4.3 Review

A hybrid predictive methodology for head checks in railway infrastructure

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0954409721993611

Keywords

Rolling contact fatigue; rail surface defects; physics-based; data-driven

Funding

  1. European Union (EU) Horizon 2020 research and innovation program [730569]
  2. H2020 Societal Challenges Programme [730569] Funding Source: H2020 Societal Challenges Programme

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper introduces a hybrid method for assessing rail health, focusing on a specific rail surface defect called head check. The method combines physics-based and data-driven models to simulate defect initiation and evolution on a rail. Ultrasonic and Eddy Current defect detection measurements are used to provide insight into the current rail condition, with a set of predictive Key Performance Indicators proposed to quantify the future rail condition based on defect characteristics.
This paper presents a hybrid method to assess the rail health with the focus on a specific type of rail surface defect called head check. The proposed method uses physics-based and data-driven models in order to model defect initiation and defect evolution on a rail for a given rail traffic tonnage. Ultrasonic (US) and Eddy Current (EC) defect detection measurements are used to provide Infrastructure Managers (IMs) with insight in the current rail condition. The defect initiation results obtained from the first part of the hybrid method which consists of the physics-based model is successfully validated with the EC measurements. Furthermore, the US and EC measurements are utilized to derive a data-driven model for defect evolution. Finally, a set of robust and predictive Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are proposed to quantify the future condition of the rail based on different characteristics of rail health resulting from the defect initiation and defect evolution analysis.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available