Background ...................................................................................................................... 85

6.4 Validation criteria .............................................................................................................. 86

6.5 Vehicle identification ......................................................................................................... 87

6.6 Collection of field data ...................................................................................................... 87

6.7 Analysis of the field data ................................................................................................... 88

6.8 WSP test bench description ............................................................................................. 90

6.9 WSP test bench configuration .......................................................................................... 91

6.10 Calibration of the virtual tool ............................................................................................. 92

6.11 Validation of the virtual tool .............................................................................................. 92

6.12 Conclusion for FTI proof of concept ................................................................................. 93

7 Proof of Concept KB WSP (Lead: KB) ................................................................................................. 94

7.1 KB Objective ..................................................................................................................... 94

7.2 Vehicle Configuration ....................................................................................................... 95

7.3 Evaluation Workflow ......................................................................................................... 95

7.4 Field Test Data and Test Cases ....................................................................................... 96

7.5 Data for Comparison ........................................................................................................ 99

7.5.1 Standards & Regulations ................................................................................................... 100

7.5.2 Additional Quantities for Comparison .............................................................................. 100

7.6 Comparison .................................................................................................................... 101

7.6.1 Test Cases ........................................................................................................................... 101

7.7 Illustration of Results ...................................................................................................... 103

7.8 Description of KB MUC Simulator .................................................................................. 104

7.9 Description of the simulation model ................................................................................ 105

`



GA No. 777629 P7 of 194

7.10 Calibration of the virtual tool ........................................................................................... 106

7.11 Validation of the virtual tool ............................................................................................ 108

7.12 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 111

8 Adaptation of Functional Standards (Lead: KB) .............................................................................. 112

9 Accreditation of simulation procedure necessary for virtual certification (Lead: DB) ................ 116

9.1 Reliability by means of accredited conformity assessment ............................................ 116

9.1.1 Stages of conformity assessment .................................................................................... 116

9.1.2 New conformity assessment procedures ........................................................................ 117

9.1.3 Types of accreditation ........................................................................................................ 120

9.1.4 Accreditation of a test centre ............................................................................................. 120

9.2 Accreditation requirements of simulation test methods according EN ISO/IEC 17025 .. 122

9.2.1 General ................................................................................................................................. 122

9.2.2 General requirements......................................................................................................... 123

9.2.3 Structural requirements ...................................................................................................... 125

9.2.4 Technical requirements ...................................................................................................... 126

9.2.5 Process requirements ........................................................................................................ 135

9.2.6 Management system requirements .................................................................................. 156

9.3 Conclusions .................................................................................................................... 164

10 References ....................................................................................................................................... 165

11 Annexes ............................................................................................................................................ 168

12 Antitrust Statement ......................................................................................................................... 169

Annex A ........................................................................................................................................................ 170

`



GA No. 777629 P8 of 194

Table of figures Figure 1 - Certification Process Context & Stakeholders ................................................................................ 31

Figure 2 - Table of Stakeholders, Companies & Contact ................................................................................ 32

Figure 3 - Railway Vehicle Certification Process ............................................................................................. 33

Figure 4 - Simulation Support of Specification & Design ................................................................................. 34

Figure 5 - Simulation Support during Integration ............................................................................................. 35

Figure 6 – Simulation Support during Certification .......................................................................................... 36

Figure 7 – Emergency brake tests required by TSI LOC&PAS ....................................................................... 38

Figure 8 – Emergency brake tests according to EN 16185-2 ......................................................................... 38

Figure 9 - Workflow of a single brake test according to UIC 544-1 ................................................................. 39

Figure 10 - Results of Regional & Commuter Certification Test Plan Analysis ............................................... 41

Figure 11 - Single Brake Action Duration dependent on Speed ..................................................................... 43

Figure 12 - Single Brake Action Phases .......................................................................................................... 44

Figure 13: duration for a single brake action ................................................................................................... 45

Figure 14: HST homologation dynamic test duration comparison .................................................................. 46

Figure 15 – Brake System Validation Cost Break-Down ................................................................................. 47

Figure 16 - DB Driving Training Simulators ..................................................................................................... 52

Figure 17 - Railway Operation Simulator......................................................................................................... 52

Figure 18 - Use Case “homologate Railway Vehicle” ...................................................................................... 61

Figure 19 - Use Case "commission Brake System" ........................................................................................ 62

Figure 20 - Interaction with Environment ......................................................................................................... 63

Figure 21 - Structural Overview of VVC .......................................................................................................... 65

Figure 22 - Workflow 'Calibration & Validation'................................................................................................ 66

Figure 23 - Workflow 'Basic Adaptation' .......................................................................................................... 67

Figure 24 - Workflow 'Accreditation' ................................................................................................................ 68

Figure 25 - Workflow 'Commissioning' ............................................................................................................ 70

Figure 26 - Workflow 'Homologation' ............................................................................................................... 71

Figure 27 - Interaction of Main Workflows ....................................................................................................... 72

Figure 28 - Number of Validation Tests ........................................................................................................... 73

Figure 29 - Time History of Intermediate Parameters ..................................................................................... 75

Figure 30 – repeatability and accuracy ............................................................................................................ 87

Figure 31 – Structure of data record from train ............................................................................................... 88

Figure 32 – cylinder pressure and train acceleration time profile (example) ................................................... 89

Figure 33 – Dry test on train, summary results table ....................................................................................... 89

Figure 34 – Wet test on train, summary results table ...................................................................................... 89

Figure 35 – WSP test bench overview ............................................................................................................ 90

Figure 36 – WSP test bench interfaces ........................................................................................................... 90

Figure 37 – WSP test bench architecture ........................................................................................................ 91

Figure 38 – WSP test bench configuration ...................................................................................................... 91

Figure 39 – Dry test on WSP test bench, summary results table .................................................................... 92

Figure 40 – Wet test on WSP test bench, summary results table ................................................................... 92

Figure 41 – comparison between virtual test and field test ............................................................................. 93

Figure 42 – Scheme of the passenger car used for investigation ................................................................... 95

Figure 43 – Data field test T01, speed (top) position (bottom) of the car over time ........................................ 97

`



GA No. 777629 P9 of 194




Figure 47 – Scheme of KB MUC Simulator ................................................................................................... 105

Figure 48 – Scheme of the simulation model ................................................................................................ 105

Figure 49 – Measured and simulated data field test T01, speed (top) position (bottom) of the car over time ....................................................................................................................................................................... 107




Figure 53 – Measured and simulated data field test T07, speed of the axels over time ............................... 111

Figure 54 - HiL-simulation (simulation class 1) ............................................................................................. 118

Figure 55 - HiL-simulations (simulation class 2) ............................................................................................ 118

Figure 56 - HiL-simulation (simulation class 3) ............................................................................................. 119

Figure 57 - SiL-simulation .............................................................................................................................. 119

`



GA No. 777629 P10 of 194

Glossary

Term Abbreviation Description

Accreditation Body An Accreditation Body assesses organizations with the goal to certify them e.g. as Test Centre, Inspection Body, Assessment Body or NoBo / DeBo

Adhesion extremely low

- according to UIC 541-05 [03]

xnh Conditions in which wheel/rail adhesion is lower than 3%

Adhesion low - according to

UIC 541-05 [03] nh

Conditions in which wheel/rail adhesion is insufficient to sustain the required braking ratio (nominal ratio between 3% and 8%)

Adhesion normal - according to

UIC 541-05 [03] Equivalent to dry conditions

Advanced Test Laboratory for

Adhesion based Systems

ATLAS

ATLAS is a roller rig of Knorr-Bremse located in Munich, which hosts original brake equipment including a ‘real’ single axle rolling on two big wheels simulating the track on a scale of 1:1.

Air Generation and Treatment Unit

AGTU The ATGU is a component of a railway vehicle with the purpose to provide energy for braking by the means of pneumatic pressure.

Assessment Body (CSM RA)

AsBo

The role of the assessment body is to check the correct application of the risk assessment process setup in Annex I of the CSM and of the suitability of the risk assessment results to fulfil safely the intended objectives of the significant change.

Association of American Railroads

Standards

AAR Standards

The AAR's Technical Services group of committees are responsible for the development, maintenance, and enforcement of North American railroad interchange rules, mechanical standards, and component specifications that promote an acceptable level of safety and efficiency. Users of these publications include North American Class I, shortline, and regional railroads, Federal Railroad Administration, Transport Canada Railway Safety Directorate, private railcar owners, shippers, and freight car, locomotive, and component suppliers.

Authorization

In view of the common practice in the railway sector, the term “authorization” is used equivalent to “homologation” within this report. “Authorization” is the correct term in connection with VAPIS and VAPOM (see below).

Authorization Entities

The Authorization Entity assesses the conformity with standards and safety requirements. In case of conformance, they issue an authorization for placing in service (VAPIS). They also assess the valid qualification of NoBo, DeBo and Assessment Body (CSM RA) on a periodic basis.

`



GA No. 777629 P11 of 194


Automatic Train Protection

ATP Signalling system in use for a dedicated project (e.g. ETCS)

Average Minimum Slide

- according to UIC 541-05 [03]

GM(n)

Minimum Slide (glissement minimum) of axle n

GM(n) = tslide / tBrake, even better: Unit for average minimum slide is '1' or '%'

Brake Action Deceleration of a railway vehicle

Brake Control Unit BCU

The BCU is a component of a railway vehicle with the purpose to control its deceleration during braking to achieve passenger comfort in accordance with relevant regulations & standards.

Brake Cylinder Pressure

BCP “c”-pressure in brake cylinder or calliper

Brake System Supplier

Organization developing and producing brake systems for a Vehicle Manufacturer

Brake Test

A set of brake actions (usually 3 or 4) to verify the performance of a railway vehicle for a certain condition of initial speed, loading condition and type of brake (EB / FSB, etc.)

Calibration

Calibration is the application of defined Virtual Tools modifications (e.g. certain parameters within certain limits) until simulation results conform with the given Calibration Data within given tolerances.

Common Safety Methods – Risk

Assessment CSM-RA

COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) No 402/2013 of 30 April 2013 on the common safety method for risk evaluation and assessment (or 'the CSM RA'): It is a framework that describes a common

mandatory European risk management process for the rail industry and does not prescribe specific tools or techniques to be used.

The CSM RA aims to harmonise processes for risk evaluation and assessment and the evidence and documentation produced during the application of these processes. By applying a common process, it will be easier for an assessment undertaken in one EU Member State to be accepted in another with the minimum of further work. This is referred to as mutual recognition.

`



GA No. 777629 P12 of 194


Designated Body DeBo

Designated Bodies (DeBos) are independent bodies appointed by the member state to assess and verify conformity of projects with Notified National Technical Rules (NNTRs) of a member state. They operate in tandem with Notified Bodies (NoBos) which assess and verify conformity with Technical Specifications for Interoperability (TSIs).

Dump Valves DV Pressure release valves of WSP system

Dynamic Brake DB During this braking mode of a railway vehicle the electro dynamic brake of a railway vehicle is applied, usually in combination with pneumatic braking.

Electronic Systems for Rail Applications

ESRA Knorr-Bremse’s standard electronics family for brake control systems

Emergency Brake Override

EBO It’s a part of the function of the PAS concerning the override of a PEB according to its dedicated conditions

Emergency Braking EB

This braking mode of a railway vehicle is applied in emergency cases and can be activated by the vehicle driver, by passengers (usually with the possibility of the driver to inhibit the activation), by the vehicle’s automatic vigilance device, by an inductive train safety device or by loss of brake pressure (e.g. due to breaking of coupling). The EB is designed to achieve a defined deceleration (utilization of adhesion coefficient) with a high safety level.

Emergency Braking with friction only

EB_R (German “R”)

Same brake mode than for “EB” with an additional precision on which brake type are used. Here is only the friction brake through pad or shoe on disc or wheel.

Emergency Braking with friction + MTB

EB_R+Mg (German “R+Mg”)

Same brake mode than for “EB” with an additional precision on which brake type are used. Here is the friction brake through pad or shoe on disc or wheel AND in addition the MTB.

European Union Agency for Railways

ERA

The European Union Agency for Railways (also referenced as “The Agency”) as defined in REGULATION (EU) 2016/796 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 11 May 2016 on the European Union Agency for Railways Article 2 Objectives of the Agency “The objective of the Agency shall be to contribute to the further development and effective functioning of a single European railway area without frontiers, by guaranteeing a high level of railway safety and interoperability, while improving the competitive position of the railway sector. In particular, the Agency shall contribute, on technical matters, to the implementation of Union legislation by developing a common approach to safety on the Union rail system and by enhancing the level of interoperability on the Union rail system.”

`



GA No. 777629 P13 of 194


European Train Control System

ETCS

European Train Control System promoted by the European Commission for use throughout Europe and specified for compliance with the High Speed and Conventional Interoperability Directives.

Failure Mode, Effects, and

(Criticality) Analysis FME(C)A

Method to review as many components, assemblies, and subsystems as possible to identify failures, and their causes and effects (and in some cases also their criticality).

Full-service Braking FSB During this braking mode of a railway vehicle, the maximum design brake pressure during Service Brake is applied.

Full-service Braking with friction only

FSB_R Same brake mode than for “FSB” with an additional precision on which brake type are used. Here is only the friction brake through pad or shoe on disc or wheel.

Full-service Braking with friction + ED

brake FSB_R+E

Same brake mode than for “EB” with an additional precision on which brake type are used. Here is the friction brake through pad or shoe on disc or wheel AND in addition the Electro Dynamic brake.

Functional Mock-up Interface

FMI (-Standard)

The Functional Mock-up Interface (or FMI) defines a standardized interface to be used in computer simulations to develop complex cyber-physical systems.The FMI standard thus provides the means for model based development of systems and is used for example for designing functions that are driven by electronic devices inside vehicles (e.g. electronic controllers, active safety systems, combustion controllers). (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_Mock-up_Interface, 13.08.19 11:43)

gosudarstvennyy standart (=

“Russian state standard”)

GOST Standard

GOST refers to a set of technical standards maintained by the Euro-Asian Council for Standardization, Metrology and Certification (EASC), a regional standards organization operating under the auspices of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

Hardware in the Loop

HiL A simulation with integrated original hardware components of the simulated system.

High-speed Train HST Simplified definition according to TSI (2008): An HST is a railway vehicle (usually a multiple unit vehicle) with a maximum speed of at least 190 km/h.

Homologation In view of the common practice in the railway sector, the term “homologation” is used equivalent to “authorization” (see above) within this report.

Infrastructure Data

Comprises at least the following information to be provided by the Operator:

signal distances route profiles (e.g. slopes, curve radius) driving profiles (e.g. required max. speed per

track section)

`



GA No. 777629 P14 of 194


Key Performance Indicator

KPI KPI assesses the success of an institution or organisation in relation to an activity in which it participates.

Knorr-Bremse Munich

KB MUC Munich location of Knorr-Bremse Systeme für Schienenfahrzeuge GmbH

Magnetic Track Brake

MTB

An MTB is a component of a railway vehicle brake system, which develops brake force by pressing a contact slipper onto the rail utilizing electrically generated magnetic force between slipper and rail.

Multiple Unit Train Electric multiple unit Diesel multiple unit

MU EMU DMU

An MU is a railway vehicle, which consists of multiple coaches with propulsion in their bogies. An explicit traction vehicle doesn’t exist. EMUs are electrically powered, DMUs are powered by diesel.

National Safety Authority

NSA

According to DIRECTIVE (EU) 2016/798 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 11 May 2016 on railway safety Article 3 Definitions: ‘national safety authority’ means the national body entrusted with the tasks regarding railway safety in accordance with this Directive or any body entrusted by several Member States with those tasks in order to ensure a unified safety regime

Notified Body NoBo

Directive 2008/57/EC, Article 2(j): “‘notified bodies’ means the bodies which are responsible for assessing the conformity or suitability for use of the interoperability constituents or for appraising the ‘EC’ procedure for verification of the subsystems;” They operate in tandem with Designated Bodies (DeBos) which assess and verify conformity with National Technical Rules (NNTR).

`



GA No. 777629 P15 of 194


Notified National Technical Rules

NNTR

Until there is a full suite of Technical Specifications for Interoperability (TSIs) in place, where there is a gap in the framework – for example if a TSI is under development, member states must notify other national rules to ensure that subsystems are designed and built to meet the essential requirements. Notified National Technical Rules (NNTRs) are the standards, technical specifications and technical rules which a member state has notified to the Commission for this purpose. Compliance with NNTRs must be verified by a Designated Body (“DeBo”). NNTRs are used for the following purposes: To cover the parts of the rail system out of scope of

TSIs; To address open points or specific cases in a TSI; To ensure technical compatibility between vehicles

and the rail system in the area of use; To provide alternative provisions which will be

applied if a derogation against a TSI has been granted by the Competent Authority for a project.

Offline Simulation Simulation consisting purely of software, no original hardware or software in the loop.

Operator

Directive 2012/34/EU, Article 3 (1), ‘railway undertaking’: “(…) any public or private undertaking licensed according to this Directive, the principal business of which is to provide services for the transport of goods and/or passengers by rail with a requirement that the undertaking ensure traction; this also includes undertakings which provide traction only;” An organization operating railway vehicles on a railway infrastructure.

Passenger Alarm System

PAS

It refers to the complete passenger Alarm System. It’s all what is related to the emergency handle, the speaker, the lights and button in the cabin AND the logic between these components to achieve the function.

Passenger Emergency Brake

PEB It’s a part of the function of the PAS concerning the braking effect according to its dedicated conditions

Performance Improvement for

Vehicles On Track PIVOT

Project within Shift2Rail (H2020-S2RJU-CFM-2017), Grant Agreement number: 777629 of 31.10.2017

Performance Improvement for

Vehicles On Track 2

PIVOT 2 Follow-up project within Shift2Rail (H2020 proposal for call topic S2R-CFM-IP1-01-2019), probably starting October 2019

Service Brake SB This braking mode of a railway vehicle is applied by the driver during normal operation.

`



GA No. 777629 P16 of 194


Software in the Loop

SiL

A simulation with integrated original software components of the simulated system. Note: Don’t confuse it with the abbreviation of Safety Integrity Level (SIL) as e.g. according to EN 50126-1 [20], abbreviation is defined e.g. in EN 50657 [28].

Subsystem

Subsystems in the context of European Legislation are: Vehicle Infrastructure Tunnels Control Command System (CCS) Energy

A “mobile subsystem” is a vehicle including vehicle-side CCS and energy

Systems Modelling Language

SysML

The Systems Modelling Language (SysML) is a general-purpose modelling language for systems engineering applications. It supports the specification, analysis, design, verification and validation of a broad range of systems and systems-of-systems.

Technical Specification for Interoperability

TSI

A Technical Specification for Interoperability (TSI) outlines the specification to be met by a subsystem, or part of a subsystem, in order for it to meet the essential requirements and achieve interoperability. TSIs currently only apply to the trans-European rail system (TEN) but the European Commission has stated its intention, in Directive 2008/57/EC, to progressively extend the scope of TSIs beyond the TEN in the future.

Union Internationale des Chemines de

fer UIC

UIC, the worldwide professional association representing the railway sector and promoting rail transport. “UIC” also used to describe a certain set of railway standards mainly used in Europe.

Unit Under Test UUT Unit/device that is considered during the tests

Validation

Check whether the railway vehicle or one of its components complies with the stakeholder needs. “Build the right thing.” In view of the common practice in the railway sector, the term “Validation” comprises “Verification & Validation” in the context of this report.

Vehicle Authorization for Placing On the

Market

VAPOM This term contrasts with ‘vehicle authorization for putting into service (VAPIS), both are characterizing the area of conflict between type test and production test.

Vehicle Authorization for

Putting Into Service VAPIS

This term is in contrast to ‘vehicle authorization for placing on market’ (VAPOM), both are characterizing the area of conflict between type test and production test.

Vehicle Configuration Data

Comprises data like number of bogies, wheel diameter, maximum load, empty weight, etc.

`



GA No. 777629 P17 of 194


Vehicle Manufacturer

Organization developing and producing railway vehicles for the Operator.

Verification Check whether the railway vehicle or one of its components complies with their specification. “Build the thing right.”

Virtual Validation & Certification

VVC

Subject of PIVOT WP5 Task 5.5; Processes with the goal of certification of railway vehicles or its components/subsystems based entirely or partially on evidence provided by simulations. Objective of VVC is to reduce cost and duration of the present railway vehicle validation & certification process by means of simulation focusing on brake systems.

Wheel Slide Protection

WSP

A WSP is a TSI-component of a railway vehicle brake system with the purpose to avoid sliding of wheel sets over the rail during braking under normal and degraded adhesion conditions.

`



GA No. 777629 P18 of 194

1 Executive summary

After an introduction with a description of the overall project scope and structure (chapter 2), chapter 3 represents the starting point of the concept development for Virtual Validation & Certification (VVC). It describes the current situation of validation and certification in the European railway industry with the objective to identify cost drivers providing potential to be reduced by simulation. It identifies the stakeholders within the overall context of certification, lists the relevant regulations and standards, describes the certification process and identifies cost drivers. Therefore, it provides a sound basis for an effective concept for virtual validation and certification.

Summarising the conclusions of the different work packages (see details below) it can be concluded, that the replacement of vehicle tests by virtual tools is technically feasible. The planned simulation procedures for the virtual verification and validation of brake components and subsystems will lead to a new form of test results for the proof of conformity to TSI requirements. In this context also the already established HiL simulation is to be replaced successively and as far as possible by a pure SiL simulation. The exact number of field tests being possible to be replaced is mainly dependent on the quality of the virtual tool and the possibilities given in legal requirements and European standards.

An educated guess shown in chapter 5 estimates to save in best case 80% of the testing effort by using simulation instead of on-vehicle/train tests. The main challenge to achieve the 80%.is to have reliable, calibrated and validated models. Since 50% of this saving is on the WSP dynamic part, where efforts have already been deployed through PINTA WP8 [01], the concentration of PIVOT WP5 Task 5.5 on WSP is confirmed.

Regarding the quality it is essential to build up the necessary degree of confidence in the newly obtained test results. The demands on quality and integrity of the simulation results are at least as high as in the conventionally obtained results according to the proven verification procedures. Therefore, the accreditation of VVC tools (incl. related processes) and VVC provider is the necessary basis to provide this confidence in the results gained through virtual environments. Within subtask 5.5.7, the requirements of the relevant European standard EN ISO/IEC 17025 [02], which is the current basis for the accreditation of test laboratories and their test processes, have been analysed to adapt requirements for virtual environments. Chapter 9 provides a guideline for VVC provider and accreditation bodies how to use EN ISO/IEC 17025 for accreditation in this respect.

To make more virtual tests also practically feasible, legal requirements (i.e. TSI) and European standards need to be adapted, either case by case (most important documents see chapter 8) or by a general agreement within the railway sector (including authorization authorities) to replace vehicle tests by virtual tools based on technical expertise and agreement between manufacturer and Notified Body.

Basis for all this is a process framework describing workflows for Accreditation, Commissioning and Authorization, presented in chapter 4. This concept enables organizations to apply and provide Virtual Validation & Certification with a high degree of credibility maintaining an equivalent level of safety in railway vehicle development. The given workflows are well integrated into the present railway vehicle commissioning and authorization process.

The FTI proof of concept (chapter 6) demonstrated the applicability of the virtual validation concept in the process of validation of the FTI wheel slide protection test bench (HiL). Once identified the vehicle to be used as pilot application, the field test data are collected and elaborated in according with the defined validation criteria. The virtual tool is then configured in according with the identified vehicle

`



GA No. 777629 P19 of 194

and then calibrated in according with a selected subset of field tests. The virtual tool is then ready for the validation phase that will be based on a different subset of field tests.

The KB proof of concept (chapter 7) came to the same conclusions regarding the applicability of the virtual validation concept by comparing field test data with results gained by KB MUC Simulator (HiL-simulator class 3 according to UIC 541-05 [03]).

`



GA No. 777629 P20 of 194

2 Introduction (Lead: KB)

2.1 Project Overview Overall Objective of Shift2Rail – Task 5.5 – PIVOT – Virtual Validation & Certification (Original from Grant Agreement):

Today, considerable effort is necessary to successfully complete validation (process to confirm the product being fully in line with all necessary requirements) certification and authorization of new rolling stock products and systems. In this task, and building on the cooperative efforts and achievements of Roll2Rail project, a principle/basic procedure is to be developed on how virtual methods can be used in validation and certification processes to accelerate the authorization process itself and to increase overall cost-efficiency. A list of validations/certifications currently requesting full scale or train tests (static and or dynamic) shall be first set out, defining the items where a virtual validation and certification approach can be used and of which kind. Then, a set of candidates shall be defined for further analysis and definition. A pilot application for a virtual supported certification of the wheel-slide protection system is to be developed. Moreover, criteria shall be defined for the deployment of vehicle simulation in order to reduce certification runs. The activity should include the possible improvement of the WSP at train level and their evaluation with a static and flexible virtual certification. In addition, criteria and procedures for an accreditation of simulation procedures have to be defined, if appropriate, in dependence on ISO 17025 (or similar standards).

Leader:KB,Contributors:ALSTOM,BT,CP,DB,FTTimplementedbyFTItaly,SIE,SNCF‐M

Deliverable:

D5.8 – Assessment Report of Processes and Procedures Allowing Virtual Certification of Brakes (M24) - public Criteria defined to reduce certification runs by the use of vehicle simulation

Context

PINTA WP8 provided a basis for the application of simulation for certification, however limited to the scope of wheel slide protection system (WSP) type certification. The results shall be analysed for applicability (transfer) in the context of vehicle certification with the focus on the brake system in general (with a first proof-of-concept for WSP tests on track). If applicability (transfer) is possible, necessary modifications of the WSP test rig specifications (software or hardware) for applicability in the context of vehicle certification shall be implemented in the proof-of-concept phase before comparing the test rig results with field data.

`



GA No. 777629 P21 of 194

2.2 Project Organization - Overview of subtasks Subtask 5.5.1 “Project Management” (M01 – M24) Leader: KB, Johannes Gräber

Subtask 5.5.2 “Determination and Review of Status Quo” (M01 – M09) Leader: KB, Oliver Urspruch

Subtask 5.5.3 “Concept” (M09 – M24) Leader: KB, Oliver Urspruch

Subtask 5.5.4 “Virtual validation benefits” (M04 – M24) Leader: ALSTOM, Denis Emorine

Subtask 5.5.5a “Proof of Concept (WSP)” (M12 – M24) Leader: FTI, Matteo Frea

Subtask 5.5.5b “Proof of Concept (WSP)” (M12 – M24) Leader: KB, Stefan Schneider

Subtask 5.5.6 “Adaptation of Functional Standards” (M12 – M24) Leader: KB, Oliver Urspruch

Subtask 5.5.7 “Accreditation of simulation procedure necessary for virtual certification” (M06 – M24) Leader: DB, J. Eisenblätter (based on budget transfer from KB)

2.3 Project Organization - Description of subtasks

2.3.1 Subtask 5.5.1 “Project Management” (M01 – M24) Leader: KB, J. Gräber

Taskcontributors: ALSTOM, BT, CP, DB, FTT implemented by FT Italy, SIE, SNCF-M

Objective

The aim of this work package is to coordinate all activities with TD 1.5.5 (= PIVOT Task 5.5 – Virtual Validation & Certification).

Activities

Definition of scope and work packages of TD 1.5.5 Coordination of all activities Organization and moderation of meetings Maintenance of Cooperation Tool Accounting (Cooperation Tool, ECAS) Quality Check of Deliverables

`



GA No. 777629 P22 of 194

Deliverables

D5.8 – Assessment Report of Processes and Procedures Allowing Virtual Certification of Brakes (M24) - public Criteria defined to reduce certification runs by the use of vehicle simulation

2.3.2 Subtask 5.5.2 “Determination and Review of Status Quo” (M01 – M09) Leader:KB, O. Urspruch

Taskcontributors: ALSTOM, BT, CP, DB, FTT implemented by FT Italy, KB, SIE, SNCF-M

Objective

Validation and certification of railway vehicles is today widely based on the final verification of the requirements and the intended features of the installed subsystems by physical testing on the real vehicle. This process is time-consuming and can only be started after completion (and at least static commissioning) of the first vehicle.

An improvement of the development process of vehicles can be achieved by creating validation and certification processes that no longer have the necessity to be performed intensively on the real vehicle, but use virtual methods such as bench tests, hardware in the loop, software in the loop and simulation. In order to determine the most promising targets for these new methods, an initial analysis of the status quo of railway vehicle validation and certification focusing on brake systems will be done.

In order to apply state-of-the-art methods of systems engineering, “railway vehicle validation & certification focusing on brake systems” will be considered as the “system-of-interest” to be improved by PIVOT Task 5.5.

Activities

analysis of the legal standards for the certification analysis of the requirements that are derived from those legal basis analysis of the technical standards that define the methods of testing and validation estimation of the time and cost that is associated with initial testing and repeated testing in

case of modifications identification of the technical key parameters influencing the result of the validation and

certification tests an evaluation whether sufficient knowledge is available to create theoretical models for those

key parameters

Deliverables

The analysis of the system-of-interest shall result in a stakeholder register including identification of actors (e.g. KB, Vehicle Manufacturer) a context description (system boundary, interaction with external processes & interfaces, e.g.

development, production, maintenance, operation, disposal) Operational scenarios (CONOPS = Concept of Operations) Organisations & other subsystems (e.g. KB, AsBo, Operator, etc.) Functions & non-functional characteristics (e.g. interaction between KB, NoBo, AsBo, Vehicle

Manufacturer, Operator, etc.) work results (e.g. required documents and tests)

`



GA No. 777629 P23 of 194

ResultsandNextSteps

The findings of this work package enable the development of business cases.

2.3.3 Subtask 5.5.3 “Concept” (M09 – M24) Leader:KB, O. Urspruch


Objective

In order to apply state-of-the-art methods of systems engineering, “railway vehicle validation & certification focusing on brake systems” will be considered as the system-of-interest to be improved by task 5.5. The aim of the work package “Concept” is to provide the technical concept for an improvement of the system-of-interest. Within this task viable alternatives for improvement will be provided and a decision will be made, with which alternative(s) to proceed in the next work packages.

As part of this concept, simulation and test rig architectures will be analysed for their applicability for improvement of the system-of-interest.

Scope

The work package “Concept” covers only consideration of technical perspective. A qualitative Business case will be developed in a separate subtask 5.5.4 “Virtual validation benefits” (chapter 5).

Preconditions

Deliverables of Work Package “Determination and Review of Status Quo” are released and available.

Activities

Identify new top level stakeholder requirements (enabling virtual certification); one (but not the only) basis for this identification shall be the results of cost and time analysis (work package “Determination and Review of Status Quo”) for initial testing

Analyse requirements & find alternatives of solutions; refine the system only as required to analyse technical risks

Analyse technical risks in terms of lifecycle cost; e.g. consider technologies, patents & licenses, , operation,

Reduce the number of alternatives of solutions to a subset viable for decision (2 or 3)

Deliverables

Concept document including proposed base alternatives of solutions, cost & risks

ResultsandNextSteps

Decision for basic architecture Business Cases can be developed (work package “Virtual validation benefits” will start in

parallel, but needs to wait for concept document in order to evaluate a qualitative business case for different architectures)

Based on the decision for one of the proposed architectures, the proof of concept can be started (work package “Proof of Concept”)

`



GA No. 777629 P24 of 194

2.3.4 Subtask 5.5.4 “Virtual validation benefits” (M04 – M24) Leader:ALSTOM, D. Emorine


Objective

The aim of this subtask is to generate a qualitative business case model, which could show benefits/costs/risks of the use of virtual validations. The output will be a preliminary assessment report, combined with qualitative business case results.

Preconditions

Deliverables of Work Package “Determination and Review of Status Quo” are released and available

Deliverables of Work Package “Concept” are released and available (at least before completion of the subtask,)

Deliverables

Qualitative Business Case model

2.3.5 Subtask 5.5.5a “Proof of Concept (WSP)” – FTI (M12 – M24) Leader:FTI, M. Frea

Taskcontributors: BT

Objective(commonforsubtasks5.5.5a/b)

The activity is composed of two distinct phases, the first one consists in validating the simulator/test bench using field test data. The second one consists in executing the set of tests specified in the regulations to validate the WSP system of the entire vehicle.

Identify the vehicle to be used Ensure field tests are available Adapt the simulator according to the concept using the model in a reduced scope, dedicated

to WSP tests Use the simulator validation criteria and apply the process linked to the WSP, refine the criteria

and process if needed Validate the simulator Define/recover the list of vehicle tests Execute the list of vehicle tests required by the regulations for WSP

Please note: the system-of-interest (scope) of WSP standards like EN 15595 [04]/[27] or UIC 54105 [03] is a WSP. The intention is to replace WSP type tests by simulation. In contrast, the system-of-interest of this Proof of Concept is a four-axle passenger coach. Although the executed tests may be the same, the focus is now on a realistic simulation of the passenger coach, rather than providing a WSP test rig with integrated vehicle simulation. Stakeholder requirement 36 – Parameter Comparison – plays an important role (see chapter 4.2.9.2).

`



GA No. 777629 P25 of 194

A common report template will be used and shall include a description of the work done. The results are kept by the respective leading companies.

2.3.6 Subtask 5.5.5b “Proof of Concept (WSP)” – KB (M12 – M24) Leader:KB, St. Schneider

Taskcontributors: none

Objective(seeabove)

2.3.7 Subtask 5.5.6 “Adaptation of Functional Standards” (M12 – M24) Leader:KB, O. Urspruch


Objective

The aim of this work package is to identify the functional standard where usage of simulation tools is meaningful and recommend the adaptation of functional standards in order to enable virtual certification, e.g.

a) Wheel slide protection (UIC 541-05 [03], EN 15595 [04]/[27]) b) Evaluation of brake system (UIC 544-1 [05], EN 15734 (HGV) [06]/[07], EN 16185 (EMU/DMU)

[08], EN 14198 (trains hauled by locomotives) [09])

EN 14363 [10] will be used as a guideline.

2.3.8 Subtask 5.5.7 “Accreditation of simulation procedure necessary for virtual certification” (M06 – M24)

Leader:DB, J. Eisenblätter (based on budget transfer from KB)


Objective

The aim of this work package is to prepare for accreditation of simulation procedure necessary for virtual certification. At the moment no case of successful accreditation of simulation method is known. In the first step the possibility of accreditation according to EN 17020 [11] and EN 17025 [02] will be investigated.

Deliverables

Guideline for accreditation dependent on concept defined in subtask 5.5.3 “Concept” (chapter 4).

`



GA No. 777629 P26 of 194

3 Determination and Review of Status Quo (Lead: KB)

3.1 Summary This chapter represents the starting point of the concept development for virtual validation & certification. It describes the current status of validation and certification in the European railway industry with the objective to identify cost drivers providing potential to be reduced by simulation. It identifies the stakeholders within the overall context of certification, lists the relevant regulations and standards, describes the certification process and identifies cost drivers. Therefore, it provides a sound basis for an effective concept of virtual validation and certification.

Contributors


Oliver Urspruch KB Initial provision & maintenance / update of the chapter

Johannes Gräber KB Review and editorial adaptations & task 5.5 lead

Jürgen Eisenblätter DB Review

Francesco Fumarola

Denis Emorine ALSTOM Regional & Commuter Homologation Test Plan, Review

Richard Chavagnat SNCF-M HST Homologation Dynamic Tests, Review

Salvatore Perna

Matteo Frea FTI Brake System Validation Cost Break-Down, Review

3.2 Introduction to scope and objective Within the field tests during commissioning and homologation, the cost drivers are performance tests (homologation) and static tests (commissioning). Emergency brake and full-service brake tests require a major fraction of the overall homologation effort. During dynamic homologation of high-speed trains, low adhesion tests have been identified as significant cost drivers, while dry rail tests represent the main cost drivers in regional & commuter train testing.

Key performance indicators have been proposed to measure cost reduction after the implementation of virtual validation & certification. From the brake system supplier’s perspective, laboratory validation, i.e. the execution of integration, validation and component tests on test benches, has been identified as main cost driver in the development process.

When replacing vehicle certification field tests by simulation, confidence by authorization entities and legislative bodies plays an important role. The modified development process with new verification methods has to maintain the existing level of safety. The aerospace industry applies the approach of an integrated vehicle and simulator development process. This concept could be adopted. The standards EN 15595 [04]/[27] (simulators for wheel slide protection system acceptance) and EN 14363 [10] (simulation for vehicle running characteristics acceptance) could be applied as blueprints for a new standard applicable for railway vehicle certification with the focus on brake systems.

Operational scenarios have been described in terms of the overall validation & certification process. Because cost drivers have been focused, this chapter provides a sound basis for the subtask 5.5.4

`



GA No. 777629 P27 of 194

– Virtual Validation Benefits (chapter 5). Of course, it serves as basis for subtask 5.5.3 – Concept (chapter 4).

3.2.1 Project Objective The PIVOT WP5 Task 5.5 description contains the following clause, which defines the purpose of this task:

(…) In this task, and building on the cooperative efforts and achievements of Roll2Rail project, a principle/basic procedure is to be developed on how virtual methods can be used in validation and certification processes to accelerate the authorization process itself and to increase overall cost-efficiency. (…)

Summarizing the description within a single sentence, the project objective can be stated as follows:

Reduce cost and duration of the present railway vehicle validation & certification process by means of simulation focusing on brake systems.

3.2.2 Project Scope The following table contains topics, which are in the scope (left side) and out of the scope (right side) of the project:

In Scope Out of Scope

European and national regulations, TSI (ERA) & NNTR (e.g. EBA), EN

Type & series certification

Re-Certification

EMU high-speed, regional & commuter

Locomotives & passenger coaches

Vehicle development process focussing on validation & certification and brake system

GOST, AAR

UIC (in scope: UIC leaflets referenced by TSI and other referenced aspects)

Order process, infrastructure development

Quality intensification & process acceleration without relation to certification

Metro related performance standards

`



GA No. 777629 P28 of 194

3.2.3 Regulations & Standards The following table lists applicable standards and regulations relevant for the present certification process of a railway vehicle, which are also relevant for virtual validation & certification focusing on brake systems. It also provides a justification for the applicability of every standard. This table is not exhaustive. For more details, see deliverables of subtask 5.5.6 (chapter 8).

ID Name Applicability Justification

EU/1302/2014 [12] Technical Specification for Interoperability relating to the ‘rolling stock — locomotives and passenger rolling stock’ subsystem of the rail system in the European Union

aka TSI LOC&PAS

European law

EN 14198:2016 [09] Railway applications – Braking – Requirements for the brake system of trains hauled by locomotives

Referenced by EU/1302/2014

Appendix J

EN 14531-1:2015 [14] Railway applications – Methods for calculation of stopping and slowing distances and immobilization braking – Part 1: General algorithms utilizing mean value calculation for train sets or single vehicles


Appendix J

EN 14531-2:2015 [15] Railway applications – Methods for calculation of stopping and slowing distances and immobilization braking – Part 2: Step by step calculations for train sets or single vehicles


Appendix J

EN 15595:2011 [04] Railway applications – Braking – Wheel slide protection


Appendix J

EN 16185-2


Current version – but not referenced by

EU/1302/2014

`



GA No. 777629 P29 of 194


EN 15734-1:2013 [06] Railway applications – Braking systems of high-speed trains – Part 1: Requirements and definitions


Appendix J

EN 15734-2:2013 [07] Railway applications – Braking systems of high-speed trains – Part 2: Test methods


Appendix J

EN 16185-1:2014 [13] Railway applications – Braking systems of multiple unit trains – Part 1: Requirements and definitions


Appendix J

EN 16185-2:2014 [08] Railway applications – Braking systems of multiple unit trains – Part 2: Test methods


Appendix J

UIC 541-06 2nd Edition, March 2013

[18]

Brakes - Specifications for the construction of various brake parts - Magnetic brakes


Appendix J (with amendment 2019

changed to EN 16207:2014)

EN 14478:2017 [19] Railway applications – Braking - Generic vocabulary

Referenced by EN 14189, EN 15595, EN 16207, EN 15179, EN 16185, EN 15734

EN 15179:2010 [16] Railway applications – Braking – Requirements for the brake system of coaches

EN 15663:2017 [22] Railway applications – Vehicle reference masses

Referenced by EN 16185, EN 14198, EN 15595, EN 15179,

EN 15734

EN 16207:2014 [17] Railway applications – Braking – Functional and performance criteria of Magnetic Track Brake systems for use in railway rolling stock

Referenced by EN 161852

`



GA No. 777629 P30 of 194


EN 17025:2017 [02] General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories

Referenced by EN 16185-2, EN 15734-2,

EN 15595

EN 50126-1:2017 [20] Railway Applications - The Specification and Demonstration of Reliability, Availability, Maintainability and Safety (RAMS) - Part 1: Generic RAMS Process

Referenced by EN 16185-1, EN 15734-1

EN 50126-2:2017 [21] Railway Applications - The Specification and Demonstration of Reliability, Availability, Maintainability and Safety (RAMS) - Part 2: Systems Approach to Safety

Referenced by EN 16185-1, EN 50126-1

EN 50128:2012 [43] Railway applications – Communication, signalling and processing systems – Software for railway control and protection systems

Referenced by EN 15595

EN 50657:2017 [28] Railways Applications – Rolling stock applications – Software on Board Rolling Stock

Indirectly referenced by EN 15595 as an adaptation of EN

50128 for software development in rail

vehicles.

UIC 544-1 6th Edition, Oct. 2014

[05]

Brakes - Braking performance Referenced by EN 16185-1, EN 16185-2

`



GA No. 777629 P31 of 194

3.3 Process Description The process description within this chapter focuses on the project purpose of effective cost and duration reduction of the railway vehicle certification process.

3.3.1 Stakeholders & Context The diagram in Figure 1 illustrates the context of (virtual) validation and certification. It comprises an abstraction of stakeholders, which are involved in the certification process. A description of their main interest is also presented. The glossary at the beginning of this document provides some details on the definition of these stakeholders.

Figure 1 - Certification Process Context & Stakeholders

The table in Figure 2 provides some examples of organisations representing the abstract stakeholders of Figure 1. It also contains representatives, which are available within the PIVOT Task 5.5 project team.

`



GA No. 777629 P32 of 194

Abstract Stakeholder

Concrete Organisation Country PIVOT Task 5.5 Representative

Accreditation Body

Deutsche Akkredtierungsstelle DAkkS

Germany

Assessment Body

(CSM RA) DB Systemtechnik GmbH Germany Jürgen Eisenblätter

Authorization Entity

European Railway Agency (ERA) Europe

Brake System Supplier

Faiveley Transport Tours (FTT) (implemented by FT Italy - FTI)

France (Italy)

Matteo Frea Salvatore Perna Felipe Spoturno

Knorr-Bremse (KB) Germany Oliver Urspruch

Johannes GräberConsultant Virtual Vehicle Austria

Legislative Body

European Commission Europe National Legislative Body N/A

Eisenbahn-Bundesamt (EBA) Germany Urzad Transportu Kolejowego (UTK) Poland

Notified Body /

Designated Body /

Associated Partner of Notified

Body

DB Systemtechnik GmbH Germany Jürgen EisenblätterInstytutu Kolejnictwa (IK) Poland

TÜV Süd Rail GmbH Germany AEbt GmbH Germany

Siemens AG SAC Erlangen Germany Constanze Roy

Instytutu Kolejnictwa (IK) Poland

Operator/ Infrastructure

Manager

Deutsche Bahn AG (DB) Germany Jürgen EisenblätterComboios de Portugal (CP) Portugal Joaquim Guerra

Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd (NRI) United Kingdom SNCF-M France Richard Chavagnat

Trafikverket Sweden Przewozy Regionalne in

Województwo Zachodniopomorskiego

Poland

Vehicle Manufacturer

Bombardier Transportation GmbH Germany Brian Boucher

Alstom Transport SA France Denis Emorine

Francesco FumarolaSiemens AG Germany Constanze Roy

CAF Spain Talgo Spain

Stadler Switzerland

Figure 2 - Table of Stakeholders, Companies & Contact

Analysing this table, it becomes obvious, that there is a lack of contacts to the roles “Legislative Bodies” and “Authorization Entities”. During elicitation of stakeholder needs contact to these stakeholders will play an important role. Otherwise this task’s concept and the related modification of regulations may not be accepted by these groups of stakeholders, which are mainly responsible for the modifications of the regulation’s content. Consequently, strategies should be developed to obtain contacts with them.

`



GA No. 777629 P33 of 194

3.3.2 Overall Process The following figure illustrates the activities of the overall railway vehicle certification process in a top-level view. National deviations from the illustrated approach may exist. For example, in France the operator SNCF has the certificate and gives it to the NSA.

Figure 3 - Railway Vehicle Certification Process

As illustrated in Figure 3, after the operator ordered a railway vehicle, the vehicle manufacturer and the authorization entity have to agree on the applicable certification standards before the manufacturer can start to develop & validate the railway vehicle. Besides the vehicle itself, the manufacturer generates documented evidence of conformity for the Notified Body (NoBo) when certifying according to TSI and for the Designated Body (DeBo) when applying NNTR of a member state. Another work product is the safety related documented evidence of conformity for the Assessment Body (CSM RA).

Each, NoBo and DeBo, assess the documented evidence of conformity of the vehicle manufacturer and provide a certificate of conformity in case of a successful assessment. The Assessment Body (CSM RA) assesses safety relevant aspects and provides a safety assessment report.

Applying these certificates, the manufacturer declares conformity with the regulations by providing a declaration of conformity.

Based on this declaration, the Authorization Entity assesses the conformity with standards and safety requirements. In case of conformance, they issue an authorisation for placing in service (VAPIS). They also assess the valid qualification of NoBo, DeBo and Assessment Body (CSM RA) on a periodic basis.

`



GA No. 777629 P34 of 194

Figure 3 doesn’t illustrate the confirmation of an infrastructure manager that the specified vehicle is suited to operate on the designated track. Nevertheless, this activity takes place during vehicle development.

Analysing this process, it becomes obvious, that the existence of three different organizations for the purpose of certification, namely authorization entity, NoBo, DeBo and Assessment Body (CSM RA) provides high cost reduction potential. Nevertheless, simulation is not a mean to be applied in order to reduce this kind of cost. Therefore, this cost driver is out of scope of PIVOT Task 5.5.

The only activity in Figure 3 allowing for cost reduction by simulation is “develop & validate railway vehicle”. The following chapter analyses this vehicle development process based on the V model and the potential to reduce cost by simulation.

3.3.3 V Model Figure 4 illustrates in grey the development process of a complete railway vehicle until completion of 0-series. Production follows after the illustrated process. The two blue right legs of the V in the figure represent virtual implementation and integration of the railway vehicle by the means of offline simulation (no hardware- or software in-the-loop) before any “real” vehicle component has been built.

Figure 4 - Simulation Support of Specification & Design

This allows an early identification and removal of specification and architecture / design faults. Consequently, validation and verification (for a definition of both terms please refer to the Glossary) becomes cheaper than by application of the conventional development process. In conjunction with reduction of design faults comes the effect, that there’s no need to implement expensive tests rigs in order to evaluate correct functionality of the components.

`



GA No. 777629 P35 of 194

Nevertheless, a trade-off has to prove that cost reduction due to early reduction of design faults is possible. Present cost of prototypes and test rigs must be more expensive than implementing offline simulation tools. It is necessary for validation purposes of the simulation to maintain a subset of the existing prototype development and test rig verification. This challenges the success of the trade-off additionally. For a trade-off the availability of design fault cost is required.

Figure 5 illustrates the effects of simulation applied during integration and verification / validation of the railway vehicle. Again, the vehicle development process is illustrated in grey. Process areas, in which simulation is applied, are illustrated with the colour blue.

Figure 5 - Simulation Support during Integration

Regarding offline simulation, this figure presents a similar effect as explained before: applying offline simulation to components of the railway vehicle, shifts the amount of “expensive real” component testing to cheaper simulation means. Replacing “real” components by simulation provides an easier trade-off, because simulation cost can be directly compared with cost of “real” components. Nevertheless, the basis of “real” data to calibrate simulation becomes smaller. Consequently, it will not be possible to replace all verification activities by offline simulation. To reflect this fact, offline simulation doesn’t cover the whole width of the right leg of the V.

In contrast, hardware- and software-in-the-loop simulations (HiL / SiL) can be used for a much wider range of validation activities, because the system-under-test is the hardware / software in the loop itself. HiL or SiL vehicle simulations with their high degree of detailed environment simulation contribute more realistic test scenarios than conventional test benches. In terms of cost reduction, the advantage is an improvement of integration fault identification rather than design faults (they have already been found by offline simulation in earlier phases of the development process, see

`



GA No. 777629 P36 of 194

description of Figure 4). Proving cost reduction depends on the ability to obtain data of integration fault costs.

Validation on vehicle level in a HiL simulator doesn’t make sense, with exception of climatic tests. This would mean that there exists a test lab, which could carry the completed vehicle and perform any validation activity within. Maybe some aspects could be done like this. Example: automobile exhaust gas tests and some kind of brake tests are executed in a test laboratory holding the complete car. For this reason, the HiL/SiL simulation validation activities illustrated in Figure 5 don’t cover the complete width of the right leg of the V.

In contrast to Figure 5, Figure 6 focuses on certification aspects rather than integration. In this case, simulation replaces an amount of certification tests. It will not be possible to replace all certification activities, because the “real” vehicle always needs to be used as a reference.

Figure 6 – Simulation Support during Certification

This statement is true even in the case of a delta certification, where a new vehicle has been developed based on minor modifications of an existing vehicle. In this case these modifications have been rated by experts as being without or with well understood limited effects. It is a common agreement that it is valid to use the already existing vehicle as reference.

Cost reduction effects can be demonstrated by comparing cost of simulation execution per test with the cost of the execution of the “real” test. Cost for the implementation of the simulation for this purpose occur a single time for a company, while the difference of cost between “real” test and simulation execution are cost, which appear within every railway vehicle project and contribute to the success of the PIVOT WP5 Task 5.5 business case.

`



GA No. 777629 P37 of 194

Because this project’s scope focuses on certification rather than specification & design, the next chapter continues with an analysis of certification test execution. Nevertheless, there are indications, that it may be necessary to integrate the development of simulation models into the complete railway vehicle development process for two reasons:

1. Reduce the number of invalid certification tests (first time right) and therefore reduce cost

2. Achieve trust by Authorization Entities into the simulation models

3.3.4 Certification Test Execution Note: Please consider the difference between the terms ‘brake test’ and ‘brake action’, which are used within this chapter. A brake test consists of multiple brake actions (usually 3 or 4), see also the glossary for details on the definition of these terms.

According to TSI LOC&PAS [12] or standards like EN16185-2 [08] about brake system testing of multiple unit trains (MU), a railway vehicle has to pass an amount of brake tests in order to obtain the certification to be operated on dedicated tracks. Brake tests have to be executed with normal and low adhesion conditions for different braking modes, e.g. emergency brake with or without magnetic track brake, service brake, full-service brake with or without electro-dynamic brake, etc. It is also required to execute these brake tests for different initial speeds and loading conditions and degraded modes. Further tests for low adhesion conditions with the purpose to validate the WSP are defined in EN15595 [04].

As an example, according to TSI LOC&PAS [12] the required dynamic emergency brake (EB) tests for a MU railway vehicle with a maximum velocity of 200 km/h are a combination of vehicle states depending on:

Speed [km/h]: 30, 100, 120, 140, 160, 200

Load states: minimum, normal, maximum

When referring to EN 16185-2 [08], the situation is similar, but 3 more velocity values are required:

Speed [km/h]: 30, 40, 60, 80, 100, 120, 140, 160, 200

Load states: minimum, normal, maximum

Figure 7 and Figure 8 illustrate the envelope of tests required by TSI LOC&PAS [12] and EN 161852 [08] for a MU vehicle with maximum speed of 200 km/h in a coordinate system of speed and weight. According to TSI LOC&PAS a total number of 18 EB tests are necessary - or at least 12 tests, if normal and maximum load are similar. When considering EN 16185-2, the total number of required EB tests is 27.

`



GA No. 777629 P38 of 194

Figure 7 – Emergency brake tests required by TSI LOC&PAS

Figure 8 – Emergency brake tests according to EN 16185-2

`



GA No. 777629 P39 of 194

In order to achieve valid brake test results for one combination of speed, load and type of braking (e.g. EB or FSB), the execution of at least 4 brake actions is required to obtain a statistically relevant number of tests. UIC 544-1 [05] defines the process to achieve valid brake tests.

Figure 9 - Workflow of a single brake test according to UIC 544-1

Figure 9 illustrates the workflow defined in UIC 544-1: After execution of a single brake action, it has to be checked, whether 4 valid brake actions already exist. If not, another brake action has to be performed. If yes, the following criterion (K2 in the figure) has to be checked:

K2: | 𝑠 �̅� | 1,95 𝜎

with

𝜎 ∑ 𝑠 , �̅�

𝑛

𝑠 , : Corrected brake distance measured during brake action no j [m]

�̅�: Mean brake distance [m]

𝑛: Number of valid brake actions

𝜎 : Standard deviation of the test

𝑠 : Brake distance with maximum deviation from mean brake distance [m]

If this criterion is not fulfilled, another brake action has to be executed (this is a simplification, for details, see diagram in Figure 9. If the criterion K2 is fulfilled, criterion K1 has to be checked:

K1: ̅ 3.0 %

If this criterion is not fulfilled and the number of already executed brake actions is less than 10, another brake action can be executed. If both criteria are fulfilled for at least 4 brake actions before more than 9 brake actions have been performed, the test is completed successfully.

Let’s reconsider our example of the 200 km/h MU vehicle to calculate the total number of emergency brake actions necessary to achieve vehicle certification. Combining the amount of brake tests and

`



GA No. 777629 P40 of 194

the number of brake actions per tests results in a total of 72 brake actions, no matter, if EN 16185-2 or TSI LOC&PAS is applied.

EN 16185-2 requires only one single brake action for velocities below 100 km/h. This affects 4 required velocities. In contrast, TSI LOC&PAS requires 4 brake actions at 30 km/h, but for no other speed value below 100 km/h. Consequently, the number of brake actions is for both regulations always equal for MU vehicles with a maximum speed greater than 80 km/h.

According to TSI LOC&PAS all brake tests (independent on speed) inhibit the same statistical basis of four brake actions to prove that the brake distance of the vehicle is reproducible. Following EN 16185-2 this is not the case for speed values below 100 km/h, because only one single brake action is required per speed.

`



GA No. 777629 P41 of 194

3.3.5 Generic Regional & Commuter Certification Test Plans In the document PIVOT-TSK5.5-T-ALS-001-01 (BRK REGIONAL TRAIN CERTIFICATION-HOMOLOGATION PLAN) [44], a generic certification test plan representative for multiple unit regional & commuter vehicles of the European railway industry has been provided by Alstom. The test plan contains durations for every relevant test. Based on the durations, this test plan has been analysed for cost drivers during commissioning and homologation test execution.

Figure 10 illustrates the results of this evaluation for a certification session without any invalid brake actions, which can be summarized as follows:

Figure 10 - Results of Regional & Commuter Certification Test Plan Analysis

Effort for commissioning test execution and homologation test execution is nearly identical (4% difference).

Performance (39%) and static (34%) tests are the most expensive tests during the overall certification test execution.

Static tests are by far the most expensive tests during commissioning (52% of commissioning effort).

`



GA No. 777629 P42 of 194

Performance tests are by far the most expensive tests during homologation (62% of homologation effort).

The cost impact of WSP tests is quite low (10%).

Please consider that WSP tests have been excluded from performance / functional tests within this statistic in order to measure their effort separately. Instead, they constitute their own category here. Within the analysed test plan, the WSP tests are the only low adhesion tests.

It has also to be stated, that the effort planned for low adhesion tests has been calculated in the same way as it has been planned for dry rail. This doesn’t consider the additional effort required for tuning the lubricant for artificial adhesion reduction for these tests. Unfortunately, this effort is not yet known. At least you can find some indications on that in chapter 5.3.1:

… Indeed, in the 80% of effort for the dynamic tests, 50% are necessary for the WSP:

- Several WSP tests are done to find the good mixture of soap for reaching the adhesion, - The weather has a significant influence on the results, leading sometimes to revise or

repeat test shifts if the conditions aren’t fulfilled, - The risks of wheel flats at the beginning of the tuning

It can be stated, that a major cost driver during certification is the execution of performance tests, especially during the homologation phase. This means, that a significant replacement of performance tests by simulation could result in significant certification cost reduction. The same is true for static tests during commissioning.

When exclusively analysing dynamic tests during homologation (functional & performance tests in the statistics above), the following table summarizes the effort spent for EB, (F)SB and DB on dry rail and under low adhesion conditions:

In order to reduce the effort of dynamic tests during homologation effectively, dry rail tests should be reduced. Currently the most effort is spent for EB and FSB tests on dry rail.

The test plan also considers invalid brake actions during commissioning. The risk is to repeat 4 shifts each time a failure occurred, and the vehicle has to be adapted during the related commissioning tests. This is an equivalent of 4% of the overall effort. For the time being statistics about the real effort are not available in order to estimate, whether reduction of these failures results in significant cost reduction.

`



GA No. 777629 P43 of 194

The analysis of the duration of a single brake action discloses further details. A brake action during testing consists of multiple phases:

Preparation: test engineers have to prepare a brake action

Acceleration: necessary to accelerate the vehicle to the required speed for the test

Deceleration: in effect, this is the relevant part of the tests; brake distances and / or forces are measured during this phase

Cooling: let the vehicle run with a speed of 120 km/h in order to cool down the brake disks / pads (or brake blocks / wheels for block brakes) as fast as possible to the required temperature

In the case of WSP-tests under degraded adhesion conditions on an insulated test track or a test ring, the time required for regeneration by driving over the track several times shall be taken into consideration.

Figure 11 illustrates the duration of a single brake action dependent on initial speed for emergency braking (EB) and full-service braking (FSB).

Figure 11 - Single Brake Action Duration dependent on Speed

The following conclusions are obvious:

The durations of EB & FSB actions for the same initial speed are nearly identical

The duration (and therefore the cost) is dependent on initial speed

High / low initial speed cost ratio: approx. 2.5

`



GA No. 777629 P44 of 194

When analysing the duration of the phases of a single brake action (see Figure 12), the following can be stated:

By far the most effort is spent for preparation and cooling

Cooling pads / disks (or brake blocks / wheels for block brakes) depends on speed and test track geometry

Effective cost reduction: replace high-speed tests by simulation rather than low speed tests

Figure 12 - Single Brake Action Phases

`



GA No. 777629 P45 of 194

3.3.6 Generic High-speed Train Homologation Test Plan SNCF provided a generic high-speed train homologation test plan in document PIVOT-TSK5.5-T-SNF-006-01 (GENERIC TEST PLAN FOR HIGH SPEED TRAIN) [45]. The high-speed train (HST) test plan includes tests in accordance with TSI and additionally tests for the compatibility with the signalling system. Within this document only the TSI tests are analysed.

The document includes no durations for the single tests. In order to compare the HST test plan with the regional & commuter test plan of chapter 0, a function has been developed to calculate the duration of a test dependent on speed. The following figure illustrates the function and compares it to the values provided in the regional & commuter test plan.

Figure 13: duration for a single brake action

Please note, that the function has been developed based on calculation of the kinetic energy of the vehicle, which is converted into thermal energy during braking. Heat has to be dissipated by the surrounding air during cooling. The developed equation can be simplified by the polynomial given in the figure above. Please consider that the polynomial is valid only for the following input values:

Mass of a single car mcar 40.000 [kg]

Mass of a single brake (pad & disk) mbrake 80 [kg]

Number of cars ncars 5

Number of brakes per axle nbrakes/axle 3

Heat capacity of iron (brakes) ciron 500 [J/kgK]

Target temperature to cool down the brakes Tmin 60 [°C]

Environment temperature Tenv 25 [°C]

Time to cool down from 26,1°C t214K 26,1 [min]

`



GA No. 777629 P46 of 194

The time to cool down from 21,6°C has been taken from data of the regional & commuter test plan in order to determine a heat transfer rate between the brakes and the surrounding air.

Applying the given polynomial to calculate the duration for a test, the single durations could be summed and categorized as follows:

all dry raillow

adhesion

all [h] 174 73 102

EB [h] 98 46 52

(F)SB [h] 61 20 41

DB [h] 15 6 9

The following figures provide percentages of the durations:

Figure 14: HST homologation dynamic test duration comparison

In contrast to the regional & commuter test plan, low adhesion tests are executed much more intensive. For HST certification it is cost-saving to reduce the low adhesion testing effort rather than dry rail testing. Reduction of EB test effort (dry rail and low adhesion) is reasonable as well as low adhesion FSB tests. The fraction of DB tests is not as high as in regional & commuter testing.

Within this HST test plan analysis the effort for tuning the lubricant during low adhesion testing has also not been considered (see regional & commuter test plan analysis), which means, that the fraction of low adhesion tests is even higher.

3.3.7 Brake System Validation Cost Break-Down In contrast to the definition of the term ‘subsystem’ in the glossary at the beginning of this document, within this chapter this term is used for elements of the brake system.

Figure 15 illustrates the validation costs of a typical brake system, split into the subsystems and components of the brake system. Source for this information is the presentation PIVOT-TSK5.5-T-FTT-016-01 (BRAKE SYSTEM VALIDATION COSTS) [46]. Data provided in the presentation is based on the evaluation of real projects at FTT.

`



GA No. 777629 P47 of 194

Figure 15 – Brake System Validation Cost Break-Down

The investigated vehicle type is an EMU. The provided cost split percentage will emerge per project, if standard components have been used at a medium level of customization. The cost break-down is made from a brake supplier’s point of view, which implies, that homologation costs are not considered. They are spent by the vehicle manufacturer.

The brake system is composed of three subsystems, which are illustrated as green boxes. Each of the subsystems consists of two or three components (orange boxes).

The fractions of laboratory validation costs on subsystem level are as follows: 20% of the total validation costs are generated by air supply system integration and validation, while 22% are required by the brake control unit integration and validation. The bogie brake equipment is not integrated and is validated on subsystem level.

Component tests of the panel require 7% of the total validation cost, 1% is spent for BCU/WSP component tests. For cylinder and calliper tests 4% are expended. Big effort of 22% of the total validation cost is spent for testing of the magnetic track brake component. Field validation costs (commissioning) of the complete brake system comprise 13% of the total brake system validation costs expended by a brake system supplier, consequently the remaining 87% are laboratory validation cost.

As a conclusion it can be stated, that commissioning field tests and even including homologation field tests (if they had to pay for them) are not the big cost factor for a brake system supplier when validating their brake system for a project. Laboratory validation tests are the main cost driver. Consequently, the brake system supplier will put effort into the reduction of laboratory validation costs, mainly focusing on air supply integration, brake control integration and magnetic track brake component testing.

In contrast, vehicle manufacturers may focus on commissioning and homologation costs, because superficially these are the costs to be expended by them. Nevertheless, brake system suppliers are forced to pass their validation expenses to their customers. This means lower laboratory validation

`



GA No. 777629 P48 of 194

costs end in lower brake system prices. This does not change certification cost, but it reduces total life cycle cost.

Means to reduce laboratory cost by simulation are to replace a significant amount of bench tests by pure offline simulation or SiL simulation.

3.3.8 Guiding Principles for Effective Cost Reduction As a conclusion of the chapters above, the following guiding principles for effective cost reduction within the railway vehicle certification process can be stated; their order in the list represents their effectivity:

Reduce the number of

1. invalid brake actions during commissioning

2. valid required brake actions during homologation

3. performance & functional tests during homologation

4. high-speed tests rather than low speed tests

5. static tests during commissioning

6. low adhesion tests for high-speed trains

7. dry rail tests for regional & commuter trains

8. EB and FSB tests in any case

9. bench tests, if you are a brake system supplier

Detailed cost calculations are subject of the resulting document of subtask 5.5.4 – “Financial Benefits” (chapter 5).

3.3.9 Proposal for Key Performance Indicators (KPI) The previous chapters imply to use the overall duration of a railway vehicle certification test session according to the certification test plan as the basis for key performance indicators. When virtual validation & certification is applied, the duration for certification of a vehicle should be much shorter compared to the present certification process. The difference of both results in the saved time – the bigger the value, the bigger the gains. The translation to gained effort or money is easy.

Overall duration of invalid brake actions can be reduced by Vehicle Manufacturers and their suppliers without Legislative Bodies to change any regulations. Moreover, the duration may change over time when the quality of the vehicle development process increases. In contrast, the overall duration of valid brake actions required by regulations requires Legislative Bodies to allow the replacement of single tests by simulation. As soon as a reduced number of certification tests have been defined, this duration will not change significantly. Therefore, a separation of both resulting in two KPIs makes sense:

Duration Difference of Invalid Brake Actions (DDIBA)

Duration Difference of Required Valid Brake Actions (DDVBA)

`



GA No. 777629 P49 of 194

As already stated in chapter 3.3.3, an improvement of DDIBA is only possible by improving the whole development process to achieve a ‘first time right’ approach. Until now it is questionable, whether a significant improvement of DDIBA is possible, see chapter 0.

Because reduction of the number of bench tests by offline simulation may not significantly reduce the time spent for invalid brake actions during commissioning, another KPI should be introduced. This KPI should take the effort spend for laboratory validation into account and subtract the effort spent for replacing simulation.

In order to determine the overall effectiveness of virtual validation, the effort spent for the application of simulation tools has to be taken into account and subtracted from the gains in the effort for “real” certification tests. An according key performance indicator “Simulation Effort” should be developed.

Details on KPIs can be found in the resulting document of subtask 5.5.4 – “Financial Benefits” (chapter 5).

3.4 Simulation in the Railway Sector This chapter provides information about simulation application in the European railway industry without being exhaustive.

Presently there already exist many examples of vehicle simulation application in the European railway industry supporting the vehicle development process and for the purpose of certification tests replacement. Examples are as follows:

SNCF friction test bench: purpose is to homologate brake pads / blocks

VUZ Velim test rig: practical verification of technical parameters and running characteristics of railway rolling stock directly on the track

DB Systemtechnik GmbH - WSP simulation test rig: HiL-simulation (class 1, 2 and 3) for TSI-certification of WSP systems and peripheral components

TSI LOC&PAS already authorizes the possibilities of using digital simulation. The following standards specify such means for different aspects of railway vehicles in different ways:

Calculation of mechanical structure (EN 12663-1) [23]

Passive safety (EN 15227) [24]

Loading gauge (EN 15273) [25]

Bogies / Running Gear (EN 15827) [26]

Wheel slide protection test facilities (EN 15595) [04]/[27]

Vehicle dynamics (EN 14363 and TS EN 14363 [10] to verify the simulation)

The following subchapters describe more detailed information about present applications.

3.4.1 EN 15595 - Wheel Slide Protection Test Facilities EN 15595:2011 [04] defines the requirements and tests for a wheel slide protection system. According to this standard the application of simulation to demonstrate compliance of a wheel slide protection system is acceptable. Moreover, it defines requirements, tests and permissible tolerances

`



GA No. 777629 P50 of 194

of a railway vehicle simulation with HiL components of the wheel slide protection system to demonstrate compliance.

A basic requirement for WSP test facilities is that the test laboratory where the simulator is located has to be accredited in accordance with EN ISO/IEC 17025 [02] and that the simulator itself has to satisfy requirements of EN ISO/IEC 17025, too. A WSP simulator seems to be interpreted as equipment and methods of a test laboratory in the sense of EN ISO/IEC 17025 to measure WSP specific data.

EN 15595:2011 [04] annex A defines minimum requirements for a WSP simulator. A basic requirement is the employment of the ‘hardware in the loop’ principle, where the WSP is the system-under-test, more or less completely implemented as HiL; the extent of HiL is selectable but defined.

The simulation shall exhibit the elements ‘adhesion type’, ‘test and performance’, ‘vehicle dynamic behaviour’ (vehicle performance model) and vehicle functional model. For each of these model elements dedicated requirements exist.

According to the standard, this kind of simulator shall be used for initial WSP optimization prior to any track testing as well as for a replacement for and amendment of track tests. EN 15595:2011 (including the present proposal for a new version EN 15595:2018 [27]) doesn’t define simulator tests to fulfil every single requirement stated in annex A. Nevertheless, the WSP manufacturer has to demonstrate compliance with them. Chapter A.6 of the standard provides additional criteria a simulator has to fulfil in order to prove, that it reproduces reality reliably. These criteria define tolerances between simulation results and WSP brake test results for the basic characteristics of low adhesion braking:

1. Braking distance

2. Speed profile, vvehicle=f(t)

3. Amount of sliding

Amongst others there exist WSP test rigs as follows: Faiveley WSP test rig, KB WSP test rig, DB Systemtechnik GmbH test rig, WSPER test rig (DB Systemtechnik UK), EN test rig. Within Shift2Rail, the work package WP8 of the project PINTA is concerned with the issue of implementing WSP simulators complying with EN15595. See the related documents for details.

The certification of WSP systems using simulation based on EN 15595 could be applied as a pattern on how to establish a standard for virtual validation & certification on train level. Details on this approach can be found in the Virtual Validation & Certification concept document PIVOT-TSK5.5-T-KNR-023-01 (Concept) [47].

3.4.2 EN 14363 – Vehicle Dynamics Simulation & Certification The standard EN 14363:2016 [10] defines methods to evaluate the behaviour of a railway vehicle according to the following criteria:

safety against derailment on twisted track

running safety under longitudinal compressive forces in s-shaped curves

evaluation of the torsional coefficient

determination of displacement characteristics

`



GA No. 777629 P51 of 194

loading of the diverging branch of a switch

running safety in curved crossings

running safety, track loading and ride characteristics

The vehicle is assessed in two steps: in a first step, basic characteristics and behaviour at low speed is evaluated. Then the running characteristics are determined in a second step. The evaluation can be executed by physical tests, numeric simulation, calculation or comparison with a known solution.

Amongst others the standard defines the conditions to be fulfilled in order to apply simulation instead of ‘real’ driving tests on track. It is a declared goal of this standard to achieve results with the same level of confidence for simulation application as for driving tests on track. Appendix T describes a simulation method, which is suited to achieve this objective.

The appendix also defines validation conditions to be fulfilled in order to certify simulation models replacing driving tests. The application of simulation is restricted to four use cases:

1. Extension of the range of test cases, if testing is not yet completed

2. Certification of vehicles after modification

3. Certification of new vehicles by comparison with certified reference vehicle

4. Evaluation of the dynamic running characteristics in cases of failure modes

In contrast to EN 15595, this standard doesn’t require the simulation or the organisation developing the simulation to comply with EN ISO / IEC 17025. But like EN 15595 it provides requirements for the validation of the simulation within annex T. The validation requirements don’t prescribe a basic architecture of the simulation or the implementation of the HiL principle like EN 15595. Instead EN 14363 specifies a pure offline simulation and properties of the vehicle and track simulation model. The standard defines two methods for the validation process, which both rely on the same set of parameters for the model validation.

Actually, the evaluation criteria of this standard are out of scope of PIVOT Task 5.5. Nevertheless, it provides an interesting blueprint applicable to the definition of a standard for verification and validation of railway vehicles when considering brake systems, even by applying pure offline simulation. Parameters for validation have to be adapter to brake system related values.

3.4.3 Driver Training Simulators Driving simulators are provided for driver training. A number of simulators with different focus exist:

Full cab simulators provide authentic cabin and outside world conditions to the driver – he can train for example: correct acceleration, braking, braking distance; operate vigilance device in time; perception of signals and other objects and adequate reaction, driving under extreme weather conditions like fog, low adhesion, etc.

Procedure training: focus is on allowing the driver to train the procedures of vehicle and railway operation rather than to provide authentic cabin and outside world conditions.

Part task trainers allow virtual inspection of the train and corrective actions, e.g. by opening / closing cocks.

`



GA No. 777629 P52 of 194

When authentic cabin and outside world conditions are in focus, driving simulators are equipped with motion platforms and advanced visual systems to display the outside world. If procedure training is the main purpose, fixed base simulators with simple visual systems (display screens) are used due to cost reduction.

Deutsche Bahn maintains a simulator training centre in Fulda, which amongst others hosts driving simulators for high-speed trains (e.g. ICE type series 401/402), regional MU (e.g. type series 612) or locomotives (e.g. type series 112 / 143). Figure 16 illustrates this kind of training simulators. You can see the hydraulic actuators of the motion platform below the simulator cabin. You can enter the simulators via the ladders in the back, while the visual systems are mounted inside the cabin in the front.

Figure 16 - DB Driving Training Simulators

Figure 17 - Railway Operation Simulator

`



GA No. 777629 P53 of 194

The enterprise ‘Die Länderbahn’ is a railway company (operator) in the south of Germany. It also provides driving simulators. Figure 17 illustrates this kind of simulators. The focus of this simulator is on railway operation. Consequently, you can’t find a motion platform and a complex visual system.

The KB company Sydac provides many levels of simulators from full cab training simulators, compact simulators, mobile simulators, part task trainers, etc..

Regulations defining requirements for training simulators and the related development process could not be identified. It is also clear, that no relevant relation between railway vehicle training simulators and simulations for the purpose of vehicle certification exists.

3.5 Simulation in the Aerospace Industry In the aerospace industry, a certification process similar to the one of the railway industry (see Figure 3 - Railway Vehicle Certification Process) exists. Two differences shall be presented here, which are remarkable in the context of virtual validation & certification:

1. Authorization Entity, NoBo, DeBo and AsBo are joined in a single organization. For Europe this organization is called “European Aviation Safety Agency” (EASA).

2. The railway vehicle certification process step “agree on applicable certification standards”, which is to be performed by Vehicle Manufacturer and Authorization Entity at the beginning of the process after an Operator ordered vehicles, is different. In aviation it comprises negotiations about “Means of Compliance” (MoC). These means of compliance describe the methods and tools the aircraft manufacturer intends to apply in order to certify the ordered aircraft.

During the MoC negotiations, representatives of the aircraft manufacturer and EASA discuss the technical details of the proposed means of compliance. In the railway industry this is not possible during this process step, because the representatives of the Authorization Entity (e.g. ERA) are no technical experts.

There exists a common structure for the MoC as follows:

MoC 0: statement MoC 1: description MoC 2: analysis MoC 3: safety analysis MoC 4: laboratory tests MoC 5: ground tests MoC 6: flight tests MoC 7: inspection MoC 8: simulator tests MoC 9: external proof

MoC 8 addresses simulator tests, which means that in principle simulators are accepted to amend and replace even certification flight tests. Precondition is that the authorities trust the proposed simulation approach of the aircraft manufacturer. Confidence in simulation is also generated by careful selection of test cases to be executed by simulation. Nevertheless, the essential cause for confidence is the integration of simulator development into the overall aircraft development process.

At the beginning of the development process simulation models are simple and contain a small basis of already known aircraft parameters. The calculation results of these simple models are fed back into the aircraft development and verified / validated with the aircraft specification. Whenever more

`



GA No. 777629 P54 of 194

parameters of the aircraft components emerge in the course of its development process, they are added into the simulation model, which can deliver more and more exact calculation results. These results are again applied as feedback for the aircraft development and verified / validated against specifications (see also Figure 4).

For example, the simulation model may start with simple geometry data of aircraft body, wings, their ailerons, vertical tail, its rudder, horizontal stabilizer and elevators. From these data a first set of aerodynamic coefficients can be calculated, and the simulation model is able to support the aircraft development process. Later in the process, wind tunnel tests will be executed. The simulation model can integrate the wind tunnel data to obtain more exact aerodynamic coefficients. The simple aerodynamic coefficients are compared with wind tunnel data to check the validity of the early simple simulation results.

Later during the integration and V&V phase of the development process, hardware is integrated into the simulation (e.g. avionics software and hardware or iron birds – see MoC 4). Verification & validation as well as feedback to the development process remain.

The described process is made traceable for the authorities, which generates confidence that at the end of the development process mature simulation models can be applied to reduce the amount of “real” flight tests during certification.

Regulations define process elements to be contained in order to obtain the traceability of the described process. Amongst others, integrated configuration management of both, aircraft and simulators, plays an important role.

Authorities are not the only party with the need for confidence in the simulation models. Engineers of the vehicle manufacturers as well as their suppliers need confidence in their specifications and the developed systems. For this purpose, they already integrated more or less complex calculations and other analysis as well as tests, mock-ups, prototypes etc. into their development process. Simulation is simply another means to gain the required confidence, well suited to highly complex systems.

There also exists a close relation between training simulators for pilot training and the engineering simulators, which are developed during aircraft development. Due to the high amount of confidence in the engineering simulators, their aircraft models are used as a basis for the development of the training simulator for an aircraft.

In the railway industry this close relation is not required, because a simple model of the driving dynamics is sufficient for driver training in simulators.

Because confidence in the applied simulators by Authorization Entity and NoBo / DeBo / AsBo will play an important role when it comes to replacement of “real” brake system tests by simulator runs in the railway industry, the aerospace industry approach of an integrated vehicle and simulator development process could be adopted by virtual validation and certification of railway vehicles.

3.6 Conclusions

Guiding principles for effective cost reduction of the current railway vehicle certification process are (order by priority due to effectivity):

`



GA No. 777629 P55 of 194

Reducing the number of

1. invalid brake actions during commissioning

2. valid required brake actions during homologation

3. performance & functional tests during homologation

4. high-speed tests rather than low speed tests

5. static tests during commissioning

6. low adhesion tests for high-speed trains

7. dry rail tests for regional & commuter trains

8. EB and FSB tests in any case

9. bench tests, if you are a brake system supplier

Proposals for key performance indicators have been derived from the identification of cost drivers. These KPIs observe cost of laboratory validation, of reduction of invalid brake actions and required brake actions. The consideration of effort necessary for virtual validation & certification has also been discussed.

Because confidence in the applied simulators by Authorization Entity and NoBo / DeBo / AsBo will play an important role when it comes to replacement of “real” brake system tests by simulator runs, the aerospace industry approach of an integrated vehicle and simulator development process could be adopted by virtual validation and certification of railway vehicles. Application or integration of existing driving simulators into the development process is not constructive within the railway industry.

The standards EN 15595 [04]/[27] and EN 14363 (including TS EN 14363) [10] could be applied as blueprints for a new standard including specifications for simulators applicable for the certification of railway vehicles. Like these standards, the new standard should also include specifications for the validation of this kind of simulators as well as simulation model parameter to be verified against metered values of the “real” railway vehicle.

Existing engineering simulations could serve as a basis for further development also focusing the replacement of vehicle certification tests.

`



GA No. 777629 P56 of 194

4 Concept (Lead: KB)

The original objective of this chapter was:

To apply state-of-the-art methods of systems engineering, “railway vehicle validation & certification focusing on brake systems” will be considered as the system-of-interest to be improved by task 5.5. The aim of the work package “Concept” is to provide the technical concept for an improvement of the system-of-interest. Within this task viable alternatives for improvement will be provided and a decision will be made, with which alternative(s) to proceed in the next work packages.

As part of this concept, simulation and test rig architectures will be analysed for their applicability for improvement of the system-of-interest.

In contrast to the original objective, analysis of viable concept alternatives has not been recorded. Nevertheless, the presented concept fulfils the given requirements. A serious impact or disadvantage caused by this concept is not expected, because it is a very generic and high-level architecture.

Contributors


Oliver Urspruch KB Initial provision & maintenance / update of the chapter


Denis Emorine, Francesco Fumarola

ALSTOM Provision, prioritization and review of stakeholder requirements, review of concept

Brian Boucher BT Provision, prioritization and review of stakeholder requirements, review of concept

CP Provision, prioritization and review of stakeholder requirements, review of concept

Jürgen Eisenblätter DB Provision, prioritization and review of stakeholder requirements, review of concept

Oliver Urspruch, Johannes Gräber

KB Provision, prioritization and review of stakeholder requirements, review of concept

Richard Chavagnat SNCF-M Provision, prioritization and review of stakeholder requirements, review of concept

Oliver Urspruch KB Definition of concept

4.1 Stakeholder Requirements During task 5.5, stakeholders have been classified (see chapter 3.3.1) and stakeholder requirements have been defined and recorded in the CT4 document PIVOT-TSK5.5-T-KNR-061-09 (“Stakeholder Requirements”) [48]. The following table provides an overview of these requirements. Given attributes are identifier, name and text of the identified requirements (more details like justification can be found in the referenced document). Requirements, which have a red coloured ID in the table below, have been rated as rejected by at least one beneficiary. If a requirement has been rated as mandatory by the majority of the beneficiaries, the ID has been marked with a green ID. All other

`



GA No. 777629 P57 of 194

requirements have been rated as optionally by most of the beneficiaries an are labelled with a yellow ID.

ID Name Requirement Text

1 Certification Cost Reduction

Virtual Validation & Certification shall reduce the cost of the railway vehicle certification process for at least TBD%.

2 European Legislation Compliance

Virtual Validation & Certification shall comply with European legislation.

3 European Legislation Compliance

Relevant legislative bodies shall legalize Virtual Validation & Certification.

23 NoBo Acceptance

NoBos shall accept the results of Virtual Validation & Certification as evidence of standards conformance.

29 Localization DeBos shall accept the results of Virtual Validation & Certification as evidence of standards conformance.

4 Equivalent Safety Level

Virtual Validation & Certification shall at least maintain the safety level already achieved by the conventional certification process.

18 EN 50657 Tool Class T2 Style

Virtual Validation & Certification shall define safety requirements for the development and operation of Virtual Tools comparable to EN 50657, class T2 tools.

36 Safety by Parameter Comparison

Virtual Validation & Certification shall verify Virtual Tools with the corresponding Railway Vehicle by comparison of appropriate time history values of at least the parameters C-pressure (or e.g. deceleration, speed) measured while field tests with calculated values with an accuracy of TBD %.

38 Established Vehicle Configuration Homologation Test Effort Reduction

Virtual Validation & Certification shall reduce TBD% of the current homologation test effort in every future development project of an Established Vehicle Configuration by application of Virtual Tools.

5 New Vehicle Configuration Homologation Test Effort Reduction

Virtual Validation & Certification shall reduce the current homologation test effort for at least TBD% in every future railway vehicle development project of a New Vehicle Configuration by application of Virtual Tools.

41 Reliability Virtual Validation & Certification shall define criteria for the reliability of its Virtual Tools and processes and monitor their compliance.

42 Accuracy Virtual Validation & Certification shall define criteria for the accuracy of its Virtual Tools and processes and monitor their compliance.

`



GA No. 777629 P58 of 194


8 WSP Certification Test Effort Elimination

Virtual Validation & Certification shall reduce 100% of the WSP certification field test effort in every future railway vehicle development project of an Established Vehicle Configuration by application of WSP simulators compliant with EN 15595.

9 WSP Certification Test Effort Reduction

Virtual Validation & Certification shall reduce the current WSP certification test effort for at least TBD% of every future railway vehicle development project of a New Vehicle Configuration by application of WSP simulators compliant with EN 15595.

40 WSP Adhesion Estimation

Virtual Tools shall estimate the adhesion (soap concentration) of executed WSP tests.

10 New Vehicle Configuration Commissioning Effort Reduction

Virtual Validation & Certification shall reduce the commissioning effort for at least TBD% in every future railway vehicle development project of a New Vehicle Configuration by application of Virtual Tools.

39 Established Vehicle Configuration Commissioning Effort Reduction

Virtual Validation & Certification shall reduce the commissioning effort for at least TBD% in every future railway vehicle development project by application of Virtual Tools.

19 Virtual Tools Specification

Virtual Validation & Certification shall exhibit a specification for Virtual Tools.

16 PINTA D8.3 WSP Test Rigs Specification

The Virtual Tools Specification shall comprise the specification of PINTA D8.3 WSP Test Rigs.

VVC shall allow to apply PINTA D8.3 WSP Test Rigs for WSP test according to EN 15595.

25 Computation Module Replacement by SiL/HiL

Virtual Tools shall allow to replace computation modules by SiL/HiL components and vice versa.

13 Virtual Tools Accreditation Process

Virtual Validation & Certification shall exhibit a process for the accreditation of Virtual Tools.

14 Railway Vehicles Certification Process

Virtual Validation & Certification shall exhibit a process for the certification of railway vehicles using Virtual Tools.

15 Railway Vehicle Components Certification Process

Virtual Validation & Certification shall exhibit a process for the certification of railway vehicle components using Virtual Tools.

`



GA No. 777629 P59 of 194


28 Change Process Virtual Validation & Certification shall exhibit a process instructing the change from conventional validation & certification to virtual validation & certification.

32 Digital Preservation Process for Input & Result Data

Virtual Validation & Certification shall exhibit a process for digital preservation of input and result data according to the lifecycle of the related railway vehicle.

37 Digital Preservation Process for Virtual Tools

Virtual Validation & Certification shall exhibit a process for digital preservation of Virtual Tools according to the lifecycle of the related railway vehicle.

17 Complete Trainset Support

Virtual Validation & Certification shall support the validation & certification of the complete trainset of a railway vehicle.

20 Comprehensive Brake Mode Support

Virtual Validation & Certification shall support the validation & certification of the brake modes EB, FSB, SB and DB.

11 Blending Support Virtual Validation & Certification shall support the validation & certification of blending between electro-dynamic brake and pneumatic brake.

12 Dry Rail Support Virtual Validation & Certification shall support the validation & certification of railway vehicles under normal adhesion conditions (dry rail).

21 Low Adhesion Support

Virtual Validation & Certification shall support the validation & certification of railway vehicles under low adhesion conditions.

7 Reduction of Speed Cases

Virtual Validation & Certification shall reduce the current speed cases of certification test runs for TBD% in every future railway vehicle development project by application of Virtual Tools.

35 Reduction of Load Cases

Virtual Validation & Certification shall reduce the current load cases of certification test runs for TBD% in every future railway vehicle development project by application of Virtual Tools.

22 Environment Simulation

Virtual Validation & Certification shall support the evaluation of railway vehicle functionality under a wide range of environmental conditions exceeding the conditions defined in relevant standards.

27 VVC Service VVC Providers shall be able to provide Virtual Validation & Certification as a service to their customers.

24 VVC Implementation Cost

Implementation of Virtual Validation & Certification by VVC Providers shall cost less than TBD €.

`



GA No. 777629 P60 of 194


33 VVC Sustainability Cost

Sustainability of Virtual Validation & Certification by VVC Providers shall cost less than TBD € per year.

26 Intellectual Property Protection

Virtual Validation & Certification shall protect intellectual property of Virtual Tools Providers.

30 Brake System Supplier's Measurement Equipment

Virtual Validation & Certification shall guarantee the application of the Brake System Suppliers' own measurement equipment during commissioning & homologation field tests.

31 Brake System Supplier's Virtual Tool Modules

Virtual Validation & Certification shall prescribe VVC Providers the application of Virtual Tool modules approved by the supplier of the respective subsystem.

34 Operator Data Virtual Validation & Certification shall obligate the Operator to provide data as follows to the VVC Provider: vehicle requirements, intended area of use (infrastructure data, such as e.g. signal distances, route profiles can be derived from Register of Railway Infrastructure - RINF), driving profiles.

4.2 Concept Description Basis for the concept development were the requirements recorded in the Stakeholder Requirements document PIVOT-TSK5.5-T-KNR-061 [48] (see chapter 4.1). Only requirements, which have been rated at least as mandatory or optional by all beneficiaries, have been considered. Traceability between these requirements and concept elements has been documented and is provided in the following chapters.

SysML diagrams have been used to illustrate use cases, interactions with the environment (interfaces), structure, processes / workflows. Other conceptual aspects are documented in writing or other illustrations.

Note: within this chapter the term Validation comprises both, validation and verification (V&V).

4.2.1 Use Cases Figure 18 and Figure 19 illustrate the two main use cases of Virtual Validation & Certification:

Homologate Railway Vehicles (Figure 18) Commission Brake Systems (Figure 19)

The Vehicle Manufacturer is interested in the homologation of railway vehicles. For this purpose, the accreditation of a VVC Provider will be required. In order to sell their results to Vehicle Manufacturers, VVC Providers need to be able to credibly provide the results of Virtual Tools for certification purposes to NoBos / AsBos.

`



GA No. 777629 P61 of 194

Figure 18 - Use Case “homologate Railway Vehicle”

`



GA No. 777629 P62 of 194

Figure 19 - Use Case "commission Brake System"

To commission a Brake System is business of the Brake System Supplier. For internal purposes and negotiations with the Vehicle Manufacturer, they also need to be able to credibly provide results of virtual tools.

Details of the use cases described above will be provided in the subsequent chapters, especially in the illustrations of the workflows.

4.2.2 Interaction with Environment Figure 20 illustrates the interaction of actors (stakeholders and devices) with Virtual Validation & Certification. In the figure VVC it is illustrated as block VVC BS. BS is the shortcut for brake system. The block VVC BS has attached some small squares, so called ports, which represent objects passing over the system boundaries of VVC BS. Objects used in the present vehicle development, validation & certification process are coloured light blue, while new objects are illustrated as orange ports.

The roles illustrated in the diagram are described in the glossary of this document.

The Operator provides a Vehicle Specification to VVC BS as well as Infrastructure Data affecting the performance of the railway vehicle to be developed. According to requirement 34, “Operator Data”, infrastructure data shall comprise at least the following:

signal distances route profiles (e.g. slopes, curve radius) driving profiles (e.g. required max. speed per track section)

To ease the transfer of Infrastructure Data, it shall be exchangeable electronically in a standard format (to be defined). Details on the definition of Infrastructure Data may be part of PIVOT2.

`



GA No. 777629 P63 of 194

Figure 20 - Interaction with Environment

Input of the Vehicle Manufacturer are a Brake System Specification and Vehicle Configuration Data. Vehicle Configuration Data comprises data like number of bogies, wheel diameter, maximum load, empty weight, etc. Vehicle Configuration Data shall also be exchangeable in a standard format and may be defined in PIVOT2.

The Brake System Supplier usually provides Brake System Configuration Data into the vehicle development, validation & certification process. In the future process, he will additionally provide a Brake System Simulation model to allow virtual testing of the railway vehicle.

`



GA No. 777629 P64 of 194

They also provide a Brake System to the Railway Vehicle, which is then able to generate Field Test Data for VVC BS. Field test data comprises measurement data (e.g. of vehicle speed, brake cylinder pressure, disc / pad temperature, WSP control commands, brake commands, etc.) and is usually available in an electronic format.

The Virtual Tools Provider develop simulation modules, which can be integrated in the Virtual Tools of VVC BS like Vehicle Simulation, Vehicle Environment Simulation and other simulation models.

The VVC Provider applies a Simulation Infrastructure to execute VVC BS. They integrate all the Virtual Tools provided by Virtual Tools Providers (like Brake System Suppliers, Vehicle Manufacturers, Operators or others).

The Assessment Body delivers a Safety Assessment Report after they received an Evidence of Conformity document, Virtual Test Results, Virtual Tools Validation Results and an Accreditation Certificate. Although not illustrated in the figure, their assessment also bases on a vehicle specification.

The Notified Body (NoBo) receives the same documents but generates a Certificate of Conformity.

The Accreditation Body is required, because Assessment and Notified Body both need an Accreditation Certificate to gain trust in VVC and the applied Virtual Tools and processes. The Accreditation Body starts as soon as an Accreditation Application has been provided to them.

Finally, Authorization Entities deliver a Certificate as soon as a declaration of conformity has been provided.

4.2.3 Structural Overview After the context of VVC has been described in the previous chapters in terms of use cases and interaction with the environment, a first internal view into this system is provided within this chapter illustrated as structural breakdown, see Figure 21. According to this figure VVC can be divided into three parts:

Vehicle Validation Processes Virtual Tools Validation Processes Virtual Tools

The processes for railway vehicle validation and Virtual Tools validation will be described in the subsequent chapters in detail. Therefore, only the components of Virtual Tools are described in detail within this chapter.

Virtual Tools surely will comprise Test Facilities like Dynamometer Test Rigs or WSP Test Rigs. Dynamometer tests can be used to evaluate the disc / pad friction coefficient. Although it is known, that these days dynamometer tests don’t match reality sufficiently, improvements shall not be excluded in the future and this kind of test rigs may be applicable for this purpose.

`



GA No. 777629 P65 of 194

Figure 21 - Structural Overview of VVC

WSP Test Rigs are already used for WSP type tests. In the future, they shall also be used for replacement of WSP tests during railway vehicle authorisation type test. According evaluations are described in the proof of concept chapters 6 and 7 of this document.

The following Stakeholder Requirements imply the definition of the separate component Brake System Simulation:

31 – Brake System Supplier’s Virtual Tool Modules

`



GA No. 777629 P66 of 194

20 - Comprehensive Brake Mode Support 11 – Blending Support

The existence of the component Vehicle Simulation can be justified by the following requirements:

Req. 17 - Complete Trainset Support Req. 11 - Blending Support

A specific component Vehicle Environment Simulation is useful when considering the following stakeholder requirements:

Req. 22 – Wide Range of Environmental Conditions Req. 12 – Dry Rail Support Req. 21 – Low Adhesion Support

Stakeholder requirement 25 -Computation Module Replacement by SiL/HiL - implies, that these components should at least inhibit dedicated electronics modules with defined interfaces, which could be exchanged. For this purpose, dedicated mechanical modules may also be necessary. This must be defined in detail in PIVOT2.

Finally, requirement 27 – VVC Service – leads to the conclusion, that the VVC Provider applies a Simulation Infrastructure to execute VVC BS.

4.2.4 Virtual Tools Validation Processes - Workflow ‘Calibration & Validation’ Calibration and validation of virtual tools is a core activity of the VVC processes. Subsequently the other processes are described bottom-up implementing this activity. Figure 22 illustrates this workflow.

Figure 22 - Workflow 'Calibration & Validation'

`



GA No. 777629 P67 of 194

During the activity Calibration Data Selection, Field Test Data measured on the railway vehicle under test is split into Calibration Data and Validation Data. Specific vehicle tests and the results are defined for calibration, different tests remain for validation. This process is intellectual property of the VVC Provider.

Calibration Data is used to calibrate the Virtual Tools. Calibration is the application of defined Virtual Tools modifications (e.g. certain parameters within certain limits) until simulation results conform with the given Calibration Data within given tolerances. The definition of the given tolerances is intellectual property of the VVC Provider. Before calibration, Virtual Tools are called ‘invalid’. Calibration makes them ‘Calibrated Virtual Tools’.

After calibration of the Virtual Tools, they must be validated. For this purpose, the previously defined test set of Validation Data is compared with Virtual Tools results. The difference of both must stay within given tolerances (again intellectual property of the VVC provider). the During this activity, Calibrate Virtual Tools become Validated Virtual Tools.

If validation fails, Calibration Data Selection and the subsequent activities must be repeated. If validation still fails, the Virtual Tools don’t represent the vehicle providing the given Field Test Data set sufficiently. In this case the Virtual Tools must be modified generally and extensively before Calibration & Validation can be repeated.

After successful Calibration & Validation a list of defined Virtual Tools modifications allowed for Calibration must be established. This is vital for maintaining confidence in the Virtual Tools over many Commissioning & Homologation cycles (see chapter 4.2.7).

Figure 23 - Workflow 'Basic Adaptation'

`



GA No. 777629 P68 of 194

4.2.5 Virtual Tools Validation Processes - Workflow ‘Basic Adaptation’ An example for the application of Calibration & Validation is the activity ‘Basic Adaptation’ (see Figure 23). Purpose of Basic Adaptation is to initially calibrate an validate Virtual Tools to a certain set of railway vehicles.

For this purpose, historical railway vehicle homologation test data are selected. These Field Test Data must be representative for the type of vehicles to be homologated in the future and therefore to be simulated by the Virtual Tools to be calibrated and validated.

During Basic Adaptation, the simulation models of the Virtual Tools may be adapted and modified generally and extensively before this process provides Validated Virtual Tools.

4.2.6 Virtual Tools Validation Processes - Workflow ‘Accreditation’ Purpose of the Accreditation process is to gain confidence in an organization (VVC Provider) and its personnel, facilities, equipment (Virtual Tools), methods and processes (VVC), that they are able replace field tests by virtual tests (simulation results). Figure 24 illustrates the process:

Figure 24 - Workflow 'Accreditation'

During Accreditation Preparation (e.g. according to EN ISO/IEC 17025) the VVC Provider must establish presence of objectivity of the organization and confidentially for the customer, structural requirements like being a legal entity, ensure & document personnel competency (education, qualification, training, technical knowledge, skills, experience, duties, responsibilities, authorities), establish adequate facilities and environmental conditions, equipment, methods, processes, etc.

`



GA No. 777629 P69 of 194

Simultaneously Invalid Virtual Tools must be transformed into Validated Virtual Tools based on the workflow Basic Adaptation (see previous chapter).

After an Accreditation Application has been provided to the responsible Accreditation Body, according initial audits will be performed during Accreditation Execution, which of course require close cooperation with the Accreditation Body. Amongst others, the Accreditation Body must be able to understand and agree

results of Accreditation Preparation Virtual Tools Validation Results application of Virtual Tools and their validity for the purpose of VVC separation of calibration & validation data tolerances defined for calibration and validation (see workflow ‘Calibration & Validation’)

4.2.7 Vehicle Validation Processes - Workflow ‘Commissioning’ Figure 25 illustrates the railway vehicle validation process ‘Commissioning’ in a Virtual Validation & Certification context.

At first during Field Test Determination, critical test cases to be conducted by field tests during Homologation and Commissioning with the real vehicle must be identified. For this purpose, existing Validated Virtual Tools representing the real railway vehicle are applied – even if they could not yet be calibrated based on Field Test Data.

Please consider, that during Field Test Determination also defines the critical test cases to be executed during Homologation. This is possible due to the similarity of commissioning and homologation tests and allows efficient execution of Homologation.

Once, test cases for Field Tests have been defined, the Railway Vehicle can produce Field Test Data based on the Identified Field Tests for Commissioning and the Virtual Tools can be calibrated and validated.

If during Calibration & Validation Virtual Tools must be modified to an extend not defined in the list of allowed modifications (see chapter 4.2.4), also the number of Identified Field Tests must be increased to re-gain confidence in the simulation models. Consequently, Field Test Determination must be repeated. This is indicated in Figure 25 by the closed loop between Calibration & Validation and Field Test Determination by feeding back the Validated Virtual Vehicle. This feedback loop provides important means to adapt Virtual Tools in case of new vehicle configurations not yet represented by the present simulation models.

After successful Calibration & Validation, the activity Virtual Testing can be started. It comprises simulation of remaining test cases, which have not been executed by Field Tests. Nevertheless, in contrast to Homologation, during Commissioning the focus is not yet replacing Field Tests by simulation. These days focus of Commissioning is to provide a railway vehicle including a brake system, which is ready for Homologation. In the future, an additional objective of Commissioning is to maintain confidence in the Virtual Tools. This is a mandatory precondition for replacing field tests by simulation during Homologation.

`



GA No. 777629 P70 of 194

Figure 25 - Workflow 'Commissioning'

`



GA No. 777629 P71 of 194

4.2.8 Vehicle Validation Processes – Workflow ‘Homologation’ Figure 26 illustrates the Homologation workflow of Virtual Validation & Certification. During Commissioning, field tests to be executed during Homologation have been identified. These tests will be executed on the Railway Vehicle producing Field Test Data.

The subsequent Calibration & Validation activities should have only formal character to demonstrate, that the Virtual Validation & Certification process is still valid. During Homologation, Calibration should not be necessary, because the Virtual Tools have already been adapted to the Railway Vehicle under test during Commissioning. Much more important is Validation of the Virtual Tools generating official documents with Virtual Tools Validation Results for AsBo/NoBo Assessment.

Figure 26 - Workflow 'Homologation'

After Calibration & Validation, Virtual Testing can be executed. In contrast to Commissioning, the focus of Homologation is on Virtual Testing, because now the saving potential must be used to full capacity using a minimum of Field Test Data to demonstrate compliance.

`



GA No. 777629 P72 of 194

Now all relevant documents and measurement / simulation data has been generated for submission to NoBos / AsBos:

Identified Field Test Rationale Field Test Data Virtual Test Results Virtual Tools Validation Results Accreditation Certificate of VVC Provider

AsBo / NoBo Assessment takes place. During this activity the AsBo generates a Safety Assessment Report based on the provided data. The NoBo provides a Certificate of Conformity after successful assessment. NoBos may still be responsible for the execution of the test cases generating Field Test Data. This depends on the work share between NoBos and VVC Providers in the specific railway vehicle project.

Figure 27 illustrates the interaction between the main workflows Accreditation, Commissioning and Homologation. While a VVC Provider executes Accreditation only once, they repeat the sequence of Commissioning and Homologation for every railway vehicle type certification.

Figure 27 - Interaction of Main Workflows

During this repetition the adaption of Virtual Tools may infringe the list of allowed modifications while Calibration & Validation in Commissioning. The strength of this process is the fact, that during Commissioning the confidence in the Virtual Tools is re-established by increasing the number of field tests to generate a huger number of Field Test Data for Validation. This doesn’t affect the efficiency of the Homologation workflow. It is the responsibility of the VVC Provider to maintain and re-gain confidence in the Virtual Tools following this process.

Figure 28 illustrates the number of tests for validation used during accreditation compared with the number of validation tests during commissioning or homologation. This example refers to EB brake

`



GA No. 777629 P73 of 194

tests and considers static tests also (0 km/h). Please note that test cases for calibration, validation and virtual testing have been selected randomly. It is the responsibility and intellectual property of the VVC Provider to select the correct test cases for each scenario.

During accreditation, a high number of test cases is available as Field Test Data. Some of these test cases are used for calibration (green circles), while all other existing Field Test Data is used for validation (yellow circles). This generates a high amount of confidence in the test results. Replacing test cases by virtual testing is not productive for accreditation.

Figure 28 - Number of Validation Tests

In contrast, during homologation the focus is on reducing the number of Field Tests. Therefore, a high amount of test cases is not executed on the railway vehicle but done by virtual testing (red circles). Nevertheless, a certain number of field tests is still necessary for validation to gain confidence in the results of the Virtual Tools.

The number of Validation Tests during commissioning depends on the degree of innovation of the railway vehicle. In the worst case all tests cases must be executed on the vehicle. In the best case a similar number of test cases like for homologation can be replaced by virtual testing.

4.2.9 Further Conceptual Aspects This chapter provides details on conceptual aspects derived from requirements not addressed in the chapters before.

4.2.9.1 EN 50657 – Tool Class T2 Requirement 18

Virtual Validation & Certification shall define safety requirements for the development and operation of Virtual Tools comparable to EN50657 [28], class T2 tools.

`



GA No. 777629 P74 of 194

Concept

Definition of a Class T2 Tool according to EN 50657 (translated from German version): Tool, which supports test or verification of the design or the executable code; errors in the tool may lead to non-determination of errors (in the design or executable code) but cannot directly induce errors into the executable software.

This definition can be translated from the real-time software development domain of railway vehicles to the domain of railway vehicle development and VVC as follows:

Virtual Tools support test or verification of the railway vehicle design or the vehicle itself; errors in the Virtual Tools may lead to non-determination of errors in the vehicle design or the vehicle itself but cannot directly induce errors in the vehicle itself.

During accreditation, the VVC Provider shall demonstrate compliance with tool class T2 requirements of EN 50657, which also need to be translated to the domain of railway vehicle development.

Relevant chapters in EN 50657 for T2 Tools requirements: 6.7.4.1, 6.7.4.2, 6.7.4.3, 6.7.4.10, 6.7.4.11

Details need to be elaborated during PIVOT2.

4.2.9.2 Parameter Comparison Requirement 36

Virtual Validation & Certification shall verify Virtual Tools with the corresponding Railway Vehicle by comparison of appropriate time history values of at least the parameters C-pressure (or e.g. deceleration, speed) measured while field tests with calculated values with an accuracy of TBD %.

Concept

Figure 29 illustrates, that the acceptance criteria given in the WSP standards are not enough to demonstrate, that a simulation model really matches the vehicle to be modelled. Although a simulation may result in a correct braking distance and braking time, the simulation may represent a different vehicle.

To avoid this effect, intermediate results need to be validated, which represent a certain vehicle unambiguously (e.g. C-pressure and speed over time). Intermediate results shall be part of the compliance demonstration during Accreditation and AsBo / NoBo Assessment.

`



GA No. 777629 P75 of 194

Figure 29 - Time History of Intermediate Parameters

4.2.9.3 Equivalent Safety Level Requirement 4

Virtual Validation & Certification shall at least maintain the safety level already achieved by the conventional certification process.

Concept

Although this requirement has been rejected by most of the beneficiaries, we need a concept to fulfil it, because authorities will ask for consideration. The approach is to combine the already presented concepts of the following requirements to establish an equivalent safety level for VVC:

Req. 18 – EN 50657 [28] Tool Class T2 Req. 13 – Virtual Tools Accreditation Process Req. 36 – Safety by Parameter Comparison

`



GA No. 777629 P76 of 194

Nevertheless, every VVC Provider is responsible for demonstration of an equivalent safety level. Consequently, application of the principles of req. 13, 18, 36 is not mandatory for the VVC Provider, but may be recommended.

4.2.9.4 WSP Test Effort Reduction / Elimination Requirements 8/9

Elimination: Virtual Validation & Certification shall reduce 100% of the WSP certification field test effort in every future development project of an Established Vehicle Configuration by application of WSP simulators compliant with EN 15595.

Reduction: Virtual Validation & Certification shall reduce the current WSP certification test effort for at least TBD% of every future development project of a New Vehicle Configuration by application of WSP simulators compliant with EN 15595.

Concept

Elimination: Argumentation with vehicle similarity in case of Established Vehicle Configuration

Reduction: According to presented workflow / processes

4.2.9.5 Digital Preservation Requirements 32/37

Req. 32: Virtual Validation & Certification shall exhibit a process for digital preservation of input and result data according to the lifecycle of the related railway vehicle.

Req. 37: Virtual Validation & Certification shall exhibit a process for digital preservation of Virtual Tools according to the lifecycle of the related railway vehicle.

Concept

Data to be preserved:

• Infrastructure, vehicle and brake system configuration

• Field test data (for accreditation & every homologation)

• Configuration of Virtual Tools as per accreditation

• Virtual Tools Accreditation / Homologation Results

• Accreditation / homologation certificates

Define in configuration management plan of accredited VVC Provider

Time to preserve data:

• Homologation: until disposal of railway vehicle

• Accreditation: until disposal of last railway accredited with tool version

4.2.9.6 VVC Service Requirement 27

`



GA No. 777629 P77 of 194

VVC Providers shall be able to provide Virtual Validation & Certification as a service to their customers.

Concept

• VVC Provider to accredit according to concept as described above

• VVC Provider to transfer the following artefacts to the NoBo/AsBo during vehicle homologation:

• Identified Field Test Rationale

• Virtual Test Results

• Virtual Tools Validation Results

• VVC Provider Accreditation Certificate

• VVC Provider to sell these activities as a Service to the Vehicle Manufacturer

4.2.9.7 VVC Provider’s Measurement Equipment Requirement 30

Virtual Validation & Certification shall guarantee the application of the Brake System Suppliers' own measurement equipment during commissioning & homologation field tests.

Concept

According to the concept above, the VVC Provider should be accredited - according to the findings in chapter 9 based on EN ISO/IEC 17025 [02]. As such, they can measure railway vehicle Field Test Data, if the accreditation comprises these processes, methods and the required equipment. The consequence of this requirement is, that the VVC Provider must consider this during accreditation and prepare accordingly.

4.2.9.8 Operator Data Requirement 34

Virtual Validation & Certification shall obligate the Operator to provide data as follows to the VVC Provider: vehicle specification, signal distances, route profiles, driving profiles, TBD

Concept

This requirement has already been discussed in chapter 4.2.2. Details have to be defined in PIVOT2.

4.2.9.9 Intellectual Property Protection

Requirement 26

Virtual Validation & Certification shall protect intellectual property of Virtual Tools Providers.

Concept

Simulation model software shall be exchanged as encrypted black boxes, which can be integrated into complete simulation model (e.g. FMI Standard). Details are to be defined in PIVOT2.

`



GA No. 777629 P78 of 194

4.3 Complete Requirements Traceability

4.3.1 Not Considered Requirements The following requirements have not yet been considered in the concept, although they have been rated as mandatory by most of the beneficiaries:

ID Name

40 WSP Adhesion Limits

15 Railway Vehicle Components Certification Process

28 Change Process

4.3.2 Rejected Requirements The following requirements have been rejected by at least one beneficiary and are therefore not considered in the concept:

ID Name

16 PINTA D8.3 WSP Test Rigs Specification

7 Reduction of Speed Cases

35 Reduction of Load Cases

33 VVC Sustainability Cost

4.3.3 Cost / Effort Reduction The use cases and workflows as illustrated in the previous slides of this presentation reduce the effort for commissioning & homologation. More concrete results can be found in chapter 5, subtask 5.5.4 – Virtual Validation Benefits.

Fulfilled requirements:

1 – Certification Cost 5- New Vehicle Configuration Homologation Test Effort Reduction 10 - New Vehicle Configuration Commissioning Effort Reduction 38 - Established Vehicle Configuration Homologation Test Effort Reduction 39 - Established Vehicle Configuration Commissioning Effort Reduction

`



GA No. 777629 P79 of 194

4.3.4 Requirements 2/3 – European Legislation Compliance Requirements text

Req. 2: Virtual Validation & Certification shall comply with European legislation.

Req. 3: Relevant legislative bodies shall legalize Virtual Validation & Certification.

Compliance

According to article 10 of the TSI LOC&PAS (how to change the TSI), a reference project shall be started applying VVC.

Purpose of subtask 5.5.6 “Adaption of Functional Standards” (chapter 8) is to propose modification of existing regulations & standards to establish compliance with European legislation

CEN/TC 256/SG “Simulation” prepares a guideline to adapt standards for simulation purpose

4.3.5 Requirements 23/29 - NoBo Acceptance & Localization Requirements text

Req. 23: NoBos shall accept the results of Virtual Validation & Certification as evidence of standards conformance.

Req. 29: DeBos shall accept the results of Virtual Validation & Certification as evidence of standards conformance.

Compliance

Fulfilment of the safety requirements 18 (Tool Class T2) and 36 (Safety by Parameter)

Accreditation according to EN ISO/IEC 17025

Adaption of TSI LOC&PAS and relevant CEN Standards

4.3.6 Requirements 41/42 - Reliability & Accuracy Requirements text

Req. 41: Virtual Validation & Certification shall define criteria for the reliability of its Virtual Tools and processes and monitor their compliance.

Req. 42: Virtual Validation & Certification shall define criteria for the accuracy of its Virtual Tools and processes and monitor their compliance.

Compliance

Compliance with safety requirements (requirements 4, 18, 36) will lead to compliance with reliability & accuracy requirements

`



GA No. 777629 P80 of 194

4.3.7 Requirement 13 - Virtual Tools Accreditation Process Requirements text

Virtual Validation & Certification shall exhibit a process for the accreditation of Virtual Tools.

Compliance

Accreditation process is vital element of the presented concept

4.3.8 Requirement 14 - Railway Vehicles Certification Process Requirements text

Virtual Validation & Certification shall exhibit a process for the certification of railway vehicles using Virtual Tools.

Compliance

Certification process is vital element of the presented concept

4.4 Conclusions A process framework describing workflows for Accreditation, Commissioning and Homologation has been presented, which enables organizations to apply and provide Virtual Validation & Certification with a high degree of credibility maintaining an equivalent level of safety in railway vehicle development. The given workflows are well integrated into the present railway vehicle commissioning and homologation process.

The requirements defined by the beneficiaries have been considered and the traceability between the elements of VVC and these requirements has been documented. Guiding principles for effective cost reduction defined in chapter 3.3.8. are applicable.

The VVC context has been described in terms of use cases and interactions of stakeholders with VVC. A structure of VVC has been defined as well as workflows for the following Virtual Tools Validation Processes:

Calibration & Validation Basic Adaptation Accreditation

Workflows for the Vehicle Validation Processes Commissioning and Homologation have also been presented and the relation between Accreditation, Commissioning and Homologation has been illustrated.

`



GA No. 777629 P81 of 194

5 Virtual validation benefits (Lead: ALSTOM)

Originally, the objective of this subtask was as follows (see chapter 2.3.4):

ObjectiveThe aim of this subtask is to generate a qualitative business case model, which could show benefits/costs/risks of the use of virtual validations. The output will be a preliminary assessment report, combined with qualitative business case results.

Due to a lack of human resources, reduced number of contributors and anti-trust concerns it was agreed to adapt to a new focus for this sub chapter.

The adapted focus is to show the benefits of doing the simulation compared to field / on vehicle test. One target is to characterize the benefits through indicators (percentage and/or time saving…). Another target is also to identify where the standard shall be requested to evolve in order to be able to take advantage of the benefits. This makes in fact a link to chapter 8.

Contributors


Denis Emorine ALSTOM Creation of the chapter 5 of this document + contribution in the test plan

Johannes Thomas ALSTOM Creation of the test plan (appendix)


5.1 Global validation/Certification/homologation plan necessary for commuter / regional train

This plan is based on the required tests from the standard EN16185-2 [2015]. This plan is visible in the attachment “2019-07-19_BRK Train Certification-Homologation plan_PIVOT_V03_ALSTOM” [Annex A], particularly in the sheet “Test Plan”, from column “A” until “Q”. This represent the test plan necessary to get a train to be homologated. In the following sub chapters, it will be presented the content of this test plan, in order to expose the benefits as a second step (chapter 5.2)

5.1.1 Crosscheck to standards In order to have an overview of each test requirements, a link to the following standards have been made: - EN 16185-2: 2015 [08], - TSI LOC&PAS:2014 [12] - EN 15 595: 2018 [27] - UIC 544-1 (ed.6) [06] that will be replaced soon by the EN 16834 [29] at the time we are writing.

`



GA No. 777629 P82 of 194

For each of these requirements and standard, a category has been created: - “T”: A “shall” is mentioned at the requirement (in the standard) or to validate is only possible by

track test, - “T/S”: A “shall” is mentioned at the requirement. - “S”: Simulation of the requirement could be done - “C”: Calculation is required - “O”: No definition how to validate the requirement

This categorization from the standards are visible in the sheet “Test Plan” between the column “AC” and “AI”. The aim is to get an overview of what is requested from the relevant standards and law.

5.1.2 Technical evaluation from expert: In the sheet “Test Plan”, in the column “AJ”, it has been evaluated technically from experience and expertise, what is realistic to be done, with the same categorization than in the previous chapter (“T” ; “T/S” ; “S” ; “C” ; “O”). For this assessment, there are only “T” and “S”.

5.2 Benefits that could bring virtual validation: In this chapter, we will show more an analysis of the content of the plan in attachment: “2019-07-19_BRK Train Certification-Homologation plan_PIVOT_V03_ALSTOM” [Annex A].

5.2.1 What does the standards require? 5.2.1.1 EN16185-2:2015 [08] Following distribution is in: “T” 129 / 161 requirements (~80%). Concern static and dynamic tests. “T/S” 13 / 161 requirements (~8%). Concern static and dynamic tests. In this case, the test is required, but an input shall be simulated. “S” 9 / 161 requirements (~5,6%). “C” 0 / 161 requirements (~0%). “O” 10 / 161 requirements (~6,2%). Concern dynamic tests.

We can then see that the standard EN 16185-2 does let the possibility to make simulation. Nothing surprising, since this standard has been done to generate a test plan for a train.

5.2.1.2 TSI LOC&PAS:2014 [12] 18 requirements from the EN 16185-2 [08] couldn’t be linked to a requirement in the TSI LOC&PAS [12]. Following distribution is in: “T” 48 / 137 requirements (~35%). Concern static and dynamic tests. “T/S” 4 / 137 requirements (~3%). Concern static and dynamic tests. In this case, the test is required, but an input shall be simulated. “S” 9 / 137 requirements (~6,6%). “C” 2 / 137 requirements (~1,4%). Concern dynamic tests. “O” 74 / 137 requirements (~54%). Concern static and dynamic tests.

We can then see that the law (TSI LOC&PAS) let more doors open for simulation. There is a significant proportion of “O”.

`



GA No. 777629 P83 of 194

5.2.1.3 UIC 544-1 [ed.6] [05] 116 requirements from the EN 16185-2 couldn’t be linked to a requirement in the UIC544-1. Following distribution is in: “T” 21 / 21 requirements (~100%). Concern only dynamic tests. “T/S” 0 / 21 requirements (~0%). In this case, the test is required, but an input shall be simulated. “S” 0 / 21 requirements (~0%). “C” 0 / 21 requirements (~0%). “O” 0 / 21 requirements (~0%).

We can then see that only dynamic tests are required in this standard. Not surprising (also) since the aim of this standard is how to measure and evaluate the tests done on train.

5.2.1.4 Technical evaluation from experience and expertise 18 requirements from the EN 16185-2 couldn’t be linked to a requirement in the TSI LOC&PAS. Following distribution is in: “T” 103 / 171 requirements (~60%). Concern only static tests. “T/S” 0 / 171 requirements (~0%). “S” 68 / 171 requirements (~40%). Concern only dynamic tests. “C” 0 / 171 requirements (~0%). “O” 0 / 171 requirements (~0%).

We can see clearly that the technical and expert assessment shows that the static part should be tested on train and the dynamic part simulated.

5.3 Overview and conclusion According to the previous chapters, the following sum up table can be done:

Designation “T” “T/S” “S” “C” “O”

Chapter 5.2.1.1 EN 16185-2:2015 [08],

80 % 8 % 5,6 % 0 % 6,2 %

Chapter 5.2.1.2 TSI LOC&PAS:2014 [12]

35 % 3 % 6,6 % 1,4 % 54 %

Chapter 5.2.1.3 UIC 544-1 (ed.6) [05]

100 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %

Chapter 5.2.1.4 Technical Assessment reg. Virtual validation

60 % 0 % 40 % 0 % 0 %

`



GA No. 777629 P84 of 194

5.3.1 Conclusion As shown above, the standards are “test on train oriented”, mainly because their genesis focus wasn’t the virtual validation:

- EN16185-2 shows 88% (80%+8%) of the requirements that “shall” be tested on train. - The UIC 544-1 shows 100% of the requirements that “shall” be tested on train. - The TSI LOC&PAS is more “flexible”: 55,4% (54%+1,4%) of the requirements are let open

for simulation or test on train.

The technical assessment shows a clear sharing 60% of requirements to be tested on train and 40% of requirements for simulation (virtual):

- all static requirement tested on train, - all dynamic simulated.

According to chapters 3.3.5 and 3.3.6 (Figure 11, Figure 12, Figure 13) and the experience, we could estimate the sharing of the effort as bellow:

- 20 % for static tests time (for 60% of requirements), - 80 % for dynamic tests time (for 40% of requirements).

In this ideal technical assessment case, all the models can be calibrated and validated with the 60% of the static requirements, allowing to perform all the 40% of dynamic requirements to be simulated. This would result of 80% of the test as time/cost benefits.

As soon as some models [listed in the attachment 2019-07-19_BRK Train Certification-Homologation plan_PIVOT_V03_ALSTOM” [Annex A] in the sheet “Explanation”] can’t be calibrated and/or validated, it has to be identified which dynamic requirements shall be tested instead of simulated.

For instance, by experience, the current means of today aren’t able to provide a reliable model for the friction between pads and disc. This doesn’t allow to calibrate and even validate the model.

The same applies also for instance to the WSP tests, if the adhesion model isn’t validated (PINTA). A clear significant gain is identified by improving the adhesion model for reducing the WSP test on train. Indeed, in the 80% of effort for the dynamic tests, 50% are necessary for the WSP:

- Several WSP tests are done to find the good mixture of soap for reaching the adhesion, - The weather has a significant influence on the results, leading sometimes to revise or

repeat test shifts if the conditions aren’t fulfilled, - The risks of wheel flats at the beginning of the tuning

As a first step, a focus on the WSP simulations and models makes completely sense. That’s indeed why the focus of this document is more on the WSP system.

Finally, the alignment of the key standards is necessary to make allowable the simulation toward train validation, certification and homologation.

Please refer to the chapter 8, where a specific text proposal for upgrade is presented for the concerned standards and law.

`



GA No. 777629 P85 of 194

6 Proof of Concept FTI WSP (Lead: FTI)

Contributors


Matteo Frea FTI Initial provision & maintenance / update of the chapter

Salvatore Perna FTI Virtual tool configuration

Felipe Spoturno FTI Virtual tool configuration

BT Provider of technical data related to the vehicle M7


6.1 Introduction The leader of this subtask is Faiveley Transport Italy (FTI), with the contribution of Bombardier Transportation (BT) in providing the required technical data of the vehicle in object.

The “proof of concept” is related to the virtual validation concept in order to indicate a reasonable work flow (concept) enabling the application of the virtual validation procedure for the validation of a braking system or a braking sub-system.

The braking sub-system considered for this proof of concept is the wheel slide protection (WSP). In a general wording related to the virtual validation, the WSP represent the unit under test (UUT).

The virtual environment, where the WSP will be integrated and validated, is the WSP test bench.

6.2 Scope The scope of this task is to propose a procedure aiming to validate the virtual environment (virtual tool) against the reality, that means to validate the WSP test bench against train test data coming from field.

Once the virtual tool (i.e. the WSP test bench) is validated, any unit under test (i.e. any WSP system that maintains the same interfaces) can be virtually tested in according with an arbitrary test sequence, for example the one proposed by the European norm EN 15595 or any other test sequences/norms required by the project, the country or the operator related to the specific project.

6.3 Background Among the braking system’s dynamic validation tests, a particular focus is dedicated to the WSP sub-system because of the complexity and the work load associated with this test, if the test campaign is led on field. To achieve the low adhesion condition, necessary to stimulate the WSP intervention, the rail must be artificially contaminated using specific devices such as spraying system injecting mixture of water and soap or manually contaminated by applying a layer of oil/grease on the track. Usually, to achieve the desired adhesion level (indicated by the applicable norms) multiple iterations of the rail contamination phase must be repeated. Once obtained the desired adhesion,

`



GA No. 777629 P86 of 194

the brake’s performances must be monitored using calibrated instruments (e.g. GPS) to measure the train deceleration and the associated stopping distances. The EN 15595 regulation provides all the details related to the test procedure giving an idea about the complexity of such test campaign.

For the reasons briefly described, the virtual validation applied on WSP testing has a considerable potential time/cost saving.

6.4 Validation criteria The aim of the chapter is to define the validation criteria to be used for the validation of the virtual tool (i.e. the WSP test bench). This means to define the “rules” for the comparison of the virtual test bench (i.e. train simulator) and the reality. A useful reference and starting point are provided by the norm EN 15595:2018 [27], in particular by the appendix B.6.2, that suggest a comparison based on two different aspects: accuracy and repeatability.

In according with EN 15595:2018, the physical quantities to be compared are the following:

‐ Braking distance ‐ Braking time ‐ Initial adhesion ‐ Mean value of the minimum slide of all axles

In addition to the parameters proposed by the EN 15595:2018, the following other quantities are considered important to be object of comparison between simulation and reality:

‐ Cylinder pressure’s time-profile ‐ Relative air consumption ‐ Train deceleration time-profile

The above listed physical quantities are measured on both train-test and simulation-test (i.e. WSP test bench). Their comparison is evaluated in terms of accuracy and repeatability in according with EN 15595:2018, appendix B.6.2.2 and B.6.2.3. Accuracy and repeatability are defined as follow:

𝐴𝑐𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑦 𝑠𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒

𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒∗ 100 100

𝑅𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑟𝑑 𝑑𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛

𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛∗ 100 100

`



GA No. 777629 P87 of 194

Figure 30 – repeatability and accuracy

6.5 Vehicle identification The aim of this section is the identification of the vehicle to be used as reference for the comparison. The vehicle identification is based on both technical and logistic reasons (availability of train field test data with a good level of quality/completeness).

The identified vehicle is M7-DD trailer coach, designed by Bombardier and equipped with FT braking system.

Being this vehicle a single coach with 4 trailer axles, the braking performances (train deceleration and stopping distance) are fully attributable to the pneumatic brake friction effort applied by the local 4 axles without any interaction (push/pull effort) coming from the other cars. This scenario simplifies the process of comparison with the simulator being the simulator (i.e. WSP test bench) capable to simulate a single car with 4 axles.

Bombardier (BT) agrees to use this vehicle for the proof of concept, but the technical details (e.g. train parameters, test results, etc.…) will not be disclosed within the PIVOT group and will remain proprietary between BT and FTI.

6.6 Collection of field data The aim of this section is to describe the procedure used on train to collect the measurements required to evaluate the braking performances. The acquisition setup installed for the train dynamic commissioning is the following:

4 Speed Sensors Angular Axles Velocity (v1, v2, v3, v4)

4 Brake Cylinder Pressure Transducer Axles cylinders pressure (BCP1, BCP2, BCP3, BCP4)

GPS Real Train Velocity (vT), Instantaneous Train Acceleration (aT)

Spraying system injector of water and soap in front of the first axle to contaminate the rail and lower the available adhesion

Pressure switch on the brake pipe, giving an electrical signal (brake trigger) when the brake pipe pressure drops form 5 bar

`



GA No. 777629 P88 of 194

Being the vehicle a trailer coach, the dynamic tests are performed by towing the coach at the desired speed using an auxiliary locomotive. When the desired test speed is reached (typically 120 kph and 160 kph are the classic UIC initial speeds), the locomotive is disconnected, the brake pipe starts to discharge, and the brake is automatically applied by the UIC distributor trough the brake cylinders. When the brake pipe pressure drops below 4.8 bar the brake trigger (i.e. the pressure switch) is excited and the GPS starts to calculate the braking distance based on the absolute train velocity.

In case of low adhesion test, the spraying system is activated before to disconnect the coach from the locomotive.

This is the structure of the data record from train.

Figure 31 – Structure of data record from train

6.7 Analysis of the field data The aim of this section is to define the procedure to analyse the field data in order to obtain the quantities defined as validation criteria in the previous chapter.

Braking distance [m]: it is calculated automatically by the GPS and it is the space covered by the train from the brake trigger till the standstill condition. If the brake trigger is activated at a speed slightly different form the nominal braking speed (e.g. 121 kph instead of nominal 120 kph), the braking distance is mathematically corrected to represent the braking distance corresponding to the nominal braking speed (e.g. 120 kph).

Braking time [s]: it is the time elapsed from the brake trigger till the standstill condition

Initial adhesion: it is the available rail adhesion at the instant of the brake application. It is calculated in according with EN 15595:2018 (§ 8.3.3.2.1).

Mean value of the minimum slide of all axles [%]: it is the percentage of sliding time. It is calculated in according with EN 15595:2018 (§ 8.3.3.3.1).

Cylinders pressure time-profile [bar]: it is the cylinders pressure evolution from the brake trigger to the standstill condition.

Relative air consumption: it is the ratio between the air consumed during a braking with and without WSP activity. It is calculated in according with EN 15595:2018 (§ 8.3.4).

Train deceleration time-profile [m/s2]: it is the train deceleration evolution from the brake trigger to the standstill condition.

`



GA No. 777629 P89 of 194

Figure 32 – cylinder pressure and train acceleration time profile (example)

This is the table of results, the first for dry tests and the second for wet test, output of the above described analysis. In according with the agreement found with BT in terms of data treatment, the numerical results are hidden.

Figure 33 – Dry test on train, summary results table

Figure 34 – Wet test on train, summary results table

In according with the virtual validation concept proposed in the previous chapter, the field data are divided in two subsets: a subset shall be dedicated to the calibration of the virtual tool, the other subset shall instead be used for the validation of the virtual tool.

`



GA No. 777629 P90 of 194

6.8 WSP test bench description The aim of this section is to describe briefly the WSP test bench (i.e. the virtual tool) used for the virtual validation of the WSP.

The architecture of the WSP test bench is represented in the following figures.

Figure 35 – WSP test bench overview

The vehicle considered during the test is accurately described by a set of train’s parameters. They define the static features of the vehicle simulator (e.g. car-body mass, bogie geometry, axle inertia, wheel diameter) which do not change during the duration of the test. Instead, the test conditions define the characteristics of the test (e.g. vehicle speed, adhesion level, braking regime).

The split between HW and SW used for this activity on WSP test bench is defined in Figure 36. According to the standard UIC 541-05:2016 [03] it is a class 2A test bench where the WSP control unit and the pneumatic components are made out of hardware.

Figure 36 – WSP test bench interfaces

`



GA No. 777629 P91 of 194

In Figure 37, the general architecture of the WSP test bench with a zoom on the train simulator portion. Each model of the PC/Simulator block contains a set of parameters which allows to define a specific test and vehicle configuration.

Figure 37 – WSP test bench architecture

6.9 WSP test bench configuration The content of this section is the next step required for the validation of the virtual tool (i.e. the WSP test bench). In order to verify if the virtual tool is compliant with the real train’s behaviour, the same field’s conditions have to be re-created on WSP test bench.

Vehicle configuration: configure the train’s simulator to the characteristics of the selected vehicle (M7 trailer coach).

Test condition: configure the WSP test bench test conditions equal to the ones used on field for the correspondent test case.

UUT integration: integrate on the WSP test bench the same WSP system (electronic control unit + SW + dump valves) used on field test.

Figure 38 – WSP test bench configuration

`



GA No. 777629 P92 of 194

6.10 Calibration of the virtual tool As described in chapter 6.7, a subset of the field tests is kept for the calibration (i.e. the tuning) of the virtual tool. This subset of field tests must not be used anymore for the virtual tool validation. The selection of the field tests to be used for the calibration of the virtual tool is part of the know how of the virtual tool provider

In this phase, the virtual tool is calibrated in according to selected subset of tests. Once the calibration is achieved, the virtual tool shall be frozen and ready for the validation phase.

6.11 Validation of the virtual tool Once calibrated, the virtual tool could be tested/validated in according with the subset of field test dedicated to the virtual tool validation (this subset shall be different form the one used for the calibration). The test analysis is done automatically by the simulation’s software and generates a report containing the validation criteria previously defined. The summary results table has the same structure as the one generated from field tests.

Figure 39 – Dry test on WSP test bench, summary results table

Figure 40 – Wet test on WSP test bench, summary results table

Once obtained the results of the simulation, the comparison with the field’s results can be applied. As defined in the previous sections, the objects of the comparison are the validation criteria.

`



GA No. 777629 P93 of 194

Figure 41 – comparison between virtual test and field test

The acceptance criteria for accuracy and repeatability can be applied as described in the previous section. If they are respected, the virtual environment (i.e. WSP test bench) is considered validated.

6.12 Conclusion for FTI proof of concept The FTI proof of concept demonstrates the applicability of the virtual validation concept in the process of validation of the wheel slide protection test bench. Once identified the vehicle to be used as pilot application, the field tests data are collected and elaborated in according with the defined validation criteria. The virtual tool is then configured in according with the identified vehicle and then calibrated in according with a selected subset of field tests. The virtual tool is then ready for the validation phase that will be based on a different subset of field tests.

`



GA No. 777629 P94 of 194

7 Proof of Concept KB WSP (Lead: KB)

The activity is composed of two distinct phases, the first one consists in validating the simulator/test bench using selected field test data. The second one consists in executing the set of tests specified in the regulations to validate the WSP system of the entire vehicle.

Identify the vehicle to be used Ensure field tests are available Adapt the simulator according to the concept using the model in a reduced scope, dedicated

to WSP tests Use the simulator validation criteria and apply the process linked to the WSP, refine the

criteria and process if needed Validate the simulator Define/recover the list of vehicle tests Execute the list of vehicle tests required by the regulations for WSP

A common report template will be used and shall include a description of the work done. The results are kept by the companies.

Contributors


Oliver Urspruch KB Test Specification

Stefan Schneider KB Subtask Leader, Test Conduction KB MUC Simulation

Gabor Horvath KB Test Conduction KB WSP Test Bench

Martin Heller KB Test Conduction ATLAS


7.1 KB Objective Objective is to assess and compare railway vehicle simulator configurations for their prediction capability of a railway vehicle’s braking performance (e.g. braking distance). The results of all simulator configurations are compared with results of field tests of a “reference vehicle”. The following KB test environments shall be examined1:

1. KB MUC Simulator 2. (ATLAS)

ATLAS (Advanced Test Laboratory for Adhesion based Systems) is a roller rig of KB, which hosts original brake equipment including a ‘real’ single axle rolling on two big wheels simulating the track on a scale of 1:1. Unfortunately the ATLAS could not be integrated into the comparison so far due to shortage of resources.

1 Originally, it was planned to also include KB BUD Test bench into this examination. Since this comparison would not lead to an added value to the report compared to chapter 6 (Proof of Concept FTI WSP (Lead: FTI)) it was decided not to take this activity into account for this report.

`



GA No. 777629 P95 of 194

Application of ATLAS for prediction of railway vehicle performance may still be interesting, because only a 1:1 scale roller rig or the ‘real’ railway vehicle can demonstrate, whether practical effects (e.g. initial adhesion or self-improvement, wheel/track and even disk/pad friction coefficients) are understood and simulated correctly. Therefore, it is intended to integrate this activity into PIVOT 2.

7.2 Vehicle Configuration

Figure 42 – Scheme of the passenger car used for investigation

A standard passenger car Bpmz has been chosen for the studies presented here. The car consists of 2 bogies and 2 axles per bogie, see Figure 42. The car is equipped with standard pneumatic components as main reservoir (150 litres), a control valve (KE) and a wheel-slide-protection system (WSP) for each axle.

7.3 Evaluation Workflow The workflow to evaluate the simulator configurations is as follows:

1. Identify field test data and test cases. Calculate average and variance of average and measured values, consider t-distribution, if necessary.

2. For all simulator configurations the following steps must be conducted in the given order:

a. Calibration: Use a subset of the WSP field test results as defined in chapter 7.5 to adapt the free parameters of the simulator configurations until the simulation results stay within defined calibration tolerances.

b. Validation: Use another subset of WSP field test results, different from the tests for calibration, to demonstrate, that the simulator configuration stays within defined validation tolerances without tuning of parameters. Validation tolerances are different from calibration tolerances, usually wider than calibration tolerances.

c. Proof of Match: Execute all other test cases without adaption of the parameters, like for validation. Compare field tests with test rig simulation data to demonstrate, that simulation stays within the given tolerances for all test cases. Analyse the compared data to make a statement about the capability of the simulator configuration to predict railway vehicle braking performance.

`



GA No. 777629 P96 of 194

Please note the difference between ‘Validation’ and ‘Proof of Match’: ‘Validation’ will be a necessary activity for certification of simulators in the future. In contrast, ‘Proof of Match’ helps to create confidence in virtual validation & certification today. The related field tests shall be omitted in the future validation & certification process.

7.4 Field Test Data and Test Cases Basis for comparison shall be the test cases as executed during Knorr-Bremse MGS3 UIC certification tests. The table below lists the tests according to UIC-541-05 [03], which have been conducted. These tests shall be also executed by the simulator configurations to be compared. It also shows some of the results, namely number of conducted brake actions per test and distance with tolerances.

UIC Test ID

Mode Type SpeedMode

ID Adhesion

Req. Brake

Actions

T01 EB R 120 1 Normal 4

T02 EB R 160 1 Normal 4

T03 EB RR 160 3 Normal 4

T05 EB P 120 2 Normal 4

T06 EB R 120 1 Low 4

T07 EB R 160 1 Low 4

T08 EB RR 160 3 Low 4

T10 EB P 120 2 Low 4

T12 Dragtest R 100 4 Low 2

T13 EB R 40 1 xLow 1

T14 EB R 100 1 xLow 1

T20 EB R+Mg 160 5 Normal 4

T21 EB R+Mg 160 5 Low 4

The column ‘Mode ID’ of the table combines brake mode (column ‘Mode’) and type (column ‘Type’) to single modes, see next table:

Mode ID

Brake Mode

Brake Type

1 EB R

2 EB P

3 EB RR

4 Towing R

5 EB R+MG

`



GA No. 777629 P97 of 194

A drawback of the selected field test set is, that the intention of the underlying standard UIC 541-05 is to execute WSP type tests and no WSP integration tests or even passenger coach certification tests, which would reflect the approach of VVC to omit vehicle validation / certification tests much better. Nevertheless, this evaluation still demonstrates the capability of simulators to predict a railway vehicle’s braking performance. Moreover, it illustrates the approach to reduce the number of field tests in general, dependent on the selected tests for calibration and validation, which could be defined by future standards.

During the field tests performed at Knorr-Bremse a huge amount of data has been recorded. Out of the recorded data the following quantities have been selected:

Vehicle speed and speed of each axle; channel named “V_veh” Speed of each axle i; channels named “V_i” Vehicle position; channel named “pos” C-pressure at each axle i; channels named “p_Ci”

and were used in the following.

Out of the field test data the test under dry conditions T01 and T02 as well as the tests under low adhesion condition T06 and T07 have been selected for the investigations performed here.

The data recorded for test cases T01 and T02 will be used for the calibration of the model. Test cases T06 and T07 will be used for the validation of the model.

For each of the tests four measurements have been performed. The following figures show the recorded speed of the vehicle, curve named “T0X_Y_V_veh”, and the position, named “T0X_Y_pos_veh”. Therein “X” refers to the test case number and “Y” to the measurement data identifier.

As expected the measurements show a good reproducibility. The tolerance of the braking distance is below +-2%.

Figure 43 – Data field test T01, speed (top) position (bottom) of the car over time

`



GA No. 777629 P98 of 194


The conditions for test cases T06 and T07 are similar to the cases T01 and T02, respectively, the only difference is that they were performed under low adhesion conditions. A summary of the measured data is given below.

The data measured under low adhesion condition show much higher variation than measurements under dry conditions. This is commonly known. The variation of the stopping distance under low adhesion condition is below +-13%.

`



GA No. 777629 P99 of 194



7.5 Data for Comparison To compare field tests with simulation results during ‘Calibration’, ‘Validation’ and ‘Proof of Match’, data to be compared must be defined. Because comparison relies on recorded field test data, a subset of them will be defined in the following subchapters, which is most suitable for common application. The main requirement to the defined data is, that the selected quantities significantly

`



GA No. 777629 P100 of 194

represent the behaviour of the railway vehicle. For this reason, evaluation exceeds the certification criteria in terms of measured and compared quantities defined in UIC 541-05 [03] and EN 15595 [04]/[27].

Any data related to KB intellectual property, e.g. comparison data and their results as well as recorded field test data, will be kept KB internal, no communication to the S2R PIVOT beneficiaries.

7.5.1 Standards & Regulations The following table lists quantities to be measured and compared according to the standards UIC 541-05 [03] and EN 15595 [04]/[27]. The quantities required by these standards can be calculated based on the measured field test data or are a subset of them.

Name

Sym

bo

l

Un

it

UIC

-541

-05

EN

155

95

braking distance 𝑠 m X X

time for braking 𝑡 s X

initial adhesion τ0 - X

average minimum slide GM(n) 1 or % X

speed profile 𝑥 𝑡 km/h X

amount of sliding AS % X

7.5.2 Additional Quantities for Comparison The following quantities for comparison are not required by the applied standards. Nevertheless, additional comparison of related data provides means for authorities to gain confidence, that the simulation model accurately reflects the state of the vehicle over time. The symbol ‘(t)’ indicates, that the complete time history of the given values shall be compared.

𝑥 𝑡 , 𝑥 𝑡 : vehicle position and deceleration (every axis and whole vehicle) 𝑝 𝑡 : brake cylinder pressure (every brake cylinder) 𝑇 𝑡 , 𝑇 𝑡 : brake disk / pad temperature (of all disks / pads with temperature sensors) 𝑝 𝑡 , 𝑝 𝑡 : supply pressure of brake pipe (HL) and main reservoir pipe (HB) 𝑐 𝑡 : electrical control commands from electronic WSP control to pneumatic WSP valves 𝜔 𝑡 : rotational speed of every axle Cr: Relative air consumption

In case of WSP activity (test cases T06 to T21), the simulation results of 𝑝 𝑡 and 𝑐 𝑡 shall be checked against each other for sufficiency. A comparison of both with field test data is not constructive, because due to different adhesion coefficients, WSP will never trigger its valves at the same time in simulation and field test.

`



GA No. 777629 P101 of 194

Please note, that the selected quantities are specific for the evaluated vehicle. For example, in case of a vehicle with EP Compact, simulation results and filed test data of further simulation results like electrical brake control commands, load pressure pT and pilot pressure pCv should also be compared.

7.6 Comparison Within UIC 541-05 [03] a single test case (T06, T07, T08 or T09) must be compared with the same test performed on a simulation test bench. Criteria for accuracy and repeatability are defined to compare specific values. If these criteria are fulfilled, the simulator is certified (aside from being accredited according to EN ISO/IEC 17025 [02]). In contrast, EN 15595 [04]/[27] requires comparing all test cases for a specific vehicle type (e.g. 11 test cases for a passenger coach) to certify a simulation test rig. Only criteria for accuracy are defined.

Both processes for test rig validation are not suited for this purpose: Using a single test case for comparison won’t be enough to gain confidence for omitting all other field test in the future. Using all defined test won’t allow to omit a single test. Consequently, a compromise needs to be found.

For this reason, comparison comprises three different aspects within this evaluation. Each of them is represented by a separate activity: ‘Calibration’, ‘Validation’ and ‘Proof of Match’, see chapter 4.

7.6.1 Test Cases The exemplary figures below illustrate all UIC test cases as executed during the MGS3 certification tests in diagrams over speed and brake mode. Five of these test cases are labelled by a blue loupe. They shall be used for calibration. Three of them are highlighted by red loupes to indicate, that they may be used for validation. In this example, 5 of 13 field tests (38%) could be omitted in the future.

`



GA No. 777629 P102 of 194

Please note, that the figures above are only examples. The selection of test cases for calibration and validation is an individual procedure for every new railway vehicle type. To ensure, that the most critical test cases (worst case scenarios) will still be executed by the ‘real’ vehicle, they must be used for calibration or validation. Their identification requires profound engineering knowledge and should be discussed and agreed with Notified / Dedicated and / or Assessment Bodies in a future certification process applying virtual validation.

7.6.1.1 Tolerances & Simulation Repetitions for Validation & Proof of Match For quantities defined in UIC 541-05 [03], the tolerances and criteria for Validation and Proof of Match shall be applied as defined in the standard. This means, that all test cases must be repeated 10 times by the BUD WSP Test Bench. The MUC Offline Simulation doesn’t need to repeat test cases, its repeatability is always 100%.

Quantities defined in EN 15595 [04]/[27] shall be verified according to their standard, too. In case of the BUD WSP Test Bench, simulator results are always the mean value of 10 test runs.

For the additional quantities defined for this evaluation, the mean values and tolerance limits of +-5% shall be calculated (for each point in time, if quantities with time history) for field test data. Mean

`



GA No. 777629 P103 of 194

values of simulator results shall stay within the tolerance limits of field test data. If the initial tolerance limit of +-5% will emerge to be insufficient during this evaluation, a different value will be defined.

7.6.1.2 Tolerances & Simulation Repetitions for Calibration Due to lack of knowledge of a better solution, all calibration tolerances shall be the validation tolerances divided by 2. Experience during execution of this evaluation may lead to a different factor.

7.7 Illustration of Results Comparison of the simulation results with field test data shall be illustrated for every single braking as follows:

Time History: Plot field test data and simulation results into the same diagram and add two tolerance limits around the average values of field test data and simulator results as shown in the diagram example below:

Field test data to be plotted with blue lines, simulator data with green lines, if within tolerance, red otherwise.

Single Results (e.g. brake distance or time for braking): plot field test data and test rig data of all test cases into the same diagram. Add tolerance lines around the field test data illustrating the tolerance interval of field test results, as an example for brake distance see figure below:

`



GA No. 777629 P104 of 194

7.8 Description of KB MUC Simulator The virtual tool used for the proof of concept consists of two main components, see Figure 47.

This is first an ESRA-computer as installed in the passenger car mentioned in Chapter 7.2 and second a personal computer running the measurement software LabView. The ESRA is running the WSP-software as installed on the above-mentioned passenger car. The ESRA provides the signals for the WSP valves to control the slip of the axles by venting and charging the brake cylinders. The ESRA needs as input the speeds of the axles and the measured C-pressures. The data exchange is indicated by the green arrows in Figure 47. The communication rate is, as on the real passenger car, 10ms.

The LabView-software realises the data exchange. That is reading and sending data from and to ESRA and reading and sending data to the simulation model in real time. It also records the time history of the requested quantities.

The simulation model, see Chapter 7.9, is integrated into LabView via a dynamic linked library (DLL).

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

T01 T02 T03 T05 T06 T07 T08 T10 T12 T13 T14 T20 T21

Brake Distance [m]

UIC Tests

Avg. Sim. Avg. Field min. Field max. Field

`



GA No. 777629 P105 of 194

Figure 47 – Scheme of KB MUC Simulator

The KB MUC Simulator can be seen as an intermediate step from a classical WSP test bench, that contains only parts of the physical components as simulation models (HiL-simulator class 1 or 2 according to UIC 541-05 [03]), to an offline simulation test bench that is based entirely on software running on a standard PC (= SiL-simulator according to UIC 541-05). Such a simulator is described as HiL-simulator class 3 in UIC 541-05. Advantage of the KB MUC Simulator is that in contrast to an offline simulation, electronic components and their behaviour do not need to be modelled. The latter may be cumbersome procedure.

The KB MUC Simulator is referred to as “virtual tool” in what follows.

7.9 Description of the simulation model The model simulates the mechanical and the pneumatic components of a car with four axles. However, this car is often called “train” in the following. This indicates that this model of a car can be seen as a train with a specific configuration. The structure of the simulation model is shown in Figure 48.

Figure 48 – Scheme of the simulation model

`



GA No. 777629 P106 of 194

It models the pneumatic components

Main reservoir labelled “R” Control valve labelled “RV” WSP units labelled “WSP” and Brake cylinders labelled “C1”, …

and the mechanical components

Translational mass of car labelled “train” Rotational masses of the four axles labelled “A1”, …

using numerical models that model the underlying physics. Hence, pressures and mass flow rates at pneumatic components and acceleration, speed, position and forces are results of the simulation model.

In addition to these components the behaviour of the friction coefficient between brake pad and disc is modelled using a dynamic model.

The simulation model of the car can be fully parameterised using a configuration file. This makes an automatic model calibration and version control possible.

The wheel rail contact model is not part of the simulation model of the car. The wheel rail contact model is part of the model of the track. The contact model describes the dynamic behaviour of the adhesion coefficient between wheel and rail. The model takes into account the presents of a liquid layer and its influence on the adhesion coefficient. Also, the conditioning effects of forerunning axles are considered.

7.10 Calibration of the virtual tool Most of the parameter of the model can be set from the specification of the passenger car. This are for example the parameters of the brake equipment such as brake cylinder size and so on.

A second set of parameters can be set out of the results of static tests, such as:

Axle loads and the mass of the car C-pressure under loading condition C-pressure build up time.

Dynamic test data are mainly necessary to get knowledge of the behaviour of the friction coefficient of the braking system. Hence, we will use here the field test data of tests T01 and T02 to obtain the parameter set needed to model the behaviour of the friction coefficient. The parameters were evaluated using an optimisation algorithm that iteratively modifies the content of the parameter file of the simulation model to fit the simulation data to the selected measurement data. The objective of this optimisation is to minimise the squared difference between simulated and the mean of the measured vehicle positions over the braking time. As a result, we achieve a parameter set that is

`



GA No. 777629 P107 of 194

expected to be valid for all initial speeds in the range of 120 km/h and 160 km/h. This single set will be used for further simulations.

The calibration results using this parameter set are presented in the following figures.

The mean values of the measured data are labelled “v_veh_mean” and “pos_veh_mean” for the vehicle speed and position, respectively. The simulated data are labelled “sim_TRAIN_SPEED” and “sim_TRAIN_POS” for the vehicle speed and position.

Even though the simulated speed deviates from the measured value for low vehicle speeds the calculated braking distances fit the experimental data for the test case T01 with a tolerance far below the tolerance of 2% observed in the experiments.

Figure 49 – Measured and simulated data field test T01, speed (top) position (bottom) of the car over time

For test case T02 the simulation model matches the measured speed profile very good down to a vehicle speed of 50 km/h. Below this speed the model underestimates the pad/disc friction coefficient resulting in a smaller deceleration than observed in the experiments. Nevertheless, the simulated braking distance is only 2.8% larger than the mean value of the measured data.

`



GA No. 777629 P108 of 194


The measurement data of the test cases T01 and T02 were successfully used to find the parameters defining the behaviour of the friction coefficient. All parameters of the simulation model of the passenger car are now fixed. This parameter set will be used for further simulations.

The parameter of the wheel rail contact model needs to be adjusted as well. To do so we are using a KB internal data base. The data base was created based on data that were recorded during field tests. Depending on the type of liquid layer that is to be considered, the data base provides the corresponding parameter set for the wheel rail contact model.

7.11 Validation of the virtual tool After having fixed the parameters of the simulation model the virtual tool can be used for the prediction of brake distances under conditions that differ from that of the calibration step. Here we select test cases T06 and T07 as validation test cases. During these tests the adhesion condition of the rail was modified by spraying soap on the rail in front of the first axle. Under the resulting low adhesion conditions the required brake force cannot be transmitted at the wheel rail contact. The function of the WSP-system is to adapt the C-pressure in the brake cylinder such that the slip of the axle remains within certain limits.

`



GA No. 777629 P109 of 194

The validation results are presented in the following figures.

The mean values of the measured data are labelled “v_veh_mean” and “pos_veh_mean” for the vehicle speed and position, respectively. The simulated data are labelled “sim_TRAIN_SPEED” and “sim_TRAIN_POS” for the vehicle speed and position.

The virtual tool can predict the stopping distances under low adhesion conditions very well. The deviation of the simulated distance from the mean value of the field data is well below the variation of the field data.


`



GA No. 777629 P110 of 194


The result data of the virtual tool presented above represent more or less the mean value of the speed of the four axels and indirectly that of the C-pressures at the four brake cylinders.

In Figure 53 the measured (solid lines) and the simulated (dotted lines) speeds of the axles are compared. It can be seen that only for axle 1 and 2 the onset of macro sliding is reproduceable in the experiments. Once the WSP became active the time history of the speed of the axels is somehow chaotic. For axels 3 and 4 even the first onset of macro sliding is not reproduceable throughout the experiments. However, the virtual tool reproduces the onset of macro sliding reliable. Furthermore, the time history of the predicted axle speeds is within the scattering of the experimental data.

`



GA No. 777629 P111 of 194

Figure 53 – Measured and simulated data field test T07, speed of the axels over time

7.12 Conclusion Field data recorded during WSP certification tests has been used to prove the proposed workflow to use virtual tools in a certification process. The tests were performed using a standard passenger car with two bogies and four axles.

The virtual tool used here is a limited HiL test bench where only the electronic components of the WSP-system are represented as hardware. All other components of the passenger car were represented by a simulation model.

Two stopping brakes under normal adhesion condition were selected to calibrate the virtual tool. Thereafter the parameter set of the model was fixed.

The data created by the virtual tool in the validation phase shows very good accuracy for global quantities like car speed and position. For local quantities like the speed of an individual axle the data created by the tool is within the scattering of the experimental data.

Field test data show that braking under low adhesion condition yields much less reproduceable data than under normal adhesion condition.

Braking under normal adhesion condition should be the preferred scenario to use virtual testing for railway vehicles. Nevertheless, virtual testing of braking under low adhesion condition should also be possible but the scattering of the experimental data must be somehow taken into account for when assessing the virtual tools.

`



GA No. 777629 P112 of 194

8 Adaptation of Functional Standards (Lead: KB)

Originally, the objective of this subtask was as follows (see chapter 2.3.7):

ObjectiveThe aim of this work package is to identify the functional standard where usage of simulation tools is meaningful and recommend the adaptation of functional standards in order to enable virtual certification, e.g.

a) Wheel slide protection (UIC 541-05, EN 15595) b) Evaluation of brake system (UIC 544-1, EN 15734 (HGV), EN 16185 (EMU/DMU),

EN 14198 (LOC&PAS))

EN14363 will be used as a guideline.

Due to lack of resources and reduced number of contributors, the objective has been reduced to provide a list of standards to be modified to enable / allow / support Virtual Validation & Certification (VVC). Additionally, some comments have been made on the kind of modification and which chapter/§ may be modified.

Therefore, this subtask only provides a short overview of standards to be adapted due to VVC.

Contributors


Oliver Urspruch KB Initial version

Denis Emorine ALSTOM Addition of the requirements quantity concerned by the need of update, according to the chapter 5


Regulations & standards related to VVC have already been identified in chapter 3.2.3. The following table provides regulations & standards, which will need modification to allow application of VVC.

`



GA No. 777629 P113 of 194

Identifier Name Notes on Modifications

EU/1302/2014 [12]

(TSI LOC&PAS)

technical specification for interoperability relating to the ‘rolling stock — locomotives and passenger rolling stock’ subsystem of the rail system in the European Union

Chapter 6.2.3.8: When defining load and speed to be tested, a statement shall clarify, that an organization, which is accredited for VVC, may replace tests by simulation.

Chapter 6.2.3.9: a statement shall clarify, that an organization, which is accredited for VVC, may replace tests by simulation.

Maybe a more general statement allows VVC for the complete testing of brakes.

According to the evaluation in chapter 5 of this report, 23 requirements are requested to be tested where we recommend to let it open (§4.2.4.5.2 ; §4.2.4.5.4 ; §4.2.4.4.1 ; §4.2.4.9; §4.2.8.1.2 ; §6.2.3.8 ; §6.2.3.9).

EN 14198:2016 [09] Railway applications – Braking – Requirements for the brake system of trains hauled by locomotives

EN 14531-1:2015 [14] Railway applications – Methods for calculation of stopping and slowing distances and immobilization braking – Part 1: General algorithms utilizing mean value calculation for train sets or single vehicles

Maybe define VVC method here for accreditation?

EN 14531-2:2015 [15] Railway applications – Methods for calculation of stopping and slowing distances and immobilization braking – Part 2: Step by step calculations for train sets or single vehicles

Maybe define VVC method here for accreditation?

EN 15179:2010 [16] Railway applications – Braking – Requirements for the brake system of coaches

Modification may not be necessary; nevertheless, an indication, that simulation (e.g. VVC for Brake Systems) may be valid means to replace some tests could help.

`



GA No. 777629 P114 of 194



Requirements for the certification of wheel slide protection devices must be extended to provide additional or alternative evidence by means of virtual tools, especially regarding vehicle integration tests (VIT).

EN 15734-2:2013 [07] Railway applications – Braking systems of high-speed trains – Part 2: Test methods

Due to the detailed test program description, a more general statement shall clarify, that an organization, which is accredited for VVC, may replace tests by simulation.

EN 16185-2:2014 [08] Railway applications – Braking systems of multiple unit trains – Part 2: Test methods

Chapter 7.1.2.2: when defining load and speed to be tested, a statement shall clarify, that an organization, which is accredited for VVC, may replace tests by simulation.

Maybe a more general statement allows VVC for the complete testing of brakes.

According to the evaluation in chapter 5 of this report, 37 requirements are requested to be tested where we recommend to let it open (chapter 7.2.1 to 15).

EN ISO/IEC 17020:2012 [11]

Conformity assessment – Requirements for the operation of various types of bodies performing inspection

Requirements for the accreditation of inspection bodies (shall not to be considered at this stage).

EN ISO/IEC 17025:2017 [02]

General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories

Requirements for the accreditation of testing laboratories must be adapted with regard to the provision of evidence by means of simulation.

EN 50215:2009 [30] Railway applications — Rolling stock — Testing of rolling stock on completion of construction and before entry into service

Modification may not be necessary; nevertheless, an indication, that simulation (e.g. VVC for Brake Systems) may be valid means to replace some tests could help.

`



GA No. 777629 P115 of 194


UIC 541-05, 3rd edition, March 2016 [03]

Brakes - Manufacturing specifications for various brake parts - Wheel Slide Protection device (WSP)

Requirements for the certification of wheel slide protection devices must be extended to provide additional or alternative evidence by means of SiL-simulation.

UIC-544-1 6th Edition, Oct. 2014 [05]

Brakes - Braking performance Chapters 2 (Coaches with UIC Brake), 3 (wagons with UIC brake), 4 (Locos), 6 (Multiple Units), 7 (High-speed)

For demonstration of brake-weight and braking distance, physical tests are always required. Therefore at least a statement is required, which allows VVC.

Due to lack of resources, a further detailed analysis was not possible. Other committees to identify further modifications in detail.

Working group CEN/TC 256/SG “Simulation” is currently defining a guideline on how to modify standards allowing simulation.

`



GA No. 777629 P116 of 194

9 Accreditation of simulation procedure necessary for virtual certification (Lead: DB)

The aim of this work package is to create the groundwork for a basis of trust in the results of newly planned simulations for the verification of the virtual certification of wheel slide protection devices. The prerequisites for the necessary accreditation of pure software simulation processes (SiL simulation) have to be determined. Since no case of successful accreditation of SiL-simulation methods is currently known, the necessary prerequisites are to be determined in a first step. The examination of the applicability of the relevant European regulations showed that for such an accreditation an extension of the requirements of EN ISO/IEC 17025 "General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories" [02] must be considered.

Contributors


Jürgen Eisenblätter DB Initial provision / update


Stephan Pitzing KB Review

9.1 Reliability by means of accredited conformity assessment

9.1.1 Stages of conformity assessment The examinations of brake components and subsystems of a brake system currently required for TSI certification of a railway vehicle must be carried out as accredited test and assessment procedures in accordance with the requirements of TSI LOC&PAS [12]. This is to ensure that the components tested

are reliable in terms of quality and safety, correspond to a minimum technical level, and conform to the requirements of the relevant standards, guidelines and laws.

Extensive testing is required to ensure an acceptable level of safety and consistent quality in the manufacture and placing in market of safety-relevant braking systems and their components in railway vehicles. At present, this is mainly achieved by use of type tests of individual components or subsystems in the laboratory and functional tests during commissioning on complete vehicles.

Various methods are used to objectively evaluate the results of these investigations:

Verification: “The evaluation whether a product or system complies with a regulation, requirement, specification, or imposed condition."

Validation: “The evaluation whether a product or system meets the needs of the customer and other identified stakeholders.”

Certification: “A procedure used to demonstrate compliance with certain specified requirements. This evidence can be provided through external review, training, evaluation or auditing.”

`



GA No. 777629 P117 of 194

Accreditation: “Sovereign process which provides a formal certificate from a third party recognizing the competence and independence of a testing or assessment body performing specific conformity assessment tasks.”

These methods are parts of a conformity assessment of components and subsystems in the field of railway brake.

In practice, verification and validation are often confused. In short, verification clarifies the question of whether the product was correctly developed, while validation clarifies whether the correct product was developed. Verification investigations mainly take place as type testing already at an early stage of development. The technical and physical properties of the individual components or a subsystem are measured against the applicable laws, standards and safety regulations. During validation, in separate investigations additionally the requirements of the customer's applicable specifications are considered. One simple example: A wheel set for a rail vehicle is manufactured with a rail gauge of 1435 mm. During verification, the wheelset is checked inter alia for dimensional accuracy (including an approved tolerance). The validation checks whether the wheelset corresponds to the track gauge of the intended line network.

When testing components or subsystems in the safety-critical area of the brake, a testing laboratory must meet certain quality standards and fulfil defined requirements. In order to prove compliance with these requirements, the testing laboratory must undergo an assessment by an external certification body. The qualitative suitability of the testing laboratory is examined, evaluated and, if necessary, attested with a certificate. In summary, this process is referred to as system certification.

In addition to a certification process, which exclusively checks compliance with certain standards, accreditation also examines the specific expertise of a testing laboratory. Accreditation can also be understood as competence assessment and is intended to guarantee additional confidence in the test results of brake components and subsystems.

9.1.2 New conformity assessment procedures The time and money required for verification and validation within the conformity assessment in the form of real laboratory and vehicle tests is significant (see chapter 3.3.7) and is to be optimized within the framework of the Shift2Rail project PIVOT. To meet this requirement, the railway industry plans to shift as much as possible of the necessary tests to a virtual level by means of computer simulation.

Wheel slide protection simulations, predominantly in the sense of hardware in the loop simulations (HiL simulations), have been used for many years on WSP simulation test benches in the approval process of wheel slide protection systems. The requirements for a simulation are already firmly anchored in EN 15595 [04]/[27] and UIC leaflet 541-05 [03]. In addition to the obligatory real rail tests, a series of simulation tests are already permitted to obtain evidence of a wheel slide protection system during certification. The aim of the PIVOT work package is now to replace as many as possible of the approval tests still prescribed in EN 15595 as mandatory track tests with simulations. Furthermore, the possibility is to be created to increasingly use the software in the loop simulation (SiL simulation). In contrast to HiL simulation, the real wheel slide protection system to be tested is replaced by its control algorithm.

In addition to the traditional HiL simulation and the new pure SiL simulation, various intermediate stages are possible and even be used:

With the HiL simulation, different characteristics are possible with regard to the inclusion of peripheral hardware components. As shown in Figure 54, all actuators and sensors can be designed as hardware. In UIC leaflet 541-05, this form of simulation is referred to as "class 1 simulation".

`



GA No. 777629 P118 of 194

WSP control unitunder test

Dump valve

Brake cylinder

Simulator

Pole wheel

Speed sensor

Distributor valve

Air reservoir

Figure 54 - HiL-simulation (simulation class 1)

Alternatively, the functionality of part of the hardware used in the wheel slide protection system can be replaced by the simulation properties of the simulator computer. In Figure 55 on the left, the sensors (e.g. speed sensors) are replaced by the simulator. In the UIC leaflet this version is classified as "class 2a simulation". The right sketch in Figure 55 shows the replacement of the actuators (e.g. dump valves) by the simulator. According to UIC leaflet 541-05 this is a "class 2b simulation".

Figure 55 - HiL-simulations (simulation class 2)

A "class 3 simulation" is shown in Figure 56. The functionality of all peripheral sensors and actuators is generated in the simulator. Only the anti-slip control unit with its algorithm is included as real hardware in the simulation.


Dump valve

Brake cylinder

SimulatorDistributor valve

Air reservoir


Simulator

Pole wheel

Speed sensor

`



GA No. 777629 P119 of 194

Figure 56 - HiL-simulation (simulation class 3)

With the simulation type in Figure 57, even the anti-skid algorithm of the GS control unit is emulated on the hardware of the simulator computer. This simulation execution corresponds to a pure SiL simulation.

Simulator

Figure 57 - SiL-simulation

The introduction of new simulation procedures for the verification and validation of brake systems and components (here the WSP) in the approval process of railway vehicles during their commissioning is equivalent to a change in the established manufacturing process compared to the type and functional tests previously used.

Thus, when planning the use of new simulation methods, in addition to the urgent fulfilment of commercial requirements, the confidence of the stakeholders involved in obtaining simulation results must also be achieved, as is the case with the currently proven laboratory tests and driving tests on individual brake components or entire brake systems in the vehicle. Confidence in the test results obtained is also one of the core requirements of safety authorities. For all safety-relevant components or subsystems, additional potential risks arising from a change in production processes must be identified and taken into account.

The control of potential additional risks when introducing new test methods is a prerequisite for the protection of the physical integrity of passengers and operators. It is part of the due diligence of manufacturers and operators who are jointly responsible for the components and subsystems to be approved.

With the requirement for a consistently high level of safety in the manufacture and testing of brake components and brake systems and the demand for accredited test procedures, it is essential that


Simulator

`



GA No. 777629 P120 of 194

the results of simulation procedures used in the future must also be subject to accreditation. This is to ensure that the simulation results can be trusted to the same extent as the results of conventional tests. Motivation for the required accreditation of the testing processes is thus the need of all participants for a sufficient degree of trust in the results of the investigations.

9.1.3 Types of accreditation The accreditation process is an attestation issued by a national accreditation body that a conformity assessment body meets the applicable requirements to carry out a specific conformity assessment activity. Accreditation is the preferred means of demonstrating the technical competence of the conformity assessment body. An accreditation of the testing and assessment processes by means of new simulation methods means in practice that the requirements of relevant European standards must be fulfilled. This in turn is monitored by accreditation bodies in an official process by means of recurring audits of the testing and assessment bodies. For the accreditation of testing and examination processes, the test laboratories must demonstrate compliance with the requirements of EN ISO/IEC 17025 [02]. This would also apply to the application of new simulation methods.

In a further step, an additional assessment body checks compliance with the requirements of the test results obtained in relation to the requirements of the LOC&PAS TSI [12]. This type of assessment is carried out by bodies notified to ERA (NoBo) in accordance with the EU Directive. For their part, the NoBos must prove their competence by accreditation in accordance with EN ISO/IEC 17020 [11]. Since in the unanimous opinion of the stakeholders involved within the S2R project PIVOT no effort to establish a NoBo is currently seen, an accreditation according to EN 17020 cannot be considered. A definition of corresponding requirements can therefore currently be dispensed with here.

9.1.4 Accreditation of a test centre The WSP-relevant EN 15595 [04] is a so-called "harmonized standard", which is referenced in the TSI LOC&PAS [12] as a direct requirement. The evidence of conformity required in this EN must be obtained in accordance with accredited test procedures pursuant to EN ISO/IEC 17025 [02]. If the requirements of both standards are comprehensibly observed, the assessor can assume a "presumption of conformity" and therefore does not have to question every single property of the component.

If testing laboratories are unable to provide accreditation in accordance with EN ISO/IEC 17025, it is possible for an assessor to gain an impression of whether the evidence submitted is comparable to the EN. However, this alternative proof is not to be recommended, since it is only valid for one procedure and thus the time and monetary expenditure is generally higher than for a proper accreditation.

According to the principle of dual control, testing and evaluation must be independent of each other and therefore the testing laboratory and evaluation body must be strictly separated from each other in organisational and personal terms.

In order to ensure a sufficient degree of confidence in the results of new simulation methods instead of established tests, the simulations are subject to a number of general requirements which must satisfy an assessment by an accreditation body:

Compliance with the existing safety regulations, Documentation of the simulation hardware and software used (simulation environment), Definition and documentation of the simulation models used,

`



GA No. 777629 P121 of 194

Qualitative and quantitative proof of the closeness to reality of the simulation models used (validation of simulation results with confidence interval),

The use of simulation results and their conclusions, in which statistical variables ultimately play a central role, must be described in a way that is comprehensible in terms of content.

These requirements apply in addition to or as an alternative to the existing requirements for established test procedures (see below).

Initially, simulation will not be able to replace all investigations. First, the simulation environment and the simulation model must be validated against the results of the real tests.

By substituting real test drives with simulations, the correct vehicle configuration becomes more important because there is a lower probability that random configuration errors, e.g. wiring errors, will be revealed during the minimized number of real test drives. A simulation can hardly fulfil this aspect.

In addition, different simulation environments and simulation models could show in round robin tests that they produce approximately the same simulation results under the same initial conditions. Generic reference projects must be created for this purpose.

Simulation environments and simulation models are subject to constant development and optimization. Changes of both must be carefully documented by means of version control. It must always be proven that any changes have no negative influence on the result of the simulation. A possible proof for the correct implementation of a change or optimization would be the control of already executed validated simulations.

In establishing new simulation methods and tools it would be helpful if it could be shown that:

Reference applications - if necessary also from other areas of passenger transport - with already existing acceptance by national security authorities are available,

the manufacturing process and design stability can be optimized with regard to real occurring tolerances with a suitable variance of the simulation parameter,

all variants of failure cases of a previously created FMEA of a component or a subsystem can be covered by simulation and their effects estimated.

In any case, the necessary environment of trust would have to be created in dialogue with the approval and supervisory authorities, the ERA, the Accreditation Bodies and the Notified Bodies. It could be helpful in the dialogue that the Commission of the EU calls in the Shift2Rail project, working package PIVOT for a demand for cost reduction by increased use of simulation environments.

`



GA No. 777629 P122 of 194

9.2 Accreditation requirements of simulation test methods according EN ISO/IEC 17025

9.2.1 General The requirements of the EN ISO/IEC 17025 „General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories” [02] apply in general.

The following is the attempt to define the minimum requirements that a WSP-simulation test laboratory must meet in order to obtain an accreditation certificate according to EN ISO/IEC 17025. The requirements are based on the checklist of the German Accreditation Council DAkkS.

The following tables contain a unique numbering in the left columns.

In the middle columns, the original requirements of EN ISO/IEC 17025 for a current test laboratory are listed.

These requirements are evaluated in the right columns regarding their applicability to new simulation tests. The contents of these columns are highlighted in colour with the intention to make the following described consequences more distinguishable:

Requirement applicable without modification even for VVC (no comment necessary)

Requirement modified and/or extended for VVC (comment mandatory)

Requirement not applicable for VVC (comment optional)

A distinction must be made often between the proven hardware in the loop simulation (HiL) and the new pure software in loop simulation (SiL) to be established within the Virtual Validation & Certification (VVC). Where necessary, the requirements concerned shall be adapted or extended from the test semantics used to the applicable simulation requirement.

`



GA No. 777629 P123 of 194

9.2.2 General requirements

9.2.2.1 Impartiality

9.2.2.1 Requirement from EN ISO/IEC 17025 Modification for VVC

9.2.2.1.1 Laboratory activities shall be undertaken impartially and structured and managed to safeguard impartiality.

Requirement without modification applicable even for VVC.

9.2.2.1.2 The laboratory management shall be committed to impartiality.


9.2.2.1.3 The laboratory shall be responsible for the impartiality of its laboratory activities and shall not allow commercial, financial or other pressures to compromise impartiality.


9.2.2.1.4 The laboratory shall identify risks to its impartiality on an on-going basis. This shall include those risks that arise from its activities, or from its relationships, or from the relationships of its personnel. However, such relationships do not necessarily present a laboratory with a risk to impartiality. [Note: A relationship that threatens the impartiality of the laboratory can be based on ownership, governance, management, personnel, shared resources, finances, contracts, marketing (including branding), and payment of a sales commission or other inducement for the referral of new customers, etc.].


9.2.2.1.5 If a risk to impartiality is identified, the laboratory shall be able to demonstrate how it eliminates or minimizes such risk.


`



GA No. 777629 P124 of 194

9.2.2.2 Confidentiality


9.2.2.2.1 The laboratory shall be responsible, through legally enforceable commitments, for the management of all information obtained or created during the performance of laboratory activities.


9.2.2.2.2 The laboratory shall inform the customer in advance, of the information it intends to place in the public domain.


9.2.2.2.3 Except for information that the customer makes publicly available, or when agreed between the laboratory and the customer (e.g. for the purpose of responding to complaints), all other information is considered proprietary information and shall be regarded as confidential.


9.2.2.2.4 When the laboratory is required by law or authorized by contractual arrangements to release confidential information, the customer or individual concerned shall, unless prohibited by law, be notified of the information provided.


9.2.2.2.5 Information about the customer obtained from sources other than the customer (e.g. complainant, regulators) shall be confidential between the customer and the laboratory.


9.2.2.2.6 The provider (source) of this information shall be confidential to the laboratory and shall not be shared with the customer, unless agreed by the source.


9.2.2.2.7 Personnel, including any committee members, contractors, personnel of external bodies, or individuals acting on the laboratory's behalf, shall keep confidential all information obtained or created during the performance of laboratory activities, except as required by law.


`



GA No. 777629 P125 of 194

9.2.3 Structural requirements

9.2.3 Requirement from EN ISO/IEC 17025 Modification for VVC

9.2.3.1 The laboratory shall be a legal entity, or a defined part of a legal entity, that is legally responsible for its laboratory activities.

[Note: For the purposes of this document, a governmental laboratory is deemed to be a legal entity on the basis of its governmental status.]


9.2.3.2 The laboratory shall identify management that has overall responsibility for the laboratory.


9.2.3.3 The laboratory shall define and document the range of laboratory activities for which it conforms with this document.


9.2.3.4 The laboratory shall only claim conformity with this document for this range of laboratory activities, which excludes externally provided laboratory activities on an ongoing basis.


9.2.3.5 Laboratory activities shall be carried out in such a way as to meet the requirements of the EN 17025, the laboratory’s customers, regulatory authorities and organizations providing recognition. This shall include laboratory activities performed in all its permanent facilities, at sites away from its permanent facilities, in associated temporary or mobile facilities or at a customer's facility.


9.2.3.6 The laboratory shall:

o define the organization and management structure of the laboratory, its place in any parent organization, and the relationships between management, technical operations and support services;

o specify the responsibility, authority and interrelationship of all personnel who manage, perform or verify work affecting the results of laboratory activities;

o document its procedures to the extent necessary to ensure the consistent application of its laboratory activities and the validity of the results


`



GA No. 777629 P126 of 194

9.2.3 Requirement from EN ISO/IEC 17025 Modification for VVC

9.2.3.7 The laboratory shall have personnel who, irrespective of other responsibilities, have the authority and resources needed to carry out their duties, including:

a) implementation, maintenance and improvement of the management system;

b) identification of deviations from the management system or from the procedures for performing laboratory activities;

c) initiation of actions to prevent or minimize such deviations;

d) reporting to laboratory management on the performance of the management system and any need for improvement;

e) ensuring the effectiveness of laboratory activities.


9.2.3.8 Laboratory management shall ensure that:

a) communication takes place regarding the effectiveness of the management system and the importance of meeting customers' and other requirements;

b) the integrity of the management system is maintained when changes to the management system are planned and implemented.


9.2.4 Technical requirements

9.2.4.1 General


9.2.4.1 The laboratory shall have available the personnel, facilities, equipment, systems and support services necessary to manage and perform its laboratory activities.


`



GA No. 777629 P127 of 194

9.2.4.2 Personnel


9.2.4.2.1 All personnel of the laboratory, either internal or external, that could influence the laboratory activities shall act impartially, be competent and work in accordance with the laboratory's management system.


9.2.4.2.2 The laboratory shall document the competence requirements for each function influencing the results of laboratory activities, including requirements for education, qualification, training, technical knowledge, skills and experience.


9.2.4.2.3 The laboratory shall ensure that the personnel have the competence to perform laboratory activities for which they are responsible and to evaluate the significance of deviations.


9.2.4.2.4 The management of the laboratory shall communicate to personnel their duties, responsibilities and authorities.


9.2.4.2.5 The laboratory shall have procedure(s) and retain records for:

a) determining the competence requirements;

b) selection of personnel; c) training of personnel; d) supervision of personnel; e) authorization of personnel; f) monitoring competence of personnel.


9.2.4.2.6 The laboratory shall authorize personnel to perform specific laboratory activities, including but not limited to, the following:

a) development, modification, verification and validation of methods;

b) analysis of results, including statements of conformity or opinions and interpretations;

c) report, review and authorization of results


`



GA No. 777629 P128 of 194

9.2.4.3 Facilities and environmental conditions


9.2.4.3.1 The facilities and environmental conditions shall be suitable for the laboratory activities and shall not adversely affect the validity of results.

[Note: Influences that can adversely affect the validity of results can include, but are not limited to, microbial contamination, dust, electromagnetic disturbances, radiation, humidity, electrical supply, temperature, sound and vibration.]


9.2.4.3.2 The requirements for facilities and environmental conditions necessary for the performance of the laboratory activities shall be documented.


9.2.4.3.3 The laboratory shall monitor, control and record environmental conditions in accordance with relevant specifications, methods or procedures or where they influence the validity of the results.


9.2.4.3.4 Measures to control facilities shall be implemented, monitored and periodically reviewed and shall include, but not be limited to:

a) access to and use of areas affecting laboratory activities;

b) prevention of contamination, interference or adverse influences on laboratory activities;

c) effective separation between areas with incompatible laboratory activities.


9.2.4.3.5 When the laboratory performs laboratory activities at sites or facilities outside its permanent control, it shall ensure that the requirements related to facilities and environmental conditions of this document are met.


`



GA No. 777629 P129 of 194

9.2.4.4 Equipment


9.2.4.4.1 The laboratory shall have access to equipment (including, but not limited to, measuring instruments, software, measurement standards, reference materials, reference data, reagents, consumables or auxiliary apparatus) that is required for the correct performance of laboratory activities and that can influence the results.

[Note 1: A multitude of names exist for reference materials and certified reference materials, including reference standards, calibration standards, standard reference materials and quality control materials. ISO 17034 [31] contains additional information on reference material producers (RMPs). RMPs that meet the requirements of ISO 17034 [31] are considered to be competent. Reference materials from RMPs meeting the requirements of ISO 17034 [31] are provided with a product information sheet/certificate that specifies, amongst other characteristics, homogeneity and stability for specified properties and, for certified reference materials, specified properties with certified values, their associated measurement uncertainty and metrological traceability.]

[Note 2: ISO Guide 33 [32] provides guidance on the selection and use of reference materials. ISO Guide 80 [33] provides guidance to produce in-house quality control materials.]

Requirement applies without modification primarily for the hardware part of HiL-simulations.

For SiL simulations, it must be ensured and proven that the used physical and mathematical models and the software tools are suitable for performing the required calculations. The conformity of the simulation results with comparable track tests shall be in accordance with the applicable requirements of EN15595 [04]/[27] and EN14531-1/2 [14]/[15]. It must be ensured and proven that the used physical parameters of the simulation models were obtained based on real tests. If these physical parameters are determined, requirement 9.2.4.4.1 shall be fulfilled.

9.2.4.4.2 When the laboratory uses equipment outside its permanent control, it shall ensure that the requirements for equipment of this document are met.


9.2.4.4.3 The laboratory shall have a procedure for handling, transport, storage, use and planned maintenance of equipment in order to ensure proper functioning and to prevent contamination or deterioration.

Requirement applies without modification only for the hardware part of HiL simulations.

Not applicable for software part of HiL-simulations and for pure SiL-simulations.

`



GA No. 777629 P130 of 194


9.2.4.4.4 The laboratory shall verify that equipment conforms to specified requirements before being placed or returned into service.



9.2.4.4.5 The equipment used for measurement shall be capable of achieving the measurement accuracy and/or measurement uncertainty required to provide a valid result.



9.2.4.4.6 Measuring equipment shall be calibrated when:

– the measurement accuracy or measurement uncertainty affects the validity of the reported results, and/or

– calibration of the equipment is required to establish the metrological traceability of the reported results.

[Note: Types of equipment having an effect on the validity of the reported results can include:

– those used for the direct measurement of the measurand, e.g. use of a balance to perform a mass measurement;

– those used to make corrections to the measured value, e.g. temperature measurements;

– those used to obtain a measurement result calculated from multiple quantities.]



9.2.4.4.7 The laboratory shall establish a calibration program, which shall be reviewed and adjusted as necessary in order to maintain confidence in the status of calibration.


Not applicable for software part of HiL-simulations and for pure SiL-simulations

9.2.4.4.8 All equipment requiring calibration or which has a defined period of validity shall be labelled, coded or otherwise identified to allow the user of the equipment to readily identify the status of calibration or period of validity.



`



GA No. 777629 P131 of 194


9.2.4.4.9 Equipment that has been subjected to overloading or mishandling, gives questionable results, or has been shown to be defective or outside specified requirements, shall be taken out of service. It shall be isolated to prevent its use or clearly labelled or marked as being out of service until it has been verified to perform correctly. The laboratory shall examine the effect of the defect or deviation from specified requirements and shall initiate the management of nonconforming work procedure (see 9.2.5.10).



9.2.4.4.10 When intermediate checks are necessary to maintain confidence in the performance of the equipment, these checks shall be carried out according to a procedure.


For use of software within HiL-simulations and for pure SiL-simulations it must be ensured and proven that the algorithms fulfil their intended purpose.

Self-designed simulation software shall be developed in accordance with the requirements for class T2 tools as defined in EN 50657 [28].

9.2.4.4.11 When calibration and reference material data include reference values or correction factors, the laboratory shall ensure the reference values and correction factors are updated and implemented, as appropriate, to meet specified requirements.



9.2.4.4.12 The laboratory shall take practicable measures to prevent unintended adjustments of equipment from invalidating results.



Nevertheless, an undesired modification of the simulation environment shall be prevented.

`



GA No. 777629 P132 of 194


9.2.4.4.13 Records shall be retained for equipment which can influence laboratory activities. The records shall include the following, where applicable:

a) the identity of equipment, including software and firmware version;

b) the manufacturer's name, type identification, and serial number or other unique identification;

c) evidence of verification that equipment conforms with specified requirements;

d) the current location; e) calibration dates, results of calibrations,

adjustments, acceptance criteria, and the due date of the next calibration or the calibration interval;

f) documentation of reference materials, results, acceptance criteria, relevant dates and the period of validity;

g) the maintenance plan and maintenance carried out to date, where relevant to the performance of the equipment;

h) details of any damage, malfunction, modification to, or repair of the equipment.


For use of software within HiL-simulations and for SiL-simulations a software version management and a configuration management must be established.

9.2.4.5 Metrological traceability


9.2.4.5.1 The laboratory shall establish and maintain metrological traceability of its measurement results by means of a documented unbroken chain of calibrations, each contributing to the measurement uncertainty, linking them to an appropriate reference.

[Note: In ISO/IEC Guide 99 [34], metrological traceability is defined as the “property of a measurement result whereby the result can be related to a reference through a documented unbroken chain of calibrations, each contributing to the measurement uncertainty”


For use of software within HiL-simulations and for SiL-simulations each part of the model used in the simulation must be verified and validated analogously to the metrological traceability of measurement results, and its results must be documented.

`



GA No. 777629 P133 of 194


9.2.4.5.2 The laboratory shall ensure that measurement results are traceable to the International System of Units (SI) through:

a) calibration provided by a competent laboratory; or

[Note 1: Laboratories fulfilling the requirements of the chapter 9 of this document are considered to be competent.]

b) certified values of certified reference materials provided by a competent producer with stated metrological traceability to the SI; or

[Note 2: Reference material producers fulfilling the requirements of ISO 17034 [31] are considered to be competent.]

c) direct realization of the SI units ensured by comparison, directly or indirectly, with national or

d) international standards.

Note 3: Details of practical realization of the definitions of some important units are given in the SI brochure.]


For use of software within HiL-simulations and for SiL-simulations the laboratory shall ensure that simulation results are traceable to the International System of Units (SI).

9.2.4.5.3 When metrological traceability to the SI units is not technically possible, the laboratory shall demonstrate metrological traceability to an appropriate reference, e.g.:

a) certified values of certified reference materials provided by a competent producer;

b) results of reference measurement procedures specified methods or consensus standards that are clearly described and accepted as providing measurement results fit for their intended use and ensured by suitable comparison.


`



GA No. 777629 P134 of 194

9.2.4.6 Externally provided products and services


9.2.4.6.1 The laboratory shall ensure that only suitable externally provided products and services that affect laboratory activities are used, when such products and services:

a) are intended for incorporation into the laboratory’s own activities;

b) are provided, in part or in full, directly to the customer by the laboratory, as received from the external provider;

c) are used to support the operation of the laboratory.

[Note: Products can include, for example, measurement standards and equipment, auxiliary equipment, consumable materials and reference materials. Services can include, for example, calibration services, sampling services, testing services, facility and equipment maintenance services, proficiency testing services and assessment and auditing services.]

Requirement applies without modification even for VVC.

9.2.4.6.2 The laboratory shall have a procedure and retain records for:

a) defining, reviewing and approving the laboratory’s requirements for externally provided products and services;

b) defining the criteria for evaluation, selection, monitoring of performance and re-evaluation of the external providers;

c) ensuring that externally provided products and services conform to the laboratory’s established requirements, or when applicable, to the relevant requirements of this document, before they are used or directly provided to the customer;

d) taking any actions arising from evaluations, monitoring of performance and re-evaluations of the external providers.


`



GA No. 777629 P135 of 194


9.2.4.6.3 The laboratory shall communicate its requirements to external providers for:

a) the products and services to be provided;

b) the acceptance criteria; c) competence, including any required

qualification of personnel; d) activities that the laboratory, or its

customer, intends to perform at the external provider's premises.


9.2.5 Process requirements

9.2.5.1 Review of requests, tenders and contracts


9.2.5.1.1 The laboratory shall have a procedure for the review of requests, tenders and contracts. The procedure shall ensure that:

a) the requirements are adequately defined, documented and understood;

b) the laboratory has the capability and resources to meet the requirements;

c) where external providers are used, the requirements of 6.6 are applied and the laboratory advises the customer of the specific laboratory activities to be performed by the external provider and gains the customer's approval;

[Note 1: It is recognized that externally provided laboratory activities can occur when:

– the laboratory has the resources and competence to perform the activities, however, for unforeseen reasons is unable to undertake these in part or full;]

– the laboratory does not have the resources or competence to perform the activities.]

d) the appropriate methods or procedures are selected and are capable of meeting the customers' requirements.

[Note 2: For internal or routine customers, reviews of requests, tenders and contracts can be performed in a simplified way.]


`



GA No. 777629 P136 of 194


9.2.5.1.2 The laboratory shall inform the customer when the method requested by the customer is considered to be inappropriate or out of date.


9.2.5.1.3 When the customer requests a statement of conformity to a specification or standard for the test or calibration (e.g. pass/fail, in-tolerance/out-of-tolerance), the specification or standard and the decision rule shall be clearly defined. Unless inherent in the requested specification or standard, the decision rule selected shall be communicated to, and agreed with, the customer.

[Note: For further guidance on statements of conformity, see ISO/IEC Guide 98-4 [35].]


9.2.5.1.4 Any differences between the request or tender and the contract shall be resolved before laboratory activities commence. Each contract shall be acceptable both to the laboratory and the customer. Deviations requested by the customer shall not impact the integrity of the laboratory or the validity of the results.


9.2.5.1.5 The customer shall be informed of any deviation from the contract.


9.2.5.1.6 If a contract is amended after work has commenced, the contract review shall be repeated and any amendments shall be communicated to all affected personnel


9.2.5.1.7 The laboratory shall cooperate with customers or their representatives in clarifying the customer's request and in monitoring the laboratory’s performance in relation to the work performed.

[Note: Such cooperation can include:

a) providing reasonable access to relevant areas of the laboratory to witness customer-specific laboratory activities;

b) preparation, packaging, and dispatch of items needed by the customer for verification purposes.]


`



GA No. 777629 P137 of 194


9.2.5.1.8 Records of reviews, including any significant changes, shall be retained. Records shall also be retained of pertinent discussions with a customer relating to the customer's requirements or the results of the laboratory activities.


9.2.5.2 Selection, verification and validation of methods


9.2.5.2.1 The laboratory shall use appropriate methods and procedures for all laboratory activities and, where appropriate, for evaluation of the measurement uncertainty as well as statistical techniques for analysis of data.

[Note: “Method” as used in this document can be considered synonymous with the term “measurement procedure” as defined in ISO/IEC Guide 99 [34].]


9.2.5.2.2 All methods, procedures and supporting documentation, such as instructions, standards, manuals and reference data relevant to the laboratory activities, shall be kept up to date and shall be made readily available to personnel (see 9.2.6.3).


9.2.5.2.3 The laboratory shall ensure that it uses the latest valid version of a method unless it is not appropriate or possible to do so. When necessary, the application of the method shall be supplemented with additional details to ensure consistent application.

[Note: International, regional or national standards or other recognized specifications that contain sufficient and concise information on how to perform laboratory activities do not need to be supplemented or rewritten as internal procedures if these standards are written in a way that they can be used by the operating personnel in a laboratory. It can be necessary to provide additional documentation for optional steps in the method or additional details.]


`



GA No. 777629 P138 of 194


9.2.5.2.4 When the customer does not specify the method to be used, the laboratory shall select an appropriate method and inform the customer of the method chosen. Methods published either in international, regional or national standards, or by reputable technical organizations, or in relevant scientific texts or journals, or as specified by the manufacturer of the equipment, are recommended. Laboratory-developed or modified methods can also be used.



9.2.5.2.5 The laboratory shall verify that it can properly perform methods before introducing them by ensuring that it can achieve the required performance. Records of the verification shall be retained. If the method is revised by the issuing body, verification shall be repeated to the extent necessary.


9.2.5.2.6 When method development is required, this shall be a planned activity and shall be assigned to competent personnel equipped with adequate resources. As method development proceeds, periodic review shall be carried out to confirm that the needs of the customer are still being fulfilled. Any modifications to the development plan shall be approved and authorized.



9.2.5.2.7 Deviations from methods for all laboratory activities shall occur only if the deviation has been documented, technically justified, authorized, and accepted by the customer.

[Note: Customer acceptance of deviations can be agreed in advance in the contract.]


`



GA No. 777629 P139 of 194


9.2.5.2.8 The laboratory shall validate non-standard methods, laboratory-developed methods and standard methods used outside their intended scope or otherwise modified. The validation shall be as extensive as is necessary to meet the needs of the given application or field of application.

[Note 1: Validation can include procedures for sampling, handling and transportation of test or calibration items.

[Note 2: The techniques used for method validation can be one of, or a combination of, the following:

a) calibration or evaluation of bias and precision using reference standards or reference materials;

b) systematic assessment of the factors influencing the result;

c) testing method robustness through variation of controlled parameters, such as incubator temperature, volume dispensed;

d) comparison of results achieved with other validated methods;

e) interlaboratory comparisons; f) evaluation of measurement uncertainty

of the results based on an understanding of the theoretical principles of the method and practical experience of the performance of the sampling or test method.]



9.2.5.2.9 When changes are made to a validated method, the influence of such changes shall be determined and where they are found to affect the original validation, a new method validation shall be performed.


`



GA No. 777629 P140 of 194


9.2.5.2.10 The performance characteristics of validated methods, as assessed for the intended use, shall be relevant to the customers' needs and consistent with specified requirements.

[Note: Performance characteristics can include, but are not limited to, measurement range, accuracy, measurement uncertainty of the results, limit of detection, limit of quantification, selectivity of the method, linearity, repeatability or reproducibility, robustness against external influences or cross-sensitivity against interference from the matrix of the sample or test object, and bias.]


The results of the simulations are to be validated by means of the results of comparable track tests. The necessary accuracy of WSP simulation results are given in the EN 15595 [04]/[27].

The necessary accuracy of braking distance under normal adhesion conditions are given in the EN 14531-1 [14].

9.2.5.2.11 The laboratory shall retain the following records of validation:

a) the validation procedure used; b) specification of the requirements; c) determination of the performance

characteristics of the method; d) results obtained; e) a statement on the validity of the

method, detailing its fitness for the intended use.


9.2.5.3 Sampling


9.2.5.3.1 The laboratory shall have a sampling plan and method when it carries out sampling of substances, materials or products for subsequent testing or calibration. The sampling method shall address the factors to be controlled to ensure the validity of subsequent testing or calibration results. The sampling plan and method shall be available at the site where sampling is undertaken. Sampling plans shall, whenever reasonable, be based on appropriate statistical methods.



`



GA No. 777629 P141 of 194


9.2.5.3.2 The sampling method shall describe:

a) the selection of samples or sites; b) the sampling plan; c) the preparation and treatment of

sample(s) from a substance, material or product to yield the required item for subsequent testing or calibration.

[Note: When received into the laboratory, further handling can be required as specified in 9.2.5.4.]



9.2.5.3.3 The laboratory shall retain records of sampling data that forms part of the testing or calibration that is undertaken. These records shall include, where relevant:

a) reference to the sampling method used; b) date and time of sampling; c) data to identify and describe the sample

(e.g. number, amount, name); d) identification of the personnel

performing sampling; e) identification of the equipment used; f) environmental or transport conditions; g) diagrams or other equivalent means to

identify the sampling location, when appropriate;

h) deviations, additions to or exclusions from the sampling method and sampling plan.



9.2.5.4 Handling of test or calibration items


9.2.5.4.1 The laboratory shall have a procedure for the transportation, receipt, handling, protection, storage, retention, and disposal or return of test or calibration items, including all provisions necessary to protect the integrity of the test or calibration item, and to protect the interests of the laboratory and the customer. Precautions shall be taken to avoid deterioration, contamination, loss or damage to the item during handling, transporting, storing/waiting, and preparation for testing or calibration. Handling instructions provided with the item shall be followed.



`



GA No. 777629 P142 of 194


9.2.5.4.2 The laboratory shall have a system for the unambiguous identification of test or calibration items. The identification shall be retained while the item is under the responsibility of the laboratory. The system shall ensure that items will not be confused physically or when referred to in records or other documents. The system shall, if appropriate, accommodate a sub-division of an item or groups of items and the transfer of items.



9.2.5.4.3 Upon receipt of the test or calibration item, deviations from specified conditions shall be recorded. When there is doubt about the suitability of an item for test or calibration, or when an item does not conform to the description provided, the laboratory shall consult the customer for further instructions before proceeding and shall record the results of this consultation. When the customer requires the item to be tested or calibrated acknowledging a deviation from specified conditions, the laboratory shall include a disclaimer in the report indicating which results may be affected by the deviation.



9.2.5.4.4 When items need to be stored or conditioned under specified environmental conditions, these conditions shall be maintained, monitored and recorded.



`



GA No. 777629 P143 of 194

9.2.5.5 Technical records


9.2.5.5.1 The laboratory shall ensure that technical records for each laboratory activity contain the results, report and sufficient information to facilitate, if possible, identification of factors affecting the measurement result and its associated measurement uncertainty and enable the repetition of the laboratory activity under conditions as close as possible to the original. The technical records shall include the date and the identity of personnel responsible for each laboratory activity and for checking data and results. Original observations, data and calculations shall be recorded at the time they are made and shall be identifiable with the specific task.


9.2.5.5.2 The laboratory shall ensure that amendments to technical records can be tracked to previous versions or to original observations. Both the original and amended data and files shall be retained, including the date of alteration, an indication of the altered aspects and the personnel responsible for the alterations.


9.2.5.6 Evaluation of measurement uncertainty


9.2.5.6.1 Laboratories shall identify the contributions to measurement uncertainty. When evaluating measurement uncertainty, all contributions that are of significance, including those arising from sampling, shall be taken into account using appropriate methods of analysis.


The results of the simulations are to be validated by means of the results of comparable track tests. The necessary accuracy of the WSP simulation results are given in the EN 15595 [04]/[27].

Validity of simulation models have to be described and influences which lead to a variance have to be taken into account.

9.2.5.6.2 A laboratory performing calibrations, including of its own equipment, shall evaluate the measurement uncertainty for all calibrations.



`



GA No. 777629 P144 of 194


9.2.5.6.3 A laboratory performing testing shall evaluate measurement uncertainty. Where the test method precludes rigorous evaluation of measurement uncertainty, an estimation shall be made based on an understanding of the theoretical principles or practical experience of the performance of the method.

[Note 1: In those cases where a well-recognized test method specifies limits to the values of the major sources of measurement uncertainty and specifies the form of presentation of the calculated results, the laboratory is considered to have satisfied the evaluation of measurement uncertainty by following the test method and reporting instructions.]

[Note 2: For a particular method where the measurement uncertainty of the results has been established and verified, there is no need to evaluate measurement uncertainty for each result if the laboratory can demonstrate that the identified critical influencing factors are under control.]

[Note 3: For further information, see ISO/IEC Guide 98-3 [36], ISO 21748 [37] and the ISO 5725 series [38].]

Requirement applies without modification only for the hardware part of HiL-simulations.

The deviations from results of simulations with results from comparable track tests is to be determined and recorded.

`



GA No. 777629 P145 of 194

9.2.5.7 Ensuring the validity of results


9.2.5.7.1 The laboratory shall have a procedure for monitoring the validity of results. The resulting data shall be recorded in such a way that trends are detectable and, where practicable, statistical techniques shall be applied to review the results. This monitoring shall be planned and reviewed and shall include, where appropriate, but not be limited to:

a) use of reference materials or quality control materials;

b) use of alternative instrumentation that has been calibrated to provide traceable results;

c) functional check(s) of measuring and testing equipment;

d) use of check or working standards with control charts, where applicable;

e) intermediate checks on measuring equipment;

f) replicate tests or calibrations using the same or different methods;

g) retesting or recalibration of retained items;

h) correlation of results for different characteristics of an item;

i) review of reported results; j) intralaboratory comparisons; k) testing of blind sample(s).


The laboratory must also have a procedure for monitoring the validity of the simulation results. The resulting data shall be recorded in such a way as to identify trends and, where practicable, statistical techniques shall be used to evaluate the results. This monitoring shall also be planned and verified and shall include meaningful evidence of the correct applicability of the simulation models used.

9.2.5.7.2 The laboratory shall monitor its performance by comparison with results of other laboratories, where available and appropriate. This monitoring shall be planned and reviewed and shall include, but not be limited to, either or both of the following:

a) participation in proficiency testing;

[Note: ISO/IEC 17043 [39] contains additional information on proficiency tests and proficiency testing providers. Proficiency testing providers that meet the requirements of ISO/IEC 17043 [39] are considered to be competent.

b) participation in interlaboratory comparisons other than proficiency testing.


`



GA No. 777629 P146 of 194


9.2.5.7.3 Data from monitoring activities shall be analyzed, used to control and, if applicable, improve the laboratory's activities. If the results of the analysis of data from monitoring activities are found to be outside pre-defined criteria, appropriate action shall be taken to prevent incorrect results from being reported.


9.2.5.8 Reporting of results

9.2.5.8.1 General

9.2.5.8.1 Requirement from EN ISO/IEC 17025 Modification for VVC

9.2.5.8.1.1 The results shall be reviewed and authorized prior to release.


9.2.5.8.1.2 The results shall be provided accurately, clearly, unambiguously and objectively, usually in a report (e.g. a test report or a calibration certificate or report of sampling) and shall include all the information agreed with the customer and necessary for the interpretation of the results and all information required by the method used. All issued reports shall be retained as technical records.

[Note 1: For the purposes of this document, test reports and calibration certificates are sometimes referred to as test certificates and calibration reports, respectively.]

[Note 2: Reports can be issued as hard copies or by electronic means, provided that the requirements of this document are met.]


9.2.5.8.1.3 When agreed with the customer, the results may be reported in a simplified way. Any information listed in chapter 9.2.5.8.2 to 9.2.5.8.7 that is not reported to the customer shall be readily available.


9.2.5.8.2 Common requirements for reports (test, calibration or sampling)


9.2.5.8.2.1 Each report shall include at least the following information, unless the laboratory has valid reasons for not doing so, thereby minimizing any possibility of misunderstanding or misuse:

Requirement applies if applicable even for VVC.

`



GA No. 777629 P147 of 194


a) a title (e.g. “Test Report”, “Calibration Certificate” or “Report of Sampling”);

b) the name and address of the laboratory; c) the location of performance of the

laboratory activities, including when performed at a customer facility or at sites away from the laboratory’s permanent facilities, or in associated temporary or mobile facilities;

d) unique identification that all its components are recognized as a portion of a complete report and a clear identification of the end;

e) the name and contact information of the customer;

f) identification of the method used; g) a description, unambiguous

identification, and, when necessary, the condition of the item;

h) the date of receipt of the test or calibration item(s), and the date of sampling, where this is critical to the validity and application of the results;

i) the date(s) of performance of the laboratory activity;

j) the date of issue of the report; k) reference to the sampling plan and

sampling method used by the laboratory or other bodies where these are relevant to the validity or application of the results;

l) a statement to the effect that the results relate only to the items tested, calibrated or sampled;

m) the results with, where appropriate, the units of measurement;

n) additions to, deviations, or exclusions from the method;

o) identification of the person(s) authorizing the report;

p) clear identification when results are from external providers.

[Note: Including a statement specifying that the report shall not be reproduced except in full without approval of the laboratory can provide assurance that parts of a report are not taken out of context.]

`



GA No. 777629 P148 of 194


9.2.5.8.2.2 The laboratory shall be responsible for all the information provided in the report, except when information is provided by the customer. Data provided by a customer shall be clearly identified. In addition, a disclaimer shall be put on the report when the information is supplied by the customer and can affect the validity of results. Where the laboratory has not been responsible for the sampling stage (e.g. the sample has been provided by the customer), it shall state in the report that the results apply to the sample as received.


9.2.5.8.3 Specific requirements for test reports


9.2.5.8.3.1 In addition to the requirements listed in 9.2.5.8.2, test reports shall, where necessary for the interpretation of the test results, include the following:

a) information on specific test conditions, such as environmental conditions;

b) where relevant, a statement of conformity with requirements or specifications (see 9.2.5.8.6);

c) where applicable, the measurement uncertainty presented in the same unit as that of the measurand or in a term relative to the measurand (e.g. percent) when: – it is relevant to the validity or

application of the test results; – a customer's instruction so

requires, or – the measurement uncertainty

affects conformity to a specification limit;

d) where appropriate, opinions and interpretations (see 9.2.5.8.7);

e) additional information that may be required by specific methods, authorities, customers or groups of customers.


9.2.5.8.3.2 Where the laboratory is responsible for the sampling activity, test reports shall meet the requirements listed in 9.2.5.8.5 where necessary for the interpretation of test results.



`



GA No. 777629 P149 of 194

9.2.5.8.4 Specific requirements for calibration certificates


9.2.5.8.4.1 In addition to the requirements listed in 9.2.5.8.2, calibration certificates shall include the following:

a) the measurement uncertainty of the measurement result presented in the same unit as that of the measurand or in a term relative to the measurand (e.g. percent);

[Note: According to ISO/IEC Guide 99 [34], a measurement result is generally expressed as a single measured quantity value including unit of measurement and a measurement uncertainty.]

b) the conditions (e.g. environmental) under which the calibrations were made that have an influence on the measurement results;

c) a statement identifying how the measurements are metrologically traceable;

d) the results before and after any adjustment or repair, if available;

e) where relevant, a statement of conformity with requirements or specifications (see 9.2.5.8.6);

f) where appropriate, opinions and interpretations (see 9.2.5.8.7).


A calibration certificate for a simulation tool is not applicable.

Nevertheless, the simulation environment needs to be verified regarding the accuracy and the results shall be documented.

9.2.5.8.4.2 Where the laboratory is responsible for the sampling activity, calibration certificates shall meet the requirements listed in 9.2.5.8.5 where necessary for the interpretation of calibration results.



9.2.5.8.4.3 A calibration certificate or calibration label shall not contain any recommendation on the calibration interval, except where this has been agreed with the customer.



`



GA No. 777629 P150 of 194

9.2.5.8.5 Reporting sampling – specific requirements


9.2.5.8.5 Where the laboratory is responsible for the sampling activity, in addition to the requirements listed in 9.2.5.8.2, reports shall include the following, where necessary for the interpretation of results:

a) the date of sampling; b) unique identification of the item or

material sampled (including the name of the manufacturer, the model or type of designation and serial numbers, as appropriate);

c) the location of sampling, including any diagrams, sketches or photographs;

d) a reference to the sampling plan and sampling method;

e) details of any environmental conditions during sampling that affect the interpretation of the results;

f) information required to evaluate measurement uncertainty for subsequent testing or calibration.



9.2.5.8.6 Reporting statements of conformity


9.2.5.8.6.1 When a statement of conformity to a specification or standard is provided, the laboratory shall document the decision rule employed, taking into account the level of risk (such as false accept and false reject and statistical assumptions) associated with the decision rule employed, and apply the decision rule.

[Note: Where the decision rule is prescribed by the customer, regulations or normative documents, a further consideration of the level of risk is not necessary.]


`



GA No. 777629 P151 of 194


9.2.5.8.6.2 The laboratory shall report on the statement of conformity, such that the statement clearly identifies:

a) to which results the statement of conformity applies;

b) which specifications, standards or parts thereof are met or not met;

c) the decision rule applied (unless it is inherent in the requested specification or standard).

[Note: See ISO/IEC Guide 98-4 [35] for further information.]


9.2.5.8.7 Reporting opinions and interpretations


9.2.5.8.7.1 When opinions and interpretations are expressed, the laboratory shall ensure that only personnel authorized for the expression of opinions and interpretations release the respective statement. The laboratory shall document the basis upon which the opinions and interpretations have been made.

[Note: It is important to distinguish opinions and interpretations from statements of inspections and product certifications as intended in ISO/IEC 17020 [11] and ISO/IEC 17065 [40], and from statements of conformity as referred to in 9.2.5.8.6.]


9.2.5.8.7.2 The opinions and interpretations expressed in reports shall be based on the results obtained from the tested or calibrated item and shall be clearly identified as such.


9.2.5.8.7.3 When opinions and interpretations are directly communicated by dialogue with the customer, a record of the dialogue shall be retained.


9.2.5.8.8 Amendments to reports


9.2.5.8.8.1 When an issued report needs to be changed, amended or re-issued, any change of information shall be clearly identified and,


`



GA No. 777629 P152 of 194


where appropriate, the reason for the change included in the report.

9.2.5.8.8.2 Amendments to a report after issue shall be made only in the form of a further document, or data transfer, which includes the statement “Amendment to Report, serial number... [or as otherwise identified]”, or an equivalent form of wording. Such amendments shall meet all the requirements of this document.


9.2.5.8.8.3 When it is necessary to issue a completely new report, this shall be uniquely identified and shall contain a reference to the original that it replaces.


9.2.5.9 Complaints


9.2.5.9.1 The laboratory shall have a documented process to receive, evaluate and make decisions on complaints.


9.2.5.9.2 A description of the handling process for complaints shall be available to any interested party on request. Upon receipt of a complaint, the laboratory shall confirm whether the complaint relates to laboratory activities that it is responsible for and, if so, shall deal with it. The laboratory shall be responsible for all decisions at all levels of the handling process for complaints.


9.2.5.9.3 The process for handling complaints shall include at least the following elements and methods:

a) description of the process for receiving, validating, investigating the complaint, and deciding what actions are to be taken in response to it;

b) tracking and recording complaints, including actions undertaken to resolve them;

c) ensuring that any appropriate action is taken.


9.2.5.9.4 The laboratory receiving the complaint shall be responsible for gathering and verifying all


`



GA No. 777629 P153 of 194


necessary information to validate the complaint.

9.2.5.9.5 Whenever possible, the laboratory shall acknowledge receipt of the complaint, and provide the complainant with progress reports and the outcome.


9.2.5.9.6 The outcomes to be communicated to the complainant shall be made by, or reviewed and approved by, individual(s) not involved in the original laboratory activities in question.

[Note: This can be performed by external personnel.]


9.2.5.9.7 Whenever possible, the laboratory shall give formal notice of the end of the complaint handling to the complainant.


9.2.5.10 Nonconforming work


9.2.5.10.1 The laboratory shall have a procedure that shall be implemented when any aspect of its laboratory activities or results of this work do not conform to its own procedures or the agreed requirements of the customer (e.g. equipment or environmental conditions are out of specified limits, results of monitoring fail to meet specified criteria). The procedure shall ensure that:

a) the responsibilities and authorities for the management of nonconforming work are defined;

b) actions (including halting or repeating of work and withholding of reports, as necessary) are based upon the risk levels established by the laboratory;

c) an evaluation is made of the significance of the nonconforming work, including an impact analysis on previous results;

d) a decision is taken on the acceptability of the nonconforming work;

e) where necessary, the customer is notified and work is recalled;

f) the responsibility for authorizing the resumption of work is defined.


`



GA No. 777629 P154 of 194


9.2.5.10.2 The laboratory shall retain records of nonconforming work and actions as specified in 9.2.5.10, bullets b) to f).


9.2.5.10.3 Where the evaluation indicates that the nonconforming work could recur, or that there is doubt about the conformity of the laboratory's operations with its own management system, the laboratory shall implement corrective action.


9.2.5.11 Control of data and information management


9.2.5.11.1 The laboratory shall have access to the data and information needed to perform laboratory activities.


9.2.5.11.2 The laboratory information management system(s) used for the collection, processing, recording, reporting, storage or retrieval of data shall be validated for functionality, including the proper functioning of interfaces within the laboratory information management system(s) by the laboratory before introduction. Whenever there are any changes, including laboratory software configuration or modifications to commercial off-the-shelf software, they shall be authorized, documented and validated before implementation.

[Note 1: In this document “laboratory information management system(s)” includes the management of data and information contained in both computerized and non-computerized systems. Some of the requirements can be more applicable to computerized systems than to non-computerized systems.]

[Note 2: Commercial off-the-shelf software in general use within its designed application range can be considered to be sufficiently validated.]


`



GA No. 777629 P155 of 194


9.2.5.11.3 The laboratory information management system(s) shall:

a) be protected from unauthorized access; b) be safeguarded against tampering and

loss; c) be operated in an environment that

complies with provider or laboratory specifications or, in the case of non-computerized systems, provides conditions which safeguard the accuracy of manual recording and transcription;

d) be maintained in a manner that ensures the integrity of the data and information;

e) include recording system failures and the appropriate immediate and corrective actions.


9.2.5.11.4 When a laboratory information management system is managed and maintained off-site or through an external provider, the laboratory shall ensure that the provider or operator of the system complies with all applicable requirements of this document.


9.2.5.11.5 The laboratory shall ensure that instructions, manuals and reference data relevant to the laboratory information management system(s) are made readily available to personnel.


9.2.5.11.6 Calculations and data transfers shall be checked in an appropriate and systematic manner.


`



GA No. 777629 P156 of 194

9.2.6 Management system requirements

9.2.6.1 Options

Option A: Management system requirements according 9.2.6.2 to 9.2.6.9

Option B: Management system requirements in accordance with ISO 9001 [41]

[Note: Even in the case that Option B was chosen,

– the Conformity Assessment Body has to indicate the reference documents for the implementation of the requirements according to clause 9.2.6.2 to 9.2.6.9 and

– the assessors have to assess and to review the implementation of the requirements according to clause 9.2.6.2 to 9.2.6.9.]

General:

The laboratory shall establish, document, implement and maintain a management system that can support and demonstrating the consistent achievement of the requirements of this document and assuring the quality of the laboratory results. In addition to meeting the requirements of Clauses 9.2.1 to 9.2.5, the laboratory shall implement a management system in accordance with Option A or Option B.

Option A:

As a minimum, the management system of the laboratory shall address the following:

– management system documentation (see 9.2.6.2); – control of management system documents (see 9.2.6.3); – control of records (see 9.2.6.4); – actions to address risks and opportunities (see 9.2.6.5); – improvement (see 9.2.6.6); – corrective actions (see 9.2.6.7); – internal audits (see 9.2.6.8); – management reviews (see 9.2.6.9).

Option B:

A laboratory that has established and maintains a management system, in accordance with the requirements of ISO 9001 [41], and that is capable of supporting and demonstrating the consistent fulfilment of the requirements of Clauses 9.2.6.4 to 9.2.6.7, also fulfils at least the intent of the management system requirements specified in 9.2.6.2 to 9.2.6.9.

`



GA No. 777629 P157 of 194

9.2.6.2 Management system documentation


9.2.6.2.1 Laboratory management shall establish, document, and maintain policies and objectives for the fulfilment of the purposes of this document and shall ensure that the policies and objectives are acknowledged and implemented at all levels of the laboratory organization.


9.2.6.2.2 The policies and objectives shall address the competence, impartiality and consistent operation of the laboratory.


9.2.6.2.3 Laboratory management shall provide evidence of commitment to the development and implementation of the management system and to continually improving its effectiveness.


9.2.6.2.4 All documentation, processes, systems, records, related to the fulfilment of the requirements of this document shall be included in, referenced from, or linked to the management system.


9.2.6.2.5 All personnel involved in laboratory activities shall have access to the parts of the management system documentation and related information that are applicable to their responsibilities.


9.2.6.3 Control of management system documents


9.2.6.3.1 The laboratory shall control the documents (internal and external) that relate to the fulfilment of this document.

[Note: In this context, “documents” can be policy statements, procedures, specifications, manufacturer’s instructions, calibration tables, charts, text books, posters, notices, memoranda, drawings, plans, etc. These can be on various media, such as hard copy or digital.]


`



GA No. 777629 P158 of 194


9.2.6.3.2 The laboratory shall ensure that:

a) documents are approved for adequacy prior to issue by authorized personnel;

b) documents are periodically reviewed, and updated as necessary;

c) changes and the current revision status of documents are identified;

d) relevant versions of applicable documents are available at points of use and, where necessary, their distribution is controlled;

e) documents are uniquely identified; f) the unintended use of obsolete

documents is prevented, and suitable identification is applied to them if they are retained for any purpose.


9.2.6.4 Control of records


9.2.6.4.1 The laboratory shall establish and retain legible records to demonstrate fulfilment of the requirements in this document.


9.2.6.4.2 The laboratory shall implement the controls needed for the identification, storage, protection, back-up, archive, retrieval, retention time, and disposal of its records. The laboratory shall retain records for a period consistent with its contractual obligations. Access to these records shall be consistent with the confidentiality commitments, and records shall be readily available.

[Note: Additional requirements regarding technical records are given in 9.2.5.5.]


`



GA No. 777629 P159 of 194

9.2.6.5 Actions to address risks and opportunities


9.2.6.5.1 The laboratory shall consider the risks and opportunities associated with the laboratory activities in order to:

a) give assurance that the management system achieves its intended results;

b) enhance opportunities to achieve the purpose and objectives of the laboratory;

c) prevent, or reduce, undesired impacts and potential failures in the laboratory activities;

d) achieve improvement.


9.2.6.5.2 The laboratory shall plan:

a) actions to address these risks and opportunities;

b) how to: – integrate and implement these

actions into its management system;

– evaluate the effectiveness of these actions.

[Note: Although this document specifies that the laboratory plans actions to address risks, there is no requirement for formal methods for risk management or a documented risk management process. Laboratories can decide whether or not to develop a more extensive risk management methodology than is required by this document, e.g. through the application of other guidance or standards.]


9.2.6.5.3 Actions taken to address risks and opportunities shall be proportional to the potential impact on the validity of laboratory results.

[Note 1: Options to address risks can include identifying and avoiding threats, taking risk in order to pursue an opportunity, eliminating the risk source, changing the likelihood or consequences, sharing the risk, or retaining risk by informed decision.]

[Note 2: Opportunities can lead to expanding the scope of the laboratory activities, addressing new customers, using new


`



GA No. 777629 P160 of 194


technology and other possibilities to address customer needs.]

9.2.6.6 Improvement


9.2.6.6.1 The laboratory shall identify and select opportunities for improvement and implement any necessary actions.

[Note: Opportunities for improvement can be identified through the review of the operational procedures, the use of the policies, overall objectives, audit results, corrective actions, management review, suggestions from personnel, risk assessment, analysis of data, and proficiency testing results.]


9.2.6.6.2 The laboratory shall seek feedback, both positive and negative, from its customers. The feedback shall be analysed and used to improve the management system, laboratory activities and customer service.

[Note: Examples of the types of feedback include customer satisfaction surveys, communication records and review of reports with customers.]


`



GA No. 777629 P161 of 194

9.2.6.7 Corrective actions


9.2.6.7.1 When a nonconformity occurs, the laboratory shall:

a) react to the nonconformity and, as applicable: – take action to control and correct it; – address the consequences;

b) evaluate the need for action to eliminate the cause(s) of the nonconformity, in order that it does not recur or occur elsewhere, by: – reviewing and analysing the

nonconformity; – determining the causes of the

nonconformity; – determining if similar

nonconformities exist, or could potentially occur;

c) implement any action needed; d) review the effectiveness of any

corrective action taken; e) update risks and opportunities

determined during planning, if necessary;

f) make changes to the management system, if necessary.


9.2.6.7.2 Corrective actions shall be appropriate to the effects of the nonconformities encountered.


9.2.6.7.3 The laboratory shall retain records as evidence of:

a) the nature of the nonconformities, cause(s) and any subsequent actions taken;

b) the results of any corrective action.


`



GA No. 777629 P162 of 194

9.2.6.8 Internal audits


9.2.6.8.1 The laboratory shall conduct internal audits at planned intervals to provide information on whether the management system:

a) conforms to: – the laboratory’s own requirements

for its management system, including the laboratory activities;

– the requirements of this document; b) effectively implemented and

maintained.


9.2.6.8.2 The laboratory shall:

a) plan, establish, implement and maintain an audit programme including the frequency, methods, responsibilities, planning requirements and reporting, which shall take into consideration the importance of the laboratory activities concerned, changes affecting the laboratory, and the results of previous audits;

b) define the audit criteria and scope for each audit;

c) ensure that the results of the audits are reported to relevant management;

d) implement appropriate correction and corrective actions without undue delay;

e) retain records as evidence of the implementation of the audit programme and the audit results.

[Note: ISO 19011[42] provides guidance for internal audits.]


9.2.6.9 Management reviews


9.2.6.9.1 The laboratory management shall review its management system at planned intervals, in order to ensure its continuing suitability, adequacy and effectiveness, including the stated policies and objectives related to the fulfilment of this document.


`



GA No. 777629 P163 of 194


9.2.6.9.2 The inputs to management review shall be recorded and shall include information related to the following:

a) changes in internal and external issues that are relevant to the laboratory;

b) fulfilment of objectives; c) suitability of policies and procedures; d) status of actions from previous

management reviews; e) outcome of recent internal audits; f) corrective actions; g) assessments by external bodies; h) changes in the volume and type of the

work or in the range of laboratory activities;

i) customer and personnel feedback; j) complaints; k) effectiveness of any implemented

improvements; l) adequacy of resources; m) results of risk identification; n) outcomes of the assurance of the

validity of results; and o) other relevant factors, such as

monitoring activities and training.


9.2.6.9.3 The outputs from the management review shall record all decisions and actions related to at least:

a) the effectiveness of the management system and its processes;

b) improvement of the laboratory activities related to the fulfilment of the requirements of this document;

c) provision of required resources; d) any need for change.


`



GA No. 777629 P164 of 194

9.3 Conclusions The scope and execution of necessary testing processes are to be optimized in order to reduce costs in the certification of components and subsystems of safety-relevant braking systems within the framework of the approval of railway vehicles. Thus, in a first step, the costs for the certification examinations of wheel slide protection devices were considered.

Currently necessary laboratory and vehicle tests could be replaced by simulations to a much greater extent than before. Even already established, still relatively complex HiL simulations on the wheel slide protection test bench can be partially replaced by more cost-effective SiL simulations.

The results of such simulation investigations to prove the conformity of brake components (here limited to wheel slide protection devices in the first step) must be provided by accredited test processes. Therefore, the requirements of the relevant European standard EN ISO/IEC 17025 [02], valid for accredited testing institutes, have been extended to include requirements for software simulations.

`



GA No. 777629 P165 of 194

10 References

[01] PINTA Contract No. Shift2Rail – 730668, WP8 “ADHESION MODELING AND LABORATORY & TRACK REPRODUCTION SYSTEMS”

[02] EN ISO/IEC 17025:2017 - General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories

[03] UIC 541-05, 3rd edition, March 2016 - Brakes - Manufacturing specifications for various brake parts - Wheel Slide Protection device (WSP)

[04] EN 15595:2011 - Railway applications – Braking – Wheel slide protection

[05] UIC 544-1 6th Edition, Oct. 2014 - Brakes - Braking performance

[06] EN 15734-1:2013 - Railway applications – Braking systems of high speed trains – Part 1: Requirements and definitions

[07] EN 15734-2:2013 - Railway applications – Braking systems of high speed trains – Part 2: Test methods

[08] EN 16185-2:2014 - Railway applications – Braking systems of multiple unit trains – Part 2: Test methods

[09] EN 14198:2016 - Railway applications – Braking – Requirements for the brake system of trains hauled by locomotives

[10] EN 14363:2016 - Railway applications - Testing and Simulation for the acceptance of running characteristics of railway vehicles - Running Behaviour and stationary tests

[11] EN ISO/IEC 17020:2012 - Conformity assessment – Requirements for the operation of various types of bodies performing inspection

[12] EU/1302/2014 - Technical Specification for Interoperability relating to the ‘rolling stock — locomotives and passenger rolling stock’ subsystem of the rail system in the European Union (aka TSI LOC&PAS:2014), lastly amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/776 of 16 May 2019

[13] EN 16185-1:2014 - Railway applications – Braking systems of multiple unit trains – Part 1: Requirements and definitions

[14] EN 14531-1:2015 - Railway applications – Methods for calculation of stopping and slowing distances and immobilization braking – Part 1: General algorithms utilizing mean value calculation for train sets or single vehicles

[15] EN 14531-2:2015 - Railway applications – Methods for calculation of stopping and slowing distances and immobilization braking – Part 2: Step by step calculations for train sets or single vehicles

[16] EN 15179:2010 - Railway applications – Braking – Requirements for the brake system of coaches

[17] EN 16207:2014 - Railway applications – Braking – Functional and performance criteria of Magnetic Track Brake systems for use in railway rolling stock

[18] UIC 541-06 2nd Edition, March 2013 - Brakes - Specifications for the construction of various brake parts - Magnetic brakes

[19] EN 14478:2017 - Railway applications – Braking - Generic vocabulary

`



GA No. 777629 P166 of 194

[20] EN 50126-1:2017 - Railway Applications - The Specification and Demonstration of Reliability, Availability, Maintainability and Safety (RAMS) - Part 1: Generic RAMS Process

[21] EN 50126-2:2017 - Railway Applications - The Specification and Demonstration of Reliability, Availability, Maintainability and Safety (RAMS) - Part 2: Systems Approach to Safety

[22] EN 15663:2017 - Railway applications – Vehicle reference masses

[23] EN 12663-1:2015-03 - Railway applications – Structural requirements of railway vehicle bodies – Part 1: Locomotives and passenger rolling stock (and alternative method for freight wagons)

[24] EN 15227:2011-01: - Railway applications - Crashworthiness requirements for railway vehicle bodies

[25] EN 15273-1:2017-10: - Railway applications - Gauges - Part 1: General - Common rules for infrastructure and rolling stock

[26] EN 15827:2011 - Railway applications - Requirements for bogies and running gear

[27] EN 15595:2018 - Railway applications – Braking – Wheel slide protection

[28] EN 50657:2017 - Railways Applications - Rolling stock applications - Software on Board

[29] EN 16834:2019 - Railway applications - Braking - Brake performance

[30] EN 50215:2009 - Railway applications — Rolling stock — Testing of rolling stock on completion of construction and before entry into service

[31] ISO 17034:2016-11 - General requirements for the competence of reference material producers

[32] ISO Guide 33:2015-02 - Reference materials - Good practice in using reference materials

[33] ISO Guide 80:2014-08 - Guidance for the in-house preparation of quality control materials (QCMs)

[34] ISO/IEC Guide 99:2007-12 - International vocabulary of metrology - Basic and general concepts and associated terms (VIM)

[35] ISO/IEC Guide 98-4:2012-11 - Uncertainty of measurement - Part 4: Role of measurement uncertainty in conformity assessment

[36] ISO/IEC Guide 98-3:2008-09 - Uncertainty of measurement - Part 3: Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement

[37] ISO 21748:2017-04 - Guidance for the use of repeatability, reproducibility and trueness estimates in measurement uncertainty evaluation

[38] ISO 5725-1 to -6 - Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results, i.e. ISO 5725-1:1994-12 - Part 1: General principles and definitions

[39] ISO/IEC 17043:2010-02 - Conformity assessment - General requirements for proficiency testing

[40] ISO/IEC 17065:2012-09 - Conformity assessment - Requirements for bodies certifying products, processes and services

[41] ISO 9001:2015-09 - Quality management systems – Requirements

[42] ISO 19011:2018-07 - Guidelines for auditing management systems

[43] EN 50128:2012 - Railway applications – Communication, signalling and processing systems – Software for railway control and protection systems;

`



GA No. 777629 P167 of 194

[44] Document PIVOT-TSK5.5-T-ALS-001, BRK REGIONAL TRAIN CERTIFICATION-HOMOLOGATION PLAN, Denis Emorine, Alstom, 22/06/2018 (uploaded to CT4)

[45] Document PIVOT-TSK5.5-T-SNF-006, GENERIC TEST PLAN FOR HIGH SPEED TRAIN, Richard Chavagnat, SNCF-M, 27/07/2018 (uploaded to CT4)

[46] Document PIVOT-TSK5.5-T-FTT-016, BRAKE SYSTEM VALIDATION COSTS, Luc Imbert, Faiveley Transport Italy, 16/05/2018 (uploaded to CT4)

[47] Document PIVOT-TSK5.5-T-KNR-023, CONCEPT, Oliver Urspruch, Knorr-Bremse, 18/04/2018 (uploaded to CT4)

[48] Document PIVOT-TSK5.5-T-KNR-061, Stakeholder Requirements, Oliver Urspruch, Knorr-Bremse, 05/08/2019 (uploaded to CT4)

`



GA No. 777629 P168 of 194

11 Annexes

A: 2019-07-19_BRK Train Certification-Homologation plan_PIVOT_V03_ALSTOM: Test plan and assessment for the benefits of virtual validation (chapter 5) (uploaded to CT4 as PIVOT-TSK5.5-T-ALS-004)

`



GA No. 777629 P169 of 194

12 Antitrust Statement

While some activities among competitors are both legal and beneficial to the industry, group activities of competitors are inherently suspect under the antitrust/ competition laws of the countries in which our companies do business. Agreements between or among competitors need not be formal to raise questions under antitrust laws. They may include any kind of understanding, formal or informal, secretive or public, under which each of the participants can reasonably expect that another will follow a particular course of action or conduct. Each of the participants in this initiative is responsible for seeing that topics which may give an appearance of an agreement that would violate the antitrust laws are not discussed. It is the responsibility of each participant in the first instance to avoid raising improper subjects for discussion, notably such as those identified below. It is the sole purpose of any meeting of this initiative to provide a forum for expression of various points of view on topics (i) that are strictly related to the purpose or the execution of the initiative, (ii) that need to be discussed among the participants of the initiative, (iii) that are duly mentioned in the agenda of this meeting and (iv) that are extensively described in the minutes of the meeting.

Participants are strongly encouraged to adhere to the agenda. Under no circumstances shall this meeting be used as a means for competing companies to reach any understanding, expressed or implied, which restricts or tends to restrict competition, or in any way impairs or tends to impair the ability of members to exercise independent business judgment regarding matters affecting competition. As a general rule, participants may not exchange any information about any business secret of their respective companies. In particular, participants must avoid any agreement or exchange of information on topics on the following non-exhaustive list:

1. Prices, including calculation methodologies, surcharges, fees, rebates, conditions, freight rates, marketing terms, and pricing policies in general;

2. any kind of market allocation, such as the allocation of territories, routes, product markets, customers, suppliers, and tenders;

3. production planning; marketing or investment plans; capacities; levels of production or sales; customer base; customer relationships; margins; costs in general; product development; specific R&D projects;

4. standards setting (when its purpose is to limit the availability and selection of products, limit competition, restrict entry into an industry, inhibit innovation or inhibit the ability of competitors to compete);

5. codes of ethics administered in a way that could inhibit or restrict competition; 6. group boycotts; 7. validity of patents; 8. ongoing litigations.

`



GA No. 777629 P170 of 194

Annex A

2019-07-19_BRK Train Certification-Homologation plan_PIVOT_V03_ALSTOM: Test plan and assessment for the benefits of virtual validation (chapter5) (uploaded to CT4 as PIVOT-TSK5.5-T-ALS-004).

Annex A

VERSION: 03DATE: 19.07.2019

TRAIN CERTIFICATION AND HOMOLOGATION PLAN

SHIFT TO RAIL ; PIVOT ; WP5.5 ; ASSESSMENT REPORT D5.8

PIVOT-TSK5.5-T-ALS-004 P171 of 194

Real testVirtual

simulationBased on EN 50215

Task - - -

General T T/S S C O

Test Test/Simulation Simulation Calculation Open

Homologation and Test processing

- -

A shall is mentioned at the requirement or to

validate is only possible by test

A shall is mentioned at

the requirement.

Input signals could be

simulated

Simulation of the

requirement could be

done

Calculation is required

No definition how to

validate the requirement

Type Test: X - Yes

Routine Test: X - Yes

Virtual Validation: - X

Level 1: Vehicle

X -

Level 2: Single Multiple Unit

X -

Level 3: Coupled Multiple Units

X -

Criteria, to perform real Tests:

- -

Criteria to perform simulation (Virtual Validation):

- -

Following models shall be certified if present in the vehicle to validate:

- X

Test Plan Yes

To be able to crosscheck the validated models, the focus is on type tests and serial static tests.

At static Tests and Type Test (performed by the Car builder) the real behaviour of the train incl. all communications of the connected systems are measured and shall be used to validate the computer models and their communication

For instance, if the friction pair coefficient (e.g. regarding speed behaviour, energy, temperature behaviour, pre-conditioning, cooling down ...), the calliper efficiency, application and release times, and ... are validated all other performance tests could be simulated.

EXPLANATION

Explanation of Condition

Definitions

The plan of the tests to be undertaken by the manufacturer as presented within its QualityPlan, including all supporting information on the conduct of the testsNOTE In the context of this standard, the Test Plan includes all subordinate test specifications.

If Tests are foreseen as a Simulation it shall be declared and agreed.

Description

Actually for a new type of vehicle, at one of the first vehicles, physical homologations tests shall be performed.

The aim is to identify requirements where validated computer models and their communication could replace the physical test by a virtual validation.

The Test Plan is based on the EN 16185-2 with additional columns for TSI LOC&PAS and other Standards.Additional informations you will find at the Alstom PIVOT WP 5.5 (2019-04-01 Virtual Validation WP 5.5) presentation.

Descicion to be able to perform a simulation are the following:- virtual validation model is validated with measurements (feedback) from Vehicle/Train measurements

- All Modells used for the virtual validation, shall contain the possibility to set the extrem (accepted) tolerances of the component.- AGTU: Fill-up to max. pressure, compensate leakage, Air dryer function, -> Not mandatory for scope reduced to WSP- Piping System: Size of Reservoir, diameter and length of piping, diameter of Fittings, number of bending- Flexible connections: Diameter of fitting, length and bending of flexible connection,- BKC: Service brake, Function of Emergency brake valve, Sensor signal, Setting of Indicators, Leakages of all different parts of the system (MP, BP, C-Pressure, T-Pressure) ...- Brake Electronic (HIL): Receiving of demand, Communication to TCMS, Diagnostics- WSP: (if not part of Brake Electronic), WSP behaviour, environmental conditions, - TRC: Simulation of ED-Brake, Simulation of Blending (ED+EP-Brake), Fault simulation, - Other additional brake simulation (air brake, other dynamic brake)- Master Controller (brake and traction demand, (service - (0-100%) and emergency brake application)) -> Not mandatory for scope reduced to WSP- Brake controller lever (separate) only for ED-Brake e.g. for Loco's -> Not mandatory for scope reduced to WSP- Brake panel: Magnet valve for Service brake application - Isolation components: Isolation of different pneumatical components -> Not mandatory for scope reduced to WSP - Air suspension: Setting of air suspension, inside and outside of Tolerance -> Not mandatory for scope reduced to WSP - Distributor Valve: function to generate C-Pressure- Dump Valve: with and without integrated Pressure sensor, WSP, - Calliper: Efficiency, hysteresis, F/C curve, volumes, reaction time,- Friction pair: Caracterize the friction pair versus the braking cases (e.g. dyno test)- Parking Brake: Intended and unintended application of parking brake -> Not mandatory for scope reduced to WSP - Magnetic Track Brake / Eddy Current Brake: Speed depending friction coefficient, application/activation time, - Sanding System: sand flow rate, reaction time, action on the adhesion- PEB / PAD / EBO: Function of EBO -> Not mandatory for scope reduced to WSP - ATP(s) related to the conccerned project: Reaction time to order EB, FSB (restriction to triggering condition) -> Not mandatory for scope reduced to WSP

Decision not to be able to perform a simulation are the following:'- Safety relevant functions or components shall be physically tested at least one time

in accordance with Figure 1 of EN 16185-2



To fulfil the brake system implementation and functional test requirements, the different levels of static tests of a Vehicle could be used as an evidence of its correct behaviour.

These levels are:- Type test of component, according to generic requirements (car builder/supplier)- Acceptance Test of independent Test Institute (Railway approval by DBSys. or SNCF)- Serial Test of the component (at supplier)- Stat. commissioning of the vehicle, performed by car builder (1. Commissioning in addition by supplier)- Dyn. commissioning of the vehicle, performed by car builder (1. dyn. com. with supplier)- 1. homologation of the vehicle.- Stat. serial Test of the vehicle, performed by car builder, e.g. for later changes after 1. homologation- Dyn. serial Test of the vehicle (dyn. Commissioning in tare load), performed by car builder, e.g. for later changes after 1. homologation

Dynamic test could be reduced/simulated, if at different levels the results fulfils the requirements.

These tests shall be carried out on each vehicle to be delivered. They are listed in Tables A.1and A.2 and described in Clauses 8 and 9 (see Clause 6). ==> see EN 50215

Vehicle test that is performed during or after manufacture to show that the design meets therequired specifications and the relevant standards [EN 50215]

Routine Tests at vehicle level, are not possible to simulate

These tests shall be performed over an agreed duration to demonstrate that the vehicledesign complies with the performance requirements specified in the contract. They are listedin Tables A.1 and A.2 and described in Clauses 8 and 9. ==> see EN 50215

Real test of one or more - devices, - system or - complete vehicle, demonstrating that the function meets the required specifications and fulfils the relevant standards at all environmental conditions ==> EN 50215

If the virtual simulation model is optimised by real measurements and validated, it could replace real tests at vehicle level.

Replacement of physical tests (on track) by simulation of the different systems / sub systems / functions incl. optimisation with results from real tests.

The model to simulate the belonging functions shall be validated by real measurements to define for instance the friction coefficient depending on the required speeds and for the different brake modes (different brake energies).E.g. in case of a validated piping system, the WSP simulation could be performed at Train or at test bench.


Nr. Description of test procedure Remarks

Based on EN 16185-2EB

R+MgEBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

EBR+Mg

EBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

EBR+Mg

EBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

Level 2 Level 3

Cond

ition

conserned Para.

Cond

ition

conserned Para.

Cond

ition

6.5.1 Basic inspection

6.5.1.1The conformity of the vehicle data shall be verified concerning:— vehicle type and number;— vehicle inscriptions.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X X T - - - - T Vehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.1.2The conformity of the pneumatic, mechanical, electric and electronic brake equipment regarding types, quantity and marking with the documentation shall be verified.


6.5.1.3 A record of the serial number and configuration of the main brake system components (e.g. brake panels) should be compiled if not already part of existing documentation.


6.5.1.4The conformity of all the equipments/components in accordance with the applicable European Standard shall be verified.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - T - - - - T Vehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.1.5The correct connection (mechanical, pneumatic, electrical) of each Level 1 part of the unit shall be verified.


6.5.1.6 The continuity of the main brake pipe shall be verified. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X X T4.2.4.9

'4.2.2.2.3O - - T Vehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.1.7 The continuity of the main reservoir pipe shall be verified. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X X T4.2.4.9

'4.2.2.2.3O - - T Vehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.1.8 The continuity of the safety loop shall be verified. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X X T 4.2.4.9. O - - T Vehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.1.9The installation of the brake system parts in the vehicle (e.g. installation position, movements and clearances of flexible connections, etc. and safety features as defined in the installation documentation) shall be verified.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - T 4.2.4.9. O - - T Vehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.2 General safety related assessment of the installation

6.5.2.1The conformity of the position of the friction materials regarding brake discs and/or running surface of the wheel with the installation documentation shall be verified.


Technical Assessment reg.

Virtual validation

Tare Normal Crush

TEST PLAN

EN 16185-2[2015]

TSI LOC&PAS

[2014]

UIC 544-1[6. Rev.]




R+MgEBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

EBR+Mg

EBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

EBR+Mg

EBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

Level 2 Level 3

Cond

ition

conserned Para.

Cond

ition

conserned Para.

Cond

ition


Virtual validation

Tare Normal Crush

TEST PLAN

EN 16185-2[2015]

TSI LOC&PAS

[2014]

UIC 544-1[6. Rev.]

6.5.3 Air tightness

6.5.3.1

The air tightness of the main reservoir system with the ancillary components connected shall be verified. All ancillary devices supplied by the main reservoir pipe shall be connected but not in operation; it is permissible to isolate devices that have a permanent air consumption e.g. precision pressure regulators etc. Air supply shall be deactivated. A brake release command shall be propagated along the brake command line (brake pipe pressure shall be 5 bar for trains equipped with air brake pipe). Hoses are to be isolated by dummy couplings and end cocks shall be opened. The main reservoir pipe shall be filled at nominal pressure. Acceptable pressure reduction shall be 0 bar to 0,2 bar in 3 min.


6.5.3.2

For trains equipped with a brake pipe, its air tightness shall be verified. All devices supplied by the brake pipe shall be connected: brake panels, emergency valves, driver’s brake valve, etc. The brake pipe shall be filled to normal release pressure and stabilized. The driver’s brake valve shall be in neutral position. The connection between main reservoir pipe and auxiliary reservoirs shall be isolated. Hoses are to be isolated by dummy ouplings and end cocks shall be opened. Acceptable pressure reduction shall be 0 bar to 0,1 bar in 3 min from 5 bar.


6.5.3.3

For systems incorporating a brake pipe and brake distributors, the stability of the brake command shall be tested. A service brake shall be applied. Acceptable pressure variation in brake cylinder shall be less than 0,2 bar in 10 min. This test shall be carried out in normal train operation as well as in back-up and in rescue configurations of the brake system.


6.5.3.4

The air tightness of the brake cylinders shall be verified. With the auxiliary reservoir isolated from the main eservoir pipe, an emergency brake shall be applied. The brake cylinder pressure shall be constant with a tolerance of +0,2 bar and −0,15 bar, acceptable auxiliary reservoir pressure reduc on shall be less than 0,2 bar in 10 min.


6.5.4 Gauging and pressure gauges

6.5.4.1.

The functionality of the gauges on the desk (MRP, BP if present, BC, etc.) shall be verified with regard to:— the correct connection;— the correct marking;— the precision inaccordance with EN 16185–1.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - T 4.2.4.9 T - - T Vehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.5. Auxiliary reservoir

6.5.5.1.The functionality of filling of the auxiliary reservoirs from the main reservoir pipe shall be verified. The test shall be performed with the air compressor of the unit in accordance with 5.2.3.2.


6.5.5.2.The functionality of filling of the auxiliary reservoirs from the brake pipe alone (if present) shall be verified. The test shall be done with the air compressor of the unit in accordance with 5.2.3.2.





R+MgEBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

EBR+Mg

EBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

EBR+Mg

EBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

Level 2 Level 3

Cond

ition

conserned Para.

Cond

ition

conserned Para.

Cond

ition


Virtual validation

Tare Normal Crush

TEST PLAN

EN 16185-2[2015]

TSI LOC&PAS

[2014]

UIC 544-1[6. Rev.]

6.5.6. Local control of the brake/distributor valve

6.5.6.1.For direct EP-Brakes verify that it acts in accordance with the design specification (including trans-characteristic, hysteresis, sensitivity, repeatability, application and release times).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X X T 4.2.4.5.2 O - - T Vehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.6.2.If the train is fitted with a brake pipe, it is to be verified that the total volume associated with each distributor is less than 25 l. This verification can be carried out on documentation.


6.5.6.3.It is to be verified that it is possible to properly release the control pressures of the direct and indirect brakes.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - T 4.2.4.2.1 O - - T Vehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.7. Main relay valve

6.5.7.1

It is to be verified:— whether the brake cylinder pressure(s) for an emergency application conforms/conform to the design specification (tolerances +0,2 bar; −0,15 bar);— for double stage relay valves (if any) the change-over between the “high” and “low” pressure stage and whether the brake cylinder pressures for both stages comply with the specification (tolerances +0,2 bar; −0,15 bar).

- X - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - T 4.2.4.5.2 T - - T Vehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.7.2

The brake cylinders pressure shall be gradually controllable and proportional to the brake demand signal. The brake cylinder pressure values, for both the increasing and decreasing brake demand, and sensitivity shall be measured and verified against the design specifications. It shall be possible to obtain a number of different brake cylinder pressure levels in accordance with EN 16185–1.

- X - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - T 4.2.4.5.2 T - - T Vehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.7.3

The relationship between the actual weight of the vehicle (obtained after weighing) and the load pressure shall be verified against the design specifications.

NOTE This test can be done, for normal and crush loads, when loading the train for dynamic tests.

- X - - - - X - - - - X - - - X - T4.2.4.5.26.2.3.1.6.2.3.8.

T - - T Vehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.7.4

For the variable load relay valves, the pairs load pressure/brake cylinder pressures for the three load states tare, normal, crush shall be verified for an emergency brake application and for an appropriate number of brake demand levels. The low pressure point is measured by increasing the pressure and high pressure point is measured by decreasing the pressure. NOTE Load pressures can be simulated.

- X - - - - X - - - - X - - - X - T4.2.4.5.26.2.3.1.6.2.3.8.


6.5.7.5

Tests listed in 6.5.7.1, 6.5.7.2, 6.5.7.3 and 6.5.7.4 shall be repeated one time with the main air supply isolated during the test (refilling reservoirs before starting the next test). In addition, for variable load relay valves, the brake cylinders pressure shall be verified for load pressures below the tare value.

- X - - - - X - - - - X - - - X - T4.2.4.5.24.2.4.5.3


6.5.7.6

The application and release times at the brake cylinders during full service and emergency brake applications shall be measured. If the brake system is fitted with a variable load relay valve the measurement shall be performed for two load states. NOTE Load pressures can be simulated.

- X - - X - - - - - - X - - X X - T/S4.2.4.5.24.2.4.5.3





R+MgEBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

EBR+Mg

EBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

EBR+Mg

EBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

Level 2 Level 3

Cond

ition

conserned Para.

Cond

ition

conserned Para.

Cond

ition


Virtual validation

Tare Normal Crush

TEST PLAN

EN 16185-2[2015]

TSI LOC&PAS

[2014]

UIC 544-1[6. Rev.]

6.5.8 Emergency brake

6.5.8.1.

The functionality of all emergency control devices fitted on the vehicle, including the emergency position of the brake controllers, shall be verified. The reaction of the systems fitted on the vehicle to the emergency brake commands, shall also be verified. In the above tests, both electrical and pneumatic (if applicable) paths shall be verified.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - T 4.2.4.4.1. T - - T Vehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.8.2The forces to move any manual device into the emergency position shall be varified according to the design specifications.


6.5.8.3

The functionality of all emergency control devices fitted on the vehicle, including the emergency position of the brake controllers, shall be verified:— the brake delay and brake force build-up times of the friction brake shall be measured during application and release as close as is possible to a brake cylinder, at the front and far end of the unit;— the brake delay time (the brake force application and release times are established during dynamic testing) of the electro-dynamic brake (if applicable) shall be measured for all vehicles;— the brake application and release times of the Magnetic Track Brake and of the Eddy Current Brake (if applicable) shall be measured. This test shall be performed for all paths (electrical, pneumatic) that propagates the emergency brake command along the MU.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X X T4.2.4.4.14.2.4.4.24.2.4.8.2





R+MgEBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

EBR+Mg

EBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

EBR+Mg

EBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

Level 2 Level 3

Cond

ition

conserned Para.

Cond

ition

conserned Para.

Cond

ition


Virtual validation

Tare Normal Crush

TEST PLAN

EN 16185-2[2015]

TSI LOC&PAS

[2014]

UIC 544-1[6. Rev.]

6.5.9. Driver’s brake valve/brake controller

6.5.9.1.The integration of the driver’s brake valve/brake controller in the vehicle system shall be verified, e.g. electric wiring, pneumatic connection.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - T4.2.4.2.1.'4.2.4.9.

O - - T Vehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.9.2.

Verify the correct transmission of the brake release command along the M.U. If the train is equipped with a brake pipe, verify the pressure with the brake pipe control system(s) in running position. Target value shall be set value ± 0,1 bar and for UIC systems shall be: 5,0 bar ± 0,1 bar.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X X T4.2.4.3.

4.2.4.10.T - - T

Vehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.9.3.

For trains equipped with a brake pipe, the minimum brake step (pressure drop for first brake step) shall be verified.The brake pipe pressure shall be measured. Target value shall be: pressure reduction 0,4 bar + 0,1 bar.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X X T - - - - TVehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.9.4.

The output of the brake controller (driver’s brake valve for trains equipped with a brake pipe) shall be gradually controllable and proportional to the driver’s brake demand. The output values, for both the increasing and decreasing brake demand, and sensitivity shall be measured and verified against the design specifications.It shall be possible to obtain a number of different brake demand levels (brake pipe pressure levels for trains equipped with a brake pipe) in accordance with EN 16185–1.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X X T - - - - TVehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.9.5.For trains equipped with a brake pipe, it is to be verified whether the other functions of the driver’s brake valve/brake controller conforms to the design specification (e.g. neutral valve, overcharging…).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - T4.2.4.4.1.'4.2.4.5.2

O - - TVehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.9.6.

The inexhaustibility of the brake shall be proven by testing as follows. With the air supply isolated, the specified emergency brake cylinder pressure in full loaded conditions shall be obtained while carrying out the number of consecutive emergency brake application and release cycles specified in EN 16185–1. The local brake control systems shall not release the brake unless enough pressure is contained in the auxiliary reservoirs. This pressure level shall be indicated in the design specifications and is the same that allows the previous test. NOTE Load pressures can be simulated.

- - - - - - - - - - - - X - - X - T/S 4.2.4.2.1. O - - TVehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.9.7.

The supply cut-off function (if available) or the brake pipe cutoff shall be verified with regard to the following: — the light up of the “neutral” light indicator if available; — the emergency position of the driver’s brake valves/brake controllers activates the supply cutoff function or the brake pipe cut-off;— the brake application in service position if available;— the brakes cannot be released.For trains not equipped with a brake pipe, in the emergency position of the brake controller, a brake command shall be propagated along the brake command line and no brake release command can be propagated by any mean.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - T 4.2.4.10. O TVehicle Implementation Test.




R+MgEBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

EBR+Mg

EBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

EBR+Mg

EBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

Level 2 Level 3

Cond

ition

conserned Para.

Cond

ition

conserned Para.

Cond

ition


Virtual validation

Tare Normal Crush

TEST PLAN

EN 16185-2[2015]

TSI LOC&PAS

[2014]

UIC 544-1[6. Rev.]

6.5.9.8.The isolation functionality of the driver’s brake valve/brake controller shall be verified.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - T 4.2.4.10. O TVehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.9.9.For trains equipped with a brake pipe, the automatic function shall be verified in accordance with EN 15734-2:2010, Annex B2). The test shall be performed using the compressors on the unit.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - T - - TVehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.9.10.

Measurement of the brake cylinder filling time during maximum service brake application initiated from the driver’s brake valve/brake controller. This is measured at the front and at the far end of the unit. Test shall be done from each cab and with EP assist (if present) deactivated. Brake and release time has to be measured in empty and loaded condition. NOTE Load pressures can be simulated.

- X - - - - - - - - - X - - - X X T/S 4.2.4.4.3 O TVehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.9.11.

The gradual filling and empting of brake cylinders shall be verified. The brake cylinders pressure shall be proportional to the brake demand signal. It shall be possible to obtain a number of different brake cylinder pressure levels (sensitivity) in accordance with EN 16185–1 (from each end cab).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X X T - - T Vehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.9.12.

The brake command line signals shall be verified so as to confirm that they correspond correctly with the commands of the brake controllers. It is also to be verified in degraded modes for conformance to the design specification (from each end cab).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X X T 4.2.4.4. O T Vehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.10 Additional/Auxiliary driver's brake valve/controller

6.5.10.1.All tests in 6.5.9 shall be repeated for an Additional/Auxiliary driver’s brake valve/controller (if fitted).

X T - - - - T Vehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.11. Blending, Interlock or Combination ED brake/friction brake

6.5.11.1

The functional operation of the local blending system shall be verified for compliance with the design specification with regard to the following:— measurement of the response times;— verify the effort limitation rates;— measurement of the pilot pressures for the different load states. If applicable, verify the transition behaviour blending control / distributor valve control. NOTE All signals that directly or indirectly cause the brake force to vary shall be tested. Those signals that vary in dynamic conditions but not in static shall be suitably simulated. Some tests can be postponed and included in the dynamic schedule.

- - - X X - - - X X - - - X X X X T/S4.2.4.5.1'4.2.4.5.2





R+MgEBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

EBR+Mg

EBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

EBR+Mg

EBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

Level 2 Level 3

Cond

ition

conserned Para.

Cond

ition

conserned Para.

Cond

ition


Virtual validation

Tare Normal Crush

TEST PLAN

EN 16185-2[2015]

TSI LOC&PAS

[2014]

UIC 544-1[6. Rev.]

6.5.12. Wheel slide protection (WSP)WSP shall be tested with the final setting of brake cylinder pressures.

6.5.12.1.

Run the self-test of the WSP system. The correct assignment of the speed sensors to the corresponding dump valves and axles shall be verified. All signals that interfaces the WSP system with other equipment on the train shall be verified, for example: — sanding control;— vehicle speed indication;— vehicle speed related functions e.g. door interlocks;— ED brake inhibition;— systems that cause an automatic isolation of the WSP. Those signals that vary in dynamic conditions but not instatic shall be suitably simulated.

- X - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - T/S

4.2.4.6.2.Appendix J-1,

index 72; EN 15595


6.5.12.2The exhaust and filling times at the brake cylinders in tare and simulated crush vehicle load shall be measured for conformance to the design specification. The test shall be done for each dump valve.

- X - - - - - - - - - X - - - X - T/S

4.2.4.6.2.Appendix J-1,

index 72; EN 15595

T/S - - T Vehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.12.3

The WSP system monitoring and diagnostics shall be testedon all vehicles e.g. execution of the WSP selftest and the feedback to the 2 cabs shall be verified. Failures of the speed sensors and of the solenoid valves, etc. shall be simulated on each vehicle while verifying the feedback to the two cabs.

- X - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - T/S

4.2.4.6.2.Appendix J-1,

index 72; EN 15595

T/S - - T Vehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.12.4The WSP system monitoring and diagnostics shall be tested on all vehicles e.g. execution of the WSP self-test and the feedback to the 2 cabs shall be verified.

- X - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - T

4.2.4.6.2.Appendix J-1,

index 72; EN 15595


6.5.13 Wheel rotation monitoring system (WRMS – if provided)

6.5.13.1The independency of WRMS from WSP shall be demonstrated (test program to be specified according to the design spefication).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - T

4.2.4.6.2.Appendix J-1,

index 72; EN 15595


6.5.13.2The integration of the WRMS in the vehicle shall be verified, e.g. concerning electric wiring, self-test run. All the input/output shall be tested according to the design specification.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - T

4.2.4.6.2.Appendix J-1,

index 72; EN 15595


6.5.13.3

The WRMS system monitoring and diagnostics shall be tested on all vehicles e.g. execution of the WRMS self-test and the feedback to the 2 cabs shall be verified. Failures of the speed sensors and solenoid valves (if fitted) shall be simulated on each vehicle while verifying the feedback to the two cabs.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X X T

4.2.4.6.2.Appendix J-1,

index 72; EN 15595


6.5.13.4The WRMS system monitoring and diagnostics shall be tested on all vehicles e.g. execution of the WRMS self-test and the feedback to the 2 cabs shall be verified.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X X T

4.2.4.6.2.Appendix J-1,

index 72; EN 15595


6.5.14. Magnetic Track Brake (MTB)

6.5.14.1The Magnetic Track Brakes shall be verified in accordance with EN 16207 (Vehicle implementation test).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - T 4.2.4.8.2 T - - T Vehicle Implementation Test.




R+MgEBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

EBR+Mg

EBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

EBR+Mg

EBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

Level 2 Level 3

Cond

ition

conserned Para.

Cond

ition

conserned Para.

Cond

ition


Virtual validation

Tare Normal Crush

TEST PLAN

EN 16185-2[2015]

TSI LOC&PAS

[2014]

UIC 544-1[6. Rev.]

6.5.15 Eddy current track brake

6.5.15.1The clearance between the eddy current brake and the rail, when not active (upper position), shall be verified.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - T 4.2.4.8.3 - - T Vehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.15.2The clearance between the eddy current brake and the rail, when in the lower operational position, shall be verified.


6.5.15.3 The correct filling of the eddy current brake supply reservoirs shall be verified. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - T 4.2.4.8.3 - - T Vehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.15.4The lowering and raising up times shall be measured for conformance to the design specification. This test shall be conducted for the minimum and maximum air supply pressures.


6.5.16 Parking brake

6.5.16.1.It shall be verified that the parking brake applies due to a reduction of the brake system supply/auxiliary reservoirs pressure and the consequent reduction of the brake cylinders pressure.


6.5.16.2The release and application values (times, pressures, etc.) of the parking brake shall be verified if it is a remote controlled parking brake. For the routine tests a functional check is sufficient


6.5.16.3The effort to manually release the parking brake shall be measured and verified for conformance to the design specifications.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - T4.2.4.4.5'4.2.4.9.


6.5.16.4The operation of the manual release of the parking brake shall verified to confirm proper release and proper resetting in accordance with the design specifications.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - T4.2.4.4.5'4.2.4.9.


6.5.16.5The force acting at the brake shoes or brake pads shall be measured when the parking brake is fully applied.


6.5.16.6

If burst hose protection is incorporated into the parking brake system, it is to be verified that the parking brake does not apply when there is rapid venting of the parking brake hose. This test shall be conducted with the air supply pressure set in accordance with the design specifications.





R+MgEBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

EBR+Mg

EBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

EBR+Mg

EBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

Level 2 Level 3

Cond

ition

conserned Para.

Cond

ition

conserned Para.

Cond

ition


Virtual validation

Tare Normal Crush

TEST PLAN

EN 16185-2[2015]

TSI LOC&PAS

[2014]

UIC 544-1[6. Rev.]

6.5.16.7

Insensitivity to the pressure drops caused by the WSP. The brake cylinders pressure and parking brake release pressure shall be measured while operating the WSP dump valves to simulate the conditions described in the design specifications.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - T/S - - - - T Vehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.16.8In case of isolation of the service brake, it is to be verified whether the operation of the parking brake conforms to the design specification.


6.5.16.9The functionality of anticompound system (application and release of service and parking brake) shall be verified.Measurement of the clamping force is required.


6.5.16.10In case of auxiliary reservoir supplied only by the brake pipe (for trains equipped with), the operation of the parking brake is to be verified for conformance to the design specification.


6.5.16.11In case of auxiliary reservoir supplied only by the brake pipe, if there is a remote controlled parking brake, the release and application of the parking brake shall be verified.


6.5.16.12

The functional operation in normal mode shall be tested from each end cab. It is to be verified that the information feed back to the active cab conforms to the design specification. After the separation of the multiple units it shall be verified that the information is routed again as expected in Level 2.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X X T 4.2.4.9. O - - T Vehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.16.13

The information feedback in degraded mode shall be tested from each end cab. It is to be verified that the information feed back to the active cab following the isolation of one or more parking brakes conforms to the design specification. After the separation of the multiple units it shall be verified that the information is routed again as expected in Level 2.





R+MgEBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

EBR+Mg

EBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

EBR+Mg

EBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

Level 2 Level 3

Cond

ition

conserned Para.

Cond

ition

conserned Para.

Cond

ition


Virtual validation

Tare Normal Crush

TEST PLAN

EN 16185-2[2015]

TSI LOC&PAS

[2014]

UIC 544-1[6. Rev.]

6.5.17 Brake indicators (if fitted)

6.5.17.1. The switching pressures shall be measured (on one type of indicator). - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - T 4.2.4.9. O - - T Vehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.17.2 Visual verification of the switching red/green for all indicators. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - T 4.2.4.9. O - - T Vehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.17.3In cases where the indicator incorporates electric switching, the switch operating pressures shall be verified according to the design specifications.


6.5.17.4In cases where the indicator incorporates electric switching, the switch operation shall be verified.


6.5.18 Brake cylinders

6.5.18.1The clamping/pushing force, during an emergency brake application, at the pads/shoes, for each actuator type (disc brake, tread brake), shall be measured.

- X - - - - - - - - - X - - - X - T 4.2.4.5.2 O - - T Vehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.18.2

If, by design, the full service brake force is intended to differ from the emergency brake force then the clamping/pushing force, during a full service brake application, at the pads/shoes, for each actuator type (disc brake, tread brake), shall be measured.

- - - - X - - - - - - - - - X X - T 4.2.4.4.2 O - - T Vehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.18.3For each actuator type, the conformance of the automatic adjustment (up to the maximum) to wear of the friction material shall be verified with the design specification.

- X - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - T - - - - T Vehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.19. EP Assist (if provided)

6.5.19.1The application and release times shall be verified according to the design specifications.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X X T 4.2.4.4.3 - - T Vehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.19.2It is to be verified that the EP assist brake is consistent to driver’s brake valve/brake controller demand according to the design specification.


6.5.19.3 The feedback into the cab of an EP assist failure information shall be verified. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - T 4.2.4.9. O - - T Vehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.19.4Verify for gradual application and release in the brake pipe pressure. This shall be measured in the first and the end car and from each end cab.


6.5.20. Sanding device

6.5.20.1It is to be verified whether the functional operation conforms to the design specification.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X X T4.2.3.3.1.1Isolating

emissionsO - - T Vehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.20.2The amount of sand delivered by each sanding device to the rail shall be measured and shall be verified according to the design specifications.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - T4.2.3.3.1.1Isolating

emissionsT - - T Vehicle Implementation Test.




R+MgEBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

EBR+Mg

EBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

EBR+Mg

EBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

Level 2 Level 3

Cond

ition

conserned Para.

Cond

ition

conserned Para.

Cond

ition


Virtual validation

Tare Normal Crush

TEST PLAN

EN 16185-2[2015]

TSI LOC&PAS

[2014]

UIC 544-1[6. Rev.]

6.5.21. Miscellaneous checks

6.5.21.1The operation of the isolation and drain devices within the brake system shall be verified in accordance with the design specifications.


6.5.21.2It is to be verified whether the operating pressure of all the pressure switches within the brake system comply with the design specification.


6.5.21.3As far as reasonable and practical at vehicle level and in the case of single vehicle multiple unit, the operation of the brake system monitoring and diagnostics shall be verified.


6.5.22 Turning on the driver desk

6.5.22.1To be tested from each cab.(Activation of the driver’s brake valve/brake controller, release of the brake, etc.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X X T 4-2-4-10 O - - T Vehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.23 Turning off the driver desk

6.5.23.1To be tested from each cab (Isolation of the driver’s brake valve/brake controller, application of the brake, etc.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X X T 4-2-4-10 O - - T Vehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.24 Overcharge assimilation function (for trains equipped with a brake pipe)

6.5.24.1

The functional operation shall be verified in accordance with EN 16185–1:2014 (5.4.2):— starting up the overcharge (illumination of the “overcharge” light indicator, measurement of the rising time, measurement of the overload pressure); — overcharge assimilation (measurement of the holding time and the time to eliminate the overcharge).


6.5.24.2

The functionality of a cycle interruption shall be verified during an overcharge phase: — brake application during an overcharge phase;— neutral request during an assimilation phase;— brake application during an overcharge assimilation phase.


6.5.25 Electro dynamic brake control

6.5.25.1

To be tested from each cab (forcing/simulating signals for brake demand):— verify the conformity to the design specification;— verify the correct reception of the demand by the brake equipment on each vehicle. Measurement of the response imes, verify the effort limitation rates, etc, if possible.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X X T4.2.4.4.44.2.8.2.3


6.5.26 Automatic traction cut-off during braking

6.5.26.1The correct propagation of the cut-off signal to traction equipment shall be verified at each cab.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X X T 4.2.4.4.1. [4] O - - T Vehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.26.2The conditions for the traction re-start shall be verified in accordance with EN 16185–1 at each cab.


6.5.27 Systems used to aid driver’s brake test

6.5.27.1The immobilisation of the train during brake test shall be verified from each cab, in accordance with the system design specification.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X X T 4.2.4.9 O - - T Vehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.27.2To be tested from each cab. It is to be verified whether the functional operation in nominal condition and in degraded mode condition comply with the design specification (pneumatic isolation of one or several coaches/bogies).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X X T 4.2.4.9 O - - T Vehicle Implementation Test.




R+MgEBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

EBR+Mg

EBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

EBR+Mg

EBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

Level 2 Level 3

Cond

ition

conserned Para.

Cond

ition

conserned Para.

Cond

ition


Virtual validation

Tare Normal Crush

TEST PLAN

EN 16185-2[2015]

TSI LOC&PAS

[2014]

UIC 544-1[6. Rev.]

6.5.28 Isolation of the safety equipment

6.5.28.1.The correct isolation of all vigilance and signalling systems (ATC, ATP, etc.) and isolation of all devices acting on the safety loop either on the brake pipe, if present, shall be verified.


6.5.28.2The correct display of the signals in each cab associated with the vigilance and signalling (ATC, ATP) systems, etc., and the correct information about the isolation of (every) one of these devices shall be verified.


6.5.28.3The degraded modes of the function shall be verified. Functional failures or loss of power supply of all safety devices on all vehicles shall be simulated to demonstrate conformance to the design specification.


6.5.29 Passenger alarm signal

6.5.29.1The functional operation in relation with brake system imposed by EN 16334 shall be verified. Test shall be done in each cab with the operation of all the passenger emergency handles.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X X T 4.2.5.3 O T Vehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.30 Automatic speed control device

6.5.30.1The priority of the service brake or emergency brake control over the automatic speed control demand shall be verified in both cabs.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - T - O T Vehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.31Rescuing of units equipped with a non-UIC brake system by a brake pipe controlled rolling stock (set out in 4.2.4.10) of the TSI Conventional Rail RS)

6.5.31.1

The coupling between a rescuing vehicle and the multiple unit being rescued shall be simulated. The correct transfer of braking energy from the rescuing vehicle to the multiple unit being rescued shall be verified. The correct communication of the brake commands between the rescuing vehicle and the multiple unit being rescued shall be verified.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X X T/S 4.2.4.10. O T Vehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.32 Displaying brake system diagnosis messages

6.5.32.1

The information feed back to the 2 cabs and the local equipment shall be verified when simulating failures of the brake function as stipulated in the design specifications e.g. EP brake not able to control pressure, etc… After the separation of the multiple units it shall be verified that the information is routed again as expected in Level 2.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X X T/S 4.2.3.3.2.1. T/S T Vehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.33 Coupling / Uncoupling

6.5.33.1 It is to be verified that the functional operation conforms to EN 16185–1. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X X T - - T Vehicle Implementation Test.

6.5.33.2It is to be verified that the brake system provides the correct signals to the coupling/uncoupling control system. Test can be done by simulating a speed signal information.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X X T/S 4.2.4.2.1. O T Vehicle Implementation Test.




R+MgEBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

EBR+Mg

EBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

EBR+Mg

EBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

Level 2 Level 3

Cond

ition

conserned Para.

Cond

ition

conserned Para.

Cond

ition


Virtual validation

Tare Normal Crush

TEST PLAN

EN 16185-2[2015]

TSI LOC&PAS

[2014]

UIC 544-1[6. Rev.]

7.1.2.2 Quantity and methodology of tests

30 km/h X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X - T4.2.4.5.26.2.3.86.2.3.9

T - - S minimum number of valid tests 1 at EN 16185-2

40 km/h X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X - T - - - S minimum number of valid tests 1 at EN 16185-2

60 km/h X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X - T - - - S minimum number of valid tests 1 at EN 16185-2

80km/h X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X - T - - - S minimum number of valid tests 1 at EN 16185-2

100 km/h X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X - T4.2.4.5.26.2.3.8

T - - S minimum number of valid tests 4

120 km(h X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X - T4.2.4.5.26.2.3.8

T 6.2.1 T S minimum number of valid tests 4



160 km(h X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X - T4.2.4.5.26.2.3.8




7.2.1 Emergency brake applications

7.2.1.1

Emergency brake shall be applied, using the driver’s brake valve/controller, starting from the speeds listed in paragraph 7.1.2.2, up to the maximum speed (included) for the tare and crush load conditions. All the brake modes (e.g. R, R+Mg, towing case) stipulated in the design specification shall be tested. The stopping distance and the instantaneous deceleration characteristic shall be measured. The brake force contribution for each individual brake system shall be measured by calculation from the measurements taken during the test. Lower speeds testing may be necessary if the MU is to be operated using automatic train controls (e.g. ETCS, etc.).

X X X - - X X X - - X X X - - X - T4.2.4.5.26.2.3.8

T 2.5.2 T SWith validated friction coefficient and

simulation models, emergency brake could be simulated.

7.2.1.2 # - - X - - - - X - - - - X - - X X T4.2.4.106.2.3.8

C 2.5.2 T SWith validated friction coefficient and simulation model, emergency brake could be simulated.

7.2.1.3

Initiated by automatic train protection systems and any other safety equipment: — verify the deceleration and stopping distance when braking is initiated by the automatic train protection system, at full motor power from 120 km/h This test shall be performed from both driving cabs. The independence from the driving direction shall be verified. Reduced program for routine tests: — verify that all the automatic train protection systems can initiate a brake application. Tests shall be performed at least in one load condition.

X X - - - - - - - - X X - - - X - T4.2.4.4.14.2.8.1.2

T SWith validated friction coefficient and simulation model, emergency brake could be simulated.

7.2.1.3

Initiated by automatic train protection systems and any other safety equipment: — verify the deceleration and stopping distance when braking is initiated by the automatic train protection system, at full motor power from 120 km/h This test shall be performed from both driving cabs. The independence from the driving direction shall be verified. Reduced program for routine tests: — verify that all the automatic train protection systems can initiate a brake application. Tests shall be performed at least in one load condition.

X X - - - - - - - - X X - - - X - T4.2.4.4.14.2.8.1.2

T SWith validated friction coefficient and

simulation models, emergency brake could be simulated.




R+MgEBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

EBR+Mg

EBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

EBR+Mg

EBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

Level 2 Level 3

Cond

ition

conserned Para.

Cond

ition

conserned Para.

Cond

ition


Virtual validation

Tare Normal Crush

TEST PLAN

EN 16185-2[2015]

TSI LOC&PAS

[2014]

UIC 544-1[6. Rev.]

7.2.2 7.2.2 Full service brake applications

7.2.2.1

Full service brake shall be applied starting from 30 km/h, in steps no greater than 30 km/h, up to the maximum speed (included). All the brake positions (e.g. R, Rep, R+E, R+H, R+Mg, R+Wb, towing case) foreseen by the design specification shall be tested. The stopping distance and the instantaneous deceleration characteristic shall be measured. The brake force contribution for each individual brake shall be determined by calculation from the measurements taken during the test.

- - - X X - - - X X - - - X X X - T4.2.4.2.16.2.3.8


simulation models (all mdels contributing), service brake could be simulated.

7.2.2.2

Full service brake shall be applied starting at 30 km/h, at the maximum speed and at one intermediate speed for the tare load. All the brake positions (e.g. R, Rep, R+E, R+H, R+Mg, R+Wb, towing case) foreseen by the design specification shall be tested. The stopping distance shall be measured. The brake force contribution for each individual brake shall be determined by calculation from the measurements taken during the tests.

- - - X X - - - X X - - - X X X X T4.2.4.2.16.2.3.8


simulation models (all mdels contributing), service brake could be simulated.




R+MgEBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

EBR+Mg

EBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

EBR+Mg

EBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

Level 2 Level 3

Cond

ition

conserned Para.

Cond

ition

conserned Para.

Cond

ition


Virtual validation

Tare Normal Crush

TEST PLAN

EN 16185-2[2015]

TSI LOC&PAS

[2014]

UIC 544-1[6. Rev.]

7.2.3 7.2.3 Verification of functionalities

7.2.3.1

The functional operation in relation with brake system imposed by EN 16334 (passenger alarm system) shall be verified. This test shall be carried out from two extreme locations in the train (front and rear) and from both cabs, at a suitable speed.

X - - X - - - - - - - - - - - X X T4.2.4.2.1.4.2.5.3.

O - - SWith validated simulation models (all models

contributing), functional test could be simulated.

7.2.3.2

Verify the required function of all of the devices, available to the driver, for emergency brake activation. Verify all the required effects on the train including traction power cut-off. Verify that the result is independent from the direction of travel.

X X - X - - - - - - - - - - - X - O4.2.4.2.1.4.2.4.4.1.4.2.4.4.2

O Appen-dix F T SWith validated simulation models (all models


7.2.3.3

Verify that the automatic vigilance device (e.g. Sifa) functions correctly, including traction power cut-off at the speed(s) specified. This test shall be carried out from both driver’s cabs. Verify that the result is independent from the direction of travel.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - T 4.2.9.3. O - - SWith validated simulation models (all models


7.2.3.4 Testing of the brake under active traction. Traction power shall be automatically cut-off within the specified time when emergency nd service brake applications are demanded

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X X O

4.2.4.2.1.4.2.4.4.1.4.2.4.4.24.2.4.7.

O F.2 T SWith validated simulation models (all models


7.2.3.5

Driving the vehicle from standstill shall be tested as follows: — application of holding brake (e.g.: spring applied parking brake or automatic brake or other brake depending on the train design); — verify that it is possible to drive the vehicle from standstill without rolling back after releasing the holding brake. This test shall be carried out in the crush load condition for type test on a real or simulated gradient as defined in the design specification.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - X - X - T 4.2.4.2.1. O 8 T SWith validated simulation models (all models





R+MgEBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

EBR+Mg

EBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

EBR+Mg

EBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

Level 2 Level 3

Cond

ition

conserned Para.

Cond

ition

conserned Para.

Cond

ition


Virtual validation

Tare Normal Crush

TEST PLAN

EN 16185-2[2015]

TSI LOC&PAS

[2014]

UIC 544-1[6. Rev.]

7.2.4Protection against undue application of a parking brake without actuator integrated automatic protection

7.2.4.1

Verify that, in case of failure of the spring-applied parking brake, e.g. hose rupture, the train reacts as defined in the design specifications (e.g. traction cut-off, information to the driver, automatic brake application). This test shall be done under active traction and at a suitable speed.

- X - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - T4.2.4.4.54.2.4.5.5

O 8.2.2 T SWith validated simulation models (all models

contributing), functional tests could be simulated.

7.2.5 Test of wheel slide protection system

7.2.5.1 Testing Wheel Slide Protection system in accordance with EN 15595. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -EN 15595 [2009] reffered in TSI

LOC&PAS- - - S

With validated simulation models (all models contributing),

WSP tests could be simulated.

TestNo

Adhesion level / Track condition / Test Method / vnom km/h / Purpose of test - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - S

1 Dry rail / Maximum (Emergency) / To stop / 120 / Verify brake performance - X - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - S - S - - S

2 Dry rail / Maximum (Emergency) / To stop / 160 / Verify brake performance - X - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - O - O - - S

3Dry rail / Maximum (Full Service Brake) / To stop / 120 / Verify brake performance

- - - X X - - - - - - - - - - X - S - S - - S

4Dry rail / Each distinct level of brake setting, or categories of decelerations, including maximum. (As per selected setting) / To stop / 120 / Verify brake performance

- X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X T - T - - S

5 Sprayed rail / Maximum (Emergency) / To stop / 120 / Verify WSP performance - X - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - O - O - - S

6 Sprayed rail / Maximum (Emergency) / To stop / 160 / Verify WSP performance - X - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - O - O - - S

7Sprayed rail / Maximum (Full Service Brake) / To stop / 120 / Verify WSP performance

- - - X X - - - - - - - - - - X - O - O - - S

8Sprayed rail / Each distinct level of brake setting, or categories of decelerations, including maximum. (As per selected setting) / To stop / 120 / Verify WSP performance

- X - X X - - - - - - - - - - - X T - T - - S

9Sprayed rail / Maximum, dynamic brake shall operate / To stop / 120 / Verify WSP performance

- - - X - - - - - - - - - - - - X T - T - - S

10Interval spraying. With the spraying started and stopped 3 times during the test. / Maximum (Emergency) / To stop / 160 / Verify WSP performance with changing adhesion

- X - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - S - S - - S

11

Interval spraying. Test over 1 km (this distance needs to increase for dynamic brake only) with spraying started and stopped 3 times during the test. / Constant speed(Full Service Brake) / Drag test / 100 / Verify WSP performance with changing adhesion

- - - X X - - - - - - - - - - X - S - S - - S

12Sprayed rail with increased soap concentration. / Constant speed(Full service Brake) / Drag test / 100 / Test for slide on all axles invery low adhesion conditions

- - - X X - - - - - - - - - - X - S - S - - S




R+MgEBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

EBR+Mg

EBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

EBR+Mg

EBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

Level 2 Level 3

Cond

ition

conserned Para.

Cond

ition

conserned Para.

Cond

ition


Virtual validation

Tare Normal Crush

TEST PLAN

EN 16185-2[2015]

TSI LOC&PAS

[2014]

UIC 544-1[6. Rev.]

13

Very low adhesion. Spraying with increased soap concentration, start spraying before braking and spray for 10 s after max. brake force build up time. / Maximum (Emergency) / To stop / 40 / Test of low speed behaviour in very low adhesion conditions

- X - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - O - O - - S

14

Very or extremely low adhesion for 20 m. 1 s spraying with increasedsoap concentration or 1 kg soap distributed over 20 m. Brake force shall be applied 200 m before the reduced adhesion rail conditions. / Maximum (Emergency) / To stop / 120 / Test for reaction to sudden change in adhesion conditions

- X - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - S - S - - S

15Extremely low adhesion for 500 m. Applying (spraying or direct application) either oil or soap or a suitable substitute biodegradable material. / Maximum (Emergency) / To stop / 100 / Test behaviour in extremely low adhesion

- X - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - S - S - - S

16Dry rail / 0,3 m/s2 higher than maximum designed deceleration / To stop / 160 / Test performance with no “high deceleration” signal.

X X - X X - - - - - - - - - - X - S - S - - S

17Dry rail / The higher of 0,5 m/s2 or 20 % above the maximum designed deceleration / To stop / 160 / Test performance with no “high deceleration” signal.

X X - X X - - - - - - - - - - X - S - S - - S

18Dry rail / As designed by the additional brake system / To stop / 160 / Test with increased deceleration due to adhesion independent brakes

X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - O - O - - S

19Sprayed rail / As designed by the additional brake system / To stop / 160 / Low adhesion test with increased deceleration due to adhesion independent brakes

X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - O - O - - S

7.2.6 Test of wheel rotation monitoring system (WRMS), if provided

7.2.6.1 Verify the switching-off speed is in accordance with the design specifications. X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X X T 4.2.4.6.2. O - - SWith validated simulation models (all models

contributing), WRMS tests could be simulated.

7.2.7 Test of magnetic or eddy current track brake

7.2.7.1 Verify the switching-off speed is in accordance with the design specifications. X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - T 4.2.4.8.3 O - - SWith validated simulation models (all models

contributing), Tests could be simulated.

7.2.7.2

Verify the maximum longitudinal braking force applied to the track by the magnetic / eddy current brake for full service or/and emergency brake (see 6.4.13) NOTE Data from Tests 7.2.1 and 7.2.2 can be used.

X - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - T4.2.4.5.14.2.4.8.3

O - - SWith validated simulation models (all models


7.2.8 Test of the electro-dynamic brake

7.2.8.1For vehicles equipped with a separated electro-dynamic brake controller, the tests shall be carried out at all relevant speeds and settings of the service brake in order to ensure conformance to the specification.

- - - X - - - - - - - - - - - X - T 4.2.9.1.6 O - - SWith validated simulation models (all models





R+MgEBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

EBR+Mg

EBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

EBR+Mg

EBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

Level 2 Level 3

Cond

ition

conserned Para.

Cond

ition

conserned Para.

Cond

ition


Virtual validation

Tare Normal Crush

TEST PLAN

EN 16185-2[2015]

TSI LOC&PAS

[2014]

UIC 544-1[6. Rev.]

7.2.9 Brake management during emergency brake application

7.2.9.1

Tests shall be carried out at all relevant speeds and settings of the emergency brake applications both for manual operation (e.g. traction/brake controller) as well as for automatic brake application (e.g. ETCS) in order to ensure the conformance to the specification.

X X - - - - - - - - - - - - - X X T 6.2.3.8 T 6 T SWith validated simulation models (all models

contributing), emergency brake Tests could be simulated.

7.2.9.2

Simulated single component failure situation on the connected trains prior and during brake application shall be carried out. The conformance to the design specification and the correct information transmission to the active driver’s cab shall be verified.

X X - - - - - - - - - - - - - X X T 4.2.4.9. O 5.2.2 T SWith validated simulation models (all models

contributing), emergency brake Tests could be simulated.

7.2.10 Brake management during service brake application

7.2.10.1

Tests shall be carried out at all relevant speeds and settings of the service brake applications both for manual operation (e.g. traction/brake controller) as well as for automatic brake application (e.g. ETCS) in order to ensure conformance to the specification.

- - - X X - - - - - - - - - - X - T 6.2.3.9. O 5,2 T SWith validated simulation models (all models

contributing), service brake Tests could be simulated.

7.2.10.2Simulated single component failure situation prior and during brake application shall be carried out.

- - - X X - - - - - - - - - - X - T6.2.3.9.4.2.4.9.

T 5,2 T SWith validated simulation models (all models

contributing), service brake Tests could be simulated.

7.2.11 Miscellaneous checks

7.2.11.1

Simulated complete failure of one brake management system during an emergency brake application shall be carried out according to the design specifications. Examples of such systems are traction control units, brake control unit (train level), magnetic track brake system, etc.

X X - - - - - - - - - - - - - X - T4.2.4.1.4.2.4.9.

O 5.2 T S


failure at emergency brake application could be simulated.

7.2.11.2Based on the output of the safety analysis, every case taking to loosing braking force shall be tested and/or simulated and/or validated.

X X - - X X T/S 4.2.4.2.2 O 5.2 T SWith validated simulation models (all models

contributing), all cases loosing the brake force, be simulated.

7.2.12 Automatic speed control device (traction and braking)

7.2.12.1Tests shall be carried out at all relevant speeds and settings of the brake applications both for manual operation as well as for automatic brake application in order to ensure the conformance to the design specification.

- - - X - - - - - - - - - - - X - T 4.2.4.4.2 O - - S


the different function of the brake system could be simulatedat different speeds




R+MgEBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

EBR+Mg

EBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

EBR+Mg

EBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

Level 2 Level 3

Cond

ition

conserned Para.

Cond

ition

conserned Para.

Cond

ition


Virtual validation

Tare Normal Crush

TEST PLAN

EN 16185-2[2015]

TSI LOC&PAS

[2014]

UIC 544-1[6. Rev.]

7.2.13 Verification regarding thermal conformance to the worst operating case

7.2.13.1

Thermal conformance can be verified by means of two subsequently applied emergency brake applications from maximum speed in accordance with EN 16185-1:2014, 6.4. NOTE According to EN 16185-1:2014, 6.4, compliance to thermal requirements can be proven by calculation or by test.

- - - - - - - - - - X - - - - X - T/S 4.2.4.5.4 T/S F.2.3 T S


the different thermal conformance could be simulatedat.

7.2.14 Testing of an immobilised train

7.2.14.1Measurement of the holding force of immobilisation after two hours of application of the friction brake alone and verify that it complies with the requirements of EN 16185-1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - X X - T4.2.4.1.

4.2.4.2.1.C 8.3.2 T S


the different functions could be simulatedat.

7.2.14.2Verify the holding force of parking brake application and verify that it complies with the conditions specified in EN 16185–1.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - X X - T4.2.4.2.1.4.2.4.4.5

O 8 T SWith validated simulation models (all models

contributing), the different functions could be simulatedat.




R+MgEBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

EBR+Mg

EBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

EBR+Mg

EBR

Tow.FSBR+ED

FSBR

Level 2 Level 3

Cond

ition

conserned Para.

Cond

ition

conserned Para.

Cond

ition


Virtual validation

Tare Normal Crush

TEST PLAN

EN 16185-2[2015]

TSI LOC&PAS

[2014]

UIC 544-1[6. Rev.]

7.2.15 Coupling/uncoupling

7.2.15.1

It is to be verified that only the brakes on the MU that has the active cab release during a commanded uncoupling, so as to allow that MU to move away. It is to be verified that the brakes on the MU with the non active cabs remain applied.

X - - X X O 4.2.4.2.1 O - - SWith validated simulation models (all models


7.2.15.2The automatic brake application in case of unwanted train separation shall be verified. It should be done by a static test or low speed test.

X - - X X T 4.2.4.2.1 (11) O - - SWith validated simulation models (all models


7.2.15.3The information (see 6.5.12) shall be routed to the active cab. After the separation of the multiple units it shall be verified that the information is routed again as expected in Level 2.

- - - X X T 4.2.4.2.1 (11) O - - SWith validated simulation models (all models


7.2.15.4The information (see 6.5.13) shall be routed to the active cab. After the separation of the multiple units it shall be verified that the information is routed again as expected in Level 2.

- - - X X T 4.2.4.2.1 (11) O - - SWith validated simulation models (all models


4.2.4.5.2 250 km/h X X X - - - - - - 4.2.4.5.2 T S Idenctical simulation to 7.1.2.2

6.2.3.8 250 km/h - - - - - - X X X 6.2.3.8 T S Idenctical simulation to 7.1.2.2







Addtitional Test according TSI LOC&PAS compared to EN 16185-2


Speed [km/h]Duration [min]1 brake application

Nb roundcooling

at speed[km/h]

ring length[km]

Acc average[m/s2]

Acc time [s]

FSBDec average[m/s²]

FSB time [s]

EBDec average[m/s²]

EB time [s] Acc reference: Example of what can classically be found as REGIONAL TRAIN, with maximum speed 200km/h

200 EB R & R+Mg All ative 41,80338593 4 120 13,275 0,213965219 259,6476 0,94 59,10165485 1 55,55555556 speed [km/h] 200 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 30160 EB R & R+Mg All ative 32,95225741 3 120 0,322198943 137,941 0,94 47,28132388 1 44,44444444 speed [m/s] 55,5555556 44,4444444 38,8888889 33,3333333 27,7777778 22,2222222 16,6666667 11,1111111 8,33333333140 EB R & R+Mg All ative 32,25784481 3 120 0,381893366 101,8318 0,94 41,37115839 1 38,88888889 acc. Av. [m/s²] 0,21396522 0,32219894 0,38189337 0,44929261 0,52665285 0,6134482 0,6975135 0,73256048 0,73957714120 EB R & R+Mg All ative 31,70456722 3 120 0,449292611 74,1907 0,93 35,84229391 1 33,33333333 Dec reference: Example of what can classically be found as REGIONAL TRAIN, with maximum speed 200km/h100 EB R & R+Mg All ative 24,61702963 2 120 0,526652847 52,744 0,91 30,52503053 1 27,77777778 speed [km/h] 200 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 30

80 EB R & R+Mg All ative 17,61162204 1 120 0,613448195 36,2251 0,89 24,96878901 1 22,22222222 speed [m/s] 55,5555556 44,4444444 38,8888889 33,3333333 27,7777778 22,2222222 16,6666667 11,1111111 8,3333333360 EB R & R+Mg All ative 17,31351778 1 120 0,697513504 23,8944 0,86 19,37984496 1 16,66666667 Service BKC acc. Av. [m/s²] 0,94 0,94 0,94 0,93 0,91 0,89 0,86 0,76 0,7640 EB R & R+Mg All ative 17,07547685 1 120 0,732560482 15,1675 0,76 14,61988304 1 11,11111111 Dec reference: Example of what can classically be found as REGIONAL TRAIN, with maximum speed 200km/h30 EB R & R+Mg All ative 16,96418389 1 120 0,739577139 11,2677 0,76 10,96491228 1 8,333333333 speed [km/h] 200 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 30

200 FSB R & R+E All ative 41,86248758 4 120 0,213965219 259,6476 0,94 59,10165485 1 55,55555556 speed [m/s] 55,5555556 44,4444444 38,8888889 33,3333333 27,7777778 22,2222222 16,6666667 11,1111111 8,33333333160 FSB R & R+E All ative 32,99953873 3 120 0,322198943 137,941 0,94 47,28132388 1 44,44444444 Emergency BKC acc. Av. [m/s²] 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1140 FSB R & R+E All ative 32,29921597 3 120 0,381893366 101,8318 0,94 41,37115839 1 38,88888889120 FSB R & R+E All ative 31,74638323 3 120 0,449292611 74,1907 0,93 35,84229391 1 33,33333333100 FSB R & R+E All ative 24,66281718 2 120 0,526652847 52,744 0,91 30,52503053 1 27,77777778

80 FSB R & R+E All ative 17,65739815 1 120 0,613448195 36,2251 0,89 24,96878901 1 22,2222222260 FSB R & R+E All ative 17,35873742 1 120 0,697513504 23,8944 0,86 19,37984496 1 16,6666666740 FSB R & R+E All ative 17,13395638 1 120 0,732560482 15,1675 0,76 14,61988304 1 11,1111111130 FSB R & R+E All ative 17,00804354 1 120 0,739577139 11,2677 0,76 10,96491228 1 8,333333333

Type

TIME ESTIMATION


Version Date Author Change DescriptionV00 11.06.2018 D.Emorine Creation: Adatptation from AT template for PIVOT task 5.5 Virtual homologation.v01 14.06.2019 J. Thomas Update of Requirements, refund of the Plan, Links to standardsV02 19.07.2019 D.Emorine Filling missing categorization in sheet "Test Plan"+adding detail planning EN15595[2018]V03 06.08.2019 D.Emorine Fine adjustments on the template

TRACKING


performance improvement for vehicles on track

Documents