Robust optimisation of railway crossing geometry

ABSTRACT This paper presents a methodology for improving the crossing (frog) geometry through the robust optimisation approach, wherein the variability of the design parameters within a prescribed tolerance is included in the optimisation problem. Here, the crossing geometry is defined by parameterising the B-spline represented cross-sectional shape and the longitudinal height profile of the nose rail. The dynamic performance of the crossing is evaluated considering the variation of wheel profiles and track alignment. A multipoint approximation method (MAM) is applied in solving the optimisation problem of minimising the contact pressure during the wheel–rail contact and constraining the location of wheel transition at the crossing. To clarify the difference between the robust optimisation and the normal deterministic optimisation approaches, the optimisation problems are solved in both approaches. The results show that the deterministic optimum fails under slight change of the design variables; the robust optimum, however, has improved and robust performance.

[1]  Jean-Philippe Vial,et al.  Robust Optimization , 2021, ICORES.

[2]  Dimitri N. Mavris,et al.  Robust Design Simulation: A Probabilistic Approach to Multidisciplinary Design , 1999 .

[3]  V. L. Markine,et al.  An experimental study on crossing nose damage of railway turnouts in The Netherlands , 2013 .

[4]  Jarosław Knabel,et al.  Robust design optimization of the vibrating rotor-shaft system subjected to selected dynamic constraints , 2012 .

[5]  I. Y. Shevtsov,et al.  Analysis of train/turnout vertical interaction using a fast numerical model and validation of that model , 2014 .

[6]  Vassili Toropov,et al.  Multipoint Approximation Method for Structural Optimization Problems with Noisy Function Values , 1995 .

[7]  Vassili Toropov,et al.  Use of High- and Low-Fidelity Models In Approximations for Design Optimization , 2002 .

[8]  David Lönn,et al.  An approach to robust optimization of impact problems using random samples and meta-modelling , 2010 .

[9]  G. Kreisselmeier,et al.  SYSTEMATIC CONTROL DESIGN BY OPTIMIZING A VECTOR PERFORMANCE INDEX , 1979 .

[10]  I. Y. Shevtsov,et al.  Improvement of vehicle–turnout interaction by optimising the shape of crossing nose , 2014 .

[11]  Vassili Toropov,et al.  Simulation approach to structural optimization , 1989 .

[12]  Constantine Caramanis,et al.  Theory and Applications of Robust Optimization , 2010, SIAM Rev..

[13]  Arkadi Nemirovski,et al.  Robust optimization – methodology and applications , 2002, Math. Program..

[14]  I. Y. Shevtsov,et al.  Optimisation of the elastic track properties of turnout crossings , 2016 .

[15]  G. Kreisselmeier,et al.  SYSTEMATIC CONTROL DESIGN BY OPTIMIZING A VECTOR PERFORMANCE INDEX , 1979 .

[16]  Björn Pålsson,et al.  Optimisation of railway crossing geometry considering a representative set of wheel profiles , 2015 .

[17]  Patrick N. Koch,et al.  PROBABILISTIC DESIGN: OPTIMIZING FOR SIX SIGMA QUALITY , 2002 .

[18]  Gregory A. Wrenn,et al.  An indirect method for numerical optimization using the Kreisselmeir-Steinhauser function , 1989 .

[19]  Kalyanmoy Deb,et al.  Reliability-Based Optimization Using Evolutionary Algorithms , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation.

[20]  Kwon-Hee Lee,et al.  Robust optimization considering tolerances of design variables , 2001 .

[21]  Valeri Markine.  Optimization of the Dynamic Behaviour of Mechanical Systems , 1999 .

[22]  Daniele Peri,et al.  Robust optimization for ship conceptual design , 2010 .

[23]  Valeri Markine,et al.  Parametric study of wheel transitions at railway crossings , 2015 .

[24]  Harish Agarwal,et al.  Reliability Based Design Optimization: Formulations and Methodologies , 2004 .