Advertisement

Model Predictive Control for Maintenance Operations Planning of Railway Infrastructures

  • Zhou Su
  • Alfredo Núñez
  • Ali Jamshidi
  • Simone Baldi
  • Zili Li
  • Rolf Dollevoet
  • Bart De Schutter
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9335)

Abstract

This paper develops a new decision making method for optimal planning of railway maintenance operations using hybrid Model Predictive Control (MPC). A linear dynamic model is used to describe the evolution of the health condition of a segment of the railway track. The hybrid characteristics arise from the three possible control actions: performing no maintenance, performing corrective maintenance, or doing a replacement. A detailed procedure for transforming the linear system with switched input, and recasting the transformed problem into a standard mixed integer quadratic programming problem is presented. The merits of the proposed MPC approach for designing railway track maintenance plans are demonstrated using a case study with numerical simulations. The results highlight the potential of MPC to improve condition-based maintenance procedures for railway infrastructure.

Keywords

Health condition monitoring and maintenance Model Predictive Control (MPC) Track maintenance Railway engineering 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Zoeteman, A.: Yardstick for condition based and differential planning of track and turnout renewal: a major step towards full decision support. In: Proceedings of the 7th World Congress on Railway Research (WCRR), Montreal, Canada (1993)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chrismer, S., Selig, E.: Computer model for ballast maintenance planning. In: Proceedings of 5th International Heavy Haul Railway Conference, Beijing, China, pp. 223–227 (1993)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sato, Y.: Optimum track structure considering deterioration in ballasted track. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Heavy Haul Conference, Cape Town, South Africa, pp. 576–590 (1997)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sadeghi, J., Askarinejad, H.: Development of improved railway track degradation models. Structure and Infrastructure Engineering 6, 675–688 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shafahi, Y., Hakhamaneshi, R.: Application of a maintenance management model for Iranian railways based on the Markov chain and probabilistic dynamic programming. International Journal of Science and Technology. Transaction A: Civil Engineering 16, 87–97 (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Podofillini, L., Zio, E., Vatn, J.: Risk-informed optimisation of railway tracks inspection and maintenance procedures. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 91, 20–35 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Magel, E., Tajaddini, A., Trosino, M., Kalousek, J.: Traction, forces, wheel climb and damage in high-speed railway operations. Wear 265, 1446–1451 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Peng, D., Jones, R.: Modelling of the lock-in thermography process through finite element method for estimating the rail squat defects. Engineering Failure Analysis 28, 275–288 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Molodova, M., Li, Z., Núñez, A., Dollevoet, R.: Automatic detection of squats in railway infrastructure. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 15, 1980–1990 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jamshidi, A., Núñez, A., Li, Z., Dollevoet, R.: Maintenance decision indicators for treating squats in railway infrastructures. In: Proceedings of the 94th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C., USA (2015)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jamshidi, A., Núñez, A., Li, Z., Dollevoet, R.: Maintenance decision indicators for treating squats in railway infrastructures. In: Proceedings of the Joint Rail Conference 2015 (JRC2015), San Jose, CA, USA (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Richalet, J., Rault, A., Testud, J.: Algorithmic control of industrial processes. In: Proceedings of the 4th IFAC Symposium on Identification and System Parameter Estimation, Tbilisi, URSS, pp. 1119–1167 (1976)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Richalet, J., Rault, A., Testud, J., Papon, J.: Model predictive heuristic control: Applications to industrial processes. Automatica 14, 413–428 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cutler, C., Ramaker, B.: Dynamic matrix control - a computer control algorithm. In: Proceedings of the Joint Automatic Control Conference, vol. 1., p. WP5–B (1980)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Scarf, P.: On the application of mathematical models in maintenance. European Journal of Operational Research 99, 493–506 (1997)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dekker, R.: Applications of maintenance optimization models: A review and analysis. Reliability Engineering & System Safety 51, 229–240 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zafra-Cabeza, A., Ridao, M., Camacho, E.: A mixed integer quadratic programming formulation of risk management for reverse osmosis plants. Desalination 268, 46–54 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zafra-Cabeza, A., Maestre, J., Ridao, M., Camacho, E., Sánchez, L.: A hierarchical distributed model predictive control approach to irrigation canals: A risk mitigation perspective. Journal of Process Control 21, 787–799 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nandola, N., Rivera, D.: An improved formulation of hybrid model predictive control with application to production-inventory systems. IEEE Transactions on Control Systems Technology 21, 121–135 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Parida, A., Stenström, C.: Performance measurement for managing railway infrastructure. International Journal of Railway Technology 2, 1–14 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stenström, C., Parida, A., Galar, D., Kumar, U.: Link and effect model for performance improvement of railway infrastructure. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part F: Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit (2013) (0954409713492956)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Prescott, D., Andrews, J.: Modelling maintenance in railway infrastructure management. In: Proceedings of the 2013 Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium (RAMS), pp. 1–6 (2013)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lam, H., Wong, M., Yang, Y.: A feasibility study on railway ballast damage detection utilizing measured vibration of in situ concrete sleeper. Engineering Structures 45, 284–298 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bemporad, A., Morari, M.: Control of systems integrating logic, dynamics, and constraints. Automatica 35, 407–427 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Williams, H.: Model Building in Mathematical Programming. Wiley (1993)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schrijver, A.: Theory of Linear and Integer Programming. John Wiley & Sons (1993)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fletcher, R., Leyffer, S.: Numerical experience with lower bounds for MIQP branch-and-bound. SIAM Journal on Optimization 8, 604–616 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zhou Su
    • 1
  • Alfredo Núñez
    • 1
  • Ali Jamshidi
    • 1
  • Simone Baldi
    • 1
  • Zili Li
    • 1
  • Rolf Dollevoet
    • 1
  • Bart De Schutter
    • 1
  1. 1.Delft Center for Systems and Control & Section of Railway EngineeringDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations