RAIL HIGHWAY GRADE CROSSING ROUGHNESS QUANTITATIVE MEASUREMENT USING 3D TECHNOLOGY

Transcription

1 RAIL HIGHWAY GRADE CROSSING ROUGHNESS QUANTITATIVE MEASUREMENT USING 3D TECHNOLOGY Teng (Alex) Wang, Reginald Souleyrette& Jerry Rose University of Kentucky Lexington, KY

2 Introduction Background: - highway-rail grade crossing is unique - Weak link (suboptimal design) - High growth in rail and truck traffic predicted - Congestion/delay - Tonnage, VMT and damage - In general conflict - Over 216,000 rail highway grade crossings in the US and over 9000 in the state of Kentucky alone (FRA) 2

3 Concerns Safety 1,963 rail highway crossing incidents in 2012 and over 1,300 incidents in the first eight months of 2013 (FRA) High-centered crossing collisions between train and truck(hump) Crossing roughness related to highway safety Safety models (e.g., WBAPS) do not include hump or roughness Rail crossing fatalities in the US 3

4 Infrastructure (system preservation) Asset management Preventive maintenance Vehicle damage Public (customer) service (rideability) Conventional inventory method No quantitative method currently exists Evaluate the physical performance of crossings Design, materials, construction and environment Conventional measurement methods Limitations Concerns 4

5 Objectives Capture terrain economically and quickly For ride/hump For design/materials performance Quantify roughness Measured accelerations (accelerometer) Estimated accelerations (terrain model + dynamic model) Develop measures for systematic assessment

6 Technology Meanwhile technology advances Developments in computer science 3D sensing and imaging technologies LiDAR Photogrammetry Kinect sensor Structured light 6

7 A low-cost 3D imaging technology (structured light 3D scanning) uses projected light patterns and a high resolution digital camera system to measure the shape, depth and surface information of an object 3D Structured Light 7

8 Design and Build Data Acquisition System (DAS) minimum scan area of 3 42 above ground. Maximunscan area of 6 80 above ground. DAS camera has 1280*800 pixel resolution. pixels are about 0.25 centimeters average in 80 above ground. scan at a rate of about one scan per 30 seconds in the field. $5,000. 8

9 Design and Build Data Acquisition System (DAS) Two 3D structured light scanners. A rail cart was built to include a frame with wheels. A laptop computer with structured light data capturing software. An 1100 watt AC/DC converter. Power cables. Power provided by the battery of a test vehicle DAS prototype 9

10 Field Tests Several field tests have been conducted at crossings around Lexington, KY and at the site of the Bluegrass Railroad Museum in Versailles, KY. At crossing (USDOT A) on Beasley Rd. Versailles, KY. total 52 scans collected 2 hours 6 x10.2 in size one foot overlapped area in the longitudinal direction 10

11 Data Analysis Each 3D point cloud tile is measured as 10 x 6 in area x 800 resolutions. File size is about 30 Megabytes. Every two adjacent scans can be stitched and merged by using data comparison within the overlapped area. 11

12 A highway rail crossing surface 3D points cloud 12

13 After the all 3D points cloud tiles were merged into one crossing surface, each point had X, Y, Z coordinates recorded (to the nearest millimeter). A color coded rendering of the crossing surface elevation is shown here. Blue indicates lower elevation, while Redshows the higher elevations. 13

14 Using the 3D point cloud, crossing roughness may be quantified as depth and area of cracks, area and volume of bumps or pot-holes, or other formulations. An example displaying surface curvature gradient is illustrated below. Blue areas are relatively flat as compared to Red areas in this visualization. 14

15 Design/materi als performance Long-Term Trackbed Settlement on Approaches and through Crossing ( 20 Crossings in Study) 15

16 Average Top of Rail Elevations for US 60 Stanley Installed 5/16/2002 5/16/2002 6/13/2002 8/28/2003 1/20/2004 7/12/2004 6/10/2005 2/13/ /16/2006 Representative Data for one Rail/Highway Crossing. Average Settlements through Crossings was 42% of Settlements on Approaches for the 20 Crossings Station Average Asphalt/Approach Settlement for US 60 Stanley US 60, Stanley Approaches Crossing Installed 5/16/ Time (Months) 16

17 17

18 Accelerations Field Data Collection: 18

19 Acceleration Collection Using accelerometer 19

20 Field Data Collection Result 20

21 Wheel Path Crossfire Radar 21

22 Vehicle Dynamic Model Vehicle Dynamic Model Simulation: 22

23 Vehicle Wheel Path 1.0 Path A - Z vs. Y Position 1.0 Path B - Z vs. Y Position path A smoothed path A Z Position (m) Z Position (m) Y Position (m) Y Position (m) 23

24 Vehicle Dynamic Model Simulation 24

25 Simulation Result 30 Carbody Z Acceleration - 25mph 20 Z Acceleration (m/s^2) Time (sec) 25

26 Next Steps 1) Validation of the accuracy of the resulting point clouds usingestablished precision measurement (e.g., LiDAR, total station surveying) for: a. Roughness andvehicle accelerations b. Materials performance 2) Development of a roughness index based on crossing geometry 3) Development of a crossing condition index based on vehicular accelerations for a design vehicle(s). 26

27 Acknowledgements 27

28 Questions? Thank you! 28