Assessment reveals mechanical characteristics significantly influence energy absorption and damage in subway GFRP head covers.
Anti-climbing energy absorbers (AEAs) are often installed at the ends of subway vehicles to prevent climbing in the event of a head-on collision or rear-end collision, thereby improving safety performance. To reduce the air resistance of the vehicle during operation, the AEA is usually wrapped with the GFRP head cover. However, the collision behavior of the head cover during a collision requires further research. The effects of mechanical properties of cutting anti-climbing energy absorbers (CAEAs) on the collision behavior of glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP) head covers for subway vehicles are investigated in this study. Firstly, the force–displacement curve of the CAEA was obtained through a dynamic impact test, and the finite element (FE) model of the CAEA with a GFRP head cover was constructed and verified. Subsequently, the effects of the four mechanical characteristics of the CAEA (i.e., initial peak crushing force (IPCF), platform force, compaction force, and eccentric height difference) on the collision behavior of the GFRP head cover were systematically analyzed. The results show that the increase in IPCF improves the energy absorption of CAEA, but that damage and stress concentration of the head cover at the moving end also occur. The increase in platform force induced the premature fracture of the GFRP head cover. The collision behavior of the head cover reaches a critical value when the compaction force is between 2500 and 3000 kN. Increasing the eccentric height difference between the anti-climbing teeth weakens the cutting energy absorption efficiency of CAEA and changes its deformation mode. This study can provide important insights into the design and optimization of anti-climbing energy absorbers for subway vehicles, and has important engineering value for improving the durability of the head cover and the collision safety of the vehicle.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: