Innovative Monitoring and Predictive Maintenance

Solutions on Lightweight Wagon

Grant Agreement no.: 730863 - S2R-OC-IP5-03-2015
Project Start Date: 01/11/2016
Project End Date: 30/04/2019

DELIVERABLE D3.1
Freight vehicle lightweight concept design
Work Package: WP 3
Deliverable type R
Dissemination Level: PU
Status: Final
Leader beneficiary: UVA
Due date of deliverable: 31/08/2018
Actual submission date: 30/11//2018
Prepared by: Marius Fartan, Uzina de Vagoane Aiud S.A. (UVA)
Cristian Ulianov, Newcastle University (UNEW)
Contributors: Asim Onder, Newcastle University (UNEW)
Petr Voltr, Newcastle University (UNEW)
Paul Hyde (UNEW)
Dachuan Shi, Technische Universität Berlin (TUB)
Florentin Barbuceanu, Uzina de Vagoane Aiud S.A. (UVA)
Robert Lorinczi, Uzina de Vagoane Aiud S.A. (UVA)
Lukas Hejzlar, Vyzkumny Ustav Zeleznicni as (VUZ)
Verified by: Cristian Ulianov
 Deliverable D3.1

Document history
Version Date Author(s) Description
D1 03/07/2017 Marius Fartan [UVA] Document initiated, draft structure
Cristian Ulianov [UNEW]
D2 22/11/2017 Asim Onder [UNEW] Draft section 2
Cristian Ulianov [UNEW]
D3 07/03/2018 All Update of structure and content
D5 22/08/2018 All Content added (first design models)
and revised
D6 17/10/2018 Marius Fartan [UVA] Content added and revised - pre-final
All version
D7 22/11/2018 All Conclusions added and revised
F1 30/11/2018 Cristian Ulianov [UNEW] Integration, proof-read, and
submission of final version

The INNOWAG project consortium

No Partner organisation Short Name Country
1 NEWCASTLE UNIVERSITY UNEW UK
2 INERTIA TECHNOLOGY B.V INE Netherlands
HAVELLANDISCHE EISENBAHN
3 HVLE Germany
AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT
4 LUCCHINI RS SPA LRS Italy
5 NEW OPERA AISBL NEWO Belgium
6 PERPETUUM LIMITED PER UK
7 POLITECNICO DI MILANO POLIM Italy
8 TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITAET BERLIN TUB Germany
UNION DES INDUSTRIES FERROVIAIRES
9 UNIFE Belgium
EUROPEENNES
10 UZINA DE VAGOANE AIUD SA UVA Romania
11 VYZKUMNY USTAV ZELEZNICNI VUZ Czech Republic

Disclaimer
This report was prepared as an account of work funded by Shift2Rail Joint Undertaking. The
contents of this document are provided “AS IS”, and no guarantee or warranty is provided that
the information is fit for particular purposes.
The information, analyses and views set out in this report are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily reflect the official opinion of the European Union. Neither the Community institutions
and bodies, nor any person acting on their behalf may be held responsible for the use which may
be made of the information contained therein. The user, thereof, uses the information at its sole
risk and liability.

Copyright notice
© 2016 - 2019 INNOWAG Consortium

2 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 4
List of abbreviations ................................................................................................................ 5
List of figures .......................................................................................................................... 6
List of tables ........................................................................................................................... 8
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 9
2. ASSESSMENT AND SELECTION OF NOVEL MATERIAL CONCEPTS FOR FREIGHT
VEHICLES ............................................................................................................................... 10
2.1 Overview of candidate material families ..................................................................... 11
2.1.1 High strength steels ............................................................................................ 12
2.1.2 Fibre reinforced composite materials................................................................... 13
2.1.3 Steel foams ......................................................................................................... 16
2.2 Assessment of candidate materials ............................................................................ 18
2.2.1 Materials Benchmarking: Level 1 Criteria ............................................................ 18
2.2.2 Materials Benchmarking: Level 2 Criteria ............................................................ 32
3. LIGHTWEIGHT DESIGN CONCEPTS .............................................................................. 39
3.1 Lightweighting solutions for freight rail vehicles .......................................................... 39
3.1.1 Implementation of advanced materials in wagon structural parts ......................... 39
3.1.2 Design optimisation for lightweight wagon solutions ............................................ 41
3.1.3 Integration of novel lightweight technologies in wagon design ............................. 44
3.2 INNOWAG Case Study 1 - Lightweight Y25 Bogie ..................................................... 45
3.2.1 Traditional Y25 bogie designs ............................................................................. 45
3.2.2 Lightweight Y25 bogie concept ............................................................................ 49
3.3 INNOWAG Case Study 2 - Lightweight Intermodal Flat Wagon .................................. 51
3.3.1 Traditional intermodal flat wagon designs............................................................ 51
3.3.2 Lightweight flat wagon concept ........................................................................... 54
3.4 INNOWAG Case Study 3 - Lightweight Cereal Hopper Wagon .................................. 59
3.4.1 Traditional cereal hopper wagon designs ............................................................ 59
3.4.2 Lightweight cereal hopper wagon concept........................................................... 63
3.5 Summary INNOWAG lightweight concepts ................................................................. 72
3.6 Impacts of lightweighting solutions and potential further work .................................... 81
3.6.1 Impacts of integration of advanced materials ...................................................... 81
3.6.2 Certification and standards relating issues .......................................................... 81
4. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................ 84
References ............................................................................................................................... 86

3 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

Executive Summary

This deliverable report presents the results of Tasks 3.1 and 3.2 within Work Package 3 (WP3)
of the INNOWAG project. The objective of WP3 is to develop and analyse a lightweight concept
design for freight vehicles, and test the most critical aspects of the novel design. The objective of
Task 3.1 was to assess and select materials for the concept design to be used in Task 3.2, and
the objective of Task 3.2 was to develop novel concept designs of lightweight freight vehicles
based on the materials selected in Task 3.1. The concept design(s) produced in Task 3.2 will be
analysed in Task 3.3 with respect to the structural strength and the dynamic performance of the
designs. Task 3.4 will test the most critical novel aspects of the design to validate the design
concepts.
It is the assessment and selection of materials (Task 3.1) and the development of the concept
designs (Task 3.2) which are the topics addressed in this report.
Section 1, Introduction, presents the main Task 3.1 and Task 3.2 activities, in the context of the
overall objectives of the INNOWAG project, and those of WP3 in particular, including Tasks 3.3
and 3.4 which follow the activities presented in this deliverable.
Section 2, Assessment and selection of novel material concepts for freight vehicles,
provides an overview of the candidate materials and the selection method and criteria used to
refine the candidate list to a shortlist of materials for further investigation and integration into the
lightweight freight vehicle concept design
Section 3, Lightweight design concepts, describes the development of the lightweight vehicle
design concept, including the lightweighting methodology applied. The issues surrounding
implementation of novel lightweight material are discussed and the design optimisation process
described, followed by the integration of novel lightweight components into the design.
Three lightweighting case studies are selected for the INNOWAG project and the lightweight
concept design development process is applied to each of them. The case studies are the Y25
bogie, intermodal flat wagon, and cereal hopper wagon. For each case study a conventional
design was selected as a reference to compare the concept design with. The features of the
lightweight concept designs are summarised, along with the weight reductions achieved
compared to reference designs, and the potential impacts of the integration of advanced novel
materials and future work on integration and acceptance of novel materials is discussed.
Section 4, Conclusions, summarises the outcomes of the work, and highlights the important
points about the novel materials selected and the lightweight concept designs, including the
significant weight reductions achieved.

4 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

List of abbreviations

AHSS Advanced High Strength Steel

AISI The American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) (relating to designations such as
304, 430 etc. that were developed and published in their 'Steel Products
Manual')
BH Bake hardenable steel
CAD Computer-aided design
CMn Carbon-Manganese steel
CP Complex phase steel
DP Dual phase ferrite/martensite steel
EC European Commission
ERA European Union Agency for Railways
FE Finite element
FEA Finite element analysis
FRP Fibre Reinforced Plastic/Polymer
GFRP Glass Fibre Reinforced Polymer
GHG Greenhouse gas
HHE High hole expansion - ferrite/bainite steel
HSLA High strength low alloy steel
HSS High Strength Steel (low carbon and conventional)
IBB Integrated Bogie Brake
IF Interstitial-Free steel (Low Strength)
IF-HS Interstitial-Free steel (High Strength)
LDHV Low Density High Value
MS Fully martensitic steels
Pre-preg "Pre-impregnated" composite fibres
QI Quasi-isotropic
RQT Rolled, quenched and tempered (steel)
SF Stretch flangeable steel
SMC Sheet moulding compound
SSS Solid solution strengthened (steel)
TRIP Transformation induced plasticity steel
TRL Technology Readiness Level
TWIP Twinning induced plasticity steel
UD Unidirectional
wt% Weight percent

5 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

List of figures

Figure 1 Steel Strength - Ductility Diagram (including comparison of traditional low-strength and
high-strength steels) (World Auto Steel, 2017) ......................................................................... 12
Figure 2 Fibre production: A) glass reinforced fibre production in Europe for different application
industries in 2013 (Holmes 2014a), B) global carbon fibre demand by application in thousand
tonnes in 2013 (Holmes 2014b) ............................................................................................... 14
Figure 3 Type of resin systems used in rail vehicle applications (Robinson et al., 2000) .......... 14
Figure 4 Material coordinate system of a laminated composite (not to scale) ........................... 15
Figure 5 Examples of fibres: (A) unidirectional glass fibre, (B) Plain weave glass fibre fabric, (C)
Twill weave carbon fibre pre-preg (Fibermax composites 2016)............................................... 16
Figure 6 Standing of example steel foams among other candidate materials: Tensile strength vs
density ..................................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 7 Standing of example steel foams among other candidate materials: Compressive
strength vs density ................................................................................................................... 18
Figure 8 Young’s modulus versus density of FRPs, steel foams, and HSS .............................. 21
Figure 9 Tensile strength versus density of FRPs, steel foams, and HSS ................................ 22
Figure 10 Specific stiffness versus Price of FRPs, steel foams, and HSS ................................ 23
Figure 11 Specific tensile strength versus Price of FRPs, steel foams, and HSS ..................... 24
Figure 12 Specific tensile strength versus price of candidate steels and pultruded Polyester/E-
glass FRP ................................................................................................................................ 31
Figure 13 Specific Young’s modulus versus price of candidate steels and pultruded Polyester/E-
glass FRP ................................................................................................................................ 31
Figure 14 Material GHG emissions for typical functional unit (World Auto Steel, 2017) ............ 36
Figure 15 A simplified model of the Y25 bogie transverse beam .............................................. 42
Figure 16 Sketch of the cross-section to explain dimension symbols in Table 10 ..................... 43
Figure 17 Integrated Bogie Brake type IBB 10 for freight wagon (Wabtec Corporation, 2018).. 44
Figure 18 Example of standard type of the Y25 bogie family - the Y25 Ls1-K bogie (from
https://tatravagonka.sk/inc/uploads/2016/06/Y-25-Ls1-K.pdf) .................................................. 45
Figure 19 Suspension and wheelset guiding of an Y25 bogie .................................................. 46
Figure 20 CAD model of a standard Y25 bogie frame .............................................................. 46
Figure 21 Some other bogies of the Y25 family; left: bogie Y25 ELH with a different shape of
sideframes; right: bogie Y33 for wagons with reduced floor height ........................................... 47
Figure 22 Novel frame design of the INNOWAG Y25 lightweight bogie concept ...................... 50
Figure 23 3D view of the INNOWAG lightweight Y25 bogie concept ........................................ 51
Figure 24 Left: universal flat wagon that can be used, among others, for container transport
(http://www.lokotrans.eu/en/vuz/rgs/); right: purpose-built container carrier wagon .................. 51
Figure 25 Arrangement of load-carrying members of flat wagons in cross-section ................... 53
Figure 26 Traditional 60’ container wagon Sgnss (by Tatravagonka,
http://tatravagonka.sk/wagons/sgnss-60) ................................................................................. 54
Figure 27 WASCOSA lightweight container wagon (ViWaS, 2015) .......................................... 54
Figure 28 Conventional wagon frame (a) and its main structural profiles’ sections (b) ............. 56
Figure 29 3D view of the structural frame of the INNOWAG lightweight 60’ intermodal flat wagon
concept .................................................................................................................................... 58
Figure 30 Hopper wagons according to the shape of the bottom part of the carbody in cross-
section: a) W-shaped bottom, b) special wagon for depositing ballast on track, c) X-shaped
bottom, d) central discharge openings ..................................................................................... 59
Figure 31 Two basic design options for a cereal hopper wagon (photos from
https://commons.wikimedia.org) ............................................................................................... 60
Figure 32 Uagps cereal hopper model (by UVA), before implementing carbody lightweighting
solutions .................................................................................................................................. 62
Figure 33 Underframe of reference U class hopper wagon (CAD model) ................................. 64
Figure 34 Underframe of INNOWAG lightweight U class hopper wagon (CAD model) ............. 64
Figure 35 3D view of the bottom discharge assembly of the INNOWAG lightweight U class hopper
wagon concept......................................................................................................................... 65

6 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

Figure 36 3D view of special equipment assembly on the INNOWAG lightweight U class hopper
wagon concept ......................................................................................................................... 66
Figure 37 3D view of the hopper body assembly on the INNOWAG lightweight U class hopper
wagon concept 1 ...................................................................................................................... 67
Figure 38 3D view of the hopper body assembly on the INNOWAG lightweight U class hopper
wagon concept 2 ...................................................................................................................... 67
Figure 39 Example of shape-optimisation on the hopper body (the roof shape) ....................... 68
Figure 40 Example of shape-optimisation on the hopper body (the body end parts) ................. 68
Figure 41 3D view of the hopper body assembly on the INNOWAG lightweight U class hopper
wagon concept 3 ...................................................................................................................... 69
Figure 42 3D view of the INNOWAG lightweight U class hopper wagon - Concept 1 (using AHSS
solutions) .................................................................................................................................. 70
Figure 43 3D view of the INNOWAG lightweight U class hopper wagon - Concept 2 (using AHSS
solutions and composites) ........................................................................................................ 70
Figure 44 3D view of the INNOWAG lightweight U class hopper wagon - Concept 3 (using AHSS
solutions and composites, with increased capacity) .................................................................. 70

7 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

List of tables

Table 1: Comparison of lightweight materials (Campbell, 2012) ............................................... 11

Table 2: Steel foam fabrication processes, material design variables, relative densities, and cell
morphology (Smith et al., 2012) ............................................................................................... 17
Table 3: SUSTRAIL material benchmark table (absolute values and percentage difference from
RQT®701) (SUSTRAIL D3.7) .................................................................................................. 20
Table 4: Benchmarking of selected structural conventional and high strength steels (material
properties)................................................................................................................................ 27
Table 5: Benchmarking of selected structural conventional and high strength steels (material
properties relative to the S355JR steel) ................................................................................... 28
Table 6: Benchmarking of selected FRPs (absolute material properties) ................................. 29
Table 7: Benchmarking of selected FRPs (material properties relative to the Polyester/E-glass
fibre pultruded rod .................................................................................................................... 29
Table 8: Resistance of candidate materials against different degrading factors ....................... 38
Table 9: Extract from a preliminary calculation of lightweighting solutions for an I-beam .......... 42
Table 10: Example preliminary calculation of lightweighting solutions - the Y25 transverse beam
(for the dimension symbols, see Figure 16).............................................................................. 43
Table 11: Letter explanation for Y25 bogie variants (not exhaustive) (source:
http://www.drehgestelle.de/6/y25_t.html) ................................................................................. 47
Table 12: Technical specifications of the standard Y25 bogie .................................................. 48
Table 13: Example modifications - the side beam of the bogie ................................................. 49
Table 14: Summary of masses - INNOWAG lightweight Y25 bogie concept vs. the reference
model ....................................................................................................................................... 50
Table 15: Types of wagons for container transport according to UIC 571-4 ............................. 52
Table 16: Characteristics of 60’ container wagons (yellow: UIC 571-4 types; white: new built
wagons of the traditional design; green: new built lightweight wagon) ...................................... 53
Table 17: Example of optimised lightweight profile - the wagon frame central beams .............. 57
Table 18: Optimised solution for the lateral side beams of the wagon frame ............................ 57
Table 19: Summary of masses - INNOWAG lightweight 60’ intermodal flat wagon concept vs. the
reference model ....................................................................................................................... 58
Table 20: Principal design characteristics of cereal hoppers .................................................... 60
Table 21: Parameters of the reference design (Uagps wagon)................................................. 62
Table 22: Summary of masses - INNOWAG lightweight U class hopper wagon concepts vs. the
reference model ....................................................................................................................... 71
Table 23: Summary Y25 lightweight concept ........................................................................... 73
Table 24: Summary 60’ intermodal flat wagon concept ............................................................ 74
Table 25: Summary U class hopper wagon - Lightweight Concept 1 ........................................ 75
Table 26: Summary U class hopper wagon - Lightweight Concept 2 (including composite parts)
................................................................................................................................................ 77
Table 27: Summary U class hopper wagon - Lightweight Concept 3 (including composite parts
and with increased volume) ..................................................................................................... 79

8 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

1. INTRODUCTION

The INNOWAG project aims to work towards increasing rail freight competitiveness by enabling
the increase of capacity and logistic capability, improve reliability availability, maintainability and
safety, and lower life-cycle costs.
This will be achieved through the development of the next generation of lightweight and intelligent
freight wagons; the development is divided into three work streams:
 Cargo condition monitoring;
 Wagon design, and
 Predictive maintenance.
The scope of Work Package 3 (WP3) is to develop a lightweight wagon concept, and analyse and
test the most critical aspects related to the novel conceptual design.
This report presents the results of activities carried out within Tasks 3.1 and 3.2, in order to
achieve the first two specific objectives of WP3, i.e.:
 Select and assess the relevant candidate materials for lightweight rail vehicle
structures (wagon frame, bogie and body);
 Design new optimised structural solutions for lightweight freight vehicles, using the
most promising selected materials;
Task 3.1 considered the materials identified and reviewed in WP1 (Sub-Task 1.1.2), including
novel steel solutions (e.g., foams, high strength steels, cold rolled profiles, etc.), polymer
composites, etc. The most promising classes and types of materials have been selected and
assessed. Considering the assessment results, as well as the requirements and specifications
defined by Task 1.3 of WP1, a shortlist of lightweight materials has been selected for being
implanted onto different vehicle structural components and subassemblies.
Task 3.2 developed lightweight design concepts for components, subassemblies and structural
parts of freight vehicles using the candidate materials selected in Task 3.1. The lightweight
solutions have been implemented into three case studies – the Y25 bogie, intermodal flat wagon
and U class cereal hopper.
The report presents both the assessment and selection of materials that was carried out within
Task 3.1, and the development of the lightweight concept designs pertaining to the three case
studies. More specifically, the five lightweight concepts that have been developed are presented
in detail and compared with respect to the materials used, novel integrated technologies, mass
reduction, and potential impacts of the their implementation.
The work was carried out in parallel with activities in Task 3.3, which focuses on modelling and
simulation for validating the lightweight concepts. The Task 3.3 outcomes have been essential for
refining the lightweight concepts included in this report. Some key issues that were identified will
be further analysed through testing activities, which will be carried out in Task 3.4.

9 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

2. ASSESSMENT AND SELECTION OF NOVEL MATERIAL

CONCEPTS FOR FREIGHT VEHICLES
Task 3.1 of the INNOWAG project tackles the analysis and selection of potential
materials/material families that could be used to achieve a lighter freight wagon. With respect to
this objective that relates to nearer to market/implementation materials rather than “blue-sky”
concepts, a preliminary analysis should focus on materials that has proven themselves in previous
transport applications (automotive, aeronautics, rail and maritime) for lightweighting (LW)
purposes. Later, the task should consider the application of materials to different parts of the
wagon separately (e.g., bogie frame and body structure), as well as the requirements expected
by the project, such as environmental impact, investment, and the life-cycle-costs (LCC).
However, as the number of the criteria increases, the selection process becomes more and more
complicated and impractical. To avoid this, prioritisations and compromises should be made.
Therefore, the relevant criteria on material selection have been clustered on two levels: Level 1
and Level 2, on the basis of two criteria:
 The importance/effect on the behaviour and overall properties of the rail vehicle;
 The practicality in using them in the selection methodology.
According to the aims of the project, the preliminary criteria for material comparison can be
classified as:
 Specific elasticity modulus: stiffness divided by density;
 Specific tensile strength: strength divided by density;
 Fatigue behaviour/strength;
 Material cost (Euro/kilogram);
 Applicability to different components of the wagon with respect to:
o Manufacturing processes;
o Joining techniques;
o Specific stresses on different vehicle components and/or sub-assemblies (flexural,
tensile, compressive, etc.)
The above criteria can be accounted as Level 1. The first two criteria, specific modulus and
strength, are related to the potential lightweighting achievable by using a lower density material
such as composites since the densities of, e.g., different steel grades, are nearly the same.
Therefore, these criteria are effective when there is a comparison between steel and composite
materials.
The material cost criterion is used to provide the relative price of each material in Euro/kg. It is
not an indication of the cost effectiveness, because considering potential mass savings, a more
expensive material may be cheaper for the whole product, and fabrication costs would have to be
considered as well.
Following these criteria, it is important to check the applicability of the material type for the
intended use. This can be considered as a more complex criterion (compared to the previous
ones), which takes into account the type of stresses and loads (bending, tensile, or compression,
etc.), the manufacturing techniques available to make a suitable part/structure out of that material,
and the joining techniques involved.
As the number of potential materials decreases via elimination through the application of the
criteria above, further restrictions should follow the below criteria, which can be considered as
Level 2 criteria:
 Life-cycle-cost (LCC);
 Environmental impact, with respect to:
o Recyclability;
o CO2 footprint;
o Noise reduction;

10 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

o Energy save/use;
o Etc.
 Resistance to degrading factors, such as:
o Impact resistance;
o Fire-smoke-toxicity resistance;
o Resistance against chemicals, humidity, temperature, etc.;
o Abrasion resistance;
o Etc.
As mentioned in a previous INNOWAG report, D1.1 (Ulianov et al., 2017), novel steel solutions
such as high strength steels (HSS and AHSS), aluminium, and fibre reinforced polymer composite
materials (FRPs) are to be considered first, regardless of the intended application (geometrical,
dimensional, in-service properties, etc.). Even though the analysis is straightforward at this stage,
attention should be paid as FRPs require more distinctive parameters and configurations relative
to the metallic materials, such as layer type (unidirectional, multi-directional, or fabric), layer
orientation, and layer stacking sequence. Nonetheless, the aim of the first phase of the analysis
is to limit the number of materials.

2.1 Overview of candidate material families

The main feature of the lightweight materials currently available on the market is that they all have
low densities. Densities range from as low as 0.80 g/cm3 for unfilled polymers to 4.5 g/cm3 for
titanium. Some of the lightweight materials can only be used to approximately 66°C, while others
maintain useful properties to over 1370 °C. The main properties of these materials are shown in
Table 1 below.

Table 1: Comparison of lightweight materials (Campbell, 2012)

Unfortunately, most of the lightweight materials in the above table are not suitable for the design

11 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

of rail vehicle structures, due to either their weak performances or to prohibitive costs relating to
manufacturing and/or maintenance.
The following sub-sections briefly overview the most promising families of materials that could be
feasible for lightweight rail vehicle design.

2.1.1 High strength steels

Currently there are various ways to identify certain classes of steels, such as according to their
mechanical properties and material micro structure (micro-phase). Some of these definitions are
helpful for processing the material, while others are helpful to the part/structural designers.
However, for a broader community that includes manufacturers, suppliers, and designers, using
a very specific classification of steels can be confusing. In addition, taking into account the
advances in the material science, today’s definition might not be appropriate in the future.
Therefore, using a well-rounded classification would be suitable, and the generic term HSS (high
strength steel) in this document is appropriate and avoids confusion.
The types of steels that have been considered in INNOWAG are based on the latest report of
World Auto Steel, which presents the standing of current (1st and 2nd generation) and future (3rd
generation) of advanced high strength steels (AHSS), as well as on specifications provided by
manufacturers for different steel grades currently on the market. AHSS are complex materials,
with carefully developed chemical compositions and multiphase microstructures resulting from
precisely controlled heating and cooling processes. Various strengthening mechanisms are
employed to achieve a range of strength, ductility, toughness, and fatigue properties.
The broad range of steel properties is well illustrated by the Steel Strength - Ductility Diagram
(Figure 1).

Figure 1 Steel Strength - Ductility Diagram (including comparison of traditional low-strength and high-
strength steels) (World Auto Steel, 2017)

Figure 1 summarises various types of steel that could be clustered in four general categories
(based on steel microstructure), as follows:
1. Conventional steels, including:
 Mild steels;
 Interstitial-Free steels (Low Strength - IF, and High Strength - IF-HS);
 Solid solution strengthened (SSS);
 Bake hardenable steels (BH);
 Carbon-Manganese steels (CMn);
 Low carbon and conventional high strength steels (HSSs);

12 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

 High strength low alloy steels (HSLA);

Etc.
2. The first generation of advanced high strength steels (AHSS) includes:
 Dual phase ferrite/martensite steels (DP);
 High hole expansion (HHE) - ferrite/bainite steels;
 Stretch flangeable steels (SF);
 Transformation induced plasticity steels (TRIP);
 Complex phase steels (CP);
 Fully martensitic steels (MS);
 Boron heat treatable steels;
Etc.
3. The second generation of AHSS includes:
 Twinning induced plasticity steels (TWIP);
 Lightweight steels with induced plasticity (L-IP);
4. The third generation of AHSS are steels with special alloying and thermo-mechanical
processing to achieve improved strength-ductility combinations compared to present
grades, with potential for more efficient joining capabilities, at lower costs; these grades
are still under research and development.
In addition to conventional types of high strength steels (HSS), steel types such as austenitic
stainless, twining induced plasticity (TWIP), and transformation induced plasticity (TRIP), which
have higher elongation have been considered as well, since previous projects that focused on
lightweight freight wagon design (e.g., SUSTRAIL and SPECTRUM) did not focus on these.

2.1.2 Fibre reinforced composite materials

Composite materials generally are formed by combining two (sometimes more) different materials
in order to achieve a material that performs better than either of the components alone. Briefly, a
composite material has two distinct phases: a reinforcing phase and a matrix phase. Main material
families: metals, ceramics and glasses, and plastics, can be used to form a composite material
with one principal condition: the constituent materials should not be incompatible with each other.
The reinforcing phase can be in various forms such as particle or thin tube (fibre) shape. However,
practical composites for the railway industry as well as for many other industrial sectors are called
fibre reinforced plastics (FRP). For this reason, in this document the term composite material will
refer to a fibre reinforced structure.

2.1.2.1 Fibre Phase

Fibres - or reinforcements - are the main load bearers of a fibre reinforced composite material.
Fibres can be described geometrically as thin long rods, very small (micron or nano scale) in
diameter, very long in length compared to their diameter (cm-mm scale), and they can be
distributed inside the material as continuously aligned, oriented at an angle, or randomly
distributed as short chopped fibres (e.g., chopped strand mat (CSM)). Fibres themselves usually
have quite high tensile moduli (70-800 GPa) and strength values (1000-7000 MPa) (Reid et al.,
2000). The reason is directly related to their geometry, which results the micro structure to be
aligned in fibre axis, and the presence of fewer defects compared to the bulk material of the same
type.
There are many types of reinforcing fibres such as aluminium, titanium, steel, boron, aramid and
graphite, but the most commonly used types today in railway industry (and in many other) are

13 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

glass and carbon fibres. The percentages of carbon and glass fibre use in various industrial
applications are shown in Figure 2, in which the rail industry is considered in transport and civil
engineering (Holmes, 2014a and 2014b).
Although carbon fibres are superior to glass fibres in terms of mechanical properties, impact or
damage tolerance of pure carbon composite products can be low or very poor due to their brittle
nature. On the other hand, glass fibres are very cheap, making them cost effective, and they are
less brittle compared to carbon fibres, and have higher strains to failure. Glass fibre reinforced
composites also have higher impact strength compared to carbon counterparts (Reid et al. 2000).

Figure 2 Fibre production: A) glass reinforced fibre production in Europe for different application industries
in 2013 (Holmes 2014a), B) global carbon fibre demand by application in thousand tonnes in 2013
(Holmes 2014b)

2.1.2.2 Matrix Phase

Matrix phase of a composite material fulfils the duty of keeping the fibres in place, alignment of
the fibres in desired direction, covering and protecting them from outside effects, and transferring
forces to and across the fibres. Although matrix phase has generally lower mechanical properties
compared to the fibre phase, without the matrix phase properly supporting them, no gain can be
obtained by the high mechanical properties of the fibres. One of the most important functions of
matrix phase is to transfer the loads between fibres in the case that the fibres are broken.
Polymer based matrix materials for composite systems can be divided into two categories:
thermoset and thermoplastic polymers, and are usually called resins. Thermoset matrix materials
generally have higher strength compared to thermoplastics, but they are generally also more
brittle. Thermoset resins, once hardened, cannot be reheated and melted to a different shape
unlike thermoplastics which could be reheated and reshaped. Because of this irreversibility,
thermosets are difficult to recycle.

Figure 3 Type of resin systems used in rail vehicle applications (Robinson et al., 2000)

14 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

The most commonly used matrix materials in railway industry applications are epoxy, polyester,
vinylester, acrylic and phenolic resins (Figure 3). Among these resin systems, polyester resin
dominates the others, while phenolic resin is a more appropriate choice if strict fire and smoke
performance is required.

2.1.2.3 Basics and terminology

Coordinate system: Generally, three directions are considered for an FRP structure: longitudinal
direction (1 or x), transverse direction (2 or y), and thickness direction (3 or z) (Figure 4). Most of
the time, the longitudinal direction is considered as main fibre direction. (1-2) or (x-y) plane can
be named as “in-plane”, while through-thickness direction can be named as “out-of-plane”.

Figure 4 Material coordinate system of a laminated composite (not to scale)

Lamina/layer/ply: Most basic element of a laminated composite material. A thin layer of matrix
and fibre combination.
Orientation angle: The angular position of a lamina inside a laminate (or the fibres inside a
lamina), such as (0°), (45°), (60°), (90°).
Stacking sequence: The order of the plies to form a laminated structure. It can be shown in the
form of [(xo/ yo/ zo…)n]s. In this notation x, y, z are fibre orientation angles, n is the number of
repetition of group of layers inside the bracket, and s means that the group inside the square
bracket is symmetric to the mid-plane of the laminated structure. For example, [(0o/ 45o/ 90o)2]s
means a laminated structure with 12 layers/plies: [0o/45o/ 90o/0o/45o/ 90o/90o/45o/0o/90o/45o/0o].
Facesheet (face, skin, face layer): Facesheet is the term that is used to identify the top and bottom
layers of sandwich structures, most of the time the facesheets are in the form of laminated
composites.
Core (insert): Core term refers to the material inserted in between the facesheets of a sandwich
structure. Honeycomb, foam, or balsa wood core materials are widely used core types in many
industries.
SMC: Sheet moulding compound is a ready to mould fibre reinforced polyester material primarily
used in compression moulding. SMC benefits from a very high volume production ability, excellent
part reproducibility, it is cost effective as low labour requirements for a given production level is
very good, and industry scrap is reduced substantially.
UD: Unidirectional: A layer/laminate which consist of all fibres aligned in only one direction (Figure
5 (A)).
Fabric: In order to have similar properties in “in-plane” (0° and 90° directions) in a single layer,
fabric plies were developed in contrast to unidirectional or angle-ply layers. In fabric plies, fibres
are interlacing each other in 0° and 90° angle, resulting in various configurations such as plain

15 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

weave (Figure 5 (B)), twill weave (Figure 5 (C)), satin weave, etc. which can affect the properties
of the layer.
Pre-preg: Pre-preg is "pre-impregnated" composite fibres where a polymer matrix material, such
as epoxy, is already present (Figure 5 (C)). The fibres often take the form of a weave and the
matrix is used to bond them together and to other components during manufacture. The matrix is
only partially cured to allow easy handling. The material at this stage requires cold storage to
prevent complete curing.

Figure 5 Examples of fibres: (A) unidirectional glass fibre, (B) Plain weave glass fibre fabric, (C) Twill
weave carbon fibre pre-preg (Fibermax composites 2016)

2.1.3 Steel foams

Steel foams are relatively new form of steel materials that are designed to achieve lighter steel
structures. These types of steels incorporate a porous structure which can be introduced by many
different manufacturing processes as it can be seen in Table 2, and as a result, they have lower
density compared to the parent metal. However, not all of these methods are standardised and
most importantly the physical properties of the manufactured structures depend predominantly
on the type of method. This situation creates difficulties for selection in addition to the lack of
numerical data regarding different material and property types.
The figures below show the standing of some steel foams among other candidate materials for
their tensile and compressive strength vs densities. It can be seen that for this specific steel foam
type (lotus type), the porosity parameter is what controls the density of the material. For lotus type
manufacturing the porosity (p) is calculated by
p = (1- ρ/ ρ 0) x 100,
where ρ is the density determined from the weight and the volume of the specimen and the density
ρ 0 of non-porous stainless steel, in this case stainless austenitic steel 304L.
Figure 6 shows the tensile strength values of these steel foams and other possible candidate
materials. The material considered for SUSTRAIL project (RQT-701 steel) is highlighted as well
for a realistic comparison. The tensile strength of various porosity level foams does not differ
much, however, the density difference is higher. 50% porosity steel foam has around 200 MPa of
tensile strength and 3900 kg/m3 of density, while RQT-701 has around 800 MPa of tensile strength
and 7900 kg/m3 of density. This can suggest that steel foam can be used for the parts that doesn’t
require to withstand intensive loads in order to contribute to the lightweighting, e.g., bogie cover
parts, axle box covers, etc.

16 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

Table 2: Steel foam fabrication processes, material design variables, relative densities, and cell
morphology (Smith et al., 2012)

17 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

RQT - 701

Figure 6 Standing of example steel foams among other candidate materials: Tensile strength vs density

Figure 7 Standing of example steel foams among other candidate materials: Compressive strength vs
density

2.2 Assessment of candidate materials

2.2.1 Materials Benchmarking: Level 1 Criteria

Considering, i) the steel grades available on the current market; ii) Outcomes of similar previous
work (e.g., SPECTRUM, SUSTRAIL); and iii) Relevant information in literature, the types of
steels considered for further analysis in INNOWAG include the conventional structural steels, low
alloy high strength steels, austenitic stainless, and 1st and 2nd generation HSS such as twining

18 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

induced plasticity (TWIP) and transformation induced plasticity (TRIP) which have higher
elongation.
To identify candidate composite materials in INNOWAG, reference shall be made to the
European Union 7th Framework Programme project REFRESCO. The REFRESCO project aimed
to create a regulatory framework for the use of new structural lightweight materials (such as
composites) in railway passenger and freight carbody shells. The project considered both glass
and carbon fibres for monolithic composite, as well as for the sandwich composite applications in
passenger rail vehicles. Epoxy, polyester, and phenolic resins (for strict fire protection
requirements) were recommended as matrix materials. For sandwich composites, aluminium
honeycomb, polyurethane (PUR) and Polyethylenterephtalate (PET - recyclable foam with
excellent fire protection performance) foam materials were selected. Materials benchmarking
study focused on fibres and matrixes in the form of prepreg. Even though the REFRESCO
project’s major concern was the modification of existing standards when composites are in use,
the aforementioned composite materials can be a good basis for the different parts of freight
vehicle body application if not for bogie and frame structure.
Reinforcing materials other than glass, carbon, and aramid fibres, such as novel natural and
recyclable fibres were not considered in the preliminary selection. Certainly it is worthy
researching these types of fibres in the future for their potential. However, at the moment, their
current capabilities, their manufacturing processes, and longer-life-cycle characteristics are fairly
new. Therefore, the knowledge of these novel reinforcing materials is more limited and insufficient
for them to be valid selections.

2.2.1.1 Mechanical properties and material cost criteria

A PC-based software product supporting systematic selection of materials for engineering

applications was used for identifying and assessing the mechanical properties and the cost of
material candidates for lightweight freight vehicles. Granta CES Selector (based on the
Cambridge Engineering Selector (CES) approach developed at Cambridge University), is a
unique tool for the rational selection of engineering materials - metals, ceramics, polymers,
composites - and of manufacturing processes - shaping, finishing, joining, and surface treatment.
It enables materials experts and product development teams to find, explore, and apply materials
property data
Figure 8 to Figure 11 show examples of the available materials generated by the Granta CES
software where no specific requirements are applied. After a rough filtering, it emerges that the
total number of available materials is around 1000. This produces a too large range of potential
materials, however, it is helpful to clarify the big picture and to compare the general characteristics
of the candidate materials with each other.
From the stiffness point of view, it can be seen from the Figure 8 that most of the HSS have much
higher density (up to 5 times greater) than the FRPs, but the difference in Elasticity modulus (E)
is not that significant (up to 2-3 times). In fact, it is quite likely that the stiffness of the composites
can compete with that of metals since the figure shows the bulk property of the materials. The
advantage of the composites can be realised better when the properties of the final product are
tailored to the specific needs and the load paths of the specific design requirements.
On the other hand, Figure 9 shows that the tensile strength of HSS is not always superior to
FRPs. For example, “Epoxy/carbon fibre, resin infused non-crimp fabric, UD lay-up” has 1.84 GPa
tensile strength, and “Complex phase YS800 (cold rolled)” AHSS has 1.2 GPa tensile strength.
Cost is obviously one of the major factors in new vehicle designs. FRPs paved the way for
lightweighting in aeronautics sector with the extensive use of carbon fibre. Unfortunately, strength
and stiffness properties aside, carbon fibre is still one of the most expensive reinforcing materials
(Figure 10 and Figure 11). Therefore, in the INNOWAG project, since carbon fibres cannot
compete with the much lower HSS prices, composites based on carbon fibres are excluded as a
candidate for material selection.

19 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

Some Aluminium-carbon fibre composites have the highest elasticity modulus but they are far
more expensive than any other materials considered (Figure 10 and Figure 11). On the other
hand, HSS and AHSS are significantly cheaper than the FRPs (Figure 10 and Figure 11), making
them very attractive.
Conventional metals used in rail freight vehicles are generally S275JR and S355JR steels that
comply with the EN10025-2 standard. Their densities are about 7850 kg/m³ and Young’s moduli
are about 205 GPa. SUSTRAIL, a previous project funded by the European Union’s Seventh
Framework Programme, was carried out to achieve a sustainable and more efficient freight wagon
design. In SUSTRAIL, the first candidates to replace conventional S275 and S355 structural steel
materials were identified as S460ML and RQT-701 (the specific TATA Steel product). Their
advantageous and disadvantageous points were highlighted in Table 3 below. Based on the
comparison, S460ML, RQT-701 and AISI 4340 steels were used for further structural analysis in
SUSTRAIL project.

Table 3: SUSTRAIL material benchmark table (absolute values and percentage difference from
RQT®701) (SUSTRAIL D3.7)

This table can be useful to evaluate the effectiveness of other HSS and composite materials
selected for INNOWAG.

20 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

Figure 8 Young’s modulus versus density of FRPs, steel foams, and HSS

21 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

Figure 9 Tensile strength versus density of FRPs, steel foams, and HSS

22 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

Figure 10 Specific stiffness versus Price of FRPs, steel foams, and HSS

23 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

Figure 11 Specific tensile strength versus Price of FRPs, steel foams, and HSS

24 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

The extensive list of steel types and grades that was initially identified was refined with respect to
the above considerations relating to the first assessment criteria.
Therefore, the shortlist of candidate steels that was considered for further analyses includes:
1. Stainless steel, austenitic, AISI 301, full hard
2. TRIP - Transformation induced plasticity steel, YS450 (cold rolled) (1st generation HSS)
3. TWIP - Twinning induced plasticity steel, YS500 (cold rolled) (2nd generation HSS)
4. CP - Complex phase steel, YS800 (cold rolled) (1st generation HSS)
5. DP - Dual phase steel, YS600 (cold rolled) (1st generation HSS)
6. Martensitic steel, YS1200 (hot rolled) (1st generation HSS)
7. High strength low alloy steel, YS550 (hot rolled)
8. Low alloy steel, AISI 4340, tempered at 540°C & oil quenched
9. RQT-701 (by TATA Steel)*
10. Strenx 700 (by SSAB)*
11. Structural HSS, S890QL
12. Structural HSS, S960QL
13. Structural steel, S460ML
14. Structural steel, S275N (Normalised)
15. Structural steel, S355JR
* The steels grades at positions 9 and 10 are specific commercial products that meet the
requirements of EN10025-6 for the S690 grade and thicknesses. Both products have been
listed and further considered due to different specifications relating to elongation, price, etc.
The following standard abbreviations have been used in the above diagrams and list:
 YS - yield strength;
 Q - quenched delivery condition;
 L - specified minimum values of impact energy at temperatures not lower than -40°C;
 M - thermomechanically rolled, and
 N - normalised rolled condition;
 JR - Longitudinal Charpy V-notch impacts 27J at Room temperature (in relation to the
brittle fracture).
Similarly, the initial analysis of candidate fibre reinforced composites (as summarised in the above
diagrams) allowed the selection of the most promising ones for freight vehicle design. The
shortlist of fibre reinforced composites includes:
1. Polyester/E-glass fibre, pultruded rod
2. Polyester/E-glass fibre, woven fabric, QI lay-up
3. Polyester/E-glass fibre, woven fabric, 65wt% glass, biaxial lay-up
4. Polyester SMC (50% glass fibre, HB)
5. Epoxy/E-glass fibre, woven prepreg, biaxial lay-up
6. Epoxy/E-glass fibre, UD prepreg, UD lay-up
7. Epoxy SMC (60% long glass fibre, flame retarded)
The strength properties and the price of materials listed above were compared against a baseline
material in each category. The baseline materials were selected as follows:
 For the candidate steels - “Structural steel, S355JR“, which is the conventional steel
currently used in the fabrication of most freight vehicles;
 For the candidate composites - “Polyester/E-glass fibre pultruded rod”. This material was
selected for its remarkable performances, in terms of both mechanical properties and cost.
However, these properties can be achieved just in specific composite sections due to the
limitations characteristic to the pultrusion fabrication process. Components with 3D
shapes and/or greater areas cannot be manufactured through pultrusion, hence the other

25 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

options that are characteristic to appropriate manufacturing processes for producing

panel-type parts have been considered.

The benchmarking for both material families are presented below in

Table 4,
Table 5,
Table 6 and Table 7 below.

26 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

Table 4: Benchmarking of selected structural conventional and high strength steels (material properties)

Yield S Tensile S Elongation Price Young's M Density

Material name
(MPa) (MPa) (%) (EUR/kg) (GPa) (kg/m^3)
Stainless steel, austenitic, full hard, AISI 301 wrought 862 - 1.06e3 1.2e3 - 1.33e3 8 - 9.3 2.73 - 2.96 179 - 183 7.88e3 - 7.96e3
TRIP-Transformation induced plasticity steel, cold
450 - 600 780 - 900 21 - 32 1.03 - 1.05 191- 231 7.8e3 - 7.9e3
rolled, HCT780T
CP-Complex phase steel, cold rolled, HCT980C 700 - 900 980 - 1.2e3 7 - 13 1.12 - 1.2 200 - 221 7.8e3 - 7.9e3
DP-Dual phase steel, cold rolled, HCT980X 600 - 750 980 - 1.1e3 10 - 17 0.577 - 0.605 200 - 221 7.8e3 - 7.9e3
Martensitic steel, hot rolled, HDT1200M 900 - 1.15e3 1.2e3 - 1.4e3 4-7 0.678 - 0.752 200 - 221 7.8e3 - 7.9e3
TWIP-Twinning induced plasticity steel, cold rolled,
476 - 525 933 - 1.03e3 50 - 60 1.19 - 1.24 200 - 221 7.8e3 - 7.9e3
TWIP 500/980
High strength low alloy steel, hot rolled, S550MC 550 - 650 600 - 760 12 - 23 0.532 200 - 221 7.8e3 - 7.9e3
Low alloy steel, tempered at 540°C & oil quenched, AISI
965 - 1190 1050 - 1300 10 - 16 0.862 - 0.935 205 - 213 7.8e3 - 7.9e3
4340
High strength steel, RQT-701 (by TATA Steel) 630 - 690 690 - 930 18 0.8 - 0.9 205 - 210 7.8e3 - 7.9e3
High strength steel, Strenx 700 (by SSAB) 650 - 700 710 - 930 14 0.75 - 1.00 205 - 210 7.8e3 - 7.9e3
Structural steel, S890QL 830 - 890 880 - 1100 11 Not available 205 - 210 7.8e3 - 7.9e3
Structural steel, S960QL 960 980 - 1150 10 Not available 205 - 210 7.8e3 - 7.9e3
Structural steel, S460ML 460 540 - 720 17 0.6 - 0.8 205 - 210 7.8e3 - 7.9e3
Structural steel, S275N (Normalised) 205 - 275 350 - 510 23 - 24 0.532 - 0.541 200 - 221 7.8e3 - 7.9e3
Structural steel, S355JR 355 470 - 630 22 0.4 - 0.5 200 -221 7.8e3 - 7.9e3

27 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

Table 5: Benchmarking of selected structural conventional and high strength steels (material properties relative to the S355JR steel)

Material name R Yield STR R Tensile STR R Elongation R Price

Stainless steel, austenitic, full hard, AISI 301 wrought 170.70% 130.00% -60.90% -532.22%
TRIP-Transformation induced plasticity steel, cold rolled, HCT780T 47.88% 52.72% 20.45% -131.11%
CP-Complex phase steel, cold rolled, HCT980C 125.35% 98.18% -54.54% -157.77%
DP-Dual phase steel, cold rolled, HCT980X 90.14% 89.09% -32.63% -31.33%
Martensitic steel, hot rolled, HDT1200M 188.73% 136.36% -75.00% -58.88%
TWIP-Twinning induced plasticity steel, cold rolled, TWIP 500/980 40.84% 78.18% 150.00% -170.00%
High strength low alloy steel, hot rolled, S550MC 69.01% 23.63% -20.45% -18.22%
Low alloy steel, tempered at 540°C & oil quenched, AISI 4340 203.38% 113.63 -40.90% -99.66%
High strength steel, RQT701 (by TATA Steel) 85.91% 47.27% -18.18% -88.88%
Strenx 700 (By SSAB) 90.14% 49.09% -36.36% -94.44%
Structural steel, S890QL 142.25% 80% -50% n/a
Structural steel, S960QL 170.42% 93.63% -54.54% n/a
Structural steel, S460ML 29.57% 14.54% -22.72% -55.55%
Structural steel, S275N (Normalised) -32.39% -21.81% 6.81% -19.22%
Structural steel, S355JR 0 0 0 0
* Colour codes: yellow: baseline material for benchmarking; green: excellent value; light green: superior value; orange: acceptable value;
red: poor/less-acceptable value.
** R: relative property against baseline steel; it was calculated as the difference between the properties of S355JR and analysed
material vs. the property of S355JR.

28 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

Table 6: Benchmarking of selected FRPs (absolute material properties)

Yield STR Tensile STR Elongation Price Young's M Density

Material name
(MPa) (MPa) (%) (EUR/kg) (GPa) (kg/m^3)
Polyester/E-glass fibre, woven fabric, QI lay-up 183 - 201 183 - 201 1.3 - 1.4 1.97 - 2.17 16.5 - 18.1 1.71e3 - 1.89e3
Polyester/E-glass fibre, woven fabric, 65wt% glass, biaxial lay-
340 - 400 340 - 400 2 1.95 - 2.15 17 - 25 1.8e3 - 1.9e3
up
Polyester SMC (50% glass fibre, HB) 145 - 176 145 - 176 1.36 - 1.65 3.38 - 3.53 11.8 - 14.3 1.73e3 - 2.09e3
Epoxy/E-glass fibre, woven prepreg, biaxial lay-up 375 - 516 375 - 516 1.78 30.9 - 34 26.4 1.75e3 - 1.97e3
Epoxy/E-glass fibre, UD prepreg, UD lay-up 300 - 1.1e3 300 - 1.1e3 2-3 22.3 - 31.5 35 - 45 1.6e3 - 1.95e3
Epoxy SMC (60% long glass fibre, flame retarded) 175 - 204 175 - 204 0.65 - 1.4 2.99 - 3.11 20.7 1.82e3 - 1.87e3
Polyester/E-glass fibre, pultruded rod 690 - 828 690 - 828 2 1.61 - 1.78 35 - 45 1.9e3 - 2.1e3

Table 7: Benchmarking of selected FRPs (material properties relative to the Polyester/E-glass fibre pultruded rod

Material name R Yield STR R Tensile STR R Elongation R Price R Young's M

Polyester/E-glass fibre, woven fabric, QI lay-up -74.70% -74.70% -32.50% -23.89% -56.75%
Polyester/E-glass fibre, woven fabric, 65wt% glass, biaxial lay-up -51.25% -51.25% 0 -23% -47.50%
Polyester SMC (50% glass fibre, HB) -78.85% -78.85% -24.75% -103.83% -67.37%
Epoxy/E-glass fibre, woven prepreg, biaxial lay-up -41.30% -41.30% -11% -1817% -34%
Epoxy/E-glass fibre, UD prepreg, UD lay-up -7.77% -7.77% 25% -1487% 0
Epoxy SMC (60% long glass fibre, flame retarded) -75.03% -75.03% -48.75% -79.94% -48.25%
Polyester/E-glass fibre, pultruded rod 0 0 0 0 0
* Colour codes: yellow: baseline material for benchmarking; green: superior value; orange: slightly worse property, acceptable; red: poor value, less
acceptable.
** R: relative property against the properties of Polyester/E-glass fibre, pultruded rod; it was calculated as the difference between the properties of
pultruded rod and analysed material vs. the property of pultruded rod.

29 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

Table 4 and
Table 5 show the properties and the comparison of several steels relative to the conventional
steel S355JR used in manufacturing freight wagons. The yellow row is the benchmarking steel
grade (S355JR). Material properties are shown individually, as well as their relative performance
over the corresponding property value of the S355JR steel. For each individual material property
column, green colour cells indicates the superior relative properties, while red colour indicates
poor relative property.
Overall, all the considered HSSs outperform the S355JR grade with their yield and tensile strength
values. Strength aspect aside, all the selected HSSs are more expensive than the conventional
steel. These results enable the selection to be narrowed down based on the relative elongation
of the HSS, which is an important parameter in wagon design. Consequently, the first choices
emerge as:
1. TRIP - Transformation induced plasticity steel, YS450 (cold rolled)
2. TWIP - Twinning induced plasticity steel, YS500 (cold rolled)
3. High strength low alloy steel, YS550 (hot rolled)
4. Rolled quenched and tampered (RQT) HSS that meets the specifications of the S690
grade (including, e.g., Strenx 700 by SSAB and RQT-701 by Tata Steel).
More detailed investigation of other properties such as flexural and fatigue moduli and strength
reveals that both the TRIP and TWIP has similar flexural modulus (211 GPa and 210 GPa),
superior flexural strength (525MPa and 500MPa), and slightly better fatigue strength (298MPa
and 280MPa) (at 107 cycles) compared to the S355JR conventional structural steel.

Table 6 and Table 7 clearly show that the baseline Polyester/E-glass fibre pultruded rod
outperforms the majority of the selected composites in all properties; the only exception is the
elongation of unidirectional (UD) pre-preg Epoxy/E-glass fibre composite. All the other materials
are significantly more expensive and their mechanical performances are lower, particularly due
to the different fabrication processes. The exception is “Epoxy/E-glass fibre, UD prepreg, UD lay-
up”, which has higher elongation and slightly lower strength values, but is significantly more
expensive.
Figure 12 and Figure 13 show the standing of the candidate HSS and pultruded Polyester/E-glass
FRP with respect to each other in terms of specific tensile strength and Young’s modulus versus
price.

30 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

Figure 12 Specific tensile strength versus price of candidate steels and pultruded Polyester/E-glass FRP

It can be seen that the E-glass FRP can outperform steels with its tensile performance (Figure
12) with a slight cost penalty. Even though it is not the case for specific Young’s modulus
performance (Figure 13), it still is in the competitive range against the steel candidate materials.
Fatigue strength of the pultruded Polyester/E-glass is considerably higher than both TWIP’s and
TRIP’s fatigue strength (497 MPa vs 280 MPa and 298 MPa, respectively - at 107 cycles). The
primary production energy of the pultruded Polyester/E-glass in embodied energy and CO2
footprint, and water usage is significantly high compared to the two HSS. Nevertheless, it can be
said that because of its strength properties, Polyester/E-glass fibre pultruded rod composite can
be a worthy candidate.

Figure 13 Specific Young’s modulus versus price of candidate steels and pultruded Polyester/E-glass
FRP

31 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

2.2.1.2 Discussion of applicability to different components of the wagon

The suitability of different materials is not just dependent on the materials properties, but is also
dependent on the application, particularly suitability of the material to the shapes required in the
application and the processes necessary to produce and join those shapes. Considering the
“mass per unit of strength” ratio, the low alloy steel AISI 4340, tempered at 540°C & oil quenched
performs better than conventional HSS. However, the welding of AISI 4340 is a more complicated
process (it should be welded in the annealed state, prior to heat treatment), which requires
specialised welders, complex further inspection, etc., hence increased costs of the welded
subassemblies. Therefore, this steel grade has not been shortlisted on the final list of appealing
steel candidates.
The Polyester/E-glass fibre pultruded rod is definitely the most appealing composite material.
However, the beams and similar products with different sections, which can be manufactured
through pultrusion, are only suitable for the fabrication of various structural frames and elements,
and the final assembly requires supplementary joining between the pultruded parts. The joining
process of the different composite parts is difficult and costly, and the joint properties are always
much below the performances of the base material, however for composites which can be pre-
formed to the required shape fewer joints might be required in the construction.
Furthermore, the design of freight wagons usually includes other parts and subassemblies with
low thicknesses and large areas that are attached to the main structure (e.g., walls, bottom, roof,
etc.). These types of parts cannot be manufactured through pultrusions, therefore other
manufacturing processes should be used (e.g., moulding, resin infusion, prepeg, etc.). Although
the performances of Polyester/E-glass products manufactured through such processes are below
those of the pultruded products, the implementation of such components is usually more feasible
than the fabrication of large structural assemblies. Therefore, composites with lower
performances shall be added to the shortlist of candidate materials and further considered for the
lightweight wagon design.

2.2.2 Materials Benchmarking: Level 2 Criteria

Level 2 involves a more diverse range of criteria which can affect the potential impact of the final
product, as listed below:
 Life-cycle-costs (LCC),
 Environmental impact,
o Recyclability,
o CO2 footprint,
o Noise reduction,
o Energy save/use,
Etc.
 Resistance to degrading factors,
o Impact resistance,
o Fire-smoke-toxicity resistance,
o Resistance against chemicals, humidity, temperature, etc.
o Abrasion resistance,
Etc.
Although these requirements are important to assess the vehicle’s value, the way to take into
account each of their effect is very difficult and not straightaway compared to the Level 1 criteria.
Indeed, most of the lightweight solutions are very innovative, and have low TRL (technology
readiness level), however, it is still extremely challenging to use accurate data or prediction
regarding the above criteria. The reason is mainly the lack of information on many elements that
determine the ‘value’ of these criteria as quantitative indicators (e.g., no info on maintenance
costs, disposal, recycling, etc.). Therefore, using general information available in literature as well
as in similar projects (in rail or other industries), the proposed methodology will use qualitative

32 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

indicators (to be determined based on informed supposition utilising the available information and
expected impacts of the different factors). Example of possible qualitative indicators are listed
below:
 3 levels: poor, acceptable, good;
 5 levels: very poor, poor, acceptable, good, very good.

2.2.2.1 Life cycle costs (LCC) (Cost effectiveness)

The materials a vehicle is constructed on has a significant impact on the Life Cycle Costs (LCC)
of the vehicle, that is the costs of producing (or procuring), operating and disposing of the vehicle.

Production costs
The production or procurement costs of the vehicle will be treated here as the same thing, since
that if the vehicle is procured rather than produced directly, the production cost will be passed on
to the procurement process. The production costs include the costs of the material and any
forming, shaping, joining or finishing processes.
The materials costs are generally represented in terms of the cost per unit of mass for ease of
comparison; however a design which uses a more expensive, but stronger, material might have
lower overall materials costs if less material is need for the component to perform the same
function. Standard steels might be approximately half the cost/kg of HSS, however their specific
strength might be around 2/3rds that of HSS, so less HSS steel could be used for the same
function. This means that the materials for a vehicle using HSS could weigh less but be only
marginally more expensive. The cost/kg of the pultruded Polyester/E-glass FRP is approximately
twice that of HSS and four times that of standard steels however it is a quarter of the density of
either and has greater strength than either. Therefore if the same volume of pultruded
Polyester/E-glass FRP would be needed (the strength parameters are express per unit of cross
sectional area), the cost of the material would be between half and a quarter that of HSS and
standard steels respectively. Whilst it is important to consider all of the cost factors, it should be
remembered that the principle objective of using lightweight vehicles is to reduce energy
consumption per unit of freight transported rather than minimising material costs.
The forming, shaping and joining costs for standard steels and HSS will be largely similar as the
process are very similar, however the more refined the design then the more critical the processes
are carried out within tolerances. Also the properties of steels with precisely controlled
microstructures might be adversely affected by processes such as welding, therefore although
similar the process form constructing with HSS might be marginally more expensive than for
standard steels. The production processes for steel rail vehicles are well established, the use of
composites in rail vehicle structures is less well established so the process might be more
expensive. However steel components are often fabricated from standard sections fabricated
using multiple joining operations to make the required shape; composite components can be pre-
reformed to the required shape. Therefore a component or structural element in a steel design
might be a fabricated sub assembly, whereas in a composite design the same components might
be one formed component. Therefore the shaping forming, shaping and joining operations for
designs using steel might be cheaper than pultruded Polyester/E-glass FRP, but designs using
the pultruded Polyester/E-glass FRP might require few or those operations to construct the
vehicle. This means that the forming, shaping and joining costs will be dependent on the material
and detailed design with a number of factors to take into account, there being no simple rule as
to relative costs for different materials and designs.

Operating costs
The operating costs of the vehicle include the inspection and maintenance costs, the energy
consumption, and possibly some form of tack access charge or operational tariff.
The majority of the inspection and maintenance requirements for freight vehicles are generally
related to functional components, such as wheelsets, bearings, suspension, and brakes, rather
than structural elements. The inspection and maintenance requirements for steel vehicle

33 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

structures are well understood and include inspection for general damage and any corrosion and
paint/coating defects, and potentially periodic or condition based paint/coating
replacement/refurbishment. The long term structural performance of composite materials are less
well understood, particularly in the freight vehicle application, this might require (at least initially)
more stringent inspection regimes to ensure the structural integrity of the vehicle and inspect for
fatigue, delamination or any other signs of weakness. A composite material might also be more
susceptible to minor impact damage weakening the structure, and such damage is more difficult
to repair than for steel vehicles. Whilst composites, including pultruded Polyester/E-glass FRP do
not suffer from corrosion, and therefore the condition of the paint/coating is less of an issue, the
can be degraded by ultra-violet radiation which the paint/coating can be used to protect the
material from.
The principle objective of reducing the weight of vehicles is to reduce energy consumption per
unit of freight transported. Reducing the weight of the vehicle either allows the same amount of
freight to be transported with a lower total train weight, or a larger amount of freight to be
transported for the same total train weight. In either case the amount of energy consumed for
moving each unit of revenue earning freight is reduced improving energy efficiency, or from
another perspective the proportion of the energy to move a train dedicated solely to moving the
vehicle weight is reduced, reducing the operating costs of the vehicle. The energy consumption
of trains is a significant proportion of the overall costs, therefore any reduction which can be
achieve through light weighting will have a significant effect on the vehicle LCC and therefore the
competitiveness of rail freight. Using the standard steels as a reference, using HSS could
potentially result in a moderate weight reduction with an associated reduction in operational costs,
any slight potential increases in inspection and maintenance costs are likely to be outweighed by
the reduction in energy consumption. Using pultruded Polyester/E-glass FRP could potentially
result in a significant weight reduction with an associated reduction in operational costs, the
moderate potential increases in inspection and maintenance costs are likely to be significantly
outweighed by the reduction in energy consumption.
Track access charges, or some other type of operational tariff, are charges levied by the
infrastructure manager for the operation of the vehicle on the network, therefore they are a
component of the operational costs on which the effect of material selection needs to be
considered. In some cases the charges might be proportional to, or related to an assessment of
the track damage caused by the vehicle. There are many factors of a vehicles design which affect
the assessment of track damage, however in general lighter vehicles do less damage. Therefore
reducing vehicle structure weight could either reduce the total weight of the vehicle assuming the
same amount of freight carried, or enable more fright to be carried within the weight limit reducing
the number of vehicles used to carry a bulk load and therefore number of charges incurred. In
either case reducing vehicle structure weight is likely to reduce track access charges, and
therefore operational costs, however track access charges are determined by infrastructure
manager or governmental policy, therefore it is difficult to anticipate the future criteria or
thresholds (if any) for reduced charges.
The disposal costs for both standard steel and HSS are well established and the vehicle has a
significant residual value at the end of its life because the material is readily recyclable, the only
costs being transport, cutting into sections and disposal of some non-metallic components which
are easily offset by the value of the martial for recycling. The disposal costs for pultruded
Polyester/E-glass FRP are much higher, and likely to be a net cost, since the material is not 100%
recyclable, either having to be broken down for use in lower grade materials or disposed of in
landfill.
In summary, using standard steel vehicles as a reference, vehicles designed using HSS might
have incremental increases in LCC components associated with production and some aspects
operation, the higher material costs being partially offset by the lower volume used. However
these increases are likely to be more than offset by the reduction in energy consumption due to
the lower weight, resulting in a moderate but significant reduction in LCC. Vehicles designed using
pultruded Polyester/E-glass FRP might have a more significant increases in LCC components
associated with production and some aspects operation, although the higher material costs could

34 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

potentially be neutralised by the lower volume used. The greater potential weight reduction could
significantly reduce the energy consumption resulting in a greater reduction in LCC, however
disposal costs could reduce the LCC benefits significantly at the end of the vehicles life. Hybrid
designs which incorporate

2.2.2.2 Environmental impact

Recyclability
Steels are 100% recyclable, although there might be some reduction in the quality or grade of
recycled steels depending on the quality/grade of the source material. Since metals do not
degrade in terms of composition quality during their service life, approximately 45% of steel is
already produced with the recycled steel scrap. Almost no single steelmaking process works only
with virgin raw ferrous materials (hot metal produced in the blast furnace with iron ore
concentrates). Electric Arc Furnace (EAF) steelmaking even uses 100% recycled steel scrap to
make new steel (Yang et al., 2012).
This is a huge advantage compared to other families of materials such as composites which are
difficult or impractical to recycle. FRPs incorporating thermoplastic resins can be recycled but for
structural composite applications thermoplastic resins generally have lower strength properties
compared to thermoset resins. Basic difficulties behind the recycling of composites are their
heterogeneous nature, and the lack of technological and economic constraints (Yang et al 2012).
One detail on the recycling of composites is that, the structural composites used in long term
applications such as aviation vehicles and wind turbines are still in use. Thus the first commercial
applications of the materials have not gone through a full life cycle yet to become available for
recycling, therefore the amount of waste was not fully realised. However, these applications will
generate considerable amount of waste since the end of life of the vehicles are imminent. Judging
from this fact, and considering the lifetime of a freight wagon, it is possible that new techniques
and processes will emerge in the future to recycle the structural composite materials, in order to
keep the composites attractive on the market.

Energy save/use and CO2 footprint

In line with the government policies to be energy efficient and to battle with the ever increasing
CO2 emission levels, new and innovative products should be more environmentally friendly
compared to previous generation vehicles, or at least give higher priority to environmental factors.
Clearly, the railway industry is the cleanest transport mode in terms of operation emissions
however, operation emission levels are not the only factor affecting a products value as a green
vehicle; the production process of the materials also affects this characteristic. Figure 14 depicts
the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission levels for a typical functional unit in automotive industry
(World Auto Steel, 2017). This calculation was made based on the per kilogram CO2 emission
value multiplied by the unit’s weight in order to show that even for a lighter parts/structure, the
emission levels are still lower for HSS compared to composites. It is believed that (even with this
detail in effect), a lighter freight wagon would still be greener for operation. However, the overall
emissions of a vehicle including production and operation should be considered and quantified in
detail for each application if the emission levels become important or should the vehicle be
required meet with additional standards.

35 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

Figure 14 Material GHG emissions for typical functional unit (World Auto Steel, 2017)

Noise reduction
Noise generated by railway vehicles can be formed into two broad groups according to source.
Firstly, the sound generated by the mechanical vibrations of the vehicle/parts of the vehicle as a
result of the vehicle-rail interaction.
Secondly, the sound generated by the train itself as a result of the interaction with air during
operation, i.e. aerodynamic sound. This factor becomes more significant as the speed of
operation increases.
From a material perspective, noise reduction is not a direct environmental impact, but it can be
considered as an indirect contribution to the vehicle’s environmental effect as material mass and
density have a key role in noise/sound transmission. The important noise limiting factor for freight
wagons is the pass-by noise limit. It was set out by NOI TSI and the limits were documented in
INNOWAG Deliverable 1.2 (Shi, D., Krause, P. et al., 2017) (page 35-36). In the same section,
possible measures were identified in order to meet with noise policy requirements, for example it
was stated that composite brake blocks will be used on European freight wagons. Other potential
noise reduction measures were mostly relevant to running gear parts, which are mainly steel
structures. Among the measures to reduce running gear noise, bogie and wheelset skirts (which
could also reduce aerodynamic noise) have the potential to be manufactured by composites (as
seen in the examples in INNOWAG Deliverable 1.1 (Ulianov, C. et al., 2017) (page 101-102).
Composite sandwich structures are particularly good at reducing noise emissions, either
compared to an equivalent structure, or as a separate barrier.

2.2.2.3 Resistance to degrading factors

Several factors can affect a structure’s strength in the long term. Examples to these factors will
be described next briefly.

Impact resistance
Impact of objects against railway vehicles is uncontrolled, unavoidable, and it has various sources
such as debris/stone around the track. Lately, bird strikes pose a threat to high-speed passenger
vehicles; however it is not relevant to freight wagons as it is a threat mainly for front cab of the
train set.
The approach to impact resistance of metals and non-metals should be treated separately as the
failure modes and progression are dissimilar between metals and polymer composites.
In view of the vehicle service velocity, the relevant category for impact loading applicable to freight
wagons can be considered as low-velocity impacts (0-20 m/s projectile velocity). Impacts from an
object striking within this velocity range may not be important for a steel/aluminium structure;
however, it can be crucial for a polymer laminated composite structure. In the case where the

36 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

matrix (resin) has inssuficient strength to resist the impact of an object, cracks of the matrix (resin)
at the impact location occur, and these cracks can progress further to the interface between layers
of a laminated structure, and causes the layers to de-bond locally. This local discontinuity between
layers is called delamination. It is a failure mode which is difficult to detect by visual inspection,
and can result in a loss of load bearing capability that can compromise a structure’s integrity.
Kim and Chung studied the low energy absorption performance of carbon epoxy fabric laminates
designed for Korean tilting train (Kim & Chung, 2007). In this study, fabric plates were subjected
to 2.4 J, 2.7J, and 4.2 J impact by drop tower test equipment with a hemispherical tip. The
laminates were found to show slightly different mechanical properties in fill (0° fibre orientation in
a fabric) and warp (90° fibre orientation in a fabric) directions, and therefore three stacking
sequence were studied. Even though each configuration responded similarly, it was found that
[fill]8 laminate absorbed the most amount of energy, whereas [fill2/warp2]s laminate absorbed the
least. Based on this finding, the authors suggested to take into account the impact resistance
before manufacturing the train body shell.
Sakly et al. investigated composite sandwich structures for railway applications under low-velocity
impact (Sakly et al., 2016). The authors introduced a specialised test bench and carried out low-
velocity impact tests according to the French railway standard NF-F07-101, which describes how
to simulate a ballast impact against foam-based components. Two different sandwich
configuration were investigated for their damage resistance: PES foam with glass/epoxy skins,
and PET foam with glass/acrylic skins. Oblique and temperature dependant impact tests were
carried out as well. Results showed that successive impacts (up to four impacts) increased the
indentation depth up to 3mm. Matrix cracks and delamination were found to be main failure
modes, whilst fibre rupture was also observed after sectioning the sandwich composites. Cooling
the materials (-25°C) before the impact caused degradation in mechanical response, making it
more rigid, and introducing shear failure to the core material.

Fire-smoke-toxicity resistance
European standard EN 45545-1:2013 describes the fire protection of railway vehicles, however,
it only considers the vehicles carrying passenger and staff. Freight transport vehicles are not
covered by this standard, and there is no other dedicated standard for freight wagons.
Flammability is not crucial for steels in bulk mode, however, it is an important parameter for certain
FRPs if not for all. Among industrial polymers used in structural composite materials, phenolic
resin should be selected if the fire/smoke protection is important.

Resistance against chemicals, humidity, temperature, etc.

The approach to the various different Level 2 criteria could be more dependable and efficient if
the relevant vehicle body part is known. For example, for a freight wagon carrying liquids or other
chemically effective material, the resistance of the wagon body/tank to the effects of relevant
chemicals should be sufficient to be operated safely. Table 8 shows, as an example, the
resistance properties of two HSS and a polymer composite to various substances; these three
materials were selected for consideration based on their performance in Level 1 criteria.

37 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

Table 8: Resistance of candidate materials against different degrading factors

Shin and Hahn studied the structural properties of graphite/epoxy composite materials following
the use of ageing effects such as ultraviolet radiation, temperature and humidity, and analysed
its integrity for hybrid railway carriage structures (Shin & Hahn, 2005). A suitable ageing option
was selected for the test facility by taking into account Korean weather conditions; light/dark
durations and temperatures, 85% humidity, water sprays and irradiance. The authors tested the
specimens for their stiffness and strength properties at 0, 500, 1000, 1500 and 2000 hours. The
effects of ageing were observed much more on strength properties than stiffness. They also
reported unexpected increase in the transverse tensile stiffness over time, and determined that it
was a direct result of post-curing of epoxy resin due to exposure to temperature and xenon arc.
When they analysed the stress and deflection values of the hybrid vehicle after exposure to the
ageing effects, it was seen that all the stress values were within the permissible levels. However,
maximum deflection values of the aluminium underframe in all steps exceeded the permissible
levels. As a conclusion, following exposure to ageing effects the performance of the composite
materials of this particular design, and in this particular application were found satisfactory in
terms of design requirements, however, emphasis was put on for further evaluation of integrity.

Abrasion resistance
Abrasion is another factor that alters the properties of a structure/material, mechanical abrasion
results from the removal of some material from a surface over time by scuffing, scratching,
wearing, etc. by another body. In the context of INNOWAG project, abrasion resistance/rate might
require some attention if potential polymer composite materials would replace metallic parts. This
is due to the relative abrasion resistance characteristics of the materials, and is of particular
importance depending on the type of goods (such as cereals) carried by wagons in service. If the
material does not have adequate abrasion resistance in the parts that are in contact with the
moving/sliding goods, polymer particles that are removed from the surface by mechanical friction
may get mixed inside the goods and can lead to contamination of the goods, which is particularly
relevant in the case of food stuffs. Therefore for certain applications abrasion resistance (and/or
the toxicity of the abraded particles) are of critical importance.

38 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

3. LIGHTWEIGHT DESIGN CONCEPTS

The aim of Task 3.2 of INOWAG was to develop novel design concepts for lightweight
components, subassemblies and structural parts of freight vehicles using the suitable options
from the range of candidate materials selected in Task 3.1.
The main inputs to this work were:
 Outcomes of INNOWAG Work Package 1, i.e., benchmarking reported in deliverable D1.1
(Ulianov, C. et al., 2017), and specifications in D1.2 (Shi, D., Krause, P. et al., 2017);
 Outcomes of Task 3.1 concerning the assessment and selection of candidate materials
(presented in §2);
 Results of previous projects that focused on lightweight wagon design solutions (e.g.,
SUSTRAIL and SPECTRUM), implementation of novel composite materials (e.g.,
REFRESCO), etc.
Therefore, according to the potential case studies identified within the WP1, and to general
specifications subsequently defined, three case studies have been selected and researched by
Task 3.2 for the development of relevant lightweight design concepts:
1. Y25 bogie;
2. S class intermodal flat wagon;
3. U class hopper wagon for cereals.
The INNOWAG case studies integrate different approaches to lightweight design, and
subsequent to this propose design concepts based on modularity, which allow the integration of
one or more solutions into the final lightweight concept design of different freight vehicles.
The lightweighting approaches and methodology are further presented in §3.1, and the
implementation of these techniques into the selected INNOWAG case studies is detailed in §3.2,
§3.3 and §3.4. All the lightweight concepts relating to the case studies are summarised in §3.5,
and impacts regarding the implementation of these concepts are discussed in §3.6.

3.1 Lightweighting solutions for freight rail vehicles

The lightweighting methodology that was used for developing the INNOWAG lightweight concept
designs comprises the following approaches and techniques:
1. Use of advanced materials for different structural parts of the wagons;
2. Optimisation of design through the use of novel profiles and/or re-designing the wagon
components and subassemblies using advanced materials;
3. Integration of new technologies with reduced mass that are ready available on the market
(e.g., braking system, wheelsets, etc.).
The above techniques have been combined and implemented into novel design concepts for
reducing the overall mass of the bogies and wagons in the case studies.

3.1.1 Implementation of advanced materials in wagon structural parts

3.1.1.1 Implementation of advanced steels

Considering the outcomes of the assessment of materials presented in Section 2, as well as the
specific requirements and working environment of the bogie, the advanced high strength steels
family (AHSS/HSS) was the first choice for replacing the traditional structural steel (S355) that is
currently used for the fabrication of the bogie and wagon structural parts.
Transformation induced plasticity (TRIP) and twinning induced plasticity (TWIP) steel grades have
excellent mechanical performances and good weldability. However, the price of these steels is
very high in comparison to the S355 grade that is currently used for freight vehicle structural

39 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

applications. The use of TRIP and TWIP steels is feasible and has already been implemented in
the automotive industry for structure and body parts, where the overall weight of these parts is up
to a few hundred kilograms per the final product. The impact of the increased price per Kg is also
reduced considerably by the reduction in material consumption (by volume) that is achieved
through the mass reduction, and becomes acceptable for the customer/buyer. However, the
situation is different for freight rail vehicles, where the overall mass of the structural parts is in the
range of tens of tonnes, and the material price is a major component of the total product cost, i.e.,
the wagon. A simple economic costing exercise has shown that the implementation of TWIP
and/or TRIP grades would increase excessively the wagon price, making it unfeasible for the
actual market. Therefore, these types of steel have not been considered further for the INNOWAG
concept designs, analyses and testing. It is very likely that these steel grades would become more
appealing in the future, when advances in manufacturing processes would determine lower
prices.
Considering the economic factor, along with the mechanical performances discussed in §2.2.1.1,
the next obvious choice for steel welded structures of freight vehicles is the family of low alloy
steels with high yield strength (from 600 to 1300 MPa) that is achieved through thermo-
mechanical means: rolling and quenching and tempering (RQT). These steel grades have been
on the market as hot-rolled plates and strips under different brand names, such as RQT- (by Tata
Steel), Weldox, Domex and Strenx (by SSAB), etc. Plate products in this category are variously
described on the market as:
 High Strength Quenched and Tempered Steel Plate
 High Yield Quenched and Tempered Steel Plate
 High Strength Structural Steel Plate,
 High Yield Structural Steel Plate
 High Strength Low Alloy Steel Plate
Considering all the above, and according to the benchmarking in §2.2, a generic RQT steel
grade with a minimum yield strength of 690 MPa was, therefore, chosen for further work in
INNOWAG. It is a steel that combines high yield and tensile strengths with good notch toughness
and excellent weldability and is very similar in its properties to the European steel specification
EN 10025 S690QL. Steel plate brands available on the market include Strenx 700 (from SSAB),
RQT-701 (from Tata Steel), etc.

3.1.1.2 Implementation of composite materials

The potential use of Polyester/E-glass fibre pultruded sections for wagon structural beams and
frames is very appealing, due to both the excellent mechanical performance of such products (at
an acceptable cost), as confirmed by the analysis in §2.2.1.1, and the huge potential mass
reduction that could be achieved. Considering the specific features of wagon designs (shapes,
dimensions, strength required in specific zones, etc.), the use of pultruded section for the
fabrication of wagon structures would require supplementary processes for joining the different
elements. It is well known that the properties of the baseline Fibre Reinforced Plastics (FRP) are
difficult to reproduce when joining them, because the fibres that give the strength of the different
elements are practically discontinued in the joining region. Various joining techniques have been
developed and are currently applied to diverse products (both entirely made of composites and
hybrid solutions), which integrate composite parts that were manufactured separately. However,
the baseline material properties are difficult to achieve in the joints, unless additional parts are
used, changing the shape, etc. The joints behaviour and degradation processes are also worse
than the baseline material. In addition to all the issues relating to the joints properties, the
manufacturing costs would increase considerably if applying this approach.
The manufacturing solutions and various impacts of the implementation of the approach
described above (fabrication of high strength structural assemblies from joint FRP pultruded
sections) on costs, maintenance procedures, certification, etc. have been assessed by
manufacturer partner UVA, assisted by a third party, one of UVA’s supplier that specialises in
composite manufacturing. Taking into consideration all the negative impacts, as well as the higher

40 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

target Technology Readiness Level (TRL) for the INNOWAG concept designs, it was decided not
to take this approach further. Although this approach was not considered suitable in this case the
INNOWAG WP3 partners do consider that this approach is definitely something that has potential
and should be considered for implementation in wagon technology in the future.
The general conclusion is that the use of composites for wagon structural assemblies that require
high strength, good aging properties and good behaviour against degradation factors in railway
environment is still at low TRL and uncertain in the near future due to factors such as costs,
manufacturing processes, certification, etc.
Therefore, the work in INNOWAG focused further on other wagon parts and subassemblies, with
lower thicknesses and larger areas, which are attached to the main structure (e.g., walls, bottom,
roof, etc.). The stress levels on these parts of the vehicle are usually much lower than those on
the main structural elements and subassemblies, therefore their strength requirements can be
achieved through the use of other types of FRPs, with lower mechanical performances. In addition
to this, the requirements on the performance of the joints are generally lower. These types of
lightweight components are traditionally fabricated through a variety of processing methods within
two moulding categories:
 Open moulding (e.g., hand lay-up, spray-up);
 Closed moulding (e.g., vacuum bag moulding, resin transfer moulding, etc.).
The manufacturing process is carefully selected according to the product specifications and also
with respect to economic feasibility aspects.
Taking into account all the above aspects, the following FRPs have been further considered for
being implemented into the INNOWAG design concepts, analyses and testing:
8. Polyester/E-glass fibre, woven fabric, QI lay-up;
9. Polyester/E-glass fibre, woven fabric, biaxial lay-up.
The glass fibre weight percent (wt%) varies, depending on the manufacturing process, and this
determines the mechanical properties, as well. Further analyses will consider a realistic wt%
range of 30-50% that can be achieved through economically feasible manufacturing processes.

3.1.2 Design optimisation for lightweight wagon solutions

The implementation of RQT HSS grades, as described in the previous section, allowed significant
changes to be made on the structural elements and welded frames of the reference designs
considered in the case studies. The design optimisation involved changing both the shape and
dimensions of key structural parts and subassemblies. In particular, an efficient and simple
method was to reduce the dimensions of key profiles, including their thickness.
For a complete assessment of strength of a complex structure as a bogie or carbody frame, FE
analysis is needed. However, actual CAD and FE models of lightweight components have been
created with inputs from a preliminary estimation based on a more simple approach.
First, a structural member in question was replaced with a beam of constant cross-section and
given length. In the case of an I-beam, its dimensions were defined by thickness of web and
flange plates, web height and flange width. Mass per meter length was expressed to allow
assessment of mass reduction. Area moment of inertia and resistance moment were calculated
to obtain deflection and maximum stress occurring in bending of the beam, assuming that it is
simply supported in two points and loaded by a perpendicular force.
These results were calculated for alternative beam dimensions; the bending stress was evaluated
in relation to the material yield strength. Example data for an I-beam based on the dimensions of
Y25 bogie side frame are given in Table 9.

41 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

Table 9: Extract from a preliminary calculation of lightweighting solutions for an I-beam

Dimensions Results
max. ratio to
Material flange web flange web specific max.
bending yield
thickness thickness width height mass deflection
stress stress
[mm] [mm] [mm] [mm] [kg/m] [mm]
[MPa] [%]
S355 81.6 0.074 8.72 2.46%
12 16 200 374
J2G3 0% 0% 0% 0%
S355 67.2 0.093 10.93 3.08%
10 14 180 374
J2G3 -18% +26% +25% +25%
S460 72.4 0.083 9.76 2.12%
12 14 180 374
ML -11% +12% +12% -14%
RQT 66.9 0.086 10.14 1.47%
12 12 180 374
701 -18% +16% +16% -40%
The first line in the table represents the original solution. The second line is an example of
optimisation by reducing the cross-section whilst keeping the same material - this is generally
feasible if the present structure is found to have sufficient safety under relevant loads. The lines
3 and 4 represent lightweight solutions with materials of higher strength. It can be observed that
the use of HSS (RQT 701, Re = 690 MPa) allows to save 18 % weight and retain high safety,
which indicates that the real weight reduction could be even higher. Increase in deflection is,
however, still naturally present: it must be compared with permissible deflection/stiffness of the
given structure at a later stage.
The second approximation step consists in FE modelling of a beam of variable cross-section
according to the original, but extracted from the whole structure and thus simplified. Weight,
deflection and stress under prescribed load are obtained by finite elements calculation (for an
example, see Figure 15) and evaluated in the same way as above.

Figure 15 A simplified model of the Y25 bogie transverse beam

42 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

Figure 16 Sketch of the cross-section to explain dimension symbols in Table 10

Table 10: Example preliminary calculation of lightweighting solutions - the Y25 transverse beam
(for the dimension symbols, see Figure 16)

Dimensions [mm] Results

max. von ratio to
Material max.
mass Mises yield
wt wb d tt tb tv deflection
[kg] stress stress
[mm]
[MPa] [%]
292.5 0.75 141.9 0.40
S355 12 14 10
0% 0% 0% 0%
263.8 0.81 160.3 0.45
S355 500 420 330 10 12 10
-10% +9% +13% +13%
231.5 0.96 177.5 0.39
S460 10 10 8
-21% +28% +25% -4%
268.4 0.78 146.6 0.41
S355 12 14 10
-8% +5% +3% +3%
243.1 0.85 187.9 0.53
S355 465 350 300 10 12 10
-17% +14% +32% +32%
213.0 1.01 183.0 0.40
S460 10 10 8
-27% +35% +29% -1%

The dimensions and materials considered, as well as results are summarised in Table 10. There
were two ways to change the dimensions of the cross-section: using thinner plates and reducing
the overall width of the beam. Both modifications combined lead to 27% mass reduction while
maintaining the same safety ratio to yield stress provided that a steel of higher strength is used.
The design optimisation was carried out in parallel with activities in Task 3.3, concerning the
structural strength analysis of the lightweight designs. The FE analyses provided essential input
concerning the critical zones that have been affected by modifications, in terms of both structural
and fatigue strength. Several iterations were therefore necessary for achieving the structural and
fatigue strength that are required with respect to the extreme loading cases defined by the
applicable standards (EN 13749 for bogie frames and EN 12663-2 for freight wagon bodies).
The integration of novel braking technology also enabled significant optimisation of the initial
reference designs of the bogie and wagons’ frames. In particular, specific elements that are used
for fixing the components of the traditional braking system on the bogie and the wagon frame

43 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

have been either simplified or totally removed as unnecessary. More details will be further
provided for each case study.

3.1.3 Integration of novel lightweight technologies in wagon design

The bogie subassembly with the most significant mass is the wheelset. Recent researches that
have been carried out by the major wheelset manufacturers (Lucchini, Bonatrans, CAF, etc.)
aimed at the development of complete lightweight wheelset solutions for freight applications with
increased safety and reliability.
The INNOWAG lightweight Y25 design concept integrates a lightweight wheelset solution that
was proposed by the consortium partner Lucchini. A typical Lucchini wheelset solution for
traditional freight bogies (up to 25 tonnes/axle) comprises a BA302 axle (398 kg) and two BA307
wheels (361.5 kg each); the total mass of the wheelset is, therefore, 1121 kg.
An alternative lightweight wheelset solution proposed by Lucchini for future freight applications
would comprise two SURA light wheels (336 kg each), and an improved axle design (358 kg) with
hollow bore, and made of EA4T grade steel (an AHSS, quenched and tempered low alloyed
steel). The total mass of the wheelset is 1030 kg, being 91 Kg (8.12%) lighter than the
conventional one.
Another key subassembly that was considered for lightweighting purposes is the braking system.
Intensive research that has been carried out in the past aimed at developing smart braking
systems for passenger trains. Manufacturers have only started to focus on solutions for the freight
vehicles in the last few years; however, significant solutions have already been developed and
are available on the market, or are in the advanced prototype phase of development. Considering
the high target TRL of the INNOWAG concept design, a novel system that is already available on
the market was selected for implementation into the new bogie design.

Figure 17 Integrated Bogie Brake type IBB 10 for freight wagon (Wabtec Corporation, 2018)

The selected braking solution is the Integrated Bogie Brake type IBB 10, a Wabtec technology
that was specifically designed for freight wagons. The overall weight of the IBB 10 braking system
is considerably lower in comparison to the traditional braking system on the Y25 bogie. The
assembly is located between the bogie wheels and fits to the standard interfaces of Y25 bogie
family; therefore its integration did not require supplementary elements on the frame. The IBB 10
design also enables easy assembly and disassembly of each component separately, which is a
big advantage when considering the overhaul and maintenance of the system.
The IBB 10 system is designed to provide equal braking force application simultaneously on the
four bogie wheels, which allows further simplification of the overall braking system on the wagon.
The design is based on the use of a brake cylinder as an executive unit with hand brake

44 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

application and two double-acting slack adjusters for automatic gap regulation between all four
wheels and brake shoes. (Wabtec Corporation, 2018)
The IBB 10 brake weights 222kg, making it 56.8% lighter than the type used on the traditional
Y25 model, which weights 514kg.

3.2 INNOWAG Case Study 1 - Lightweight Y25 Bogie

3.2.1 Traditional Y25 bogie designs

The Y25 bogie (Figure 18) with its different variations is the most commonly used bogie for freight
wagons in Europe. The Y25 bogie is simply constructed and inexpensive to manufacture in
comparison with other types of freight wagon bogies. Although the Y25 bogie has suboptimal
dynamic performances and unsatisfactory stability, it dominates the European market due to its
high standardisation, good maintainability and low manufacturing price.

Figure 18 Example of standard type of the Y25 bogie family - the Y25 Ls1-K bogie (from
https://tatravagonka.sk/inc/uploads/2016/06/Y-25-Ls1-K.pdf)

3.2.1.1 Overview of traditional Y25 design

The main requirements for railway bogie include:

 follow the track (but not the irregularities);
 provide resistance to derailment;
 provide good ride (low accelerations in the vehicle body);
 ensure low impacts on the track (low vertical and lateral forces).
It is more challenging for a freight wagon to meet these requirements than a passenger vehicle
due to the fact that the ratio between laden and tare mass of a freight vehicle can be as much as
5:1, compared to a more manageable 1.5:1 for typical passenger vehicles. In the Y25 bogie
(Figure 19), damping which is progressive with increasing vertical load is effected by the use of
‘Lenoir links’ which take part of the vertical load through slanted links and a pusher onto a vertical
friction surface. This gives a level of damping which is broadly proportional to the vehicle mass
(Iwnicki et al., 2015). The variation in stiffness required to accommodate the difference between
laden and tare weight is provided by duplex coil springs of different length, the shorter inner spring
not coming into operation until the vertical load exceeds a certain threshold. This arrangement

45 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

provides progressive suspension characteristics, which ensures sufficient stiffness for a fully
laden wagon without degrading derailment safety of an empty vehicle.

horn suspension
guiding support

spring cap
suspension
springs

Lenoir link
axle box

Figure 19 Suspension and wheelset guiding of an Y25 bogie

The interface of the Y25 bogie with the carbody is provided by a centre pivot bearing and two side
bearers. The pivot bearing provides three rotational degrees of freedom. Between the upper part
connected to the carbody and the lower part connected to the bogie frame, there is a plastic layer
with a dry-film lubricant defining the friction and permitting the relative motion without play. The
sprung side bearers enable roll movement between carbody and bogie frame and provide
frictional damping for yaw movements of the bogie frame.
The bogie frame (Figure 20) consists of a central transversal beam and two sideframes. In many
versions, it also includes headstocks and light auxiliary longitudinal beams, whose main purpose
is to support brake components. On the underside of the sideframes are attached suspension
supports, incorporating suspension attachments and horn guides for guiding the axleboxes.

Figure 20 CAD model of a standard Y25 bogie frame

3.2.1.2 Bogie design versions

The designation “Y25” is commonly used to refer to the whole bogie family, of which the Y25 type
proper is the most widespread one. Individual types are named in the French manner as Y21,
Y23 etc., with odd numbers up to Y39. Some manufacturers use their own notation: for example,
the TVP-2007 of Tatravagonka Poprad also belongs to the Y25 family.
The main design differences of the types consist in
 bogie wheelbase (1800-2200 mm);
 wheel diameter (680-920 mm);

46 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

 arrangement of frame members (headstocks, longitudinal beams, cantilevered brake

supports) with direct relation to the type of brake used (two-side or one-side block brake,
disc brake);
 shaping of the bogie frame to attain a specified pivot height (reduced height above TOR
e.g. for intermodal wagons for British loading gauge).
The type Y37 stands out with secondary lateral suspension by swing links, which makes it
principally different from other types.
In parallel, bogie types Y21 to Y27 have fabricated and cast sub-types. In the former, the bogie
frame is welded from steel plates, with cast steel suspension supports welded to the sideframes.
The latter are welded together from three cast pieces - the transversal beam and the sideframes
with suspension supports. Further alternative designs of the bogie frame also exist. Some
variations on the Y25 bogie design are shown in Figure 21.

Figure 21 Some other bogies of the Y25 family; left: bogie Y25 ELH with a different shape of sideframes;
right: bogie Y33 for wagons with reduced floor height

The different variations of the Y25 bogie family are specified by upper and lower case letters
added to the main type name. The meaning of these letters is explained in Table 11.
Table 11: Letter explanation for Y25 bogie variants (not exhaustive) (source:
http://www.drehgestelle.de/6/y25_t.html)

Letters Meaning Letters Meaning

C 20 t axle load a improved auxiliary longitudinal beams
R 20 t axle load, reinforces d double brake blocks
L 22.5 t axle load f parking brake in bogie
D with disc brake i integrated brake system in bogie
M modernised m cast design
s up to 100 km/h o radial steering
ss up to 120 km/h s2 up to 120 km/h with 20 t axle load

The present standard Y25 bogie refers to Y25 Lsd1. Other variations such as Y25Lsi(f), Y25
Ls(s)i(f)-K, etc. have more or less modifications based on the standard one. For instance,
Y25Lsi(f) is the standard Y25 Lsd1 bogie fitted with an integrated pneumatic brake system.

3.2.1.3 Selected reference design and specifications

The reference bogie design is the standard Y25 bogie according to UIC 510-1 with a welded bogie
frame. The bogie frame incorporates headstocks and auxiliary longitudinal beams. The axlebox
guiding is of the standard type with one Lenoir damper assembly per axle box. The bogie frame
carries a traditional design of block brake rigging.

47 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

Table 12: Technical specifications of the standard Y25 bogie

General parameters
Maximum axle load [t] 22.5
Maximum speed (running stability) 120
[km/h]
Maximum speed (braking) [km/h] 120 (empty wagon) / 100 (laden)
Track gauge [mm] 1435
Total width [mm] 2356
Total length [mm] 3250
Wheelbase [mm] 1800
Wheel diameter (new) [mm] 920
Bogie frame
Description closed welded frame with main transversal beam,
sideframes and U-profile headstocks
Weight [kg] 1332
Braking system
Description indirect pneumatic brake system with brake cylinder and
control valve on carbody, brake cylinder in bogie
possible
Brake type two sided tread brake with brake rigging (leverage)
Brake shoe material cast iron (old), composite (new)
Weight [kg] 514
Wheelset
Description two wheels with bell-shaped web, solid axle
Weight [kg] 1121
Axleboxes
Description axleboxes with two cylindrical roller bearings
Axle bearing type WJ/WJP 130×240
Weight [kg] 158.5
Suspension
Description flexi-coil springs in duplex arrangement (two sets per
axlebox), load dependent friction damping of the Lenoir
type (one per axlebox)
Weight [kg] N/A (included in other bodies)
Carbody support
Description no secondary suspension, stiff horizontal connection
according to UIC 510-1 and UIC 430-3 with a spherical
centre pivot and two sprung side bearers
Weight [kg] N/A (included in the bogie frame weight)
Bogie weight summary
1 × bogie frame [kg] 1332
1 × braking system [kg] 514
2 × wheelset [kg] 2242
4 × axlebox [kg] 634
Total weight [kg] 4722

48 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

3.2.2 Lightweight Y25 bogie concept

The proposed lightweight bogie concept includes the following innovative solutions:
 Implementation of RQT HSS grades into the bogie frame;
 Integration of novel lightweight technology, comprising:
o Lightweight wheelset proposed by Lucchini (based on SURA light wheels and an
improved axle design, with hollow bore);
o Integrated Bogie Brake type IBB 10, designed and patented by Wabtec Co.;
 Optimisation of frame design and overall bogie assembly, which is enabled by the above
solutions.
The selected generic RQT HSS with a minimum yield strength of 690 MPa (see §3.1.1.1) was
implemented into the design of the bogie frame, which allowed further optimisation of its design.
The optimisation comprised 3 iterations that have been supported by the FE structural strength
and fatigue analyses, which have been carried out within Task 3.3 and will be further reported in
the deliverable report D3.2.
Considering the bogie frame shape and structural elements, the potential solutions for reducing
the bogie weight should consider, in particular, modifications of the lateral/side and transverse
beams of the frame. The lateral beams of the bogie are I-beams with a special profile. The top
flange, bottom flange and web are 12mm, 14mm and 16mm thick respectively. The flange width
is 200mm for most of the length of the section. The main challenge is to reduce the cross-sectional
area without significantly changing the second moment of area, since it is the latter that governs
the deflections of the bogie structure (the shape of the I-beam is already an optimal shape, giving
a high second moment of area for a given cross-sectional area).
The shapes and profiles’ dimensions of the structural parts of the bogie (including the thickness)
have been initially reduced according to the methodology explained in §3.1.2. The new model
was analysed through FEA (Task 3.3), and further refinements have been made to the initially
calculated dimensions. An example of the final modifications to the side beams compared with
the standard design is summarised in Table 13. This shows the reduction of profiles’ dimensions
and of plate thicknesses (between 20-25%).
Table 13: Example modifications - the side beam of the bogie

Furthermore, the implementation of the lightweight Integrated Bogie Brake type IBB 10 (Figure
17) allowed significant simplification and optimisation of the standard design, consisting of the
removal of end (front and rear) beams and other elements that were used for fixing the standard
braking system, and further modification of new frame’s shape.
The lightweight frame of the INNOWAG Y25 concept is shown in Figure 22. The mass of the new
frame is 782kg, hence a reduction of 29.7% was achieved against the standard one, which weighs
1112kg.

49 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

Figure 22 Novel frame design of the INNOWAG Y25 lightweight bogie concept

Further lightweighting of the bogie assembly has been achieved through the implementation of
novel lightweight technologies, i.e., the wheelset and the braking system (see details in §3.1.3):
 Lightweight wheelset solution proposed by Lucchini (1030kg vs. 1121kg for the standard
one);
 Lightweight Integrated Bogie Brake IBB 10 by Wabtec Co. (222kg vs. 514kg for the
standard one).
The axleboxes and the suspension components (including the spring brackets) have not been
modified due to the specific high stresses on these components, and the need to keep them
interchangeable for maintenance purposes.
Taking into consideration all the above modifications, the overall mass of the Y25 bogie assembly
was reduced with 17% (3918kg vs. 4722kg for the reference model). Details on masses of
subassemblies and overall Y25 bogie are summarised in Table 14.

Table 14: Summary of masses - INNOWAG lightweight Y25 bogie concept vs. the reference model

Masses [kg] Mass

Component/ sub-assembly Reference INNOWAG Lightweight reduction
Y25 model Y25 concept [%]
Axleboxes (per wheelset) 317 317 0.00%
Wheelset 1121 1030 8.12%
Wheelset + axleboxes 1438 1347 6.33%
Braking system 514 222 56.81%
Suspension components (inc. spring
220 220 0.00%
brackets)
Bogie frame 1112 782 29.68%
Frame assembly (frame + suspension) 1332 1002 24.77%
TOTAL Y25 mass 4722 3918 17.03%

The INNOWAG lightweight Y25 design is shown in Figure 23.

50 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

Figure 23 3D view of the INNOWAG lightweight Y25 bogie concept

3.3 INNOWAG Case Study 2 - Lightweight Intermodal Flat Wagon

3.3.1 Traditional intermodal flat wagon designs

The typical intermodal railway wagons in Europe include:

 wagons for containers and swap bodies of the ISO standard;
 wagons for other types of containers or vessels (e.g. the ACTS system);
 pocket wagons designed for transport of road trailers;
 wagons of the RoLa system.
Considering that container wagons with bogies (i.e., UIC classes R, S) have been identified by
previous work for weight reduction (SUSTRAIL project, 2015), this section further focuses on this
wagon type only.

3.3.1.1 Overview of traditional flat wagon design

A traditional container wagon body consists of a main frame with no superstructure, not even a
floor, only with spigots to secure the containers. Some wagons for universal use have a wooden
floor and possibly also walls or stanchions (type Rgs etc.), but this is not usual with new built
wagons. Examples are shown in Figure 24.

Figure 24 Left: universal flat wagon that can be used, among others, for container transport
(http://www.lokotrans.eu/en/vuz/rgs/); right: purpose-built container carrier wagon

51 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

The design of the end portions of the wagon body frame follows the requirements on connection
with running gear and attachment of buffers and draw gear. Hence, the frame incorporates the
main transversal beams of box-shaped cross-section; the upper part of the pivot bearing and
supports for side bearers are fixed to the underside of this beam. The transversal beam is
connected with a headstock by longitudinal members - this assembly provides attachments for
standardised buffers and draw gear, as well as sufficient load carrying capacity to withstand
longitudinal forces.
The central part of the frame consists of longitudinal, transversal and slanted beams of various
arrangements, depending on the design. The outer longitudinal beams provide support for
spigots, which can be folded down or moved longitudinally to accommodate for different container
lengths.
Container wagons are designed to offer an ideal loading capacity and flexible possibilities of
loading combination for different containers types. The length of standard ISO containers and
swap bodies is measured in feet (e.g. 20’, 30’, 40’ and 45’) and therefore the length of container
wagons is also classified in feet; the indicated wagon length classification expresses the
maximum total length of containers carried.
In most designs, the wagon body is supported by bogies; in addition to this, traditional four-axle
wagons with two bogies articulated wagons are also built for container transport. In the articulated
designs, two or more carbodies are permanently coupled with the intermediate ends supported
on a shared bogie, and the outer ends of the outer carbodies supported on their own bogie. There
are some rigid 2-axle designs, but these are generally outdated designs.

3.3.1.2 Flat intermodal wagon design variations

The most common design variations of flat intermodal wagons are based on the types specified
in UIC 571-4 “Standard wagons - Wagons for combined transport - Characteristics”. The summary
of these types is given in Table 15.
Table 15: Types of wagons for container transport according to UIC 571-4

UIC Max. UIC marking

571-4 Axle arrangement axle Length without shock with shock
Type load absorbers absorbers
1 2 × 2-axle bogie 20 t < 60’ Sg(kk)mmss Sgjkkmmss
2 60’ Sgss Sgjss
2a 22.5 t 60’ Sgnss -
2b > 60’ Sggnss -
3 not specified, reserved for wagons for traffic with Great Britain (Sffggmrrss…)
4 3 × 2-axle bogie 20 t 80’ Sggrss -
(articulated wagon)
4a 22.5 t > 80’ Sggmrss -
5 2 axles 40’ Lgss -
6 2 × 2-axle bogie 18 t < 60’ Sgmss -
7 low-floor units with special couplings
Regarding the design of the main frame, there are two main arrangements of the main load-
carrying members in the central part of the wagon (i.e., between bogies), as illustrated in Figure
25:
a) The main longitudinal beams are located near the wagon centreline at a small distance
apart, corresponding to the position of the longitudinal beams in the coupler area. On the

52 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

sides, longitudinal beams of smaller height with container spigots are situated, supported
by cantilevers from the main longitudinal members.
b) The main longitudinal beams are in such a position that they carry the container spigots
directly. These beams are interconnected by transversal members.

Figure 25 Arrangement of load-carrying members of flat wagons in cross-section

The photographs in Figure 24 also show the appearance of these two design options.
Further design variations differ in
 special arrangements of the frame structure to achieve lower floor height, which enables
compliance with limited gauge requirements (Great Britain) and/or loading of higher
containers;
 the presence or absence of a long-stroke shock absorbing device (mentioned in Table
15),
 positioning and type of container spigots (fixed, fold-down, sliding).

3.3.1.3 Selected reference design and specifications

The reference design selected for this part of the INNOWAG project is a traditional 60’ container
wagon with two bogies of the Y25 type or similar, without equipment for other kinds of cargo (end
walls, stanchions), without special arrangements to reduce the floor height and without shock
absorbers. Standard specifications for this kind of wagon are given in UIC 571-4 under “Type 2”
(Sgss, 20t axle load) and “Type 2a” (Sgnss, 22.5t axle load). Most 60’ container wagons operated
in Europe follow these specifications, and the parameters for these types, copied from UIC 571-
4, are given in the first two rows of Table 16.
Table 16: Characteristics of 60’ container wagons (yellow: UIC 571-4 types; white: new built
wagons of the traditional design; green: new built lightweight wagon)

Length [m] Bogie pivot Weight [t]

UIC Type /
over over distance Axle Pay
marking Manufacturer Tare
buffers headstocks [m] load load
UIC 571-4 max. min.
Sgss 19.64 18.40 14.60 20
Type 2 18 62
UIC 571-4 max. max. min.
Sgnss max. 18.50 14.20 22.5
Type 2a 19.83 20 70
Sgnss Legios 19.60 18.36 14.06 18.8 22.5 71.2
Sgnss Greenbrier 19.64 18.40 14.20 19.2 22.5 70.8
Sgnss Duro Dakovic 19.74 18.50 14.20 20.0 22.5 70.0
Sgnss Tatravagonka 19.83 18.50 14.20 19.0 22.5 71.0
Sgnss Wascosa 20.00 18.76 14.46 17.4 22.5 72.6

In addition to this, the table includes five wagons that are currently offered by European wagon
manufacturers. Four of them are traditional wagons following closely the Type 2a of UIC 571-4 -
one of these is shown in Figure 26. The frame structure is the same for all of them - it consists of
strong longitudinal beams on the sides, interconnected with transversal beams. These wagons
are permitted to travel at 120 km/h when loaded up to an axle load of 20 t; for higher axle loads

53 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

(up to 22.5 t), the maximum permitted speed reduces to 100 km/h. Finally, the table includes
parameters of the Wascosa Flex lightweight flat wagon design.

Figure 26 Traditional 60’ container wagon Sgnss (by Tatravagonka, http://tatravagonka.sk/wagons/sgnss-

60)

Figure 27 WASCOSA lightweight container wagon (ViWaS, 2015)

3.3.2 Lightweight flat wagon concept

The S class intermodal flat wagons are, generally, lighter than most other four-axle wagon types
of comparable length, since they have very few structural features. The maximum loading is also
not higher than for other wagon types (up to 20/22.5 t per axle), and is usually not utilised to its
limit in operation, unlike, for example, wagons carrying bulk cargo like cereal or coal which are
usually loaded to capacity. This means that both the wagon tare and its overall weight when laden
are not critical with respect to impacts on the infrastructure, maintenance issues, and need for
increased capacity (as this is limited by the containers’ specifications and the density of the load
in containers). Reducing the tare weight of the wagon is of lower priority, compared to bulk cargo
wagons, in terms of increasing the payload capacity for a given limiting axle load as the current
wagons are rarely loaded to cargo. However, lightweighting intermodal flat wagons is useful in
terms of reducing the ratio of train weight to freight moved; this is all the more significant with low
density freight often carried by these wagons, thereby reducing the energy consumption for
moving the freight, and potentially increasing capacity where total train weight is the limiting factor.

54 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

Also, certain types of wagons have differential operating speed limits (either 100 or 120km/h)
depending on the total axle load for the current load state (20t or 22.5t respectively). Reducing
the tare weight could increase the payload capacity limit of the wagon that would enable the total
wagon weight to still qualify for higher operational speeds. This could allow a more useful payload
limit for freight trains operating at higher speed, and operating freight trains at higher speed
increases network capacity.
A potential issue and subsequent challenge relating to the lightweighting of intermodal flat wagons
have been identified, hence this was selected as a relevant case study in INNOWAG. The
potential issue relates to the minimum wagon axle load, the standard requirements being
specified in the ERA document ERA/ERTMS/033281. According to this regulation, the minimum
axle load shall be at least 4 tonnes for vehicles with 4 axles and wheel tread brakes, which results
in a minimum tare weight of 16 tonnes, leaving only scope for between 4 and 1.4 tonnes of
lightweighting which could be applied to the designs in Table 16 before this limit is reached. The
justification of this restriction is related to treadle device activation and electric conductivity of the
wheel-rail interface in the ERA document. In addition, running stability issues are known to occur
for empty lightweight vehicles, hence EN 16235 mandates 4 t per axle as minimum axle load to
comply with the “established running gear” and simplify the testing procedure. Lightweight
designs below or very close to the 16 tonnes limit have been already achieved for 40’ intermodal
flat wagons, and further lightweighting is an easily achievable target. However, the manufacturers
have been unable to implement such models in the past due to the above mentioned regulation.
The implementation of the INNOWAG lightweighting methods would allow targeting the minimum
weight limit for the design of a longer, 60’ intermodal flat wagon. In this case, the stability and
running behaviour issues would be more critical than in the case of shorter, 40’ vehicles.
Therefore, this case was selected as representative in INNOWAG because it raises a different
challenge, which may impact on the certification procedures due to safety issues rather than to
structural strength. The potential issues relating to the running behaviour of the INNOWAG
lightweight 60’ intermodal flat wagon will be investigated through dynamic modelling and
simulations in Task 3.3.
The proposed intermodal flat wagon concept includes the following innovative solutions:
 Use of INNOWAG lightweight Y25 bogie concept, that integrates the innovations
described in §3.2.2;
 Implementation of RQT HSS grades into the wagon frame;
 Optimisation of wagon frame design and overall wagon assembly, which is enabled by the
above solutions;
 Integration of lightweight technology, i.e., the Integrated Bogie Brake type IBB 10,
designed and patented by Wabtec Co.
The use of the lightweight bogie concept described in the previous section reduces the wagon
mass by 1608kg (804kg for each bogie, see Table 14).
The selected generic RQT HSS with a minimum yield strength of 690 MPa (see §3.1.1.1) was
implemented into the design of the wagon frame, along with high strength cold rolled profiles
(top hat shape), which allowed further optimisation of its design. This solution was already applied
and validated for an R class 65’ flat wagon within the SUSTRAIL project (SUSTRAIL project,
2015a). The INNOWAG design process followed the same methodology, which is largely similar
with the method applied for the bogie design, as described in §3.1.2 and §3.2.2. However, the FE
analysis of the structural strength has not been considered further within Task 3.3 in this case,
because this would be redundant to the work in SUSTRAIL, due to similarity of the two designs.
The shapes and profiles’ dimensions of the structural parts of the wagon frame (including the
thickness) have been reduced according to the methodology explained in §3.1.2. The final
modifications to the main longitudinal beams include reduction of profiles’ dimensions and of plate
thicknesses (between 20-25%).
The development of INNOWAG concept started from the conventional design of an S class freight
wagon frame, as presented in Figure 28 a. Most standard container wagons of this size that are

55 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

manufactured today are of the design with strong side beams (see §3.3.1.3); however,
considering the outcomes of previous projects and other lightweight solutions, the other
arrangement, with main central beams and auxiliary side beams (Figure 25 a) has been chosen
as a base for the INNOWAG concept. The potential solutions for reducing the wagon weight
should consider, in particular, modifications of the central and lateral side beams of the frame
(Figure 28 b).
The central beams of the wagon are I-beams with a specific profile. The top and bottom flange
are 20 mm thick and have a width of 210 mm. The web height is 660 mm and its thickness is 8
mm.
The lateral side beams are standard UPN profile (European standard U channels, DIN 1026-1:
2000, NF A 45-202: 1986), with the dimensions of 60, 6.7 and 140 mm for the flange width, web
thickness and the beam height respectively.

(a) (b)

Figure 28 Conventional wagon frame (a) and its main structural profiles’ sections (b)

An example of lightweight profile that was optimised with respect to the main structure strength
criteria and mass reduction is presented in Table 17.
For the side lateral beams of the structure, not only the profile optimisation was considered, but
also significant changes in the section shape were analysed under the same loading. Various
cold- and hot-rolled profiles have been integrated into the wagon frame design and analysed. The
selected solution is a cold rolled profile (top hat shape), as shown in Table 18.
The implementation of advanced steel solutions also allowed significant shape changes of some
frame parts, e.g., the end-chassis subassemblies (see Figure 29), which are designed for higher
stresses that are specific to the wagon ends.

56 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

Table 17: Example of optimised lightweight profile - the wagon frame central beams

Table 18: Optimised solution for the lateral side beams of the wagon frame

The preliminary solutions identified using the proposed optimisation methodology were further
analysed and refined with consideration to manufacturing and economic aspects. The primary
consideration being the welding specifications of some steel grades included in the preliminary
analysis which impose restrictions on the minimum thickness of the plates and require higher
penetration of the welds, which is difficult to process for some theoretical configurations.
Therefore, the final solution has taken into consideration just the most realistic options, the profiles
with shapes and dimensions allowing an easy manufacturing process and combining various steel
grades (SL460ML and HSS RQT 700 for the central beams, other grades for the standard

57 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

profiles).
The structural frame of the INNOWAG lightweight 60’ intermodal flat wagon concept design is
shown in Figure 29. Its weight is 5860kg; a reduction of 28.5% was achieved against the reference
model, which weighs 8200kg.

Figure 29 3D view of the structural frame of the INNOWAG lightweight 60’ intermodal flat wagon concept

In addition to the lightweight bogie and frame subassemblies, the braking system on the wagon
(including the automatic and hand brakes) has been also modified, as a result of the integration
of the IBB 10 brake on the bogie. The main modifications include:
 Simplification of the automated brake (removal of unnecessary components eliminated or
transferred to the bogie, such as the brake cylinders, transmission mechanism from
cylinders to the bogie, some of the air tanks and pipes, and fixing elements of all off these);
 Total removal of the hand brake, its function being now provided by the IBB 10 brake.
The modifications described above allowed a reduction in the mass of the braking sub-system
from 1072 to 535kg (50%).
Taking into consideration all the implemented modifications, the overall mass of the 60’ intermodal
flat wagon was reduced by 22.4% (15559kg vs. 20044kg for the reference model). Details on
masses of subassemblies and overall wagon are summarised in Table 19.
Table 19: Summary of masses - INNOWAG lightweight 60’ intermodal flat wagon concept vs.
the reference model

Masses [kg] Mass

Component/ sub-assembly Reference 60' INNOWAG Lightweight Reduction
flat wagon 60' flat wagon concept [%]
Y25 bogie 4722 3918 17.03%
Wagon frame assembly 8200 5860 28.54%
Buffers 506 506 0.00%
Coupler assemblies 520 520 0.00%
Braking system on wagon
1072 535 50.09%
(automatic and hand brakes)
Auxiliary components (steps,
302 302 0.00%
handrails, etc.)
TOTAL 60 'Flat wagon 20044 15559 22.38%

58 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

3.4 INNOWAG Case Study 3 - Lightweight Cereal Hopper Wagon

3.4.1 Traditional cereal hopper wagon designs

Hopper wagons are used to transport bulk freight such as coal, ore and cereal. They are equipped
with bottom discharge devices (slanted walls, flaps, opening/closing mechanisms) to enable the
unloading of cargo by gravity discharge into a suitable reception point. The arrangement of the
bottom parts of the carbody is the main design characteristic of a hopper wagon: four main options
are illustrated in Figure 30.

Figure 30 Hopper wagons according to the shape of the bottom part of the carbody in cross-section: a)
W-shaped bottom, b) special wagon for depositing ballast on track, c) X-shaped bottom, d) central
discharge openings

Hopper wagons are loaded from above, thus they are designed either as open wagons (class F)
or wagons with opening roof (classes T, U).

3.4.1.1 Overview of traditional cereal hopper design

The hopper wagon types shown in Figure 30 are suitable for different purposes. Wagons for
transport of cereals are either of type c) or d).
In both cases, the carbody is based on an underframe of traditional design with main transversal
beams for the connection with bogies, standard end assemblies for attachment of buffers and
draw gear, and the central section with longitudinal and transversal members. The underframe
need not be very strong (compared to flat wagons etc.) as the superstructure also takes part in
supporting carbody loads. In addition to this, the underframe must leave enough space for the
bottom discharge assemblies of the hopper.
The bottom part of the superstructure has slanted walls forming two or more funnels. This
arrangement facilitates flow of cargo towards the discharge openings which are provided in the
lowest part.
In the case of the “X-shaped” cross-section (Figure 30 c and Figure 31 top), the planes of the
slanted side walls intersect in the centreline and continue in the form of troughs towards both
sides of the wagon - although there may be further movable shields or funnels below to direct the
flow back to the centreline if necessary, flaps are provided on both sides. This arrangement allows
full discharge towards any side of the wagon - in contrast with the solutions a) and b). For wagons
covered under d) (Figure 30 d and Figure 31 bottom), the bottom plates simply incline towards
flaps located in the centre. An extra requirement for cereal hoppers is that the interior of the
hopper body must be painted or coated to be suitable for transportation of food.
The cargo requires protection from weather, so that cereal hoppers are always equipped with a
roof. The roof has either a single opening on the whole length of the roof (UIC class T - wagons
with opening roof) or several large or small openings covered with lids (UIC class U - special
wagons).

59 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

Tadgnss

Uagps

Figure 31 Two basic design options for a cereal hopper wagon (photos from
https://commons.wikimedia.org)

3.4.1.2 Design versions

For cereal hoppers, there is no standard design defined in the UIC 571 series. Main design
options for components of cereal hoppers are summarised in Table 20.
Table 20: Principal design characteristics of cereal hoppers

Sketch Description Notes UIC letters

Number of axles and overall dimensions
Two-axle Two hopper divisions,
-
wagons volume 40-50 m3

Three to five hopper

Four-axle
divisions, volume 75- a
wagons
105 m3

Configuration of the bottom discharge assembly

Can be completely
X-shape discharged towards c, cc, d, dd
one side of the wagon.

60 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

Central
Discharged between
discharge o, oo, p, pp
the rails.
openings

Shape of side walls

Straight side walls -

Rounded side walls, resembles a tank

-
wagon in outward appearance

Position of discharge flaps

Allows insertion of a
conveyor belt under
High c, d, o, p
the wagon for
unloading.

Special infrastructure
for unloading needed
(reservoirs or
Low cc, dd, oo, pp
conveyors below rail
level). Increased
loading volume.

Type of discharge flaps

Flat sliding flaps -

Tilting flaps -

Cylindrical segments -

61 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

Roof

Single opening on the

T
full length of the roof

Multiple openings
U
covered by lids

3.4.1.3 Selected reference design and specifications

The reference design for the lightweight cereal hopper wagon concept is a four-axle cereal hopper
of traditional European design, marked Uagps or Tagps (Figure 32). The superstructure of this
wagon is characterised by three discharge funnels, the opening lower end of each covered by a
flap that slides horizontally. Above these funnels, the side walls are straight, vertical (not tank-
shaped); and the end walls are inclined. The structure is covered by a roof with several lids
covering openings for loading. Parameters of this wagon are given in Table 21.
Table 21: Parameters of the reference design (Uagps wagon)

Uagps wagon characteristics

Length over buffers [m] 14.84
Length over headstocks [m] 13.60
Bogie pivot distance [m] 9.80
Loading volume [m3] 75
Bogie type Y25 (wheelbase 1.8 m, wheels  920 mm)
Tare weight [t] 22.7
Payload [t] 57.3
Maximum speed [km/h] 120 (empty), 100 (laden)

Figure 32 Uagps cereal hopper model (by UVA), before implementing carbody lightweighting solutions

62 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

3.4.2 Lightweight cereal hopper wagon concept

The U class hopper wagon (for cereals) is the most complex case study that has been selected
in INNOWAG. The complex design of this type of wagon was presented in detail in the previous
section.
Considering its large and complex subassemblies, three different concepts have been developed
as alternatives with differing approaches to lightweighting, to assess the outcomes of the different
approaches and provide options for different circumstances where different solutions might be
more suitable. The three different concepts are listed below:
1. Hopper Concept 1: Lightweight U class hopper wagon based on the standard design and
use of HSS;
2. Hopper Concept 2: Lightweight U class hopper wagon based on the standard design and
use of HSS and composites;
3. Hopper Concept 3: Lightweight U class hopper wagon with increased capacity and using
HSS and composites.
The proposed hopper wagon concepts integrate the following innovative solutions:
 Use of INNOWAG lightweight Y25 bogie concept, that integrates the innovations
described in §3.2.2;
 Implementation of advanced steel solutions, including RQT HSS grades and high strength
cold rolled profiles, into the main structural subassemblies, i.e.:
o Wagon underframe assembly;
o Hopper body assembly;
o Bottom discharge assembly;
o Special equipment subassemblies (roof and bottom);
 Implementation of Polyester/E-glass fibre composite into the hopper body assembly, i.e.,
panels for walls and roof jointed to the main HSS structure (for concepts 2 and 3);
 Optimisation of wagon underframe assembly and overall wagon assembly, which was
enabled by the above solutions;
 Optimisation of the hopper body shape for increasing its capacity.
The advanced steel solutions, including the selected generic RQT HSS with a minimum yield
strength of 690 MPa (see §3.1.1.1), along with different high strength cold rolled profiles (e.g.,
top hat), have been implemented into the major structural assemblies of the hopper, as
summarised below.

Design of the hopper underframe assembly

The advanced high strength steel solutions have been used in the design of the hopper
underframe assembly in a similar way as in case study 2 (the flat wagon frame, §3.3.2). The
INNOWAG design process followed the same methodology, which is largely similar with the
method applied for the bogie design, as described in §3.1.2 and §3.2.2.
The shapes and profiles’ dimensions of the structural parts of the wagon underframe (including
the thickness), have been reduced according to the methodology explained in §3.1.2. The final
modifications to the main longitudinal beams include reduction of profiles’ dimensions and of plate
thicknesses (between 20-25%).
The development of INNOWAG concept started from the conventional design of an U class
hopper wagon underframe, as shown in Figure 33. The solutions for reducing the underframe
weight have considered, in particular, modifications of the transverse and lateral side beams of
the frame, as well as the re-design of the underframe ends (Figure 34). The methodology for
optimising the profiles’ sections was similar as in the case of the flat wagon frame, as described
in §3.3.2.

63 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

Figure 33 Underframe of reference U class hopper wagon (CAD model)

The final hopper underframe concept shown in Figure 34 weighs 2500kg; a reduction of 22.4%
was achieved against the reference model, which weighs 3221kg.

Figure 34 Underframe of INNOWAG lightweight U class hopper wagon (CAD model)

Design of the bottom discharge assembly

The bottom discharge assembly has a triple role: i) contain the freight; ii) structural assembly, and
iii) to provide the hopper discharging function. It is fabricated from various steel profiles (both pre-
fabricated and welded from cut plates) and various wall-type elements made of steel plates of
various thicknesses.
The new concept design of the bottom discharge assembly implemented the use of the advanced
high strength steel solutions that were used for the flat wagon (§3.3.2) and the hopper underframe
(described above), i.e.: RQT HSS plates and high strength cold rolled profiles. The methodology
was similar to the design of the hopper underframe assembly and case study 2 (the flat wagon
frame, §3.3.2); the calculation details are also similar to those in the bogie design, as described
in §3.1.2 and §3.2.2.
The dimensions of used profiles (including the thickness) have been reduced with between 20
and 25%. The thickness of the wall-type elements was also reduced with between 17% and 25%.

64 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

The lightweight concept design of the hopper bottom discharge assembly is shown in Figure 35.
Its weight is 1241kg; a reduction of 24.3% was achieved against the reference model, which
weighs 1640kg.

Figure 35 3D view of the bottom discharge assembly of the INNOWAG lightweight U class hopper wagon
concept

This solution was implemented in all three lightweight hopper concepts.

Design of the special equipment group of assemblies (roof and bottom)

The special equipment group of assemblies comprises different components and subassemblies,
which are essential for three different functions: i) charging of the hopper on the top; ii) discharging
of the hopper at the bottom; and iii) access on the hopper roof.
The lightweight concept considered different solutions for the different components and
subassemblies, as summarised below.
(i) Cover(s) for charging the hopper (on the roof) - the use of advanced materials was
considered for lightweighting this component, which is made of steel plate in the reference
model, i.e.:
a. A cover made of HSS plate was designed for hopper concept 1; its weight is 172kg
(vs. 221 kg for the reference model);
b. A Polyester/E-glass composite cover was designed for hopper concepts 2 and 3;
its weight is 88kg (vs. 221 kg for the reference model);
(ii) Access ladder and platform on the roof - the roof platform was re-designed (just on one
side of the roof), so the weight was reduced from 312kg (in the reference model) to 182kg.
Considering the functions and specific stresses and wear on the other components in this group
of assemblies, they haven’t been modified. The unchanged components and subassemblies
include:
(iii) Covers for discharging the hopper (on the bottom assembly);
(iv) Mechanisms of the discharging sub-assembly;
(v) Fasteners and fixing components.
The lightweight design of the special equipment on the new hopper concepts is shown in Figure
36. The total weight of the assembly is 904kg for concept 1 and 794kg for concepts 2 and 3;
therefore, a reduction of 19.3% was achieved for concept 1 and 29.1% for concepts 2 and 3
(against the reference model, in which the assembly weighs 1120kg).

65 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

Figure 36 3D view of special equipment assembly on the INNOWAG lightweight U class hopper wagon
concept

Design of the hopper body assembly

The hopper body assembly comprises the top part of the hopper (the roof) and its vertical parts
(front and rear ends, and side walls). It does not include the bottom part, which was presented
above, as a different assembly.
In addition to its main role (containing the freight, along with the bottom assembly), the hopper
body is also a key structural assembly. Its structure mainly consists of two types of elements: i)
structural beams made of steel profiles, and ii) wall-type elements, plate and/or curved, which are
welded on the steel beams. Both types of elements contribute significantly to the structural
strength of the body.
The lightweight design concepts considered two different approaches:
1. Optimised lightweight hopper body design concept using AHSS solutions (Concept 1);
2. Optimised lightweight hopper design concept using a hybrid solution that combines the
use of AHSS and GFRP (Concept 2 and 3).
In the first approach, the new concept design implemented the use of the advanced high strength
steel solutions that were used for the flat wagon (§3.3.2), the hopper underframe and bottom
discharge assembly (as described above), i.e.: RQT HSS plates and high strength cold rolled
profiles. The methodology is similar to the design of the hopper underframe assembly and case
study 2 (the flat wagon frame, §3.3.2); the calculation details are also similar to those in the bogie
design, as described in §3.1.2 and §3.2.2.
The dimensions of profiles used (including the thickness) have been reduced by between 20 and
25%. The thickness of the wall-type elements was also reduced by between 17% and 25%.
The all AHSS hopper body assembly of the lightweight hopper concept 1 is shown in Figure 37.
The total weight is 3608kg; a reduction of 26% was achieved against the reference model, which
weighs 4876kg.

66 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

Figure 37 3D view of the hopper body assembly on the INNOWAG lightweight U class hopper wagon
concept 1

In the second approach, a hybrid structure that combines the use of the advanced high strength
steel solutions and Polyester/E-glass fibre composites has been designed.
The AHSS solutions have been used just for the structural beams and for the body end walls
(front and rear); these are the same as described above, i.e., RQT HSS plates and high strength
cold rolled profiles. The methodology is similar to the design of the hopper underframe assembly
and case study 2 (the flat wagon frame, §3.3.2); the calculation details are also similar to those
in the bogie design, as described in §3.1.2 and §3.2.2. The dimensions of the profiles used
(including the thickness) have been reduced by between 20 and 25%.
Polyester/E-glass fibre panels have been considered for replacing the body steel walls (on sides)
and roof. Preliminary calculations of the composite panels for the body walls and roof have been
carried out in Task 3.3 and will be reported in deliverable D3.2. The composite panels will be
joined to the structural beams through specific joining processes to ensure the structural strength.
Potential joining techniques will be further analysed and tested within Task 3.4.
In concept 2, the replacement of steel walls and roof with composite ones enable a mass
reduction of 65% for these components. This adds up to a mass reduction of 22% that is achieved
for the structural beams through the use of AHSS solutions. The hopper body assembly of the
lightweight hopper concept 2 is shown in Figure 38 (the composite parts are marked with yellow
colour). The total weight is 2404kg; a reduction of 50.7% was achieved against the reference
model, which weighs 4876kg.

Figure 38 3D view of the hopper body assembly on the INNOWAG lightweight U class hopper wagon
concept 2

67 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

Furthermore, a third hopper body solution (concept 3), with increased volume, which would enable
increasing the wagon capacity, has been designed. The hopper body of hopper concept 3 takes
advantage of the significant mass reduction that could be achieved through the solutions
implemented in concept 2, and consists of a shape-optimised design that would fit with the other
unchanged assemblies.
The idea is to take advantage of the tare mass reduction due to lightweighting the wagon and
increase the payload so that the overall wagon laden mass would be similar or close to the
reference wagon, up to 90t. This overall wagon mass is the maximum due to the requirement for
the vehicle to have a maximum axle load of not more than 22.5 t per axle for it to be able to
operate on a large portion of the European rail network. Increasing the payload within the same
overall weight limit (though lightweighting the wagon design) increase the operational efficiency
of the wagon. The increase in the payload capacity was achieved through an optimisation of the
body geometry with the objective to increase its interior volume. The main modifications consist
of:
 Increasing of body width within the infrastructure gauge limits, from 3062mm to 3090mm;
 Increasing of body length in the upper part, from 12,631mm to 13,300mm; this also
resulted in an increase of the inclination of the body end walls, from 56º to 70º (Figure
39);
 Increasing of the roof radius, from 1m to 2m (Figure 40).

Figure 39 Example of shape-optimisation on the hopper body (the roof shape)

Figure 40 Example of shape-optimisation on the hopper body (the body end parts)

The modifications to the body geometry resulted in:

 Small increase of the hopper body mass (2949kg vs. 2404 for concept 2);
 Significant increase of the hopper volume (over 85m3 vs 75m3 for the other concepts
based on the reference model geometry).

68 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

The hopper body assembly of the lightweight hopper concept 3 is shown in Figure 41 (the
composite parts are marked with yellow colour). The total weight is 2949kg; a reduction of 39.6%
was achieved against the reference model, which weighs 4876kg.

Figure 41 3D view of the hopper body assembly on the INNOWAG lightweight U class hopper wagon
concept 3

The use of the lightweight bogie concept described in the previous section reduces the wagon
mass by 1608kg (804kg for each bogie, see Table 14). This solution was implemented to all three
hopper concepts.
The modification of the structural parts of the hopper concepts required further structural strength
analysis through FE techniques. The analyses carried out in Task 3.3 have supported the
refinement of the CAD models presented above, which was a key step in the development of the
lightweight hopper concepts. The structural analyses results will be further presented in
deliverable report D3.3. In addition to this, some key details of the proposed design concepts
(e.g., hybrid joints between the steel structural beams and composite panels, resistance of
composite panels to degrading factors such as abrasion and scratching, etc.) are difficult to be
validated through modelling and simulation techniques. Therefore, these issues will be tackled
through further testing activities, which are scheduled within Task 3.4.
In addition to the lightweight bogie and structural subassemblies, the braking system on the
wagon (including the automatic and hand brakes) has been also modified, as a result of the
integration of the IBB 10 brake on the bogie. The modifications are similar to those in case study
2, the flat wagon, and have been presented in §3.2.2. The mass of the braking sub-system was
therefore reduced from 1072 to 535kg (i.e., by 50%).
The hopper components and subassemblies that have not been modified include:
 Buffers;
 Coupler assemblies;
 Steps, rails and associated access components.
The INNOWAG lightweight U class hopper wagon concepts are shown in Figure 42 (Concept 1),
Figure 43 (Concept 2) and Figure 44 (Concept 3).

69 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

Figure 42 3D view of the INNOWAG lightweight U class hopper wagon - Concept 1 (using AHSS
solutions)

The tare weight of hopper concept 1 is 17952kg; a reduction of 20.9% was achieved compared
to the reference model, which weighs 22701kg.

Figure 43 3D view of the INNOWAG lightweight U class hopper wagon - Concept 2 (using AHSS
solutions and composites)

The tare weight of hopper concept 2 is 16523kg; a reduction of 27.2% was achieved compared
to the reference model, which weighs 22701kg.

Figure 44 3D view of the INNOWAG lightweight U class hopper wagon - Concept 3 (using AHSS
solutions and composites, with increased capacity)

70 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

The tare weight of hopper concept 3 is 17068kg; a reduction of 24.8% was achieved compared
to the reference model, which weighs 22701kg, and the hopper internal volume was increase
from 75m3 to 85m3. The mass reduction is smaller than for concept 2, however, the payload to
tare ratio is significantly higher, as shown in the last line of
Details on masses of subassemblies and overall wagon are summarised in Table 19.
Table 22: Summary of masses - INNOWAG lightweight U class hopper wagon concepts vs. the
reference model

Masses
INNOWAG
INNOWAG
INNOWAG Lightweight hopper
Lightweight hopper
Component/ sub- Lightweight hopper concept 3
Reference concept 2
assembly concept 1 (HSS) (HSS+GFRP+incre
U class (HSS+GFRP)
ased capacity)
hopper
Mass Mass Mass Mass Mass Mass
[kg] reduction [kg] reduction [kg] reduction
Y25 bogie 4722 3918 17.03% 3918 17.03% 3918 17.03%
Wagon underframe
3221 2500 22.38% 2500 22.38% 2500 22.38%
assembly
Hopper body 4876 3608 26.00% 2404 50.70% 2949 39.52%
Bottom discharge
1640 1241 24.33% 1241 24.33% 1241 24.33%
assembly
Buffers 506 506 0.00% 506 0.00% 506 0.00%
Coupler assemblies 520 520 0.00% 520 0.00% 520 0.00%
Braking system on
wagon (automatic and 1072 535 50.09% 420 60.82% 420 60.82%
hand brakes)
Steps, handrails and
associated access 134 134 0.00% 134 0.00% 134 0.00%
components
Special equipment (roof
and bottom
charging/discharging
1120 904 19.29% 794 29.11% 794 29.11%
covers and
mechanisms, and roof
platform)
End platform assembly 168 168 0.00% 168 0.00% 168 0.00%
TOTAL tare cereal
22701 17952 20.92% 16523 27.21% 17068 24.81%
hopper wagon
Hopper capacity [m3] 75 75 75 85
Hopper max payload 67500 67500 67500 73100
TOTAL mass (laden
90201 85452 5.26% 84023 6.85% 90168 0.04%
hopper)
Payload per tare ratio 2.97 3.76 4.09 4.28

Reducing the tare weight of the cereal hopper wagon allows an increase in the payload while
remaining within the maximum axle load limit. However, taking into account that the cargo is quite
light (most cereals do not exceeding a specific weight of 900 kg/m3), all of the higher payload
volume of concept 3 could not be utilised. For the third concept, where the loading volume has
increased from 75 m3 to 85 m3, the actual volume of payload loaded would have to be varied
depending on the density of that particular freight, the total volume loaded being limited by either
the maximum hopper payload by weight, or the volumetric capacity of the hopper, whichever is

71 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

reached first. However the increase in payload capacity (achieved through lightweighting) and
volumetric capacity in the concept 3 design does allow more freight to be carried, up to the axle
load, payload weight, or payload volume limit, whichever is reached first, and for it to be carried
more efficiently.

3.5 Summary INNOWAG lightweight concepts

The INNOWAG lightweight design concepts (five concept designs relating to three case studies)
have been summarised further in Table 23 to Table 27.
These include details on components and subassemblies, their masses and mass reduction for
each of them (vs. the selected reference models).

72 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

Table 23: Summary Y25 lightweight concept

Y25 Bogie
Masses [kg]
INNOWAG Mass
Component / subassembly Traditional Lightweighting solutions
lightweight reduction
Reference design design
design
Bogie frame Optimised design.
Use of advanced
1112 782 29.68 % materials.

Lucchini’s solutions:
Wheelset (exc. axlebox) SURA low stress wheel for
freight applications
(336kg)
1121 1030 8.12 % AHSS (quenched and
tempered low alloyed steel
EA4T) and improved
design (with hollow bore)
INNOWAG lightweight design for the axle (358 kg)
Axlebox assembly (per wheelset) 317 317 0.00 % N/A
Braking system Optimised design and
components.

514 222 56.81 %

Suspension components (inc.

220 220 0.00 % N/A
supports)
Total Y25 bogie mass 4722 3918 17.03 %

73 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

Table 24: Summary 60’ intermodal flat wagon concept

60’ Flat container wagon

Masses [kg]
INNOWAG Mass
Component / subassembly Traditional Lightweighting solutions
lightweight reduction
design
design
Y25 bogie

4722 3918 17.03 % Lightweight bogies (as described in Table 23)

Wagon frame assembly

Use of advanced materials (HSS)
8200 5860 28.54 %
Optimised design

Buffers

506 506 0.00 % N/A

Coupler assemblies

520 520 0.00 % N/A

Braking system on wagon

1072 535 50.09 % Optimised design and components.
(automatic and hand brakes)
Auxiliary components (steps,
302 302 0.00 % N/A
handrails etc.)
Total Flat Wagon mass 20044 15559 22.38 %

74 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

Table 25: Summary U class hopper wagon - Lightweight Concept 1

Cereal hopper wagon - Concept 1

Masses [kg]
INNOWAG Mass
Component / subassembly Reference Lightweighting solutions
lightweight reduction
design
design
Y25 bogie

Lightweight bogies (as

4722 3918 17.03 %
described in Table 23)

Wagon underframe assembly Use of advanced materials

3221 2500 22.38 % (HSS)
Optimised design

Hopper body Use of advanced materials

4876 3608 26.00 % (HSS)
Optimised design

Bottom discharge assembly

Use of advanced materials
1640 1241 24.33 % (HSS)
Optimised design

Roof components (access,

protection, covers, loading, etc.) Use of advanced materials
1120 904 19.29 % (HSS)
Optimised design

75 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

Buffers

506 506 0.00 % N/A

Coupler assemblies

520 520 0.00 % N/A

Braking system on wagon Optimised design and

1072 535 60.82 %
(automatic and hand brakes) components.
Steps, handrails and associated
access components

134 134 0.00 % N/A

End platform assembly

168 168 0.00 % N/A

Total Cereal Hopper Wagon

22701 19720 13.13 %
mass

76 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

Table 26: Summary U class hopper wagon - Lightweight Concept 2 (including composite parts)

Cereal hopper wagon - Concept 2 (inc. composites)

Masses [kg]
INNOWAG Mass
Component / subassembly Reference Lightweighting solutions
lightweight reduction
design
design
Y25 bogie

4722 3918 Lightweight bogies (as

17.03 %
described in Table 23)

Wagon underframe assembly Use of advanced materials

3221 2500 22.38 % (HSS)
Optimised design
Hopper body
Use of advanced materials
4876 2404 50.70 % (HSS and composites)
Optimised design

Bottom discharge assembly

Use of advanced materials
1640 1241 24.33 % (HSS)
Optimised design

Roof components (access,

protection, covers, loading, etc.) Use of advanced materials
1120 794 29.11 % (HSS and composites)
Optimised design

77 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

Buffers

506 506 0.00 % N/A

Coupler assemblies

520 520 0.00 % N/A

Braking system on wagon Optimised design and

1072 420 60.82 %
(automatic and hand brakes) components.
Steps, handrails and associated
access components

134 134 0.00 % N/A

End platform assembly

168 168 0.00 % N/A

Total Cereal Hopper Wagon

22701 18844 16.99 %
mass

78 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

Table 27: Summary U class hopper wagon - Lightweight Concept 3 (including composite parts and with increased volume)

Cereal hopper wagon - Concept 3 (inc. composites, with increased volume)

Masses [kg]
INNOWAG Mass
Component / subassembly Reference Lightweighting solutions
lightweight reduction
design
design
Y25 bogie

4722 3918 Lightweight bogies (as

17.03 %
described in Table 23)

Wagon underframe assembly Use of advanced materials

3221 2500 22.38 % (HSS)
Optimised design
Hopper body Use of advanced materials
4876 2949 (HSS and composites)
39.52 %
Optimised geometry for
increasing the volume.
Bottom discharge assembly
Use of advanced materials
1640 1241 24.33 % (HSS)
Optimised design

Roof components (access,

protection, covers, loading, etc.) Use of advanced materials
1120 794 29.11 % (HSS and composites)
Optimised design

79 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

Buffers

506 506 0.00 % N/A

Coupler assemblies

520 520 0.00 % N/A

Braking system on wagon Optimised design and

1072 420 60.82 %
(automatic and hand brakes) components.
Steps, handrails and associated
access components

134 134 0.00 % N/A

End platform assembly

168 168 0.00 % N/A

Total Cereal Hopper Wagon

22701 17068 24.81 %
mass

80 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

3.6 Impacts of lightweighting solutions and potential further work

3.6.1 Impacts of integration of advanced materials

The use of advanced materials as replacement of traditional construction steel raises different
issues relating to the vehicle resistance to various stresses in operational conditions. The main
foreseen and/or uncertain issues are listed below.
 Fatigue resistance of AHSS structures (with respect to the base material and welds);
 Potential requirements for tighter control of manufacturing processes and stricter quality
control due to more refined design being potentially more sensitive to production errors;
 Resistance to impacts of composite (GFRP) panels used for the wagon walls;
 Resistance to abrasion of composite (GFRP) panels used for the wagon walls;
 Resistance to scratching of composite (GFRP) panels used for the wagon walls;
 Compatibility of composites with requirements of foodstuff transport (chemical resistance
and toxicity/size potential contamination by abraded particles);’
Other issues include:
 Fire resistance of composites and products of combustion (while not specifically relevant
to freight vehicles (no passengers or staff on-board), they could be involved in a fire in the
same enclosed space as passenger trains and people, such as a tunnel or station);
 Different damage mechanisms and responses for composite materials (composites
respond differently to damage, for example an impact might cause delamination of the
material significantly affecting the load bearing performance, however because the bulk
of the material might still be present, an inspector not familiar with composites might
assume it is still at near full strength);
 Degradation in composite materials performance due to UV radiation and other aging
effects (protection of steel structures from environment effects is well established, it is less
well established for composites in the rail sector. An example of this issue might be that
whilst composites can effectively be protected from UV damage with coatings, the
operating, inspecting and maintenance staff might have to be made aware of the potential
issue so they can recognise it and the significant of any exposed composite.)
The above main issues are currently investigated within the INNOWAG project in Task 3.3
(through modelling and simulation techniques), and Task 3.4 (through testing), and the outcomes
will be further reported in deliverable reports D3.2 (modelling and simulation results) and D3.3
(testing results).

3.6.2 Certification and standards relating issues

3.6.2.1 Certification of novel design

Every novel design of the bogie frame which is a part of a freight wagon operated in the EU has
to comply with TSI WAG (Commission Regulation (EU) No 321/2013 of 13 March 2013
concerning the technical specification for interoperability relating to the subsystem ‘rolling stock -
freight wagons’ of the rail system in the European Union and repealing Decision 2006/861/EC).
Innovative solutions, which do not fulfil the requirements specified in this TSI and/or which are not
assessable as stated in this TSI, require new specifications and/or new assessment methods. In
order to allow technological innovation, these specifications and assessment methods shall be
developed by the process ‘innovative solution’. If the subsystem ‘Rolling stock - freight wagons’
includes an innovative solution, the applicant shall state the deviations from the relevant clauses
of the TSI, and submit them to the Commission for analysis. In case the analysis results in a
favourable opinion, the appropriate functional and interface specifications as well as the
assessment methods, which are necessary to be included in the TSI in order to allow this solution,
will be developed. The appropriate functional and interface specifications and the assessment
methods so produced shall then be incorporated in the TSI by the revision process. The innovative
solution may then be permitted to be used by the notification of a decision of the Commission,

81 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

taken in accordance with Article 29 of Directive 2008/57/EC. The appropriate functional and
interface specifications and the assessment methods so produced shall then be incorporated in
the TSI by the revision process. The revision process is implemented by the notification of a
decision of the Commission, taken in accordance with Article 29 of Directive 2008/57/EC. The
innovative solution would then have to comply with the new functional and interface specifications
and the assessment methods incorporated into the TSI for it to be permitted to be used.
In order to certify the bogie frame the integrity of its structure, all attached equipment and body to
bogie connection shall be demonstrated based on methods as set out in point 6.2 of the European
Norm EN 13749:2011.

3.6.2.2 Testing of the freight wagon

In general the new freight wagon has to undergo a set of certain tests before it is certified as the
TSI WAG requires. The list of required tests is given below:
 Static strength test, impact test and lifting test (EN 12663-2)
 Dynamic strength test (EN 12663-2)
 Safety against derailment on twisted track (EN 14363); torsional stiffness test
 Testing of running safety under longitudinal compressive forces (EN 15839)
 Running safety and running behaviour (EN 14363)
 Gauging (EN 15273-2)
 The vertical loading characteristics
 Brake test
 Protective bonding test (EN 50153)
 Noise test (TSI NOI)
In the case that the new wagon is similar to an existing one, not all of the above mentioned tests
have to be performed if the wagon characteristics fulfil certain conditions given in the standards.

3.6.2.3 The minimum wagon axle load

Regarding the minimum wagon axle load it has to be checked if it fulfils the following condition
stated in the ERA document ERA/ERTMS/033281 version 3.0 from 04.12.2015, section 3.1.7.1.
Vehicle axle load:
Harmonised parameter for 1435mm, 1524 mm, 1600 mm and 1668 mm track gauge - the axle
load is:
1. at least 3,5 t for vehicles with more than 4 axles and wheel tread brakes,
2. at least 4 t for vehicles with 4 axles and wheel tread brakes,
3. at least 5 t for other vehicles (that is, vehicles that do not fall into categories 1 or 2).

3.6.2.4 Environmental impact

Steel has been used in great quantities for a long period of time and is 100% recyclable; therefore
the environmental impact of the use of it in freight wagons is well established. The properties of
HSS and AHSS are not significantly different in terms of their environmental impact, although
there might be some additional impact from the use of different alloying elements and production
processes.
Although the use of composites has the ability to reduce the environmental impact of freight
transport through enabling significant weight savings and therefore reductions in the energy
consumed, there are other significant issues associated with the production and disposal of these
materials. The production of composites uses completely different raw materials and production
processes to steel, which affects the energy consumed to produce the materials and the chemical
emissions and waste from the production processes. The main environmental impact associated
with composites is that they are presently very difficult to dispose of, the thermoset based plastics
matrixes cannot be reformed and the thermoplastic ones are difficult to recover. The material can

82 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

potentially be chopped and used as a bulk filler material however it would have nothing like the
mechanical properties in its new application as it had when newly formed, this might be termed
downcycling of the rather than recycling, since the product is of lower value and has worse
performance. At the moment the main method for disposal of composites is landfill, however this
might improve in the future with the wider adoption of composites in many sectors making
alternative disposal methods for composites a higher priority.
In general energy saving and reduction of CO2 emission are closely linked, and whilst all types
of lightweighting offer opportunities for the reduction in energy consumption and CO2 emissions
in operation, the net energy usage and CO2 emissions throughout the life of a vehicle for a
material choice should not neglect the energy consumed and emissions in production and
disposal.

83 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

4. CONCLUSIONS

The work carried out within Tasks 3.1 and 3.2 of INNOWAG analysed and assessed a large
number of candidate materials that were considered for their potential use in lightweight freight
wagon design. The properties of these were assessed and the candidates were reduced to the
selected materials for further investigation using two levels of criteria. The first level of criteria
assessed the combination of the specific strength, the specific modulus and the cost per unit
weight of the materials. In addition to these numerical factors, the first level included qualitative
assessment of the fabrication/production issues of the candidates, as well as the applicability of
the material type for the intended use.
The main conclusions of the materials assessment and selection are listed below.
 The application of the first level of criteria reduced the list of candidate materials
significantly. Furthermore, the second level of criteria eliminated those materials that did
not meet restrictions set on LCC, Environmental impact, and resistance to degrading
factors;
 The outcome of the selection process was that High Strength Steels and Advanced High
Strength Steels (a group of specific steel grades from different manufacturers, with similar
properties) and Polyester/E-glass fibre, pultruded rod were selected for further
investigation, although Polyester/E-glass fibre, woven fabric was also considered for
applications where the pultruded rod format of composite is not suitable;
 The steels selected have the same density as standard structural steel, however their
superior mechanical properties mean that the volume of material used can be reduced for
the same structural strength, reducing the weight of material used and also reducing the
impact of the higher cost per unit weight;
 The composites selected have a much lower density than the steels and good structural
performance, permitting significant weight savings, more than offsetting the higher cost
per unit weight; the difference in production costs of composites could potentially be offset
by the components being pre-formed rather than fabricated.
The work carried out in Task 3.2 considered three case studies, focussing on different types of
freight vehicle each. Five concept designs have been developed in relation to the case studies
and will be further analysed and tested. The development of the concept designs has been closely
supported by the analyses carried out within Task 3.3 (structural strength and fatigue analyses,
and dynamic modelling and simulations).
The results clearly demonstrate the potential for lightweighting of freight vehicles, and are in line
with the initial performance indicators, as set-up within both the Shift2Rail call and the INNOWAG
grant.
The main conclusions are listed below.
 The bogie assembly is one of the heaviest assembly in the structure of a freight rail vehicle.
Its lightweighting would contribute considerably to reducing the overall tare weight of the
wagon. However, the means of reducing the mass of freight bogies are still limited by the
strict requirements imposed to key components such as the wheelset, axleboxes, etc.;
 The mass reduction of the bogies is still limited by the weight of wheelsets and axleboxes.
This affects significantly the outcomes of lightweighting methods and solutions
implemented on any type of freight vehicle, due to the high proportion of the bogie weight
in the overall vehicle tare weight;
 The implementation of advanced steel solutions (HSS and high strength profiles) along
with the integration of novel lightweight technologies is an efficient method for
lightweighting freight rail vehicles. The mass reduction that was achieved through this

84 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

approach varies from 17% (the lightweight Y25 bogie concept) to 22.4% (the lightweight
flat wagon);
 The implementation of GFRP along with advanced steel solutions (HSS and high strength
profiles) into hybrid structural solutions, associated with the integration of novel lightweight
technologies enables achieving more significant lightweight designs. This approach was
applied to the U class hopper case study, and a higher reduction, of 27.2%, was achieved
for the wagon tare weight. It should be highlighted that the mass reduction of the main
subassembly on which this approach was implemented (i.e., the hopper body) is 50.7%;
 A significant advantage of the approach based on the implementation of advanced steel
solutions is that the impacts relating to standards, certification and further implementation
are not extremely critical and can be mitigated within the existing regulatory framework;
however, the mass reduction is still limited in comparison to the solutions based on the
use of composite materials;
 The comparison of the five lightweight concepts developed in INNOWAG and of their
subassemblies, separately, demonstrates that a mass reduction over 25-30% can be
achieved only through the use of very lightweight materials with superior mechanical
properties, such as the composites;
 The mass reduction is significantly higher (up to 50% for specific assemblies) when
composite parts have been combined with HSS structural elements into hybrid structures;
however, the issues relating to the implementation of composites onto freight vehicle
technology are definitely more critical than in the case of using HSS; in many cases, the
regulatory framework does not include specific instructions relating to such materials,
being thus a barrier for further certification and implementation;
 It is expected that the implementation of both HSS and composite materials in freight
vehicles would also impact on the maintenance procedures, including both inspection and
repair techniques. The welds are still a sensitive issue for the AHSS, while the degradation
processes of composite parts (including their joints) are totally different to those of the
consecrated components made of steel. The repair techniques are also very different, and
the rail maintenance sector has little expertise in such procedures;
 Further research, comprising both analyses through simulation techniques and a testing,
is needed for supporting the necessary modifications of the current standards in order to
enable the implementation of lightweight composite materials in freight vehicle technology.

85 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

References
Campbell, F.C. (2012), Lightweight Materials: Understanding the Basics. Materials Park, Ohio
44073-0002: ASM International.
Campbell, F.C. (2012), Lightweight Materials: Understanding the Basics. Materials Park, Ohio
44073-0002: ASM International.
CAPACITY4RAIL project (2017), Novel freight vehicles. Grant Agreement n° 605650 FP7.
Deliverable D2.2
COSMOS project (2013), Efficient intermodal wagons, [online] http://www.intermodal-
cosmos.eu/content/e4/e251/e259/e270/COSMOS_WP1_Good-Practice-Manual_12_Efficient-
Intermodal-Wagons_KC-HC_20130430_eng.pdf, accessed on 04.11.2018
Dbusiness (2012): Studies Reveal Steel is the Best Option in Automotive Material.
http://www.dbusiness.com/DBusiness/July-August-2012/Studies-Reveal-High-Strength-Steel-
the-Better-Option-in-the-Automotive-Market/.
ERA (2013), Intermediate report on the development of railway safety in the European Union.
ERA (2014), Railway safety performance in the European Union.
European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) (2000): EN 10020:2000: Definition and
classification of grades of steel.
European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) (2004): EN 10025-6:2004+A1:2009: Hot rolled
products of structural steels. Technical delivery conditions for flat products of high yield strength
structural steels in the quenched and tempered condition.
European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) (2006): EN 10131:2006: Cold rolled uncoated
and zinc or zinc-nickel electrolytically coated low carbon and high yield strength steel flat
products for cold forming - Tolerances on dimensions and shape.
European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) (2007): EN 10336:2007: Continuously hot-dip
coated and electrolytically coated strip and sheet of multiphase steels for cold forming -
Technical delivery conditions.
European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) (2009a): EN 15663:2009: Railway applications.
Definition of vehicle reference masses.
European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) (2009b): EN 15551:2009 + A1:2010: Railway
applications. Railway rolling stock. Buffers.
European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) (2009c): EN 15566:2009 + A1:2010: Railway
applications. Railway rolling stock. Draw gear and screw coupling.
European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) (2010): EN 12663-2:2010 Railway applications.
Structural requirements of railway vehicle bodies Part 2: Freight wagons.
European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) (2011a): EN 15827:2011: Railway applications.
Requirements for bogies and running gears.
European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) (2011b): EN 13749:2011: Railway applications.
Wheelsets and bogies - Method of specifying the structural requirements of bogie frames.
European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) (2012): EN 15839:2012: Testing for the
acceptance of running characteristics of railway vehicles. Freight wagons - Testing of running
safety under longitudinal compressive forces.
European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) (2013): EN 10149-2:2013: Hot rolled flat
products made of high yield strength steels for cold forming. Part 2: Technical delivery
conditions for thermomechanically rolled steels.
European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) (2015): EN 10338:2015: Hot rolled and cold
rolled noncoated products of multiphase steels for cold forming - Technical delivery conditions.
Fibermax composites (2016). Weaving. Available at:
http://www.fibermaxcomposites.com/shop/index_files/weavingstylesandpatterns.html [Accessed
June 20, 2016].
Fine C. and Roth R. (2010), Lightweight Materials for Transport: Developing a Vehicle

86 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

Technology Roadmap for the Use of Lightweight Materials. Presented at the MIT Roundtable:
“The Future of Manufacturing Innovation - Advanced Technologies March 29, 2010. MIT, USA.
Harte, A.M., McNamara, J.F. and Roddy, I.D. (2004), A multilevel approach to the optimisation
of a composite light rail vehicle bodyshell, Composite Structures, 63(3-4), pp. 447-453.
Holmes, M. (2014a), Continued growth for European GRP market. Reinforced Plastics, 58(6),
pp. 28-30.
Holmes, M. (2014b), Global carbon fibre market remains on upward trend. Reinforced Plastics,
58(6), pp. 38-45.
Horvath C.D. (2010), “2 - Advanced steels for lightweight automotive structures”, in Mallick, P.K.
(ed.) Materials, Design and Manufacturing for Lightweight Vehicles. Woodhead Publishing, pp.
35-78.
International Standard (2006): ISO 21988:2006: Abrasion-resistant cast irons - Classification,
ISSF (2009), The Freight Industry - the Ferritic Solution. International Stainless Steel Forum.
Available at http://www.worldstainless.org/News/General+news/Five+Booklets+from+
the+Ferritic+Solution.htm.
Iwnicki, S.D., Stichel, S., Orlova, A., Hecht, M. (2015), Dynamics of railway freight vehicles,
International Journal of Vehicle Mechanics and Mobility, Volume 53, 2015 - Issue 7: State of the
Art papers of the 24th IAVSD Symposium
Jeon, K.W., Shin, K.B. and Kim, J.S. (2011), 'A study on fatiguelife and strength of a GFRP
composite bogie frame for urban subway trains', Procedia Engineering, 10(0), pp. 2405-2410.
Jirru B (2015), Modeling and structural analysis of railway vehicle body with finite element
method, Master thesis
Kim, J.S. and Yoon, H.J. (2011), 'Structural Behaviors of a GFRP Composite Bogie Frame for
Urban Subway Trains under Critical Load Conditions', Procedia Engineering, 10(0), pp. 2375-
2380.
Kim, J.S., Chung, S.K. (2007), A study on the low-velocity impact response of laminates for
composite railway bodyshells. Composite Structures, 77(4), pp.484-492.
Kim, J.S., Jin, Y.H. and Shin, K.B. (2011), 'Structural and Dynamic Performance Evaluation of a
GFRP Composite Bogie Frame', SAMPE Europe. Paris.
Matsika E, ONeill C, Grasso M, DeIorio A. (2016), Selection and ranking of the main beam
geometry of a freight wagon for lightweighting. Proc IMechE Part F: J Rail and Rapid Transit
0(0) 1-19 © IMechE 2016. DOI: 10.1177/0954409716677075
Park, B.H. and Lee, K.Y. (2006), 'Bogie frame design in consideration of fatigue strength and
weight reduction', Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part F: Journal of Rail
and Rapid Transit, 220(3), pp. 201-206.
REFRESCO project (2014), Towards a regulatory framework for the use of structural new
materials in railway passenger and freight carbodyshells, FP7 project.
Reid, S.R., Zhou, G. and Hancox, N.L. (2000), “1 - An overview of the impact behaviour of
fibre-reinforced composites”. In Impact Behaviour of Fibre-Reinforced Composite Materials
and Structures. pp. 1-32.
Robinson M., Carruthers J., O’Neill C., Ingleton S., Grasso M. (2011), Transport of DE-LIGHT:
the design and prototyping of a lightweight crashworthy rail vehicle driver’s cab. Transport
Research Arena - Europe 2012. Athens, Greece 23-26 April 2012.
Robinson, M. (2000), Applications in trains and railways. In Comprehensive Composite
Materials. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd., pp. 395-428.
SAE (2012): Materials lead the way to vehicle mass reduction. Available at
http://www.sae.org/mags/TBE/11312.
Sakly, A. et al. (2016), Experimental and modelling study of low velocity impacts on composite
sandwich structures for railway applications. Engineering Failure Analysis, 68, pp.22-31.
Seo S. I., Kim J. S., and Cho S. H. (2008), Development of a hybrid composite bodyshell for
tilting trains," Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit (IMechE), vol. 222, no. 222, pp. 1-14, 2008.

87 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

Shi, D., Krause, P. et al. (2017), D1.2. Specifications and Requirements for INNOWAG
Technologies and Solutions. Deliverable report within Shift2Rail funded project INNOWAG
(Innovative Monitoring and Predictive Maintenance Solutions on Lightweight Wagon).
Shin, K.B., Hahn, S.H. (2005), Evaluation of the structural integrity of hybrid railway carriage
structures including the ageing effects of composite materials. Composite Structures, 68(2), pp.
129-137.
Smith B.H., Szyniszewski S., Hajjar J.F., Schafer B.W. and Arwade S.R. (2012), 'Steel foam for
structures: A review of applications, manufacturing and material properties', Journal of
Constructional Steel Research, 71(0), pp. 1-10.
SPECTRUM project (2014), D3.1. Detailed Structural Design Concept for a High Performance
Freight Wagon. Deliverable report within the EU FP7 project SPECTRUM (FP7-SST.2010.5.2-3.
Grant Agreement no 266192).
SSAB (2010), Lighter Stronger Safer-GB-V1-2010. Confetti. Österbergs & Sörmlandstryck,
Nyköping.
Stewart R. (2009), Composites help lightweight the automotive market. Available at
http://www.reinforcedplastics.com/view/129/composites-help-lightweight-the-automotive-
market/.
SUSTRAIL project (2015a), D3.4. Outline Design of a Novel Innovative Lightweight High
Performance Freight Wagon Body. Deliverable report within the EU FP7 project SUSTRAIL:
The sustainable freight railway: Designing the freight vehicle - track system for higher delivered
tonnage with improved availability at reduced cost.
SUSTRAIL project (2015b), D3.5. Outline Design of a Novel Innovative Lightweight High
Performance Freight Vehicle Bogie Structure. Deliverable report within the EU FP7 project
SUSTRAIL: The sustainable freight railway: Designing the freight vehicle - track system for
higher delivered tonnage with improved availability at reduced cost.
SUSTRAIL project (2015c), D3.7. A Design Guide for Sustainable Freight Vehicles. Deliverable
report within the EU FP7 project SUSTRAIL: The sustainable freight railway: Designing the
freight vehicle - track system for higher delivered tonnage with improved availability at reduced
cost.
Troche G. and Zanuy A. C. (2009), Innovative Freight Wagon Concepts For Efficient Trans-
European Rail Freight. Innovative Freight Wagon Concepts EURO-ŽEL • Žilina, 4 June 2009.
Available at http://www.kth.se/polopoly_fs/1.87162!/Menu/general/column-
content/attachment/Troche_Carrillo_2009.pdf
Ulianov, C, Shaltout, R, Balan, A. (2015), Lightweight Vehicle Structural Design with Advanced
Steel Grades and Profiles. Applied Mechanics and Materials 2015, 809-810, 1199-1204.
Ulianov, C. et al. (2017), D1.1 Benchmark and market drivers for an integrated intelligent and
lightweight wagon solution. Deliverable report within the Shift2Rail funded project INNOWAG
(Innovative Monitoring and Predictive Maintenance Solutions on Lightweight Wagon).
ViWaS project (2015), D7.1 Prototype container wagons for loading and unloading of ISO
containers in rail sidings. Deliverable report within the EU FP7 project ViWaS: Viable
Wagonload Production Schemes.
VTG (2018), Containerwagen Technische Daten, [online],
https://www.vtg.de/fileadmin/vtg/dokumente/waggon-datenblaetter/Containerwagen-Sgns_s_60-
I41.060D.pdf, accessed on 04.11.2018
VTG Rail UK (2011), Ecofret - a new kind of container wagon. The newsletter of VTG Rail UK
Ltd. Online. Issue 17. Summer 2011.
Wabtec Corporation (2018), Integrated Bogie Brake, available at
https://www.wabtec.com/products/1308/integrated-bogie-brake [accessed on 21/06/2018]
Wennberg D. (2011), Light-Weighting Methodology in Rail Vehicle Design through Introduction
of Load Carrying Sandwich Panels. Thesis. Department of Aeronautical and Vehicle
Engineering. KTH, Sweden. TRITA AVE 2011:36. ISSN 1651-7660. ISBN 978-91-7501-002-1.

88 / 89
 Deliverable D3.1

World Auto Steel (2017), Advanced High-Strength Steels Application Guidelines Version 6.0.
Technical editors: Stuart Keeler, Menachem Kimchi and Peter J. Mconey, April 2017.
Yang, Y., et al. (2012), Recycling of composite materials. Chemical Engineering and
Processing, vol. 51, pp. 53- 68.

89 / 89