Determination of Risk-Reducing Intervention Programs for Railway Lines and the Significance of Simplifications
Publication: Journal of Infrastructure Systems
Volume 24, Issue 1
Abstract
Because failures on railway lines have nonzero probabilities of occurrence and can result in significant costs if they occur, railway infrastructure managers are interested in determining intervention programs that best reduce this risk, taking into consideration their budget constraints. In this paper, a base model is proposed to determine optimal risk-reducing intervention programs for railway lines based on the states of its objects and budget availability. The base model is an integer nonlinear model with an objective function that maximizes net benefit without exceeding budget constraints. The net benefit is the difference between the amount of risk reduction and the costs of executing interventions in terms of both direct costs (i.e., materials and labor forces) and indirect costs (i.e., the travel time costs). Three variations of the base model, i.e., the object model, the block model, and the line model, are used to investigate the trade-offs between increasingly simplified models and decreasing ability to determine the optimal intervention program due to decreasing ability to accurately estimate costs and benefits. In the object model, objects are considered in isolation, i.e., while each object fails and is restored all other objects in the line are fully functional. In the block model, blocks are observed in isolation, i.e., while each block fails and is restored all objects in the line are fully functional, whereas the multiple objects within a block may fail and be restored simultaneously. In the line model, all objects in the line may fail and be restored simultaneously. Fault tree analysis is used in the block and line models to estimate the costs of the combined failures of multiple objects. The three models are demonstrated by using them to determine the optimal intervention program for a fictive railway line between two stations that consisted of eight track sections, a bridge, two switches, and two signals. The intervention programs determined using the three models in terms of the interventions included and the net benefit obtained are compared. It is shown that all three variations produce useful results but that there are significant differences in the estimation of the net benefits using the three different models, and that these differences lead to different interventions being included in the determined intervention programs, and consequently in the net benefit that will be achieved through their implementation. It was also shown that each improvement in the estimation of accuracy comes with an increase in modeling complexity.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
The work presented in this paper has received funding from the European’s Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Grant Agreement No. 636285 (DESTination RAIL project).
References
Adey, B. T., Hajdin, R., and Brühwiler, E. (2004). “Effect of common cause failures on indirect costs.” J. Bridge Eng., 200–208.
Asakura, T., and Kojima, Y. (2003). “Tunnel maintenance in Japan.” Tunnelling Underground Space Technol., 18(2–3), 161–169.
BARON [Computer software]. Optimization Firm, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL.
Budai-Balke, G., Huisman, D., and Dekker, R. (2006). “Scheduling preventive railway maintenance activities.” J. Oper. Res. Soc., 57(9), 1035–1044.
Burkhalter, M. (2016). “Optimal intervention programs on rail networks taking into consideration the temporal and spatial properties of the network.” Master’s thesis, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Eicher, C., Lethanh, N., and Adey, B. T. (2015). “A routing algorithm to construct candidate work zones with distance constraints.” Proc., ICSC15: The Canadian Society for Civil Engineering 5th International/11th Construction Specialty Conf., Univ. of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
Frangopol, D. M., and Liu, M. (2007). “Maintenance and management of civil infrastructure based on condition, safety, optimization, and life-cycle cost.” Struct. Infrastruct. Eng., 3(1), 29–41.
Hajdin, R., and Adey, B. T. (2006). “Optimal worksites on highway networks subject to constraints.” International Forum on Engineering Decision Making, Zurich, Switzerland.
Hajdin, R., and Lindenmann, H.-P. (2007). “Algorithm for the planning of optimum highway work zones.” J. Infrastruct. Syst., 202–214.
Lethanh, N., Adey, B. T., and Sigrist, M. (2014). “A mixed-integer linear model for determining optimal work zones on a road network.” Int. Conf. on Engineering and Applied Sciences Optimization, National Technical Univ. of Athens, Athens, Greece, 4–6.
Liu, M., and Frangopol, D. M. (2004). “Optimal bridge maintenance planning based on probabilistic performance prediction.” Eng. Struct., 26(7), 991–1002.
Lounis, Z. (2006). “Risk-based maintenance optimization of aging highway bridge decks.” Advances in engineering structures, mechanics and construction, Springer, New York, 723–734.
Martani, C., Papathanasiou, N., and Adey, B. T. (2016). “A review of the state-of-the-art in railway risk management.” 1st Asian Conf. on Railway Infrastructure and Transportation (ART 2016), The Korean Society for Railway, Seoul.
O’Connor, A. J., Sheils, E., Breysse, D., and Schoefs, F. (2013). “Markovian bridge maintenance planning incorporating corrosion initiation and nonlinear deterioration.” J. Bridge Eng., 189–199.
Orcesi, A. D., and Cremona, C. F. (2011). “Optimization of maintenance strategies for the management of the national bridge stock in France.” J. Bridge Eng., 44–52.
Pargar, F. (2015). “A mathematical model for scheduling preventive maintenance and renewal projects of infrastructures.” Safety and reliability of complex engineered systems, L. Podofillini, B. Sudret, B. Stojadinovic, E. Zio, and W. Kröger, eds., Taylor & Francis, London, 993–1000.
Peckover, F. L., and Kerr, J. W. G. (1977). “Treatment and maintenance of rock slopes on transportation routes.” Can. Geotech. J., 14(4), 487–507.
Peng, F. (2011). “Scheduling of track inspection and maintenance activities in railroad networks.” Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL.
Peng, F., and Ouyang, Y. (2014). “Optimal clustering of railroad track maintenance jobs.” Comput.-Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng., 29(4), 235–247.
Power, C., Mian, J., Spink, T., Abbott, S., and Edwards, M. (2016). “Development of an evidence-based geotechnical asset management policy for network rail, Great Britain.” Procedia Eng., 143, 726–733.
R [Computer software]. R Foundation, Vienna, Austria.
VöV (Verband öffentlicher Verkehr). (2014). “D RTE 29900 Netzzustandsbericht: Minimalanforderungen.” Bern, Switzerland.
Zhao, J., Chan, A. H. C., Stirling, A., and Madelin, K. (2006). “Optimizing policies of railway ballast tamping and renewal.” Transp. Res. Rec., 1943, 50–56.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
©2017 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Dec 14, 2016
Accepted: Jun 9, 2017
Published online: Nov 1, 2017
Published in print: Mar 1, 2018
Discussion open until: Apr 1, 2018
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.