Rams
Rams
Rams
Ambika Prasad Patra Maintenance Decision Support Models for Railway Infrastructure using RAMS & LCC Analyses
DOCTORAL THESIS
Preface
The research work presented in this thesis has been carried out at Lule Railway Research
Center (Jrnvgstekniskt Centrum, JVTC) and has been sponsored by Swedish National Rail
Administration (Banverket) and ALSTOM Transport, France. I would like to thank Banverket
and ALSTOM Transport for providing the financial support during my research.
First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Professor Uday
Kumar for his invaluable guidance, suggestions, encouragement and support during the tenure
of my research.
I am particularly grateful to Dr. Pierre Dersin (ALSTOM Transport, France) for providing me
guidance, resources and support during my stay in Paris. I would like to thank Dr. Per-Olof
Larsson-Krik (Banverket) for his valuable suggestions and fruitful discussions; Dr. Ulla
Juntti and Mr. Arne Nissen (Banverket) for sharing their knowledge in railway and Dr. Peter
Sderholm (Banverket) for his contribution in my research work. I would also like to thank
Professor Per Anders Akersten for his valuable comments and discussion.
I am also grateful to all my colleagues at the Division of Operation and Maintenance
Engineering for their continuous help during the research. Special thanks are acknowledged to
Prof. Jan Lundberg, Dr. Aditya Parida, Dr. Rupesh Kumar, Mr. Rajiv Dandotiya and Mr.
Yuan Fuqing for their discussions.
My special thanks to all the Indian friends and families for their help throughout my stay in
Lule.
Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to my parents for their support and belief in me.
iii
Abstract
Todays railway sector is imposing high demands for service quality on railway infrastructure
managers. Since railway infrastructure has a long asset life, it requires efficient maintenance
planning to perform effectively throughout its life cycle to meet these high demands. Traditionally
maintenance decisions for the railway infrastructure have been based on past experience and
expert estimations. The application of RAMS (Reliability, Availability, Maintainability and
Safety) analysis for railway infrastructure is limited. The focus of this thesis is to demonstrate the
applicability of RAMS analysis in effective maintenance planning. Within the scope of this
research, various case studies associated with Banverket (the Swedish National Rail
Administration and ALSTOM Transport have been carried out. The research presents approaches
and models for estimating RAMS targets based on the service quality requirements of the railway
infrastructure. The availability target of the infrastructure has been estimated by considering the
capacity and punctuality requirements of the infrastructure, whereas the safety goal of the track
has been estimated by calculating the probability of derailment by means of undetected rail breaks
and poor track quality. Effective estimation of the RAMS targets will help infrastructure managers
to predict the maintenance investment in the railway infrastructure needed over a period of time in
order to achieve the targets. Nevertheless, the availability target of the infrastructure can lead to
train delay. A model has been developed to achieve the availability target in both the scheduled
and the condition based maintenance regimes by choosing an effective maintenance interval and
detection probability respectively. This has been illustrated by a case study on track circuits.
Different maintenance strategies can help in achieving the RAMS targets. In order to determine
the cost-effective solution, LCC (life cycle cost) should be used. The maintenance strategy with
lowest LCC will be the cost effective maintenance strategy. This has been demonstrated by a case
study on a signalling system. Sensitivity analyses have been performed to calculate the maximum
cost effectiveness of the system for different maintenance parameters. LCC estimation for a
maintenance strategy should always consider the risks associated with the strategy. A fair degree
of uncertainty is also associated with LCC estimation due to the statistical characteristics of
RAMS parameters. An approach has been developed in this thesis to calculate the uncertainties
associated with LCC estimation. Petri-Net analyses, Monte Carlo simulations, Design of
Experiment have been used to develop models to achieve the objectives of this thesis. This thesis
discusses the applicability of RAMS and LCC analyses for railway infrastructure and
demonstrates models for effective infrastructure maintenance planning.
Keywords: Railway infrastructure,
Maintainability, Safety, Life cycle cost
Maintenance
planning,
Reliability,
Availability,
Paper II:
Paper III: Patra. A. P. and Kumar, U. (2009). Availability analysis of railway track
circuit. Accepted for publication in Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical
Engineers, Part F: Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit.
Paper IV:
Paper V:
vii
Contents
Preface.......................................................................................................................................iii
Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... v
List of Appended Papers .......................................................................................................... vii
Contents..................................................................................................................................... ix
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Research Problem............................................................................................................. 3
1.2 Research Objectives ......................................................................................................... 4
1.3 Research Questions .......................................................................................................... 4
1.4 Scope and Delimitations of the Study .............................................................................. 5
2 Basic Concepts and Definitions .............................................................................................. 7
2.1 Reliability, Availability, Maintainability & Safety (RAMS)........................................... 8
2.1.1 RAMS Parameters..................................................................................................... 8
2.1.2 Factors Affecting RAMS .......................................................................................... 9
2.2 Infrastructure Maintenance Planning ............................................................................. 13
2.2.1 RAMS Analysis for Maintenance ........................................................................... 16
2.2.2 RAMS in the Operation and Maintenance Phase.................................................... 18
2.3 Maintenance Optimisation ............................................................................................. 21
2.3.1 Life Cycle Cost Analysis......................................................................................... 22
2.3.2 Maintenance Management ...................................................................................... 26
3 Research Methodology.......................................................................................................... 31
3.1 Research Approach ........................................................................................................ 32
3.2 Reliability and Validity .................................................................................................. 33
4 Data Collection and Analysis................................................................................................ 35
4.1 Data Collection............................................................................................................... 35
4.2 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................. 37
5 Summary of the Appended Papers ........................................................................................ 41
6 Discussion and Conclusions.................................................................................................. 43
6.1 Research Contributions .................................................................................................. 47
6.2 Scope of the Future Research......................................................................................... 48
References ................................................................................................................................ 49
ix
1 Introduction
The railway transportation system is one of the most commonly used modes of transport and
its importance and utility are very substantial for the society. With the advancement of
technology, the changing environment and increasing customer demands, railways are having
to upgrade their various operational activities constantly. A safe and reliable network with
sufficient capacity and availability is a prime requirement. Railway infrastructure plays its
part in achieving this requirement in its system life cycle. To fulfil this requirement in an
effective manner, one needs to examine the various phases of the life cycle, such as inception,
design, manufacturing, installation, operation and maintenance, and disposal. Once the
infrastructure is installed, it is very difficult to modify the initial design. Therefore, the
performance of the infrastructure depends largely on the maintenance and renewal decisions
taken during its life cycle. The design phase of the track needs to consider not only the cost,
but also aspects like Reliability, Availability, Maintainability, and Safety (RAMS) and Life
Cycle Cost (LCC), with respect to technological advancements and changes. After the
installation, during the operation and maintenance phase, LCC and RAMS are considered
when making effective maintenance decisions.
Each of the infrastructure components, with its varying life and degrading conditions, will
influence the quality and operability of the infrastructure. In order to maintain the quality of
the infrastructure at an accepted level, two aspects of the infrastructure quality need to be
considered, i.e. measurement of the infrastructure quality on a continuous basis and means to
achieve the required infrastructure quality when the quality falls below the accepted level.
The infrastructure quality is measured using various parameters, e.g. the service reliability,
the track utilisation and accessibility, the infrastructure safety and the infrastructure system
and cost effectiveness. High operation and maintenance costs act as a barrier to achieving a
favourable financial performance of railway operations. The infrastructure quality is
vulnerable to infrastructure system failures. With an increase in infrastructure requirements in
terms of axle load, gross tonnage, speed, etc., the infrastructure experiences more failures,
which require more maintenance. At the same time, the availability of the infrastructure to
perform the necessary maintenance decreases, due to the increased traffic. This requires more
budgetary and other resources. To optimise the maintenance activities in terms of costeffectiveness and RAMS, a systematic analysis approach is required.
Maintenance Decision Support Models for Railway Infrastructure using RAMS & LCC Analyses
In order to minimise failures for the railway systems, the effects of decisions should be
systematically evaluated. The infrastructure manager, which is responsible for the design,
construction, maintenance, renewal and upgrading of the infrastructure, has a clearly defined
role and is confronted with the increasing performance of its collaborative partners. Due to
increases in operation and maintenance costs, infrastructure managers are compelled to
optimise their budget, while reliability and availability have to be increased without
endangering the traffic safety. A systematic approach is needed for communication with the
infrastructure manager in order to guarantee the defined levels of performance. Since, in the
current scenario, most of the maintenance and renewal decisions are based on past experience
and expert estimations, a need for a systematic LCC approach arises. A life cycle costing
approach in combination with RAMS analysis will provide a way to optimise the maintenance
strategy, considering the short term budget requirements as well as the long term costs of
ownership. Cost-effective decision making based on LCC usually does not consider the risk
aspects. Therefore, when performing cost effective decision making based on LCC for the
track system, one needs to consider the uncertainties associated with LCC. The associated
uncertainties are the risk factors related to costs of the traffic disruptions/derailment and the
variable costs due to RAMS parameters. Although some studies have been undertaken in the
areas of RAMS and LCC separately (see e.g. Vatn, 2002; Swier, 2004; Zoeteman, 2006),
there is a need for an integrated study of RAMS and LCC for the railway sector for enhancing
the cost effectiveness of the railway system. When taking effective maintenance decisions
based on LCC analysis, it is important to identify the uncertainties associated with LCC in
order to support the decision taking process. The uncertainties associated with LCC can
broadly be attributed to uncertainties in estimating RAMS parameters and uncertainties
concerning the economic conditions of cost parameters over a long time horizon. In the
railway sector, most of the efforts to implement RAMS and LCC approaches have been stand
alone projects, and have not been integrated with the decision making process.
Under the increasing pressures to improve performance quickly, infrastructure managers are
being forced to focus on supplying short-term cost and/or performance improvements only.
Despite a substantial amount of research in recent years, many rail deterioration processes are
not well enough understood for infrastructure managers to be able to translate them into
unambiguous quantitative relationships between investment and maintenance decisions and
long term quality effects (Ferreira, 1997; Veit, 2003); and uncertainty in these relationships
might result in these effects not being sufficiently appreciated. Governments and shareholders
have a preference for short payback periods for investments and quick performance
improvements, which can seriously conflict with the nature of railways and optimal spending
patterns. The long life spans of components and their high installation costs mean that
decisions have a high degree of irreversibility. In addition, the consequences of low initial
quality and insufficient preventive maintenance, i.e. high cost levels and low system
reliability, often only come to light several years later. After reaching certain degradation
levels, backlogs in maintenance lead to progressive degradation and, hence, capital
destruction. Although the infrastructure manager should be the party capable of incorporating
such effects into the decision making, either implicitly or explicitly, there are many impeding
Introduction
factors. The long term view of designing and maintaining usually conflicts with
organisational and institutional boundaries, such as allocated budgets, standard operating
procedures, established relations with other actors, and external regulations. Most of these
boundaries have a long history, and decision makers usually consider only incremental
changes. The present research focuses on the application of RAMS and LCC methodologies
to develop a decision support system for a cost effective maintenance policy.
Maintenance Decision Support Models for Railway Infrastructure using RAMS & LCC Analyses
To develop cost effective maintenance models using RAMS and LCC and to discuss
the variation in cost.
Introduction
Maintenance Decision Support Models for Railway Infrastructure using RAMS & LCC Analyses
However, these publications do not discuss the issues of LCC reduction and the integration of
LCC concepts with RAMS. The application of RAMS has not yet been explored fully from
the railway infrastructure perspective. In this chapter the basic concepts of RAMS and LCC
are described and the application of RAMS and LCC concepts to railway infrastructure
maintenance planning is addressed.
2.1 Reliability,
Safety (RAMS)
Availability,
Maintainability
&
Reliability: the probability that an item can perform a required function under given
conditions for a given time interval.
Availability: the ability of a product to be in a state to perform a required function
under given conditions at a given instant of time or over a given time interval,
assuming that the required external resources are provided.
Maintainability: the probability that a given active maintenance action, for an item
under given conditions of use, can be carried out within a stated time interval when the
maintenance is performed under stated conditions and using stated procedures and
resources.
Safety: the state of technical system freedom from unacceptable risk of harm.
systems, namely the track system, the signalling and communication system, and the power
system. These systems have a combined effect on the degradation of the infrastructure. Each
system is subjected to degradation due to various internal and external factors. All these
aspects need to be considered to estimate the RAMS of the infrastructure, which makes the
calculation more complex. The following sections present some of these factors affecting
RAMS. To estimate the RAMS figures at the infrastructure level, one must evaluate the
RAMS characteristics at the sub-system and component level. In general, the reliability and
maintainability parameters are estimated both on the component level and on the system level,
whereas the availability and safety parameters are estimated only on the system level. In order
to achieve the required performance of the infrastructure, the failure modes should be
identified and classified into the failure categories illustrated in the Table 2.1. A higher
RAMS target is set for significant failure, whereas a not-so-high target is set for the minor
failure category. Thus, the infrastructure managers should know which failure modes of the
track should be given more attention in order to achieve reliability at the system level and
incur less cost due to failure.
Table 2.1: RAM failure categories (EN 50126, 1999)
Failure Category
Definition
Significant
(immobilizing failure)
A failure that
- prevents train movement or causes a delay to service
greater than specified time and/or generates a cost greater
than a specified level
A failure that
- must be rectified for the system to achieve its specified
performance and
- does not cause a delay or cost greater than the minimum
threshold specified for a significant failure
Minor
A failure that
- does not prevent a system achieving its specified
performance and
- does not meet criteria for significant or major failures
System conditions: the sources of failures are introduced internally within the system
at any phase of the railway system life cycle. These failures are incurred by the design
and manufacturing of the components or the system.
Operating conditions: the sources of failures result from the operating system
methodology. These failures are also incurred by environmental conditions.
Maintenance Decision Support Models for Railway Infrastructure using RAMS & LCC Analyses
These sources of failure can interact with each other and the relationship is shown in Fig. 2.1.
In the figure, it can be seen that reliability is not explicitly shown, but is given through the
group of internal and external failures in the system. The factors that influence RAMS, as
shown in the figure, are generic and can be applied across all industrial applications with
some applications, in transport systems. In order to achieve a dependable track system, the
factors specifically affecting the track RAMS need to be identified. Table 2.2 identifies the
specific factors that affect the track RAMS.
The factors mentioned above affect the characteristics of RAMS. Similarly, the quality of
RAMS data affects the correctness of the RAMS estimation. Many types of data are relevant
to the estimation and prediction of reliability, availability, and maintainability. Not all are
collected in many instances, and the lack of information is sometimes a serious problem in
RAMS analysis (Blischke and Murthy, 2003). Markeset and Kumar (2003) described some of
the factors influencing the management of RAMS data. These factors concerned user skills
and capabilities, and locations, etc., apart from the data type, data format and detail level. The
different physical parameters that affect the track RAMS are listed in Table 2.2. In order to
assess the effect of these parameters on the track RAMS, it is important to know the technical
characteristics of these parameters.
Technical parameters
Quasi-static stress
Quasi-static stress
Yield strength (Young's modulus)
Stiffness, Damping
Stiffness, Damping, Bending stress
Damping
Stiffness, Damping
Operating conditions
Physical parameters
Track curvature (transient curve in, transient curve out,
radius)
Track gradients (start, end, value)
Rail (rail type, jointed or welded)
Ballast (ballast type, ballast size)
Sleeper (sleeper type, sleeper spacing)
Fastener (fastener type)
Subgrade (geological condition)
Track operating conditions:
Maintenance conditions
System conditions
Grinding
Wear rate
Tamping
Lubrication
Interval of renewal
Environment (temperature)
Thermal stress
Dynamic stress
10
- Errors in requirements
- Design inadequacies
- Manufacturing
deficiencies
- Inherent weakness
- Software errors
- Operating instruction
deficiencies
- Instruction inadequacies
- Human errors
Systematic
Failure
External
disturbances
Environmental
conditions
Human
errors
Human
factors
Human corr.
actions
Procedure
Logistics
- Manual
- Automatic
Diagnostics
Reconfiguration
modes
Change in
misson profile
Mission
profile
Operating Conditions
Availability
11
Preventive
maintenance
- Internal
- External
Diagnostics
Conditional
maintenance
Corrective
maintenance
Maintenance
procedures
Maintenance Conditions
Human
factors
Scheduled
maintenance
- Operating modes
- Environment
- Stress degradation
- Wear out
- Over stress
Random Failure
Technical
characteristic
Internal
disturbances
Maintainability
System Conditions
Safety
Railway RAMS
Maintenance Decision Support Models for Railway Infrastructure using RAMS & LCC Analyses
For example, in order to estimate the effect of the trainload on the RAMS characteristics of
the track, one must know the bending stress, the shear stress and the contact stress imparted
by the track load on the track. Similarly, the sleeper types and spacing determine the bending
stress, stiffness and damping of the track. We can state that the technical parameters are the
causes of the physical parameters which directly affect the track RAMS. The system
conditions are mostly related to the design and manufacturing of the track components,
whereas the operating conditions are connected to the rolling stock operations. In most of the
cases it is difficult to change the system conditions and operating conditions of the track
system in the operation and maintenance phase of the track, although sometimes the operating
conditions (e.g. changes in the axle load) can change because of changes in railway
regulations.
In order to identify relevant maintenance actions for the track, it is crucial to have a good
understanding of the failure modes and their causes on the track. Failure Mode, Effects and
Criticality Analysis (FMECA) acts as a tool to reveal these failure mechanisms. To support
this task, four failure progressions are defined, namely (Jovanovic, 2006):
1. The component is subjected to gradual degradation which may be observed by suitable
equipment.
2. The component is subjected to gradual degradation which cannot be observed.
3. The component is subjected to a sudden degradation which can be observed by
suitable equipment.
4. The component is subjected to shock degradation, immediately leading to failure.
This classification is particularly useful when reliability parameters are being assessed, as
these parameters have different interpretations for the four categories of failure progressions.
The track failure modes and their corresponding limits can be categorised as stated below
(Esveld, 2001). The limits can be set per unit length of the track.
x
x
x
x
x
x
12
inspection car measures the relative rail position (the lateral and vertical position), the rail
profile and the rail gauge. The Q-value is a weighted index of the standard deviation of two
inspection car measures calculated the deviation from the geometric comfort limits set for the
specific track class. The Q-value is calculated per kilometre of track as:
V
V
Q 150 100 H 2. S / 3
V S lim
V H lim
2.1
where H and S are the average standard deviation of the height and interaction on the
section measured. The standard deviation for the interaction is calculated as a combined effect
of the cant and the side position of the rail. Hlim and Slim are the comfort limits for a given
track class. Track class classifications are based on the speed of the train
The K-value is calculated for a longer section of the track and is expressed as:
l .100%
2.2
where l is the sum of the track length where all the values are below the comfort limits for
a given track class and L is the total length of the track considered. The K-value is not
suitable for shorter track sections.
The failure modes mentioned above must be categorised as per the failure categories given in
Table 2.1 so as to proceed with RAMS analysis and define the RAMS targets for different
failure categories. The goal of the railway system is to achieve a defined level of rail traffic in
a given time, and safely. RAMS has a clear influence on the quality with which the service is
delivered to the customer. Moreover, in-service safety and availability can only be achieved
by meeting all the reliability and maintainability requirements and controlling the ongoing
and long-term maintenance and operational activities and the system environment.
13
Maintenance Decision Support Models for Railway Infrastructure using RAMS & LCC Analyses
effective maintenance procedure to optimise the track possession period and the train speed
restriction regime and ultimately increase the track availability.
The different components of the railway asset are structurally and economically
interdependent. Scale effects are involved in their maintenance and renewal, while their
degradation is often structurally related. As operations have to be continued on the rail
network and budgets are often restricted, all kinds of constraints have to be considered in the
planning of infrastructure maintenance. The concepts of the maintenance planning process are
developed in the following steps (Zoeteman, 2006):
x
x
x
The initial analytical work for track maintenance was carried out in the early 1980s. Fazio and
Prybella (1980) pointed out a number of prerequisites for planning track maintenance. Track
quality measures and track deterioration models are highlighted as key areas for a structured
planning process to be established. Zarembski (1998) described three tools which railway
organisations could use to improve the efficiency of maintenance operations (see Fig. 2.2)
automated inspection systems, databases and maintenance planning systems. The lack of
integration between these tools has prevented railway organisations from taking full
advantage of their potential.
Automated
Inspection System
Visual Inspection
Track Geometry
Track Structure
Track Deterioration
Modelling
Database
Traffic
Tr
Maintenance Plan
Budget
14
These different data sources need to be linked in a general database for planning purposes. By
adding models for track deterioration relationships, the state of the infrastructure can be
assessed over time. The planning of specific maintenance activities will be affected by the
conditions of the track. This requires a detailed knowledge of each component of the track
and its relationship with other components of the track, as well as the degradation pattern of
each component.
Therefore, the objectives of infrastructure maintenance planning can be described as finding
answers to the following questions:
x
x
x
What are the current conditions of the infrastructure? (Track quality indices)
What will be needed in the short term as well as the long term as far as maintenance is
concerned? (Forecasting of maintenance actions)
What should be done first? (Prioritization of maintenance activities)
Table 2.3 illustrates the effect of the grinding strategy of the Canadian Pacific Railway on the
reliability of the rail. It can be seen in the table that, as the grinding strategy moves from
corrective to preventive grinding, the rail life increases considerably. Corrective grinding
requires deep and infrequent cuts, whereas preventive grinding requires thin but more
frequent cuts (Kalousek et al., 1989). Generally for heavy haul railways, the minimum
interval for rail grinding is in the range of 10-15 million gross tonnes (Canon et al., 2003).
The wear rate in grinding is the parameter that controls the rail life, because as the wear
reaches the maintenance/safety limit of the rail, the rail needs replacement. No grinding is a
scenario where the life of the rail is determined mostly by RCF. Table 2.3 also gives a
comparison of the fatigue lives in three grinding scenarios. The fatigue life of the rail is
reached when the number of RCF defects in a specific track section reaches its limit.
Table 2.3: Grinding strategy vs. rail life for Canadian Pacific Railway (Magel and Sroba,
2007)
Wear Criteria
No
grinding
Corrective
grinding
Preventive
grinding
0.04
0.06
0.03
469
367
844
331
496
1322
The difference between the rail wear life and the rail fatigue life is illustrated in Fig. 2.3. As
the material removal rate of wear and grinding increases, the rail wear life decreases as the
wear approaches the maintenance/ safety limit of the rail. However, an increase in the
15
Maintenance Decision Support Models for Railway Infrastructure using RAMS & LCC Analyses
material removal rate of wear and grinding increases the rail RCF life, because grinding and
wear take away the RCF generated cracks before they become critical to the rail. Therefore,
the grinding strategy (the wear rate) is seen to be an important parameter that affects the
reliability of the rail. The figure also illustrates the magic wear rate phenomenon. The
magic wear rate is the wear rate that the preventive grinding strategy should attain in order to
achieve the highest reliability for the rail. As shown in the figure, when the wear rate is below
the magic wear rate, the rail life is determined by the rails RCF life, whereas, when the wear
rate is higher than the magic wear rate, the rail life is determined by the rail wear life.
Life line
due to wear
Life line
due to RCF
Rail life
Magic wear
rate
Rail life
Figure 2.3: RCF, wear and rail life relationship (Magel and Sroba, 2007)
In order to assess the effects of the maintenance conditions on the reliability of the track
system, it is necessary to consider their combined effect on the system. As described above,
grinding affects the reliability of the rail. However, to perform an effective reliability analysis
of the rail, the combined effects of other maintenance conditions, e.g. lubrication, rail
replacements, etc., should be taken into account. For example, lubrication reduces the rail
wear, especially in the track curves (Diamond and Wolf, 2002), and thereby increases the
reliability of the rail. However, at the same time, lubrication is a factor for RCF defects,
which are removed by grinding (Rinsberg, 2001). In order to fulfil the above mentioned
objectives, RAMS analysis will play a major role in maintenance planning. The details are
presented in the following sections of the chapter.
RAMS database
Failure modes
16
The utilisation of failure and maintenance data is an important factor in RAMS analysis and
the management of the system. There are several dimensions with respect to the collection of
RAMS data. One should ascertain that the data being collected support all the types of RAMS
analysis required for the system. Another important aspect is that the data should support the
life cycle perspective of the system and, more importantly, the maintenance phase in this case.
Fig. 2.4 illustrates the use of a RAMS database as a feedback to the RAMS analysis, as well
as to the operation and maintenance phase of the system life cycle.
RAMS
analysis
Maintenance
planning &
implementation
Knowledge
transfer
Means/
modifications
RAMS data
Figure 2.4: A process loop showing the use of a RAMS database in RAMS analysis
(Prom@in, 2003)
For an effective analysis of RAMS, the traffic and track geometry databases should be
considered along with the failure and maintenance databases as mentioned above. Therefore,
the track must be divided into homogenous analysis segments with respect to the track
curvature, grade, super elevation, traffic density, etc. The following data are also a part of the
RAMS database, along with the failure data (Esveld, 2001).
I) Layout and operating data
x Curves (start and end km, transition curves, radius, etc.)
x Loads (annual load (MGT), maximum axle load (tonnes), date from which the data are
valid, etc.)
x Speeds (speed of freight and passenger trains, date from which the speed is valid, etc.)
x Gradients (start, end, and value)
II) Infrastructure
x Subgrade (geological conditions, various monitored parameters, etc.)
x Ballast (ballast type, date of installation, ballast thickness, etc.)
x Sleepers (sleeper type, sleeper spacing, new/old sleepers when laid, type of fastenings,
and date of installation)
x Rails (rail type, joined or welded track, weld type, date of installation, new/old rails
when laid, date of installation, and cumulative tonnage on rails when installed)
17
Maintenance Decision Support Models for Railway Infrastructure using RAMS & LCC Analyses
18
Review RAMS
implications
Concept
Establish
RAMS plan
System definition
and application
conditions
Perform safety
assessment
Define RAMS
acceptance criteria
Risk analysis
System
requirements
Apportionment of
system
requirements
Analyse RAMS
statistics and optimise
System
acceptance
Operation
and
maintenance
System
validation
Design and
implementation
Perform RAMS
improvement testing
Assess RAMS
demonstration
Installation
Decommissioning
and disposal
Perform RAMS
demonstration
Prepare RAMS
support documentation
Manufacture
Figure 2.5: The V representation of the RAMS life cycle (IEC 62278, 2002)
The figure also describes the various RAMS activities being carried out at each phase of the
system life cycle (IEC 62278 2002). To achieve the overall RAMS objectives of the system, it
is important to follow systematic RAMS actions throughout the life cycle of the system. As
far as RAMS activities are concerned, one of the important phases of the system life cycle is
the operation and maintenance phase, where RAMS is optimised by the analysis of real life
failure data.
The objective of this phase is to operate, maintain and support the total combination of
components and subsystems in such a way that compliance with the system RAMS
requirements is maintained. Fig. 2.6 illustrates the RAMS process for the railway
infrastructure in the operation and maintenance phase of the system life cycle. It is a
continuous improvement process throughout the operation and maintenance phase. The
sources of failures are due to the system itself, train operation or maintenance activities
carried out on the track. The failure data are collected by FRACAS (Failure Reporting And
Corrective Action System). FRACAS is a closed-loop reporting system for identifying failure
modes and their root causes and subsequently determining effective corrective actions for
eliminating their re-occurrence.
19
Maintenance Decision Support Models for Railway Infrastructure using RAMS & LCC Analyses
Develop procedures
for RAMS analysis
Develop maintenance
plan
Develop structure for
collection of RAMS
data
Change in
maintenance plan
Feedback on
RAMS procedures
Feedback on
data requirement
Develop RAMS
predictions
Predictions
less than the
targets
Compare
predictions with
targets
Predictions
meet or exceed
the targets
20
The corrective maintenance on the track must be reduced. As failures on the track can
occur at random, the lower the number of failures are, the better is the demand
availability.
All the preventive maintenance and renewal actions on the track must be carried out in
the train free periods. The maintenance plans for the track need to utilise the train free
periods to a maximum for all the maintenance actions.
In order to calculate the demand availability of a track section over a period of time, the
reliability and maintainability of the track, along with the train timetable need to be
considered.
21
Maintenance Decision Support Models for Railway Infrastructure using RAMS & LCC Analyses
Business/ technical
requirements of railway
infrastructure
RAM
RAMS
targets
Maintenance Strategy
MS 1
MS 2
MS 3
LCC 1
LCC 2
LCC 3
RAM
RAMS
analysis
RAM
RAMS
parameters
22
Investment
Capacity
(Number of slots)
al
ew
n
Re
Ma
in
Substance
(Average age of
infrastructure)
ten
anc
e
Quality
(Quality of geometric
parameters)
23
Maintenance Decision Support Models for Railway Infrastructure using RAMS & LCC Analyses
the duration of train free periods). The infrastructure manager can control some of these
factors directly (e.g. the maintenance strategy) or with the cooperation of the transport
operators (e.g. the quality of the rolling stock) and the government (e.g. negotiated grants)
(Zoeteman, 2001). The performance of the railway infrastructure is influenced by factors such
as the level of safety, riding comfort, noise, vibrations, reliability, availability, and the costs of
ownership (see Fig. 2.9). Safety and noise standards indirectly influence the life cycle costs,
since they determine the tolerances and thresholds for the design and maintenance parameters.
The physical design influences the asset degradation, together with other conditions, such as
the traffic intensities and axle loads, the quality of the substructure and the effectiveness of
the performed maintenance. The quality of the geometric structure determines the required
volume of maintenance and renewal (M&R). The chosen maintenance strategy also influences
the amount of M&R. The realised M&R volume causes expenditures and planned
possessions. The maintenance strategy also has a direct impact on the life cycle cost. The
incident management organisation, the realised M&R volume and the transport concept
determine the train delay minutes caused by the infrastructure and these train delay minutes
can be converted into penalties for the infrastructure managers. The cost models used in the
decision support systems or maintenance management systems should be able to provide
means to evaluate and compare the costs and benefits of different maintenance strategies and
options. In order to carry out an economic analysis, it is necessary to make adjustments to
costs to ensure that they are all measured in the same units and represent real costs of
resources (Larsson, 2002). According to Zoeteman (2001), the life cycle cost can be presented
in three different ways, i) the total present value (TPV), ii) the internal rate of return (IRR),
and iii) the annual equivalent or annuity (ANN).
Transport concept
External variables
Physical environment
Design and
maintenance
specification
Maintenance
conditions
Building conditions
Building conditions
Financial conditions
Transport concept
Financial conditions
Financial conditions
Noise,
vibrations,
safety & riding
comfort
Quality of geometry
and structure
Design
Cost of
ownership of
rail network
Amount of
construction work
Failure performance &
expenditure on infra
Maintenance
strategy
Steering variables
Planned volume
maintenance/ renewal
Realised volume
Infra reliability
Planned
availability
Figure 2.9: Factors influencing the performance of track infrastructure (Zoeteman, 2001)
24
Sensitivity analysis: The disadvantage of sensitivity analysis is that only one variable
is tested at a time. Hence, possible interactions between factors are not revealed.
Uncertainty analysis: In this approach the input parameters of the LCC model are
considered to be random variables from which samples are drawn. Simulation
techniques are used to determine the interaction of the input parameters with the
outcomes.
The life cycle cost of the track infrastructure depends mainly on two aspects of the
infrastructure, i.e. the network configuration and complexity and the network utilisation.
Complexity is a predominant parameter for investment and the cost of maintenance. Some
major indicators are (LICB, 2007):
x
x
x
x
Density of switches
Length of lines on bridges and tunnels
Lengths of double track lines
Degree of electrification
In addition configuration parameters like curvature, axle loads and speed level have their
impact on the life cycle expenditure.
The utilisation of networks has a strong impact on the cost of maintenance and on the
components technical life until replacement. Some major indicators are:
x
x
It is difficult to generalise the LCC per kilometre of track because of the tracks variability in
terms of complexity and utilisation. A harmonisation model is used to compare the cost data
of different track configurations and utilities in the best possible way (Stalder, 2001). Various
aspects of the harmonisation model are given by:
x
Single vs. multiple track: The maintenance and renewal of single-track lines require
more work per kilometre than that of double or multiple track lines (e.g. for work site
logistics and preparatory work). Based on a detailed analysis of data from the French
National Railway Company (SNCF) and surveys of other railways, it is concluded that
the cost of maintenance per track kilometre on single track is typically 40% higher
than that on double track. Therefore, this aspect should be taken into account when
estimating the LCC per track kilometre.
25
Maintenance Decision Support Models for Railway Infrastructure using RAMS & LCC Analyses
Switch densities: The switches on the main track have a major share in the cost of the
track maintenance (with a high impact on the signalling and the power supply). With
the switch densities varying between the main tracks, the need for harmonisation is
evident.
Track utilisation: The maintenance and renewal as well as the lifetimes of track
elements depend heavily on the utilisation of networks. Data analysis has proven that
maintenance expenditures can best be harmonised according to train frequencies, in
particular because of the strong correlation between the track access times and the
maintenance cost. Renewal expenditures are harmonised according to the gross
tonnage, which has a great impact on the wear and tear of the track.
Measurements
Planning
Infrastructure
Inspections
Work carried out
Costs
26
management, and too little according to the operating and maintenance staff. Consequently,
the selection of the optimal maintenance strategy can be challenging. A systematic approach
for the determination of the deterioration of track components is necessary to gauge fully the
status of the track system and components. This will require proper track condition
assessments, the establishment of a standard condition rating system, and the development
and regular updating of prediction models for various track components.
Esveld (2001) discussed the idea of rational rail management for infrastructure. Rational rail
management aims at the objective evaluation of the qualitative and quantitative assessment of
the rail infrastructure, after which, based on the system objectives, and on rules and standards,
decisions may be taken regarding the maintenance and renewal of rail infrastructure. Rational
rail management is summarised in the following objectives:
x
x
x
27
Maintenance Decision Support Models for Railway Infrastructure using RAMS & LCC Analyses
Cost-effectiveness analysis yields quantitative results to aid the decision maker with risk
analysis and provides a useful decision tool.
Table 2.3 shows the calculation of cost-effectiveness from the LCC values of different
alternatives. When taking a decision on maintenance alternatives it is necessary to calculate
the cost-effectiveness of different maintenance alternatives. The higher the cost-effectiveness
is, the better is the maintenance alternative.
Table 2.3: Cost-effectiveness of maintenance alternatives
Maintenance
alternatives
System
effectiveness
Cost-effectiveness
(SE/LCC)
M1
LCC1
SE1
SE1/LCC1
M2
LCC2
SE2
SE2/LCC2
M3
LCC3
SE3
SE3/LCC3
RAMS management
LCC management
New
Infrastructure
Renewal
Cost
Effectiveness
Maintenance
management
System
Effectiveness
Asset management
Asset per
performance
Fig. 2.10 illustrates the relationship between maintenance management, asset performance
and asset maintenance. The asset management of the track concerns two important aspects of
the asset, i.e. the asset performance and the asset maintenance. System-effectiveness and costeffectiveness act as indicators for asset performance. Asset maintenance concerns activities
ranging from small scale maintenance actions to the building of new infrastructure.
Asset maintenance
Figure 2.10: Factors influencing maintenance management (Adapted from Swier and Luiten,
2003)
28
As described in the previous sections, RAMS and LCC analyses act as tools for estimating the
system and cost-effectiveness of the asset, as well as for taking effective decisions on the
maintenance of the asset. There is a close relation between asset maintenance and asset
performance, as effective asset maintenance increases the asset performance, while asset
performance acts as a decision tool for asset maintenance.
29
3 Research Methodology
Research can be defined in many ways. Most generally defined, research is a process through
which questions are asked and answered systematically. As a form of criticism, research can
include the question of whether or not we are asking the right questions (Dane, 1990). In other
words, research is a systematic examination of observed information, performed to find
answers to problems. Research methodology is the link between thinking and evidence
(Sumser, 2000). To conduct research, it is essential to choose a clear methodology. This
provides a framework for integration of the different technical, commercial, and managerial
aspects of study. The study of research methodologies provides the researcher with the
knowledge and skills that are needed to solve the problems and meet the challenges of a fastpaced decision making environment (Cooper and Schindler, 2006).
There are many ways to carry out research, but the purpose of research can be classified into
three main categories i.e. the exploratory purpose (to explore a new topic), the descriptive
purpose (to describe a phenomenon) and the explanatory purpose (to explain why something
occurs). The details of these are described in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1: Different kinds of research purposes (Neuman, 2003)
Exploratory
- Become familiar with the
basic facts, setting, and
concerns
- Create a general mental
picture of conditions
- Formulate and focus
questions for future research
- Generate new ideas,
conjectures, or hypotheses
- Determine the feasibility of
conducting research
- Develop techniques for
measuring and locating
failure data
Descriptive
- Provide a detailed,
highly accurate picture
- Locate new data that
contradict past data
- Create a set of
categories or classify
types
- Clarify a sequence of
steps or stages
- Document a casual
process of mechanism
- Report on the
background or context
of a situation
31
Explanatory
- Test a theorys
predictions or principle
- Elaborate and enrich
a theorys explanation
- Extend a theory to
new issues or topics
- Support or refute an
explanation or
prediction
- Link issues or topics
with a general principle
- Determine which of
several explanations is
best
Maintenance Decision Support Models for Railway Infrastructure using RAMS & LCC Analyses
The methodologies used in the present research are both descriptive and exploratory. The
research purpose of this study is to describe the methodologies of RAMS and LCC analysis
for the railway infrastructure, and to describe the methodologies for utilising both RAMS and
LCC analysis in making track maintenance planning decisions.
The induction approach uses observations, a knowledge base and empirical data to
explain and develop theories. The approach involves inferring something about a
whole group or class of objects from our knowledge of one or a few members of the
group or class.
The deduction approach can be applied to generate hypotheses based on existing
theories, the results of which are derived by logical conclusions.
32
Research Methodology
33
35
Maintenance Decision Support Models for Railway Infrastructure using RAMS & LCC Analyses
BESSY: This is an inspection system in which comments are registered per facility on the
completion of inspection. Data are also registered directly during the course of inspection
with the aid of a palm computer.
0felia: This is a database containing information on all the faults in the infrastructure that
have been registered for a particular railway facility. The faults are sorted on the basis of the
structure used in BIS.
Raw data collected from these databases were treated to extract the information that is used in
the models. Some of the rail break data was collected from Kumar (2008). Information was
also collected through discussions and consultations with experts from Banverket. Failure and
degradation data for the track and the track circuit were collected from these databases. The
data were tested for trend and for dependency characteristics before proceeding with a
specific reliability model. Fig. 4.1 illustrates the steps for failure data analysis before choosing
the best fitting model.
Chronologically
obtained data
Yes
Non-stationary
models (e.g. Power
law process)
Yes
Branching Poisson
process or other
similar models
Trend?
No
Identically
distributed data
Dependency?
No
Renewal process
Constant
Hazard rate
Homogeneous
Poisson process
Not
constant
Distribution free
techniques or other
fitted distribution
Figure 4.1: Possible exploratory steps in field failure data analysis before fitting distribution
models (Asher and Feingold, 1984)
36
Failure, degradation and maintenance data for the signalling systems were collected from the
internal databases of ALSTOM Transport. Details of the databases cannot be described due to
confidentiality issues. The data acquired from the ALSTOM databases were altered before
they were used in the models to keep their confidentiality. Different types of statistical
distributions were examined and their parameters were estimated by using Reliasofts Weibull
++ 6 software (Reliasoft, 2003).
Researchers generate information by analysing data after their collection. Data analysis is one
step, and an important one, in the research process. Data analysis usually involves the
reduction of accumulated data to a manageable size, developing summaries, looking for
patterns, and applying statistical techniques. Further, the researcher must interpret these
findings in the light of the clients research questions or determine if the results are consistent
with the hypotheses and theories (Cooper and Schindler, 2006).
37
Maintenance Decision Support Models for Railway Infrastructure using RAMS & LCC Analyses
operation. Thus, the nth repair can only remove the damage incurred during the time between
the (n-1)th and the nth failures. Model type II assumes that the repairs fix all of the damage
accumulated up to the current time. As a result, the nth repair not only removes the damage
incurred during the time between the (n-1)th and the nth failures, but can also fix the
cumulative damage incurred during the time from the first failure to the (n-1)th failure.
If the times between the failures are denoted by x1, x2, xn, t the virtual age of the
component after the nth repair is given by
Vn = Vn-1 + (maintenance factor * xn) Kijima model type I
Vn = (maintenance factor*Vn-1) + (maintenance factor *xn) Kijima model type II
The maintenance factors have been calculated from the past failure times of the component by
applying the Kijima models discussed above.
In this thesis, various system states (degradation and maintenance) of the system are modelled
by Petri-Nets. Petri-Nets (see Fig. 4.2) are a graphical tool for the formal description of the
flow of activities in complex systems. In comparison with other more popular techniques for
graphical system representation (like block diagrams or logical trees), Petri-Nets are
particularly suited to representing in a natural way logical interactions among parts or
activities in a system. Typical situations that can be modelled by Petri-Nets are
synchronization, sequentiality, concurrency and conflict. The theory of Petri-Nets originated
from the doctoral thesis of C.A. Petri in 1962 (Petri, 1962). Since then, the formal language of
Petri-Nets has been developed and used in many theoretical and applicative areas. Petri-Nets
used for modelling real systems are sometimes referred to as condition/events nets. Places
identify the conditions of the parts of the system (working, degraded, or failed), and
transitions describe the passage from one condition to another (end of a task, failure, or
repair). An event occurs (a transition fires) when all the conditions are satisfied (the input
places are marked) and give concession to the event. The occurrence of the event modifies
wholly or in part the status of the conditions (marking).
Place
Token
Arc
Transition
38
The number of tokens in a place can be used to identify the number of resources which are in
the condition denoted by that place. Petri-Nets have advantages over the Markov model
because of their ability to handle stochastic transition rates. Petri-Net models were
constructed using the software tool GRIF.
The statistical characteristics of R&M parameters contribute to uncertainty in LCC. The
reason for this is that the times and conditions for these types of events are so complex that
they cannot be predicted with a fair degree of accuracy. Therefore, it was decided to explore a
methodology that combines the use of design of experiment (DoE) principles with Monte
Carlo simulation to estimate the uncertainty involved with LCC. DoE was developed in the
twentieth century to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of experimentation. However,
for experiments to be effective and lead to correct conclusions there are a number of
requirements that must be fulfilled (Coleman and Montgomery, 1993). For example, the
response must be measurable and be correlated to the purpose of the experiment.
Furthermore, even though not an absolute necessity, the power of statistical operations will be
greater if the response is continuous and preferably also normally distributed. The responses
of this study are the point estimate for LCC of the track and its related uncertainty, which both
are continuous, but not necessarily normally distributed. The following are valid for the
present study.
1. The factors that are tested in the experiment are R&M-parameters, which all are
continuous and numeric. They are also measurable, controllable, and deemed
important for the selected responses.
2. The factors that are not under investigation can easily be held constant, since the
study is analytical and not empirical. These factors are the cost factors not directly
related to R&M. Hence, no randomization is considered necessary.
Since the study is analytical there are no major economical constraints. Hence, the design is
mostly dependent upon the number of R&M parameters that are to be investigated. In order to
fulfil the purpose of this study, a two-level factorial design is considered valuable. However,
in order to reduce the number of runs, a fractional factorial design is considered sufficient.
The analysis is supported by the software tool STATGRAPHICS, which provides suitable
tables and graphs for presentation.
The probability distribution of LCC can be found by the use of Monte Carlo simulation. A
Monte Carlo simulation is effectively a random number generator that creates values for each
R&M parameter. Values are chosen within specified ranges of each parameter and with a
frequency proportional to the shape of probability distribution associated with each R&M
parameter. The proposed methodology helps in determining the variable costs associated in
LCC estimation.
39
41
Maintenance Decision Support Models for Railway Infrastructure using RAMS & LCC Analyses
The purpose of Paper III is to estimate the availability of the DC track circuit in scheduled
and condition based maintenance regimes. The models developed in the paper can estimate
the optimum inspection interval for the track circuit subjected to a specific availability
requirement. If a system is undergoing a scheduled maintenance regime, the residual life left
in the system after the detection of degradation needs to be calculated if we need to estimate
the point of failure. The paper discusses a framework for treating the degradation data of the
track circuit, based on inspection remarks, to calculate the residual life left in the track circuit.
In the case of the condition based maintenance regime, the paper estimates the probability of
degradation detection of the condition monitoring device to achieve a certain availability
target. The data used in the paper are taken from a specific line section of Banverket.
Paper IV shows that achieving the optimal cost effectiveness is one of the significant ways to
address the efficiency of a system, and involves maximising the availability and minimising
the life cycle cost of the system over the system life cycle. One of the important ways of
maximising the cost effectiveness of the system is to optimise the maintenance policy. This
paper demonstrates the estimation of the cost effectiveness of an ERTMS (European Rail
Traffic Management System). The degradation and repair process of the system is modelled
by Petri-Nets. The model considers systems that experience degradations and are subjected to
imperfect maintenance. The results show the effects of the maintenance factor, detectability,
inspection interval and deferred maintenance time on the cost effectiveness of the system.
Paper V presents a methodology for estimation of the uncertainty linked with LCC, by a
combination of design of experiment (DoE) and Monte Carlo simulation. The proposed
methodology is illustrated by a case study of Banverket. LCC is being used as a tool to help in
making effective maintenance decisions. However, there are various uncertainties associated
with estimation of the LCC. The paper investigates more the uncertainties caused by technical
parameters, i.e. reliability and maintainability parameters. The uncertainty in reliability and
maintainability parameters exist because of their probabilistic nature, which contributes to the
uncertainty in LCC estimation. The simulations are used to make the deterministic LCC
equations probabilistic. DoE is applied to provide guidance as to how the R&M parameters
should be varied in a systematic way. The paper also illustrates cost models for different
maintenance and renewal actions carried out on track.
42
43
Maintenance Decision Support Models for Railway Infrastructure using RAMS & LCC Analyses
The RAMS parameters indicate the business characteristics of the infrastructure at the
infrastructure level, the technical characteristics at the system level (e.g. track system,
signalling system, etc.) and the failure characteristics at the component level (e.g. rail, track
circuit, etc.). Thus, the availability and safety targets are generally estimated at the
infrastructure level, whereas the reliability and maintainability targets are estimated at lower
hierarchy levels.
Infrastructure Level
Train delay
Service reliability
Number of cancellations/speed restrictions/derailments
Mean Time Between Failures
Mean Time To Repair
System availability
Mean Time Between Service Affecting Failures
System Level
Component Level
Failure probabilities based on failure modes
Safety related failure probabilities
44
and ideally at minimum headway. The inherent capacity is based on the infrastructure design.
The achieved capacity is calculated under more realistic assumptions, which are related to the
level of expected punctuality. It is the capacity that can permanently be provided under
normal operating conditions. It is usually around 6075% of the inherent capacity (UIC,
2004). Banverket (Swedish National Rail Administration) (Banverket, 2001) indicates a lack
of capacity when the capacity utilization is above 80%, as higher capacity utilization leads to
more delays of unexpected durations. The achieved capacity is the most significant measure
of the track capacity, since it relates the ability of a specific combination of infrastructure,
traffic, and operations to move the largest volume within an expected service level. The
service level represents the punctuality level for the infrastructure based on a specified time
table. If we change the time table, the achieved capacity also changes. The achieved capacity
can be defined as the maximum capacity for a specified time table with defined operational
headway where as the inherent capacity is the maximum capacity when there is no time table
in place and the trains run at minimum (safety) headway. The operational capacity is less than
the achieved capacity. This is the case if there is a prolonged shortage of facilities, e.g. due to
accidents or weather conditions, but more generally due to failures in the infrastructure which
disrupts the train operations.
The safety of the infrastructure is defined at the infrastructure level. Traditionally the safety
performance of the railway infrastructure is measured as the number of accidents/million train
kilometres or the number of derailments/million kilometres of track. Broadly, performance
indicators are classified as leading or lagging indicators. A leading, lead, or prospective
indicator is a performance driver. The outcome measure itself is simply the lagging, lag, or
retrospective indicator. Leading and lagging indicators can also relate to strategy or goals, and
therefore it is important not to mix means and ends. These safety indicators are lagging
indicators which only represent the current safety level of the track. If the infrastructure
manager wants to improve the safety of the track in the future, it needs to have a lead
indicator, e.g. the probability of derailment. Paper II depicts a model for estimating the
probability of derailment for the railway track. The model primarily calculates the probability
of undetected rail breaks and the probability of the track quality level falling below the
maintenance limit. The estimated probabilities are age-dependant i.e. dependant on the
tonnage that has passed over the track. The model also considers the influence of the
inspection interval on the probabilities. If the infrastructure manager wants to achieve a
certain safety performance or target on the aging track at some point of time, this model can
compute the amount of investment in inspection that the infrastructure manager needs to
make. Paper I and II have answered the first research question.
RAMS analysis can further be applied to the effective maintenance planning of the railway
infrastructure to achieve the safety and availability targets. The effect of the inspection
interval on the safety level of an aging infrastructure is demonstrated in Paper II. Paper III
discusses a model for estimating the availability of the track circuit in two maintenance
regimes, i.e. scheduled maintenance and time based maintenance. The model provides a
comparison of system availability between the two maintenance regimes. A reduction of the
45
Maintenance Decision Support Models for Railway Infrastructure using RAMS & LCC Analyses
46
47
Maintenance Decision Support Models for Railway Infrastructure using RAMS & LCC Analyses
The development of a more robust model for railway infrastructure addressing the
interactive effects of the different sub-systems in the infrastructure. On the
infrastructure level, the availability and safety are dependent upon the availability and
safety of the different sub-systems of the infrastructure. The degradations and
maintenance of one sub-system affect the RAMS characteristics of the other subsystems. In order to achieve the RAMS target at the infrastructure level, it is necessary
to investigate the interactive effects of the different sub-systems.
48
References
Andersson, M. (2002). Strategic Planning of Track Maintenance - State of the Art, Research
Report, Division of Urban Studies, Department of Infrastructure, Royal Institute of
Technology (KTH), ISSN: 1651-0216.
Ascher, H. and Feingold, H. (1984). Repairable system reliability: Modelling, Inference,
Misconceptions and Their Causes, Marcel Dekker Inc., New York, ISBN 0-8247-7276-8.
Asiedu, Y. and Gu, P. (1998). Product life cycle cost analysis: state of the art review,
International Journal of Production Research, 36(4), 883-908.
Blanchard, B.S. and Fabrycky, W.J. (1998). Systems Engineering and Analysis, 3rd ed., Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Blischke, W.R. and Murthy, D.N.P. (2003). Case Studies in Reliability and Maintenance,
John Wiley & Sons, USA.
Burstrm, B., Ericsson, G. and Kjellsson, U. (1994). Verification of Life-Cycle Cost and
reliability for the Swedish high speed train X2000, In Proceedings of Annual Reliability and
Maintainability Symposium(RAMS), Los Angeles, 24-27 January, 166-171
Banverket, (2001). Calculation manual: Aid for cost-benefit analysis in the railway sector,
Handbook BVH 706.00, Banverket, Borlnge, (in Swedish).
Cannon, D.F., Edel, K.O., Grassie, S.L. and Sawley, K. (2003). Rail defects: an overview,
Journal of Fatigue & Fracture of Engineering Materials & Structures, 26, 865-886.
Coleman, D.E. and Montgomery, D.C. (1993). A Systematic Approach to Planning for a
Designed Industrial Experiment, Techometrics, 35(1), 1-27.
Cooper, D.R. and Schindler, P.S. (2006). Business Research Methods, 9th ed., McGraw-Hill
Companies, Inc., Singapore, ISBN 0-07-124430-1.
49
Maintenance Decision Support Models for Railway Infrastructure using RAMS & LCC Analyses
CRMA (1998). Cost, Reliability, Maintenance, and Availability, Final Summary Report
Available Online: http://cordis.europa.eu/transport/src/crmarep.htm#1
Accessed on: 20/10/2007.
Dane, F.C. (1990). Research method, Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, California.
Diamond, S. and Wolf, E. (2002). Transportation for the 21st century, TracGlide Top-of-Rail
Lubrication System, Report from Department of Energy, USA.
EN 50126 (1999) The Specification and Demonstration of Reliability, Availability,
Maintainability and Safety (RAMS) for Railway Applications, European Committee for
Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC), Brussels, Belgium.
Esveld, C. (2001). Modern railway track, 2nd ed., Delft: MRT-Productions, Germany.
Fazio, A.E. and Prybella, R. (1980). Development of an Analytical Approach to Track
Maintenance Planning, Transportation Research Record 744, National Research Council,
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., USA, 46-52.
Ferreira L. (1997). Rail track infrastructure ownership: investment and operational issues,
Transportation, 24(2), 183-200.
IEC 62278 (2002). Railway applications - specification and demonstration of reliability,
availability, maintainability and safety (RAMS), International Electrotechnical Commission,
Geneva.
IEV 191-01-07 (2007). Dependability and Quality of Service/Item Related Performance,
International Electrotechnical Vocabulary, Online Database.
Available online: http://std.iec.ch/iec60050
Accessed on: 25/10/2007.
IMPROVERAIL (2003). Improved Tools for Railway Capacity and Access Management
Available Online: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/rail/research/improverail_en.htm
Accessed on: 20/10/2007.
INNOTRACK (2009). Innovative Track Systems
Available Online: http://www.innotrack.eu/
Accessed on: 16/06/2009.
Jovanovic, S. (2006). Railway Track Quality Assessment and Related Decision Making, In
Proceedings of AREMA annual conferences, Kentucky, 17-20 September.
50
References
Kalousek, J., Sroba, P. and Hegelund, C. (1989). Analysis of rail grinding tests and
implications for corrective and preventative grinding, In Proceedings of the 4th International
Heavy Haul Railway Conference, Brisbane, 11-15 September, 193-204.
Karlsson, V. (2005). An overall view of maintenance, European Railway Review, 11(3), 1117.
Kijima, M. (1989). Some results for repairable systems with general repair, Journal of
Applied Probability, 26, 89-102.
Kumar, S. (2008). A Study of the Rail Degradation Process to Predict Rail Breaks, PhD
Thesis, Lule University of Technology, Lule, Sweden, ISSN: 1402-1544; 2008:15.
Kumar, U. and Akersten, P A. (2008). Availability and maintainability, In Encyclopedia of
Quantitative Risk Analysis and Assessment, ed. / E. Melnik and B. Everitt, Wiley, 77-84.
Kumar, U. (1989). Maintenance Strategy for Mechanized Mining Systems, Licentiate Thesis,
Lule University of Technology, Lule, Sweden, ISSN: 0280-8242; 1989:01L.
Larsson, D. (2002). Verification of the DeCoTrack: a prediction model for degradation cost
of track, Research Report, Lule University of Technology, Lule, Sweden, ISSN: 14021528; 2002:18.
LibeRTiN (2005). Light rail thematic network
Available online: http://www.libertin.info/
Accessed on: 20/10/2007.
LICB (2007). Lasting infrastructure cost benchmarking
Available online: http://www.uic.asso.fr/infra/article.php3?id_article=13
Accessed on: 25/10/2007.
Madu, C.N. (2005). Strategic value of reliability and maintainability management,
International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 22 (3), 317-328.
Magel, E. and Sroba, P. (2007). Workshop on Rail Grinding Practices, International Heavy
Haul Association (IHHA), Kiruna, Sweden, 8-10 June.
Markeset, T. and Kumar, U. (2004). Dimensioning of Product Support: Issues, Challenges,
and Opportunities, In Proceedings of Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium
(RAMS), Los Angeles, 26-29 January, 565- 570
51
Maintenance Decision Support Models for Railway Infrastructure using RAMS & LCC Analyses
Markeset, T. and Kumar, U. (2003). Integration of RAMS and risk analysis in product design
and development work processes: a case study, Journal of Quality in Maintenance
Engineering, 9(4), 393-410.
MODTRAIN (2007). Innovative Modular Vehicle Concepts for an Integrated European
Railway System
Available Online: http://www.modtrain.com/
Accessed on: 25/10/2007.
Neuman, W.L. (2003). Social Research Method, 5th ed., USA.
Nilsson, K. (2006). Alternativa system fr tgstyrning p Malmbanan, Forskningsrapport,
Avdelningen fr industriell logistik, Lule Tekniska Universitet, ISSN:1402-1528; 2006:01,
(In Swedish).
Petri, C. (1962). Kommunikation mit Automaten, PhD thesis, University of Bonn, Germany,
(In German).
ProM@in (2003). Progress in Maintenance and Management of Infrastructure
Available Online: http://www.promain.org/
Accessed on: 15/08/2007.
Putallaz, Y. (2003). Strategic M&R policy of a railway corridor taking into account the value
of capacity, In Proceedings of World Congress on Railway Research, Edinburgh, 28
September-1 October.
Reliasoft Corporation (2003). Weibull++6 software, version 6.0.11, web: www.weibull.com
REMAIN (1998). Modular System for Reliability and Maintainability Management in
European Rail Transport
Available Online: http://cordis.europa.eu/transport/src/remainrep.htm
Accessed on: 15/10/2007.
Ringsberg, J.W. (2001). Life prediction of rolling contact fatigue crack initiation,
International Journal of Fatigue, 23, 575-586.
Stalder, O. (2001). The life cycle costs (LCC) of entire rail networks: an international
comparison, Rail International, 32 (4), 26-31
Sullivan, T.J. (2001). Methods of Social Research, Harcourt, Inc., USA, ISBN: 0-15-5074636.
52
References
53
Maintenance Decision Support Models for Railway Infrastructure using RAMS & LCC Analyses
Zoeteman, A. and Esveld, C. (1999). Evaluating Track Structures: Life Cycle Cost Analysis
as Structured Approach, In Proceedings of World Congress on Railway Research, Tokyo, 1923 October.
54
APPENDED PAPERS
Paper I
1 INTRODUCTION
Rail traffic is the most important form of public traffic in
Europe as the density of the railway network is very high
compared to the other parts of the globe. To be in competition
with other modes of transportation, railway traffic must be
quick, comfortable, cheap and primarily safe. There have been
contractual agreements concerning the targeted level of
reliability and punctuality in the performance regime within
Number of
trains
Signals
Train
Average
speed
Stability
Operating Time
Braking Time
Travel Time
Release Time
Mixed-train operation
Metro-train operation
Heterogeneity
Position on
track
Station 1
Time
Operational
headway
Speed = Average
speed
Acceleration
Deceleration
Speed
Affected length
of
track due to
failure
Station 2
Speed = Average
speed
Primary delay
Station 2
Primary delay
1st Secondary delay
2nd Secondary
delay
Speed =Restricted
speed
Safety
headway
Station 1
Time
Affected length
of
track due to
failure
Time
Operational
headway
SPD is an integer.
NPD is an integer.
Sub-system
Failure Rate-FR
(per minute)
Sub-system 1
6.00E-05
75
12
Sub-system 2
1.00E-04
60
10
Sub-system 3
1.50E-04
45
The model also calculates the cumulative delay that the trains
can undergo over a period of time on that track section. It is
also considered that the trains take 25 minutes to travel
between the stations i.e. the travel time (TT) is 25 minutes.
The model will enable us to estimate the effects of the track
system availability on the capacity and punctuality of that
particular track section. The fundamentals of Petri-Net
modelling can be found in [5].
Trains are operated for 18 hours a day and preventive
maintenance is carried out during the rest six hours. Therefore,
the availability of infrastructure considers only corrective
maintenance. By performing Monte Carlo simulations on the
Petri-Net models, we obtained the capacity variations over a
period of one month (18x60 hours). Figure 7 illustrates the
estimated operational capacity over a period of one month.
Figure 8 Cumulative delay over a period of one month
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
Capacity
(Trains/hr)
3,9895
0,9951
0,9912
0,9895
Availability (%)
0,9874
0,9863
0,9845
0,974
0,9657
4 DISCUSSIONS
The increasing complexity of modern technical systems
has resulted in high reliability, maintainability and availability
requirements. These requirement need to be met by the system
owner to remain competitive. Setting these requirements is
difficult when the systems have many stakeholders. Railway
infrastructure is one of these systems. The system availability
of the railway infrastructure directly affects the punctuality
and capacity of the railway network. Failure to meet the
capacity and punctuality requirements of the railway network
incurs a penalty for the infrastructure manager who owns the
system. Therefore, the infrastructure manager needs to
estimate the availability target that it intends to achieve so as
to meet the capacity and punctuality requirements. The
availability target also enables the infrastructure manger to
estimate the maintenance investment over a period of time. In
this paper we have developed a model for estimating the
availability target of the railway infrastructure in Petri-Net.
The model considers the design, operation and failures of the
infrastructure to derive a relationship between availability,
capacity and punctuality. The relation is derived by means of
an example presented in this paper. When the capacity and
punctuality requirements are known, the infrastructure
manager can estimate the availability target for this particular
scenario explained in the example. However, the results show
that the operational capacity does not change with the change
in the system availability. This is due to the fact that the
operational headway is kept large enough in the train timetable
to absorb the delays, to keep the operational capacity of the
network close to the achieved capacity. In general, if the
operational availability changes, the operational capacity has
to change. It actually does change for the hour during which a
failure occurs (see Fig. 7); but during the next hour, the
operational capacity increases as the delayed trains arrive
along with the scheduled trains and we estimate the
operational capacity as the average of all the hours. However,
if we lower the operational headway, we can observe that the
operational capacity will change with the change in system
availability. This model will help the infrastructure manager to
estimate the availability target of the railway infrastructure
based on the capacity and punctuality requirements. A proper
setting of the availability target will allow the infrastructure
manager to avoid penalties due to delay and lower capacity.
This will also help to estimate the total maintenance
investment that the infrastructure manager needs to make over
a period of time.
4.
5.
BIOGRAPHIES
Ambika Prasad Patra
Lule Railway Research Center
Division of Operation and Maintenance Engineering
Lule University of Technology
SE-97187 Lule, Sweden
e-mail: ambika.patra@ltu.se
Ambika Prasad Patra is a PhD candidate at the Division of
Operation and Maintenance Engineering, Lule University of
Technology. His research topics are RAMS and LCC analyses
for railway systems. He received his MTech degree in 2002 in
Reliability Engineering from the Indian Institute of
Technology, Bombay, India.
Uday Kumar, PhD
Lule Railway Research Center
Division of Operation and Maintenance Engineering
Lule University of Technology
SE-97187 Lule, Sweden
e-mail: uday.kumar@ltu.se
Dr Uday Kumar is Professor of Operation and Maintenance
Engineering at Lule University of Technology, Lule,
Sweden. He also is the Director of Lule Railway Research
Centre (www.jvtc.ltu.se) at the same university. His research
interests are maintenance engineering and management,
reliability and maintainability analysis, product support, life
cycle costing, risk analysis, system analysis, etc. He is also a
member of the editorial board and a reviewer for many
international journals. He has published more than 150 papers
in international journals and conference proceedings.
Per-Olof Larsson Krik, PhD
Swedish National Rail Administration,
SE-97102, Lule, Sweden
e-mail: per-olof.larsson-kraik@banverket.se
Dr Per-Olof Larsson-Krik co-ordinates research and
development activities for Banverket (the Swedish National
Rail Administration). Dr Larsson-Krik has written over 50
articles and case studies in the areas of tribology, reliability,
maintainability, logistics, and supportability. He has carried
out several research and consultancy projects for several
organizations in Europe and Australia. Dr Larsson-Kriks
research interests include systems engineering, rail wheel
(w/r) interaction, w/r lubrication and strategic operation and
maintenance decision making in an organisation.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.
Paper II
Summary: In this paper, an approach has been developed to assess safety of the railway track by
estimating the probability of derailment. Models for probability of derailment are developed based
on undetected rail breaks and poor track quality using Petri-Nets and Monte Carlo simulations. The
Effect of inspection intervals on lowering the probability has been analysed. The performance of
the model is illustrated by an example from a track section of the iron ore line of Banverket
(Swedish National Rail Administration).
Index Terms: Railway track safety, Maintenance, Petri-Net modelling
1.
INTRODUCTION
Rail infrastructure consists of various subsystems like track system, signalling and telecommunication system, and power system. Each
of these sub-systems contributes to infrastructure
safety.
Surface initiated
defects
Internal defects
Weld defects
Decreases
Preventive grinding
Increases
Detected
Periodic inspection
Rail replacements
Undetected
Rail breaks
Monitoring by
track circuits
Vehicle Condition
(Train Speed,
Wheel flat, etc
Detected
Undetected
Derailments
Defect type
Scale
Shape
Detection
parameter
parameter probability
() in
by NDT Car
()
MGT
UIC 135
225
2.5
UIC 211
338
2.5
UIC 2321
375
3.6
UIC 421
333
3.1
0.90
0.06
Transitions
Tr14 fires whenever a defect occurs. Tr15 fires when a defect is removed. Tr16 fires when an
unremoved defect reaches its P-F interval. Firing of Tr16 initiates a rail break. Firing of Tr17 occurs
when a rail break happens.
Tr28 fires when rail break(s) remain undetected. Tr29 fires when rail breaks are detected and
repaired.
Prob. of undetected
rail break
1,60E-03
1,40E-03
1,20E-03
1,00E-03
8,00E-04
6,00E-04
4,00E-04
2,00E-04
0,00E+00
12
10
79
92
85
78
VH
VS
150 100
2.
/3
V S lim
V H lim
96
Figure 6: Petri-Net model for determination of probability of track quality index exceeding maintenance limit
Table 4: Description of places and transitions of Petri-net model for track quality
Places
Transitions
Tr1fires at each measurement interval. Tr2 fires when the measurement is over
Tr3 fires when Q value is below tamping limit and it is detected by the measuring wagon. Tr4 fires
when the tamping is over.
Tr7 fires when Q value falls below maintennace (tamping) limit and tamping is yet to be carried out.
Tr8 fires when tamping is done and Q value is above maintenance limit.
97
References
[1] Kumar, S., Reliability Analysis and Cost
Modelling of Degrading Systems, PhD Thesis,
Lule University of Technology, Lule, Sweden,
ISSN: 1402-1544
2,00E-01
1,60E-01
1,20E-01
8,00E-02
4,00E-02
0,00E+00
24
18
12
3.
[5] Lindahl, M. Track Geometry for Highspeed Railways, TRITA FKT Report, Royal
Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden,
ISSN: 1103: 470X
98
Paper III
Abstract: Railways are expected to operate with ever increasing availability. The availability
of railway systems and subsystems influences the overall operational availability. As the track
circuit is a key component of railway signalling and control, it can contribute significantly to
the loss of availability of the railway system. One way to increase the availability of the track
circuit is through implementing proper a maintenance policy. In this article, Petri-Nets have
been used to develop models for availability analysis of the track circuit for both time-based
and condition based maintenance. A sensitivity analysis has been performed to estimate the
effect of maintenance parameters on availability performance using cost-benefit analysis.
Keywords: Track circuit, Availability, Petri-Nets
1. INTRODUCTION
The railway track circuit is an electrical device installed on the track to provide an indication
of train presence on a particular section of a track. The track circuit has been the most
commonly used train detection device besides the axle counter. The advantage of the track
circuit over the axle counter is its ability to detect rail breaks. Its correct operation is critical to
obtaining dependable train operations in most main line and metro systems. The track circuit
is a fail-safe device ensuring that any fault results in the signal light turning red, and in trains
being prevented from entering the associated track section. However, this fail-safe property
also has the potential to cause significant train delays if the system becomes unreliable. Any
track circuit failure can cause significant disruption to rail services and hence can become a
safety risk due to delay in the restoration of normal service. Over 12,000 track circuit failures
were reported in the UK during 20042005, resulting in 1.5 million minutes of attributable
delay. Typically, the UK railway infrastructure manager can be penalised with a penalty of
2060 per delay minute arising from infrastructure failure [1]. Therefore, the ability to detect
and diagnose track circuit failures in order to provide a fast response to failures/incidents has
significant economic benefits.
Reduction of the un-availability caused by track circuit failures must be accomplished using
an assured methodology. This methodology usually requires either an optimisation or a
complete overhaul of the maintenance processes in place. This starts with understanding the
causes of track circuit failures, which can either be within the track circuit itself, e.g.
component or systemic failure, or result from a failure of part of the infrastructure, such as a
poor track bed or related components. Railways all over the world follow a range of different
track circuit maintenance policies. However, the problem is to find the cost-effective
maintenance policy which will provide higher availability of the track circuit at a lower life
cycle cost. To address this problem, it is important to determine the life cycle of the track
circuit and the relationships between the failure distribution and the maintenance policy. The
cost of each maintenance policy can be calculated by adding the direct maintenance costs and
the consequential costs, e.g. the penalties due to train delay. This article provides a
comparison between the track circuit availability achieved using scheduled maintenance and
that achieved using condition based maintenance. The influence of the maintenance
parameters on the availability in both cases is studied for track circuits currently in use across
Sweden. There are different types of track circuits being used by infrastructure managers, e.g.
DC track circuits, AC track circuits and audio frequency track circuits. In this article our
comparisons have concerned the maintenance strategy for the DC track circuit which is used
by the Swedish National Rail Administration (Banverket).
The DC track circuit is the simplest and least costly type of track circuit used for train
detection. Fig. 1 presents the schematic diagram of a DC track circuit.
7V
Relay
I rail
Signal path
S rail
Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of DC track circuit
Banverkets the train detection system uses the two rails on a track, the common rail (S-rail)
and the information rail (I-rail), to locate the position of the trains. The S-rail is continuous
and is grounded and used for the track return current. The I-rail, on the other hand, has gaps
with an insulated rail joint between the different sections of the rail. The polarity of each
section is reversed so as to prevent the supply to one circuit from powering the adjacent
circuit. The gaps isolate each section of the I-rail with a different potential. When no trains are
on the line, there is a negative or positive potential between the rails. When a train moves into
a new section (over a gap to a new rail section on the I-rail), the wheels complete the circuit
connection and the potential drops to zero. The energized relay for the occupied section holds
the voltage drops indicating where the train is on the track [2]. This track circuit design is failsafe; i.e. any failure in the track circuit turns the signal to red. Thus, the safety of the track is
not compromised. However, frequent track circuits failures affect the reliability and
availability of the track.
To achieve a reliable system, the factors which could influence the reliability of the system
need to be identified, their effects need to be assessed and the causes of these effects need to
be managed throughout the life cycle of the system. Railway system reliability is influenced
in three ways [3]:
x
x
System conditions: the sources of failures are introduced internally within the system
at any phase of the railway system life cycle. These failures are incurred by the design
and manufacturing of the components or the system.
Operating conditions: the sources of failures result from the operating system
methodology. These failures are also incurred by environmental conditions.
Maintenance conditions: the sources of failures are caused by maintenance actions.
The functionality of a track circuit is affected by the failure of its components, by changes in
track characteristics or by track maintenance. The DC track circuit failure modes include:
x
x
x
x
x
Faults in track circuit components can be due to power supply failure or failure of the relay.
There can be loose cable connections due to vibrations and cable discontinuities due to breaks
in the cable caused by track maintenance actions, e.g. tamping. These failures are intermittent
and random in nature. The failure distributions of such events are likely to follow exponential
probability distributions. Insulated rail joints have shorter service lives than most other track
components. The frequency of insulated joint failures is influenced by the relative and
continuous weight (tonnage) of the traffic using the rails. Therefore, the frequency of failures
of insulated joints is high in heavy haul. Capturing condition information about joints and
taking preventive action remain challenges, as it is still proving difficult to obtain reliable
trending information on the condition of joints. The failures of these joints are timedependant and increase with time and generally follow Weibull probability distributions.
Consequently, time-based inspection is recommended as an approach to detecting
degradations in insulated joints and replacing them before they fail. However, it is not easy to
optimise the inspection periods in a track section with a number of insulated joints installed at
different times. Broken rails follow similar probability distributions to those of insulated joint
failures.
The track circuit operates at a specified electrical ballast resistance. When the electrical
resistance of the ballast is lower than the specified value, the current flow along the rails drops
and de-energizes the relay, which makes the track circuit non-functional. This is a frequent
occurrence as a result of wet or dirty ballast. Ballast cleaning is necessary to keep the ballast
dry and the electrical resistance above the minimum value. Occurrences of these kinds of
failures are intermittent in nature and likely to occur more during winter than in summer.
False alarms where the track circuit equipment has triggered a fault but where no fault is
found are phenomena which are registered as NFF. These faults occur with no prior
notification and are unpredictable in nature. False alarms normally are a significant subset of
track circuit failures. As track circuit failures stop the rail service operation, it is necessary to
detect degradation in track circuits and repair them before they actually fail. The following
sections describe the features of scheduled maintenance and condition based maintenance, the
differences between the two types of maintenance, and the benefits of condition monitoring
over scheduled maintenance.
2. MAINTENANCE POLICY
Infrastructure managers generally employ a scheduled (time based) maintenance regime for
track circuits. The objective of this maintenance is to detect any degradation in the track
circuit regularly and perform preventive maintenance to bring it back to a known acceptable
state. This type of maintenance regime is expensive and time-consuming, since inspection
needs to be carried out on every track circuit periodically (e.g. every 6 weeks for DC track
circuits, which is the interval used by Banverket). However, sudden failures can, and do,
occur between scheduled maintenance actions. In the event of such failures, urgent trackside
corrective maintenance is carried out, which is costly, particularly when it has to be carried
out during traffic hours. The periodic inspection of track circuits consists of measuring the
voltage and current at different locations of track circuits, checking the insulated joints,
inspecting the ballast condition, etc., to capture degradations (if any). If the measured current
and voltage are different from the specified value, the track circuit is degraded and
maintenance is carried out. However, if the occurrences of degradations of track circuits are
random in nature, then it is difficult to optimise the scheduled maintenance interval in order to
increase the system availability and reduce the cost.
Condition monitoring systems are designed and implemented so as to learn about system
degradation and therefore reduce the maintenance burden and cost. The ability to detect
degradation, identify certain incipient faults and/or provide diagnoses of failed track circuits,
in a more intelligent way, would have significant operational and economic advantages. One
of the most important aspects of a robust track circuit condition monitoring system is its
ability to identify degradation and failure modes, then to detect and locate a fault when it
occurs, and to predict incipient failures so that potential damage can be avoided. Preventive
maintenance can be performed before total failure [4]. The potential benefits of track circuit
condition monitoring include:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
These are the potential advantages of track circuit condition monitoring systems. However,
balanced against these advantages are the costs of establishing the requirements, of procuring,
installing, learning and adapting the system and also of managing its own reliability.
Therefore, the ability of the system to detect the probability of faults is a combination of the
detection probability of the faults to be detected by the monitoring system and the reliability
of the monitoring system itself.
In this paper we have modelled availability as a factor of the detectability of the monitoring
system. The decision to adopt either scheduled maintenance or condition based maintenance
is taken based on an evaluation of the cost-benefit analysis of both types of maintenance
philosophy
3. AVAILABILITY MODELLING
Track circuit availability modelling has been performed by using Petri-Nets [5]. A standard
Petri-Net consists of a set of places, a set of transitions and a set of directed arcs. Directed
arcs connect places to transitions and vice versa. The places of Petri-Net model represent the
degrading states of the track circuit and the transitions represent the time delay between the
two degradation states. The modelling has been supported by the software tool GRIF. The
following sections describe how estimates of availability for the two approaches to
maintenance have been made.
3.1 Residual life
As discussed in the previous section, track circuit degradations and failures can occur for
different reasons. A framework is presented in Fig. 2 for the treatment degradation and failure
data of track circuits in order to calculate the reliability parameters. These failures constitute
all the failure modes of the track circuit. As illustrated in the figure, in the present scenario
track circuits are inspected at scheduled time intervals to check them for any degradation. If
the track circuit is degraded, this is treated as a condition failure and preventive maintenance
is carried out on the track circuit to bring the track circuit to good state. The track circuit
reaches a degradation state in between two inspections, but this state can only be detected and
the track circuit can only be maintained during the next inspection. In order to estimate the
effect of the inspection interval on detecting a degradation of the track circuit before its
functional failure, we need to calculate the time to degradation (degradation life) and the time
from degradation to functional failure (residual life) of the track circuit.
Fig. 2 serves as an example of the representation of real data for the maintenance of different
track circuits (TC1, TC2, etc.) in relation to time. During inspection, if a track circuit is found
to be degraded, the degradation is termed as conditional failure and preventive maintenance is
carried out. If the track circuit goes out of order, i.e. functional failure occurs, corrective
maintenance is carried out. It is assumed in this paper that both these maintenance actions
bring the track circuit to an as-good-as-new state. It is also assumed in the paper that any
manual inspection that is carried out on the track circuit at a scheduled time interval is perfect
and free from any human error. This means that, if a track circuit is degraded, it is always
detected during the inspection. It can be said that, when a track circuit is maintained
preventively or correctively, the degradation must have occurred between the maintenance
point of time and the last inspection point of time. This is shown as the occurrence of a
degradation zone in the figure.
As the point of occurrence of the degradation between two inspections or between the
functional failure and the last inspection is uncertain, the probability distribution of the
degradation life can be estimated considering the interval data for degradation. Once we
obtain the degradation life distribution, the next step is to estimate the residual life. The
residual life is the remaining life in a track circuit from the point of degradation until it
experiences a functional failure. When estimating the residual life of the track circuit, we
should also consider undetected degradation times, which are also termed as suspended
residual life.
A model has been developed in Petri-Nets to calculate the undetected degradation time (see
Fig. 3). State 1 denotes that the track circuit is in good state and state 2 that it is in degraded
state. Degradation of the track circuit brings the track circuit from state 1 to state 2. State 3
and 4 denote the inspection states. Inspection is carried out at a scheduled interval. A
degraded track circuit remains in a degraded state until the next inspection commences. For an
inspection interval of 1000 hours, by simulating the Petri-Net models we can see that the
undetected degradation time is half of the inspection interval, i.e. 500 hours (see Fig. 4).
Conditional failure:
Preventive maintenance
TC 1
Degradation
life
Occurrence of
degradation
Degradation
life
Residual
life
Assumed
degradation
points
TC 2
TC 3
Functional failure:
Corrective maintenance
Occurrence of
degradation
TC n
Inspection
interval
Time
Fig. 2 An example of data representation for track circuit degradations and failures
The probability distribution of the degradation is assumed to be a Weibull distribution. It was
seen that for other distributions, the undetected degradation time also remains half of the
inspection interval. This result can also be inferred for the residual life calculation; i.e. the
residual life is half of the time between the functional failure and the last inspection.
Considering different values for the residual life and the suspended residual life (undetected
degradation time), we can estimate the probability density function for the residual life.
down time for both preventive and corrective maintenance is 2 hours and the inspection time
is 0.5 hours. For an inspection interval of 1000 hours, the availability of the track circuit with
respect to time is shown in Fig. 6. As shown in the figure, we obtain a steady state availability
of 0.99985 for each track circuit. For a typical track section of 300 km, we can have an
average of 200 track circuits. If we need to calculate the availability of the section due to track
circuits, we must consider the delay aspects of track circuits due to their unavailability.
Different indicators of availability are illustrated in [6]. In this article the authors define the
availability of a section of track as the probability that any failure in that track section will not
induce any delay to the trains. Based on this definition, the availability of the track section is
given by:
As = 1- [(1-An)*Pd]
n = Number of track circuits in the section
A = Availability of each track circuit
Pd = Probability of delay
To explain how this expression is developed, let us consider the simple case of three track
circuits in a track section. A is the availability and is the un-availability of each track circuit
i.e. all the track circuits are considered to be identical.
The probability of at least one of the three track circuits being un-available is given by:
3 = + + (* ) - (* ) - (* ) + (* *)
The un-availability of the track circuits is independent but not mutually exclusive (e.g. P(A +
B + C) = P(A) + P(B) + P(C) P(A)*P(B) P(B)*P(C) P(C)*P(A) + P(A)*P(B)*P(C) )
Further, the probability of at least one of the three track circuits being un-available is also
equal to one minus the joint probability that none of the track circuits are un-available.
Thus, 3 = 1 [(1-)* (1-)* (1-)] = 1- A3
If Pd is the probability of delay, then the un-availability of the track section is given by (1A3)*Pd.
Similarly, for n track circuits, the un-availability of track section will be (1-An)*Pd.
Hence, the availability of the track section is As = 1- [(1-An)*Pd]
If Pd is 1 (i.e. any un-availability of a track circuit in a section induces a certain delay), then
As = An, where as, if Pd is 0 (i.e. there is no train delay in the case of any un-availability of a
track circuit), then As = 1.
In this article it is assumed that any track circuit failure in a track section will induce train
delay, and therefore the availability of the track section = A200 = 0.99985200 = 0.9704.
Fig. 6 Availability of track circuit for scheduled maintenance interval 1000 hours
If we want to increase the system availability, we need to perform a sensitivity analysis on the
inspection interval. Fig. 7 illustrates the change in the section availability of a track circuit
with a change in the inspection interval. If we want to optimise the inspection interval in
terms of cost effectiveness, we need to calculate the cost of inspection as well as the cost of
delay as described earlier.
Availability of section
0,99
0,98
0,97
0,96
0,95
0,94
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
Inspection interval
Fig. 8 Petri-Net model for estimation of availability for condition based maintenance
In this model it is assumed that the condition monitoring system detects the degradation in the
track circuit all over its residual life. Therefore, the degradation life distribution in this case is
10
the combination of the degradation life and the residual life distribution in the earlier example.
If we consider the same failure and maintenance parameters as those considered for scheduled
maintenance and perform a sensitivity analysis of the section availability with respect to the
detection probability, we see the result in Fig. 9.
Availability of section
0,995
0,99
0,985
0,98
0,975
0,97
0,965
0,96
0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
Detection probability
11
primary delay of trains. Fig 10 illustrates the primary delay incurred to trains because of track
circuit failure. It is assumed that the headway between the trains is big enough not to induce
any secondary delay.
Speed = Average
speed
Speed = Average
speed
Speed
Acceleration
Deceleration
Acceleration
Speed = Restricted
speed
Time
based on achieving the availability of track circuit. A framework is presented for the cost of
delay. Further, it is shown that cost-benefit analysis of maintenance policies can be carried out
to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of each maintenance policy. Cost-effectiveness analysis will
yield quantitative results to aid the decision maker with risk analysis, and provide a useful
decision tool. Better cost-effectiveness of a system is achieved by higher operational
availability and lower maintenance costs during the life cycle of the system.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The work presented in this paper has been financially supported by the Swedish National Rail
Administration (Banverket). The authors would like to acknowledge this support.
REFERENCES
1 Chen, J., Roberts, C., and Weston, P. Fault detection and diagnosis for railway track
circuits using neuro-fuzzy systems, Control Engineering Practice, 2008, 16, 585-596.
2 Niska, S. Measurements and Analysis of Electromagnetic Interferences in the Swedish
Railway Systems, PhD Thesis, Division of Operation and Maintenance Engineering, Lule
University of Technology, Lule, Sweden, vol.76, 2008
3 EN 50126 The Specification and Demonstration of Reliability, Availability,
Maintainability and Safety (RAMS) for Railways Applications, Comit Europen de
Normalisation Electrotechnique (CENELEC), Brussels, Belgium, 1999.
4 Roberts, C., Dassanayake, H. P. B., Lehrasab, N., and Goodman, C. J. Distributed
quantitative and qualitative fault diagnosis: railway junction case study. Control
Engineering Practice, 2002, 10(4), 419429.
5 Murata, T. Petri Nets: Properties, Analysis and Applications. Proceedings of the IEEE,
1989, 77(4), 541 580.
6 Nystrm, B. Use of Availability Concepts in the Railway System, International Journal
of Performability Engineering, 2009, 5(2), 103-118
13
Paper IV
1.
Introduction
Each country in the European Union has its own railway signalling system. Each system
is stand-alone and non-interoperable, and therefore requires extensive integration and
engineering effort, raising the total delivery costs for cross-border traffic. This restricts
competition and hampers the competitiveness of the European rail sector vis--vis road
transport by creating technical barriers to international journeys. To fulfil the requirement
of interoperability, a major industrial project named as the European Rail Traffic
Management System (ERTMS) was initiated. The objective of the ERTMS is to replace
the existing signalling systems with a system which will boost cross-border freight and
passenger transport. This will help the countries to establish a more sustainable railway
network. The ERTMS has two basic components, i.e., the European Train Control System
(ETCS) and GSM-Radio (GSM-R). The ETCS is an automatic train protection system,
while as GSM-R provides voice and data communication between the track and the train.
There are 3 levels of the ERTMS, with Level 1 and Level 2 already in operation in
Europe.
Apart from achieving an interoperable railway network, the ERTMS also increases
the capacity, speeds and safety for passengers on existing lines, and at the same time
reduces the maintenance costs. To be competitive and to gain the approval of
infrastructure managers as well as train operating companies, the ERTMS manufacturers
should demonstrate the cost effectiveness of their systems as per the stakeholders
requirement.
____________________________
*Corresponding authors email: ambika.patra@ltu.se
The cost effectiveness of any system depends on the operational availability and life cycle
cost (LCC). In order to make the system more cost effective, higher availability should be
attained at a lower LCC.
However, there are numerous challenges in attaining the desired cost effectiveness of
the system over a period of time, because of degradation of the systems, changes in traffic
scenario etc. Optimisation of the maintenance policy is one of the major ways to attain the
desired cost effectiveness of the system in the long run. All such optimisations should aim
at maximum system availability and minimum life cycle costs, as well as minimum train
delays for a specific traffic scenario. In this paper the authors demonstrate a model that
can help to maximise the cost effectiveness of the systems. ALSTOM Transport has
developed the ATLAS platform for ERTMS application for railway operations.
ATLAS consists of various sub-systems, such as the Automatic Train Supervision
(ATS) system, the interlocking system, the Automatic Train Control (ATC) system and
trackside products e.g., track circuits. This paper deals with a case study where an
optimum maintenance policy is developed to achieve the desired cost effectiveness of the
Radio Block Centre (RBC), which is a part of the ATC track side system. The ATC subsystem consists of both trackside and trainborne components. The objective of this
development work is to achieve a higher availability and a lower LCC for the system and
then develop an optimum maintenance policy to achieve cost effectiveness.
As decisions on maintenance policies have a major impact on the operations of the
system, the cost effectiveness of long term design and maintenance decisions should be
guaranteed. Life cycle cost (LCC) analysis, an engineering economics technique, can be
utilised to focus on maintenance strategies to minimise the maintenance cost in the
systems life cycle, while meeting the dependability requirements. The cost effectiveness
of a system can be defined as
Cost effectiveness Availability
LCC
Higher cost effectiveness of the system ensures better operation of the system. The
paper presents the key influential variables of maintenance policy that affect cost
effectiveness. Section 2 of the paper discusses the system description of the RBC. A PetriNet model is shown in Section 3. Section 3 also discusses the results of the model.
Finally, the conclusions are stated in Section 4.
2.
In most of the systems which are in use at ALSTOM Transport, active redundancy has
been chosen: i.e. the various units are active simultaneously, so that, in the event of the
failure of one unit, the function is preserved without the need for switching on a back-up
unit [1]. On ERTMS application level 2, the ETCS uses a GSM-R radio channel to
exchange data between the trackside Radio Block Centre and the trains. The interlocking
system reports the status of the objects controlling the routes of the trains to the RBC,
which, in turn, generates the correct movement authorities for the different trains in the
section. The RBC consists of different sub-systems, such as the computing channel,
input/output system and cabinet. The reliability block diagrams of these systems are given
in Figs. 1a, 1b, 1c and 1d. The computing channel is a 2-out-of-3 (2oo3) system. Two
channels must be working at any given time for the computing channel to work. Similarly,
the input/output group is a 1oo2 system.
Computing
channel
Input/Output
group
Computing
channel
Cabinet
1/2
2/3
Input/Output
group
Computing
channel
HSCU
RedMan
IDD
CPSU
EAU
IOPSU
BPSU
1/2
MPSU
Fan
2/3
BPSU
Fan
0
t
T
T = Inspection interval
t = time of occurrence of undetected failure during the interval (0, T)
T-t = duration of undetected failure time
= failure rate of the component following an exponential distribution
The expected un-detected failure time of the component during the interval (0, T) is given
by:
E (T t )
f (t )dt
O * exp(Ot )dt
T
1
)
(
1 exp(OT ) O
(1)
Case study on the cost effectiveness estimation of the fan system of the RBC
The Cost effectiveness of the RBC system has been estimated. In this paper we are
presenting a case study on the fan system. As discussed earlier, the fan system in the RBC
is a 2oo3 system. A Petri-Net (for details see [3]) model for estimation of the cost
effectiveness of the fan system is illustrated in Fig. 3. The places that represent the states
are depicted in Table 1. There are three fans in the system and one fan is kept as a spare in
the store and all the fans are repairable in nature. As illustrated in the model, when a fan
fails, it goes to the failed state. The time to failure depends on the failure probability
density function of the fan. The model captures the time to failure each time a fan fails
and estimates the virtual age of the fan after repair work is completed depending on the
maintenance factor of the repair described earlier. If a fan fails and the failure is detected,
it is removed from the system and is substituted by the fan in stock. The failed fan goes to
the workshop for repair, and after repair it waits until the next fan failure occurs. Over a
period of time the fans may have different virtual ages depending on the number of repairs
performed on each fan. In this model, we can keep track of the number of repairs carried
out on each fan, so that we can estimate the time when the next fan will fail. Now, place
13 denotes that all three fans are working. If one fan fails depending on the time explained
above, the system can go to state 14 or state 15.
Figure 3: Petri- Net model for estimating the cost effectiveness of the fan system
If the failure is detected by the BITE system, the system will be in state 14, otherwise
it will be in 15. Both state 14 and state 15 are degraded states but the system is still
working because two fans are still working. If the system is in 14, it can go to 13
depending upon the deferred maintenance time. The maintenance is deferred because it is
not always cost effective to stop the train operation to repair the system, and therefore the
system can be repaired after the train running period. If the system goes to 15, the failure
can only be detected in the next inspection, after which the system can be brought to 13.
However, if the deferred maintenance time and the inspection intervals are long, then
there is a probability that the system can go to the failed state if another fan failure occurs.
In the case of a system failure, corrective maintenance is performed on the system to bring
the system to 13. This depends on the availability of the two fans in the stock. If the fans
are under repair, then the unavailability of the system increases. The parameters that are
used in the Petri-Net model are illustrated in Table 2. Monte Carlo simulations are
performed on the model to estimate the availability and LCC of the fan system over a
period of 20 years.
Table 1: Description of places in the Petri-Net models
State description
Place
State description
Place
State description
Fan system working
Place
Fan 1 working
Fan 3 working
Fan 1 failed
Fan 3 failed
Fan 2 working
10
16
Fan 2 failed
11
Inspection starts
17
12
Inspection ends
18
13
14
15
Parameters
Operation hours/year
Inspection time
Preventive maintenance time
Corrective maintenance time
Labour cost/hour
SRU repair time
Discount rate
Fan failure (scale parameter)
Fan failure (shape parameter)
Deferred maintenance time
Inspection interval
SRU repair cost
Maintenance factor
Detectability
Value
6000 hours
0.5 hours
0.5 hours
3 hours
40
720 hours
4%
20000
2
9 hours
6000 hours
50
0.8
0.9
Fig. 4 illustrates the cost effectiveness of the fan system with time. The step decrease in
the cost effectiveness curve is due to the discounted value of the life cycle cost. After a
period of time the cost effectiveness curve will be parallel to the x-axis. This is due to the
fact that, after a period of time, the LCC will be constant because of the discounting of
future costs.
Cost effectiveness
Cost effectiveness
9,90E-04
9,60E-04
9,30E-04
9,00E-04
8,70E-04
9,50E-04
9,00E-04
8,50E-04
8,00E-04
8,40E-04
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
Maintenance factor
0,8
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
Detectability
0,9
9,20E-04
Cost effectiveness
Cost effectiveness
1,20E-03
1,00E-03
8,00E-04
9,00E-04
8,80E-04
8,60E-04
6,00E-04
0
3000
6000
9000
Inspection interval
12000
15000
30
60
90
120
Figure 6: Effect of inspection interval and deferred maintenance time on cost effectiveness
We can also estimate the maintenance policy of the system which will ensure certain
availability and fulfil LCC requirements. From Fig. 5 & Fig. 6, the optimum value for
each parameter for maximising the cost effectiveness can be inferred. Further, the
optimum value of combinations of the parameters for achieving the maximum cost
effectiveness can also be estimated. The model can be useful for other mechanical
redundant systems which are repairable in nature and subjected to degradations.
4.
Conclusions
In view of the increasingly stringent availability requirements being set by the market
place, the designers of complex systems have to pay close attention to test and
maintenance strategies to achieve availability targets with low life cycle costs. In this
paper a maintenance policy based on cost effectiveness has been developed for the fan
sub-system of the Radio Block Centre (RBC). Sensitivity analysis has been performed on
different maintenance parameters to maximise the cost effectiveness of the system. This
maintenance policy will help the systems to achieve higher availability at lower life cycle
costs over the life cycle of the systems. A Petri-Net model has been developed to calculate
the cost effectiveness of these systems. Cost effectiveness analysis will yield quantitative
results to aid the decision maker with risk analysis, and provide a useful decision tool. The
work presented in this paper is a part of the work carried out for systems developed by
ALSTOM Transport for ERTMS applications. This work will help the ERTMS
manufacturers to demonstrate the sustainable benefits in terms of availability and life
cycle costs to the infrastructure managers, as well as the train operating companies, in
order to keep a competitive advantage.
Acknowledgement
The work presented in this paper is supported by ALSTOM Transport Information
Solutions, Paris. The authors would like to acknowledge this support.
References
[1]. Dersin, P., A. Peronne, and C. Arroum. Selecting test and maintenance strategies to achieve
availability target with lowest life cycle cost. In proceedings of Reliability and
Maintainability Symposium, USA, January 2008.
[2]. Kijima, M. Some results for repairable systems with general repair. Journal of Applied
Probability 1989; 26: 89-102.
10
[3]. Murata, T. Petri Nets: Properties, Analysis and Applications. Proceedings of the IEEE 1989;
77(4): 541 580.
Ambika Prasad Patra is a PhD candidate at the Division of Operation and Maintenance
Engineering, Lule University of Technology, Sweden. His research topics are RAMS and LCC
analyses for railway infrastructure systems. He received his MTech degree in Reliability
Engineering in 2002 from the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, India.
Pierre Dersin obtained his Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering in 1980 from the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology (MIT), after receiving a Masters degree in O.R. in 1976, also from MIT. He worked
in the late seventies on the reliability of large electric power networks, while taking part in the Large
Scale System Effectiveness Analysis Program sponsored by the US Department of Energy, as an
employee of MIT and Systems Control, Inc. He later joined FABRICOM (in Belgium and the
U.S.A.), where he was involved with fault diagnostic systems for factory automation. Since 1990 he
has been working at ALSTOM Transport, where he has occupied several positions and has mainly
been involved with RAMS and maintenance. He has been R&D Manager of the Service section, and
is now RAM Director in ALSTOM Transports Information Solutions (i.e. railway signalling and
communication). He has contributed a number of papers and publications in the fields of RAMS,
automatic control and electric power systems. He was the chairman of UNIFEs (the Association of
the European Rail Industry) LCC/RAM Working Group in 1998-2001.
Uday Kumar is Professor of Operation and Maintenance Engineering at Lule University of
Technology, Lule, Sweden. He is also Director of Lule Railway Research Centre at the same
university. His research interests are maintenance engineering and management, reliability and
maintainability analysis, product support, life cycle costing, risk analysis, system analysis, etc. He is
also a member of the editorial board and a reviewer for many international journals. He has
published more than 150 papers in international journals and conference proceedings.
Paper V
285
Abstract: Life-cycle cost (LCC) is used as a cost-effective decision support for maintenance of
railway track infrastructure. However, a fair degree of uncertainty associated with the estimation
of LCC is due to the statistical characteristics of reliability and maintainability parameters. This
paper presents a methodology for estimation of uncertainty linked with LCC, by a combination
of design of experiment and Monte Carlo simulation. The proposed methodology is illustrated
by a case study of Banverket (Swedish National Rail Administration). The paper also includes
developed maintenance cost models for track.
Keywords: reliability and maintainability, life-cycle cost, railway track, design of experiment,
uncertainty
INTRODUCTION
286
Fig. 1
Maintenance
action
Maintenance
trigger
Preventive maintenance
Rail grinding
Tamping
Rail lubrication
Ballast cleaning
Track inspection
Time
Condition
Time
Condition
Time
Renewal
(preventive
maintenance)
Rail renewal
Ballast renewal
Sleeper renewal
Fasteners renewal
Condition
Condition
Condition
Condition
Corrective maintenance
Rail replacement
Failure
2.1
K N
1
i=1 j=1
2.6
K N
1
i=1 j=1
(2)
2.3
i=1 j=1
(1 + r)j
2.7
(3)
(6)
1
K N
i=1 j=1
2.8
287
(7)
K N
1
i=1 j=1
2.4
2.9
Fastener renewal is done when the fastener deterioration reaches maintenance or safety limits. The cost
due to fastener renewal is given by
1
K N
i=1 j=1
(4)
(9)
2.10
N
1
j=1
(5)
K N
1
i=1 j=1
(10)
288
UNCERTAINTY IN LCC
The statistical characteristics of R&M parameters contribute to uncertainty in LCC. The reason for this is
that the times and conditions for these types of events
are so complex that they cannot be predicted with
a fair degree of accuracy. Therefore, it was decided
to explore a methodology that combines the use of
design of experiment (DoE) principles with Monte
Carlo simulation to estimate the uncertainty involved
with LCC. The area of DoE was developed in the twentieth century to increase the effectiveness and efciency
of experimentation. However, for experiments to be
effective and lead to correct conclusions there are a
number of requirements that should be fullled [3].
Table 2
Maintenance actions
R&M parameters
Rail grinding
Tamping
Rail lubrication
Ballast cleaning
Track inspection
Rail renewal
Ballast renewal
Sleeper renewal
Fasteners renewal
Rail replacement
Downtime cost
T gi
Ttai
Tlu
T bi
Tt
Trri
Tbri
Tsri
Tfri
Trbi
Trbi
mg i
mtai
mbi
mrri
mbri
msri
mfri
mrbi
frbi
CASE STUDY
Low rail
400
350
250
425
300
325
150
350
150
400
275
575
325
350
150
225
275
425
300
125
150
400
300
Low rail
159
120
480
149
270
547
340
43
228
202
240
218
258
154
216
240
169
75
340
202
202
216
240
rail (smaller radius) and high rail the outer rail (larger
radius) in a curved track. The idea of separating high
rail and low rail for cost estimation lies in the fact that
they both have different failure deterioration due to
quasi-static forces in the track curvatures.
The following assumptions were made after consultations with Banverkets track experts in the
case study.
1. Average gross tonnage per year is assumed to be 25
million gross tonnes (MGT).
289
290
Table 5
MTTF (MGT)
MTTR (hours)
MTTF and MTTR probability distributions for high and low rails
High rail
Low rail
Probability
distribution
Log normal ( =
5.9933, = 0.2523)
Upper limit
Mean
Lower limit
482.7
413.6
354.5
Weibull- 2 parameter
( = 369.7161,
= 3.5315)
403.5
332.8
274.4
Probability
distribution
Weibull- 2 parameter
( = 4.6972,
= 1.8871)
5.5
4.2
3.1
Upper limit
Mean
Lower limit
Table 6
MTTF
MTTR
LCC (average)
Log (s 2 )
High rail
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1050.4
940.6
1086.6
973.0
1252.1
1113.3
1288.3
1130.4
3.4198
3.4784
3.4572
3.5139
3.0577
3.0128
3.0824
3.0230
Fig. 6
Normal ( = 3.4458,
= 1.0296)
3.9
3.4
2.9
Type
Low rail
291
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
292
Table 7
LCC (SEK)
Probability
distribution
Upper limit
Mean
Lower limit
High rail
Low rail
Weibull- 3 parameter
Probability ( =
219.6026, = 3.0731,
= 815.1878)
1024.9
1011.5
999.0
Weibull- 3 parameter
( = 170.7607,
= 2.2115,
= 1049.3146)
1214.7
1200.5
1187.6
APPENDIX
Notation
Cb
Ceb
Cebr
Cefr
Ceg
Cer
Cerr
Cesr
Cet
Ceta
Cf
CL
Clu
Cr
Cs
frbi
K
L
Li
Lr
mbi
mbri
mfri
m gi
mrbi
mrri
msri
mt
mtai
M
M
ngi
nli
N
r
Tbi
Tbri
Tfri
T gi
Tlu
Trbi
Trri
Tsri
Tt
Ttai
293
Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.
Alternative Proxies: