lloyds register rail era emc study phil bebbington head of t & rs systems

LLOYD’S REGISTER RAIL

ERA EMC Study

Phil BebbingtonHead of T & RS Systems


Legislation

28 Member Countries In the European Rail Area

“Competence” for transport policy is shared between European Union and member states – shifting toward EU

Concern in EU about fall in rail market share prompting drive for commonality.


Compatibility in Railways:

Since July 2010 all vehicle authorisations are required to conform to the Interoperability Directive.”

•which exists•has many millions of man years cumulative experience and tradition•has components that are expected to last at least another 30 years

It does not tell you how to get from a system

But it does allow for a transition

The ultimate goal of one common commercially acceptable vision of a trans European Railway

To


EMC Standards

However

Only two applicable European Norm EMC Standards exist

Standard EN 50121:2006

has five parts and although mentioning that they should be considered it

largely ignores low frequency effects

Standard EN50238:2004 currently has only 1 part

the other two parts will be issued as technical addenda rather than full standards

Neither cover the whole spectrum and both are still open to ‘interpretation’ with no clear definitions of ‘compatibility’

The essential requirements mandate ‘compatibility’ between all parts of the railway.

Electromagnetic compatibility is implied for both safety and operational aspects


Compatibility in Railways: The project

This project aimed to determine the starting point for Electromagnetic Compatibility in railways

•Who determines EMC

•What current standards are being applied

•How they are implemented

•What other considerations affect the acceptance


European Directive

Electrical/electronic equipment must be constructed to ensure:

‘the EM disturbance it generates does not exceed a level allowing radio and telecommunications equipment and other apparatus to operate as intended’,

‘it has a level of intrinsic immunity which is adequate to enable it to operate as intended’

‘Has been designed and constructed with regard to the state of the art’

When it is –Properly installed and maintained, andUsed for the purpose for which it was intended


Physical Agents Directive

Intent adds another consideration to EMC as railways have sources of both high voltage and current in close proximity to humans

Physical Agents Directive 2004/40/EC-Electromagnetic Fields & Human Health

This should have been implemented in UK Law by April 2008.Not yet in force due to considerations of NMR workers. Currently due in 2012


Remit

• Study to collect and document rules, processes and procedures to verify the Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) of railway vehicles in Member States of the European Rail Area

• Identify the (different) levels of compliance required for various equipment types e.g. signalling, rolling stock, trackside interfaces etc.

• Identify test procedures and limits.• Clarify and document the process for the demonstration of compliance in

each of the countries.• Identify the appropriate authorities concerned with EMC compliance and

their roles and responsibilities.• Estimate the timescales and budget costs involved in EMC compliance.

This included both documentation requirements and testing/trial costs.


Understand the drivers : Technical Perception

Commercial Imperative to get widest acceptance (Cross acceptance) because market for train equipment is small.

Must be driven by available technology: it can’t drive the technology

COTS equipment in an EXISTING railway environment.

Standards equivalence……….the devil is in the detail

System Issues CE+CE=CE????


Understand the drivers : Information QualityDifferent Organisations need different degrees of detail. Commercial confidentiality for proprietary InformationBurden of Proof can be open ended where no standards existPeer Review, Mutual Recognition and Verification for non-testable situationsDefinitions open to interpretation e.g. Part B safety certificateThe safety certificate shall comprise:…………and certification confirming acceptance of the provisions adopted by the railway undertaking to meet specific requirements necessary for the safe operation of the relevant network. The requirements may include application of TSIs and national safety rules…………….The certification shall be based on documentation submitted by the railway undertaking ……………The following documents must be submitted to enable the safety authority to deliver the network-specific part of the safety certificate…………………………. — documentation from the railway undertaking on the different types of rolling stock used for the operation, including evidence that they meet requirements of TSIs or national rules and have been duly certified.


Understand the drivers : Safety

It is almost impossible to divorce technical compatibility from safety

National attitudes and to safety vary widely.

Penalties in law make everyone err on the side of caution

How safe is safe?

Lowest Common Denominator

Highest Possible Principle


Initial ApproachTop Down

Less prone to get bogged down in the detail

Assume that the highest level methods used by the individual countries are in accord with the directives

Assumption:Each of the parties involved had roles and responsibilities defined by the procedures and had or would create processes to fulfil the responsibilities in terms of compliance demonstration to the rules.

Each party was initially contacted via a tree-branch questionnaire that tried to avoid yes/no answers


Initial Approach

Define

Role The activity of an organisation or individual with a responsibility towards compliance demonstration

Procedure The formal interaction required between Infrastructure Managers, Railway Undertakings and Safety Authorities. It may include mandatory and non-mandatory parts.

Rule The criterion whereby a compliance demonstration is assessed. Again this may include mandatory and non-mandatory components.

Process The methods used within each separate organisation that are used in compliance demonstration. It may include mandatory and non-mandatory methods.


Initial Approach

The ends of each question branch were always aimed at being a rule which may be applied.

It was envisaged that rules may well be different for safety and for operational conformity.

e.g. a non-moving train may be safe but does not serve any purpose


The Desired Result

EMC Compliance

Role Role Role

Pro c e d urePro c e d ure

Ro le : RUDe live r Physic a l Pro o f

Pro c e d ure : Sub m it a na lysis d o c um e nt

Pro c e ss Pro c e ss

Evidence from Test Analyse test

Process : Test

Plan TestResultThre sho ld Lim it

EMC Compliance

Role Role Role

ProcedureProcedure

Evidence from Test

Perform Test

Analyse test

Plan TestResult

Process Process


Implementation

Multilingual

Used commonly available software

Mixed answer formats

Branching structure

Simple questions: Machine translation augmented by local office native speakers

MS Office ,Email or Web based

Not a simple, fixed, structure: needs question trees that react to answer types

Only those branches which are actively needed are created.Developed in MS Excel


Questionnaire Flow


Concept


Modified Approach

Top Down approach had limitations:•NSA recently set up in 2009.•NSA divorced from actual compatibility assessment process.•NSA often didn’t have relevant EMC experts “on tap”.

Result: Information from questionairres and follow-up clarification requests was not enough…

Thus, combined approach: Top Down AND Bottom Up•Convocation of NSA and EMC experts held.•Interviews with NSA and EMC experts held to gain both sides of “story”.

Result:•Marriage of information from many sources at once.•Much more complete set of information obtained.•Resolution of “gaps” between sides was sometimes necessary.


ApproachTop Down approach had limitations:

•NSA recently set up in 2009.•NSA divorced from actual compatibility assessment process.•NSA often didn’t have relevant EMC experts “on tap”.

Result: Information from questionairres and follow-up clarification requests was not enough…

Thus, combined approach: Top Down AND Bottom Up

•Convocation of NSA and EMC experts held.•Structured Interviews with NSA and EMC experts held around graphical interface representations to gain both sides of “story”.Result:

•Marriage of information from many sources at once.

•Much more complete set of information obtained.•Resolution of “gaps” between sides was sometimes necessary.

ERA PresentationLLOYD’S REGISTER Rail

The Lloyd’s Register Group works to enhance safety and approve assets and systems at sea, on land and in the air – because life matters.

For more information, please contact:

Lloyd’s Register RailPreston Technology CentreMarsh LanePrestonPR1 8UQ

T +44 (0)1772 272719F +44 (0)1772 888673E [email protected]

lloyds register rail era emc study phil bebbington head of t & rs systems

Documents

acceptance slide

emc compliance

european rail area competence

rail market share

technical compatibility

national safety rules

safety authority

trans european railway