Improved Railway Track Geometry Degradation Modeling for Tamping Cycle Prediction
Publication: Journal of Transportation Engineering, Part A: Systems
Volume 144, Issue 7
Abstract
The railway track geometry condition is a key factor influencing the safety and comfort of train operations, and controlling the tamping cycles of railway tracks. For the scientific disposition of limited maintenance resources, railway infrastructure managers need to predict the tamping cycles based on an accurate grasp of track geometry degradation rules. Taking each 200-m track segment as a research object, the authors analyze the uncertainty and heterogeneity of track geometry degradation based on the discrete evaluation of the track geometry condition. On this basis, an improved track geometry degradation model using Weibull distributions is proposed to accurately estimate the tamping cycle of each track segment. By considering several heterogeneous factors in the model, individualized modeling for different track segments is realized. The developed model was verified by a case study of 100 track segments of the Chinese Lanxin railway line within the jurisdiction of the Lanzhou Railway Bureau. The estimation results of model parameters reflect the influence of various heterogeneity factors on the track geometry deterioration processes and the tamping cycles of track segments. The accuracy of the tamping cycle estimation results indicates that the proposed approach has significance for guiding the management of tamping maintenance of railway track segments.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 51578057; the Science and Technology Research and Development Program of China Railway Corporation under Grant No. 2017T003-C; and the State Key Laboratory of Rail Traffic Control and Safety under Grant No. RCS2016ZT007.
References
Andrade, A., and P. Teixeira. 2011. “Biobjective optimization model for maintenance and renewal decisions related to rail track geometry.” Transp. Res. Rec. 2261: 163–170.
Andrade, A., and P. Teixeira. 2016. “Exploring different alert limit strategies in the maintenance of railway track geometry.” J. Transp. Eng. 142 (9): 04016037.
Andrews, J. D. 2013. “A modelling approach to railway track asset management.” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. 227 (1): 56–73.
Andrews, J. D., D. Prescott, and F. De Rozières. 2014. “A stochastic model for railway track asset management.” Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 130: 76–84.
Aoki, K., K. Yamamoto, and K. Kobayashi. 2007. “Optimal inspection and replacement policy using stochastic method for deterioration prediction.” In Proc., 11th World Conf. on Transportation Research. Berkeley, CA: The World Conference on Transport Research Society.
Askarinejad, H., M. Dhanasekar, and C. Cole. 2013. “Assessing effects of track input to the response of insulated rail joints through field experiments.” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. 227 (2): 176–187.
Audley, M., and J. D. Andrews. 2013. “The effects of tamping on railway track geometry degradation.” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. 227 (4): 376–391.
Bai, L., R. Liu, Q. Sun, F. Wang, and P. Xu. 2015. “Markov-based model for prediction of railway track irregularities.” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. 229 (2): 150–159.
Caetano, L. F., and P. F. Teixeira. 2013. “Availability approach to optimizing railway track renewal operations.” J. Transp. Eng. 139 (9): 941–948.
Caetano, L. F., and P. F. Teixeira. 2016. “Predictive maintenance model for ballast tamping.” J. Transp. Eng. 142 (4): 04016006.
CEN (European Committee for Standardization). 2008. Railway applications—Track—Track geometry quality—Part 5: Geometric quality levels. EN 13848-5. Brussels, Belgium: CEN.
China Railway Corp. 2010. Railway transport no. 4 rules of railway track maintenance. Railway transport [2006] No. 41. Beijing: China Railway Publishing House.
Dhanasekar, M., and W. Bayissa. 2012. “Performance of square and inclined insulated rail joints based on field strain measurements.” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. 226 (2): 140–154.
Famurewa, S. M., U. Juntti, A. Nissen, and U. Kumar. 2016. “Augmented utilisation of possession time: Analysis for track geometry maintenance.” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. 230 (4): 1118–1130.
Greene, W. H. 2011. Econometric analysis. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Guler, H., S. Jovanovic, and G. Evren. 2011. “Modelling railway track geometry deterioration.” Proc. ICE Transp. 164 (2): 65–75.
Jovanovic, S., H. Guler, and B. Coko. 2015. “Track degradation analysis in the scope of railway infrastructure maintenance management systems.” Gradevinar 67 (3): 247–258.
Khouy, I. A., P. Larsson-Kråik, A. Nissen, and U. Kumar. 2016. “Cost-effective track geometry maintenance limits.” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. 230 (2): 611–622.
Kobayashi, K., K. Kaito, and N. Lethanh. 2010. “Deterioration forecasting model with multistage Weibull hazard functions.” J. Infrastruct. Syst. 16(4): 282–291.
Kobayashi, K., K. Kaito, and N. Lethanh. 2012. “A statistical deterioration forecasting method using hidden Markov model for infrastructure management.” Transp. Res. B Meth. 46 (4): 544–561.
Mandal, N. K., M. Dhanasekar, and Y. Q. Sun. 2016. “Impact forces at dipped rail joints.” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. 230 (1): 271–282.
Meier-Hirmer, C., G. Riboulet, F. Sourget, and M. Roussignol. 2009. “Maintenance optimization for a system with a gamma deterioration process and intervention delay: Application to track maintenance.” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part O: J. Risk and Reliab. 223 (3): 189–198.
Meier-Hirmer, C., A. Sene, G. Riboulet, F. Sourget, and M. Roussignol. 2006. “A decision support system for track maintenance.” In Vol. 88 of Computers in railways X: Computer system design and operation in the railway and other transit systems, edited by J. Allan, C. A. Brebbia, A. F. Rumsey, and et al., 217–226. Southampton, UK: WIT Press.
Mishalani, R., and S. Madanat. 2002. “Computation of infrastructure transition probabilities using stochastic duration models.” J. Infrastruct. Syst. 8(4): 139–148.
Quiroga, L. M., and E. Schnieder. 2010. “A heuristic approach to railway track maintenance scheduling.” In Vol. 114 of Computers in railways XII: Computer system design and operation in the railway and other transit systems. edited by B. Ning, and C. A. Brebbia, 687–699. Southampton, UK: WIT Press.
Sadeghi, J., and H. Askarinejad. 2010. “Development of improved railway track degradation models.” Struct. Infrastruct. Eng. 6 (6): 675–688.
Soleimanmeigouni, I., A. Ahmadi, and U. Kumar. 2018. “Track geometry degradation and maintenance modelling: A review.” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. 232 (1): 73–102.
Tsuda, Y., K. Kaito, K. Aoki, and K. Kobayashi. 2006. “Estimating Markovian transition probabilities for bridge deterioration forecasting.” Struct. Eng. Earthquake Eng. 23 (2): 241s–256s.
Zong, N., H. Askarinejad, T. Heva, and M. Dhanasekar. 2013. “Service condition of railroad corridors around the insulated rail joints.” J. Transp. Eng. 139 (6): 643–650.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
©2018 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Sep 28, 2017
Accepted: Dec 27, 2017
Published online: Apr 19, 2018
Published in print: Jul 1, 2018
Discussion open until: Sep 19, 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.