Cargando…
Fusing Expert Knowledge with Monitoring Data for Condition Assessment of Railway Welds
Monitoring information can facilitate the condition assessment of railway infrastructure, via delivery of data that is informative on condition. A primary instance of such data is found in Axle Box Accelerations (ABAs), which track the dynamic vehicle/track interaction. Such sensors have been instal...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10007511/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36904875 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s23052672 |
Sumario: | Monitoring information can facilitate the condition assessment of railway infrastructure, via delivery of data that is informative on condition. A primary instance of such data is found in Axle Box Accelerations (ABAs), which track the dynamic vehicle/track interaction. Such sensors have been installed on specialized monitoring trains, as well as on in-service On-Board Monitoring (OBM) vehicles across Europe, enabling a continuous assessment of railway track condition. However, ABA measurements come with uncertainties that stem from noise corrupt data and the non-linear rail–wheel contact dynamics, as well as variations in environmental and operational conditions. These uncertainties pose a challenge for the condition assessment of rail welds through existing assessment tools. In this work, we use expert feedback as a complementary information source, which allows the narrowing down of these uncertainties, and, ultimately, refines assessment. Over the past year, with the support of the Swiss Federal Railways (SBB), we have assembled a database of expert evaluations on the condition of rail weld samples that have been diagnosed as critical via ABA monitoring. In this work, we fuse features derived from the ABA data with expert feedback, in order to refine defection of faulty (defect) welds. Three models are employed to this end; Binary Classification and Random Forest (RF) models, as well as a Bayesian Logistic Regression (BLR) scheme. The RF and BLR models proved superior to the Binary Classification model, while the BLR model further delivered a probability of prediction, quantifying the confidence we might attribute to the assigned labels. We explain that the classification task necessarily suffers high uncertainty, which is a result of faulty ground truth labels, and explain the value of continuously tracking the weld condition. |
---|