Optimisation of schedules for the inspection of railway tracks

Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part F: Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit - Tập 232 Số 6 - Trang 1577-1587 - 2018
Mohd Haniff Bin Osman1,2, Sakdirat Kaewunruen2, Anson Jack2
1Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM), Bangi, Malaysia
2School of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

Tóm tắt

Inspection of railway tracks involves a high volume of short-duration tasks (e.g. visual inspection, vehicle-based inspection, measurement, etc.) each of which is repeated at different frequencies and time intervals. It is important to gain as many benefits as possible from the inspection tasks, which incur huge expenses. To date, various optimisation methods have been incorporated into the schedule generation to determine an inspection order for a known number and geographical location of tracks. Due to the specific requirements of certain tracks or inspection problem—for example, the number of schedule parameters and one-off or incremental type schedules—researchers have developed more sophisticated and problem-dependent optimisation methods. However, introduction of a new inspection technology and policy in the last five years, especially in the United Kingdom, has urged a remodelling of the scheduling problem in track inspection in order to cope up with the new operational and business constraints. Thus, this paper conducts a review and gap analysis of previous studies with regard to track inspection scheduling problems from an optimisation point of view. In addition, the authors discuss several potential research interests resulting from the gap analysis undertaken. This study shows that heuristic methods are popular among researchers in searching for an optimal schedule subject to single or multiple optimisation function(s) while satisfying various technical and business constraints.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Rail Safety and Standards Board, 2014, Taking safe decisions – how Britain’s railways take decisions that affect safety

Network Rail. Asset management strategy. Network Rail Technical Report, Network Rail, 2014.

Safe Work Australia, 2013, How to determine what is reasonably practicable to meet a health and safety duty

Office of the National Rail Safety Regulator, 2016, Meaning of duty to ensure Safety So Far As Is Reasonably Practicable – SFAIRP

10.1002/stc.227

Zoeteman A, 2001, Eur J Transport Infrastruct Res, 1, 391

10.1061/(ASCE)CP.1943-5487.0000221

10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.1082

Liu X, Saat MR and Barkan CPL. Benefit-cost analysis of heavy haul railway track upgrade for safety and efficiency. In: Proceedings of the international Heavy Haul Association conference, 2011, pp.1–8. Calgary, Canada: International Heavy Haul Association.

10.1243/09544097JRRT226

10.1243/09544097JRRT354

10.1016/j.trc.2014.04.013

10.1061/(ASCE)TE.1943-5436.0000296

Yokoyama A, 2014, Railway Gazette Int, 170, 37

Kaewunruen S, 2016, Front Built Enviro, 2, 1

Kaewunruen S and Remennikov AM. Integrated field measurements and track simulations for condition assessment of railway tracks. In: Hao H, Deeks A and Yong Xia (eds) 1st international conference on structural condition assessment, monitoring, and improvement, Perth, Australia, 2015, pp.391–398. Singapore: CI-Premier Pte Ltd.

Roberts C, Kent S, Rusu M, et al. Modular, self-inspecting infrastructure. Technical Report 265722, International Union of Railways, 2014.

Al-Nazer L, 2011, Track inspection time study

Budai G, Huisman D and Dekker R. Scheduling preventive railway maintenance activities. J Oper Res Soc 2006; 57: 1035–1044.

Putallaz Y and Rivier R. Strategic maintenance and renewal policy of a railway corridor, taking into account the value of capacity. In: World conference on rail research, Edinburgh, Scotland, 2003, pp.1–18.

Tanaev V, 2012, Scheduling theory: single-stage systems

10.1016/j.ress.2004.11.009

Konur D, 2014, Track inspection planning and risk measurement analysis

Farhangi H, Konur D, Long S, et al. Bi-objective track inspection scheduling: Formulation and solution analysis. In: Transportation research board 94th annual meeting, 2015, pp. 1–18. Washington DC, United States: Transportation Research Board of the National Academics.

10.1016/j.ress.2015.06.009

10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0000365

Kashima T. Reliability-based optimization of rail inspection. PhD Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 2004.

10.1016/S0951-8320(03)00167-4

10.1016/j.ress.2010.08.001

10.1016/j.ress.2014.12.010

10.1016/j.retrec.2012.03.011

10.1016/j.ress.2015.05.009

Holland F, Caines M and Kerr M. Mechanised track patrol. In: Conference on railway engineering. Melbourne, Australia: ARRB Group Limited, 2006, pp.87–93.

Higgins A, 1999, Transportation and traffic theory, 779

Balcombe R, 2004, Transp Policy, 13, 295

Dell'Orco M, Ottomanelli M, Pace P, et al. Intelligent decision support tools for optimal planning of rail track maintenance. In: Proceedings of the 13th mini-EURO conference and the 9th meeting of the EURO working group on transportation, Bari, Italy: Polytechnic of Bari, 2002, pp.218–223.

Yan HC, Zhou JH and Pang CK. Cost optimisation on warning threshold and non-fixed periodic inspection intervals for machine degradation monitoring. In: IECON 2015 – 41st annual conference of the IEEE Industrial Electronics Society, 2015, Yokohama, Japan: IEEE.

Soleimanmeigouni I, Ahmadi A, Letot C, et al. Cost-based optimization of track geometry inspection. In: 11th world congress of railway research, Milan, Italy, 2016.

10.1177/0954409714542859

Network Rail. How we will get there: our operating environment. NR Technical Report, Network Rail, 2014.

10.1016/j.jrtpm.2014.02.003

10.1016/j.ejor.2013.02.056

10.1016/j.cie.2014.10.029

10.1016/j.cie.2009.05.009

10.1002/net.21605

10.1007/s00170-010-3094-4

10.1080/0952813X.2013.782347

10.7551/mitpress/3927.001.0001

10.1145/261342.571216

Deb K, Rao NUB and Karthik S. Dynamic multi-objective optimization and decision-making using modified NSGA-II: a case study on hydro-thermal power scheduling. In: Obayashi S, Deb K, Poloni C, et al. (eds) Proceedings of 4th international conference of evolutionary multi-criterion optimization. Matsushima, Japan: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2007, pp.803–817.

10.1016/0164-1212(87)90041-0

10.1111/j.1467-8667.2010.00670.x

Söderholm P and Bergquist B. Rail breaks–An Explorative Case Study. In: Kumar U, Ahmadi A, Verma AK, et al. (eds) Current trends in reliability, availability, maintainability and safety: An industry perspective. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2016, pp. 519–541.

10.1016/j.jlp.2017.04.012

10.1016/0010-4485(91)90089-F

Daniels LE and The National Academies. Track maintenance costs on rail transit properties. Technical Report TCRP Project J-7, Fair Oaks, CA, 2008.

10.1002/qre.1381

Liu X, 2014, J Transp Eng, 61801, 1

Office of Rail Regulation and RailKonsult Balfour Beatty Rail Technologies. Asset inspection, condition assessment and decision making. Technical Report BBRT-2012-RP-0001, UK, 2012.

Krezo S, O Mirza, He Y, et al. Carbon emissions analysis of rail resurfacing work: a case study, practical guideline and systems thinking approach. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on railway technology: research, development and maintenance. Ajaccio, Corsica, France: Civil-Comp Press, 2014.

Vatn J and Svee H. A risk based approach to determine ultrasonic inspection frequencies in railway applications. In: 6th Proceedings of the 22nd ESReDA seminar, vol. 9. Madrid, Spain: NDT.net.

Department for Transport. Low carbon transport: a greener future. In: Technical report: a carbon reduction strategy for transport. United Kingdom: Department for Transport, 2009.

10.1016/j.eswa.2013.07.107

10.1016/j.trd.2015.10.021

Litman T. Transportation cost and benefit analysis: techniques, estimates and implications. Technical Report, Victoria, 2009.

Snowling S. Evaluation of modelling uncertainty and the role of model complexity in risk assessment. PhD Thesis, Hamilton, Ontario, 2000.

10.1016/S1574-101X(08)00604-2

Renooij S and Van der Gaag LC. Decision making in qualitative influence diagrams. In: Diane J (ed.) Eleventh international Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society conference. Snibel Island, Florida: AAAI Press, pp.410–414.

10.1016/j.trb.2014.01.009

10.1109/TITS.2015.2446985

NetworkRail. Network Rails activity and expenditure plans. Network Rails strategic business plan – Maintenance activity and expenditure, 2015.

10.1080/00423114.2015.1034730

10.1016/j.procs.2015.07.323

10.1016/j.csndt.2014.03.004

10.1109/MIS.2014.76

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part F: Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit

Tập 232 Số 6

1577-1587

Thông tin tác giả