Optimisation of turnout frog profile geometry using revenue service wheel profiles

References

• Pålsson BA. Optimisation of railway crossing geometry considering a representative set of wheel profiles. Veh Syst Dyn. 2015;53(2):274–301. DOI:10.1080/00423114.2014.998242.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis: Accident Data as reported by Railroads. [cited 2022 June 10] Available from: https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/publicsite/on_the_fly_download.aspx.
   Google Scholar
• Grossoni I, Hughes P, Bezin Y, et al. Observed failures at railway turnouts: failure analysis, possible causes and links to current and future research. Eng Fail Anal. 2021;119. DOI:10.1016/j.engfailanal.2020.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zwanenburg WJ. A model for the life expectancy of railway switches and crossings for maintenance and renewal planning in asset management systems. Comp Railw XI. 2008;I:765–773. DOI:10.2495/CR080741.
   Google Scholar
• Skrypnyk R, Nielsen JCO, Ekh M, et al. Metamodelling of wheel–rail normal contact in railway crossings with elasto-plastic material behaviour. Eng with Comp. 2019;35:139–155. DOI:10.1007/s00366-018-0589-3.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlberg T. State-of-the art study on railway turnouts: dynamics and damage. Chalmers: Tekniska Högskola; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Wan C, Markine VL, Shevtsov IY, et al. Improvement of train-track interaction in turnouts by optimising the shape of crossing nose. Proceedings of the 23rd inter symp on Dyn of Veh on roads and tracks (IAVSD); 2013 Aug 19–23; Qingdao, People’s Republic of China.
   Google Scholar
• Nissen A. Development of life cycle cost model and analyses for railway switches and crossings [dissertation], Luleå: Luleå University of Technology; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Zboril J, Havlicek P.. Wear of the railway turnout crossings made of explosive hardened Hadfield steel. Metal 2013; 2013 May 15–17; Brno, Česko.
   Google Scholar
• Markine VL. An experimental study on crossing nose damage of railway turnouts in The Netherlands. The Fourteenth International Conference on Civil, Struc and Environmental Engineering (ICCSEE); 2013 Sep 3–6; Cagliari, Italy.
   Google Scholar
• Li X. Wheel–Rail impact loads and track settlement in railway crossings [dissertation]. Chalmers: Chalmers University of Technology; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Nicklisch D, Kassa E, Nielsen J, et al. Geometry and stiffness optimization for switches and crossings, and simulation of material degradation. Proc IMechE Part F J Rail Rapid Transit. 2010;224(4):279–292. DOI:10.1243/09544097JRRT348.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grossoni I, Bezin Y, Neves S. Optimisation of support stiffness at railway crossings. Veh Syst Dyn. 2018;56(7):1072–1096. DOI:10.1080/00423114.2017.1404617.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wan C, Markine V, Shevtsov I. Optimisation of the elastic track properties of turnout crossings. Proc Insti Mech Eng F J Rail Rapid Transit. 2016;230(2):360–373. DOI:10.1177/0954409714542478.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pålsson BA, Nielsen JCO. Dynamic vehicle–track interaction in switches and crossings and the influence of rail pad stiffness – field measurements and validation of a simulation model. Veh Syst Dyn. 2015;53(6):734–755. DOI:10.1080/00423114.2015.1012213.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wan C, Markine VL, Shevtsov IY. Improvement of vehicle-turnout interaction by optimising the shape of crossing nose. Veh Sys Dyn. 2014;52(11):1517–1540. DOI:10.1080/00423114.2014.944870.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Railway Simulation Software VI-Rail. [cited 2022 June 18]. Available from: https://simteqengineering.co.za/products/vi-rail/.
   Google Scholar
• Jimenez R, Davis D, Shu X, et al. Performance of No. 20 frogs of various designs in revenue service. Pueblo (CO): Transportation Technology Center Inc; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Davis D, Singh SP, Guillen DG, et al. Field evaluation of improved performance frog profile designs for heavy axle load service. Pueblo (CO): Transportation Technology Center Inc; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Davis D, Chen YR, Lawrence FV, et al. Frog design review and failure analysis. Pueblo (CO): Transportation Technology Center Inc; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Voelkerding D. Computer modeling for Low impact frog design. In: Wheel rail interaction (WRI). Nevada: Henderson; 2016 May 2–5.
   Google Scholar
• Austin M. Conformal frog evolution at CSX. In: American Railway Eng and maintenance-of-Way asso (AREMA). Orlando (FL): 2016 Aug 28–31.
   Google Scholar
• Rakoczy A, Shu X, Davis D, et al. Heavy point frog FRA report heavy point frog performance under passenger vehicles. Washington (DC): Federal Railroad Administration; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Beena vision solutions, automatic In-track wheel profile measurement system. GA. USA. [cited 21 February 2023]. Available from: https://railway-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/WheelView-Q4-2014-LowRes.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Lee JI, Dersch MS, Lima ADO, et al. Probabilistic review of wheel profiles based on hollow tread in the U.S. heavy haul rail network. Proc IMechE Part F J Rail and Rapid Transit. 2023;237(4):508–516. DOI:10.1177/09544097221122030.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abdullah NAR, Yusriadi J, Yusuf OYH, et al. Analysis of household economic conditions and community habits on The incidence of anemia in pregnant women through household nutrition management in The working area of The salugatta health center, central mamuju regency. International Conference on Indus Engineering and Operations Management (IEOM); 2021 April 5–8. Sao Paulo, Brazil.
   Google Scholar
• Mishra P, Pandey CM, Singh U, et al. Descriptive statistics and normality tests for statistical data. Ann Card Anaesth. 2019;22(1):67–72. DOI:10.4103/aca.ACA_157_18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghasemi A, Zahediasl S. Normality tests for statistical analysis: A guide for Non-statisticians. Int J Endocrin Metabol. 2012;10(2):486–489. DOI:10.5812/ijem.3505.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gerald B. A brief review of independent, dependent and One sample t-test. Int J Appl Mathemat Theort Phy. 2018;4(2):50–54. DOI:10.11648/j.ijamtp.20180402.13.
   Google Scholar
• Magel RC, Wibowo SH. Comparing the powers of the Wald–Wolfowitz and Kolmogorov–Smirnov tests. Biom J. 1997;39(6):665–675. DOI:10.1002/bimj.4710390605.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Field manual of the AAR interchange rules. Washington (DC): Association of American Railroads; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Pletz M. Damage in railway crossings-numerical models [dissertation]. Leoben: University of Leoben; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Sysyn M, Gerber U, Nabochenko O, et al. Indicators for common crossing structural health monitoring with track-side inertial measurements. Acta Polytech. 2019;59(2):170–181. DOI:10.14311/AP.2019.59.0170.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiest M, Daves W, Fischer FD, et al. Deformation and damage of a crossing nose due to wheel passages. Wear. 2008;265:1431–1438. DOI:10.1016/j.wear.2008.01.033.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bruni S, Anastasopoulos I, Alfi S, et al. Effects of train impacts on urban turnouts: modelling and validation through measurements. J Soun Vib. 2009;324:669–689. DOI:10.1016/j.jsv.2009.02.016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar