See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/322699553

Railway Applications of Condition Monitoring

Technical Report · January 2018

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35912.62729

CITATIONS READS
10 9,586

5 authors, including:

Erik Magni Vinberg Michael Martin

KTH Royal Institute of Technology KTH Royal Institute of Technology
1 PUBLICATION   10 CITATIONS    1 PUBLICATION   10 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Alfi Hadi Firdaus Yihao Tang

KTH Royal Institute of Technology KTH Royal Institute of Technology
1 PUBLICATION   10 CITATIONS    1 PUBLICATION   10 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Condition Monitoring in Railway Industry View project

Active suspension in rail vehicles View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Alireza Qazizadeh on 25 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 KTH Royal Institute of Technology

Railway Applications of Condition

Monitoring

Image source:
c Claude Truong-Ngoc / Wikimedia Commons

Authors Supervisor
Erik M. V INBERG Dr. Alireza Q AZIZADEH
Michael M ARTIN Div. of Rail Vehicles
Alfi H. F IRDAUS Dep. of Aeronautical and Vehicle Engineering
Yihao TANG KTH, Royal Institute of Technology

S TOCKHOLM, Jan. 2018

T RITA -S CI -R AP 2018:002
I SBN: 978-91-7729-680-5
 Abstract
One of the new challenges in the railway industry is reliable fault detection through condition mon-
itoring, for both rail vehicles and infrastructure. Up until recently, the industry has been relying on
time-based or distance-based preventive maintenance, which is not always cost effective nor fault-
proof. When relying on visual inspections and preventive measures, there is seldom any up to date
information about the state of the components in the rail vehicle or the infrastructure. Therefore it is
hard to identify faults in time and satisfy maintenance needs. Active condition monitoring is there-
fore needed to make the transition from preventive to predictive maintenance. This report starts with
a review of the field of condition monitoring, research, and applications in the railway industry. The
original work focuses on how to achieve efficient condition monitoring of rail vehicle suspension
and track condition, using measurable parameters such as accelerations of the different rail vehicle
bodies by simple sensors. The suggested methods are evaluated through a simple experiment and
simulations. The experiment results show some success for monitoring methods using simple sensors
in the carbody of a rail vehicle. Results from the simulation also show promise for the use of cross
correlation method for detecting faults in the vehicle suspension.
Contents
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Purpose and goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2 Literature review 3
2.1 Condition monitoring - General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2 Condition monitoring - Railway applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2.1 Summaries and other literature reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2.2 Condition monitoring of track and infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2.3 Condition monitoring of rail vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.4 Condition monitoring systemization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2.5 Condition monitoring currently in use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.3 Literature review summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3 Methods for evaluating condition monitoring approaches 15

3.1 Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2 Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.3 Faults and components to be monitored . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.4 Fault detection methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.4.1 Fast Fourier transforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.4.2 Transfer function and gain function analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.4.3 Cross Correlation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.4.4 Acceleration Root Mean Square (RMS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

4 Experiment 20
4.1 Experiment setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.1.1 Choice of track section . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.1.2 Choice of vehicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.2 Carrying out the measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

5 Simulation 24
5.1 Vehicle and track model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.2 Simulation method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

6 Results 27
6.1 Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.1.1 Cross Correlation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
6.1.2 Acceleration RMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.1.3 FFT spectrogram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
6.2 Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
6.2.1 Acceleration RMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
6.2.2 Transfer functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
6.2.3 Cross correlation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

7 Conclusions 44
7.1 Continued work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
1 Introduction
Today the railway industry is moving forward at a fast pace, with new technology and research push-
ing for shorter travel times, better comfort and higher system efficiency overall. Many of the issues the
railway industry is facing are those related to the logistics and methods of maintenance. Vehicle and
track maintenance plans today are often based on the same techniques as those utilized over half a
century before: Scheduled preventive maintenance and parts replacement based on running time and
distance, often combined with infrequent and simple visual inspections. This method of maintenance
is not always able to identify and detect emerging faults, resulting in breakdowns between planned
maintenance occasions. The method also leads to fully functional components being changed due to
them reaching their time or distance limit, even though their true condition may allow them to run
many thousands of kilometers more.
Another issue the industry is facing are so called "no fault found"-situations. This can for example
happen when a vehicle is taken in for maintenance following passenger complaints about poor ride
comfort. The maintenance crews are not guaranteed to identify the cause of the issue, due to lack of
details in the initial reports, and the wrong components may end up being serviced. The same prob-
lem also occurs when a "bumpy ride" is reported for a track section, somewhere between two stations.
As reports are seldom very exact, track-work crews cannot always find the location or identify the
issue without having to run a specialized track inspection vehicle on the line.
These are the reasons why the railway industry today are investigating the prospects of condition
monitoring, especially that of the vehicle running gear and track condition. To be able to provide a
competitive transport system, limiting delays and increasing reliability, while still minimizing costs
for the operation, condition monitoring solutions are a critical step forward.

1.1 Background

Condition monitoring is defined as the practice of monitoring parameters of a system or component,

with the intent of getting deeper knowledge of how that system changes and deteriorates with time.
If key parameters that can be linked to wear, faults and degradation can be monitored, emerging
problems can quickly be found or even predicted.
Scheduled visual inspections of running gear and track, as well as manual measurements of e.g.,
wheel profiles, can be seen as simple condition monitoring methods, but they are too non-comprehensive
to provide the full benefits of active and real-time condition monitoring. Nondestructive testing and
more thorough inspection can also be carried out on vehicles in specialized workshops, and provide
very exact and precise results concerning condition. The problem is that these workshop visits takes
much time, and leads to lost income from the trains not being in traffic. Specialized track monitoring
trains are also able to monitor infrastructure condition with very high precision, but they often move
slowly and are few in number. Thus many track sections are only monitored on an annual basis,
leading to significant gaps in the knowledge of the current state of many of the lines. Therefore, if
both vehicle and infrastructure maintenance is to be made more effective, the time it takes to carry
out monitoring needs to be decreased, while maintaining precision and safety. And the frequency at
which the monitoring is carried out needs to be increased. With active condition monitoring, parame-
ters can be monitored at a higher frequency and also much faster than by e.g. manual methods.
Today there are also advanced models and simulation software capable of simulating wear and dete-
rioration of both track and vehicles. The main issues are that many of the most critical factors affecting
the wear in these models are often unknowns, such as the initial state of all system, weather condi-
tions, and driver behavior. These are all examples of factors that could be more actively monitored

1
to provide reliable information for different wear models. Making it possible to make better predic-
tions of how the wear will look a certain time ahead. Thus enabling the possibility to do predictive
maintenance. For example, by going from monthly to a weekly or daily monitoring of wheel pro-
files, a wheel wear model could be continuously updated with new data and thus provides a better
approximation on when re-profiling of the wheels is necessary.
Finally, probably the most crucial factor for the practical implementation of condition monitoring
solutions is the cost-benefit for the operators. Depending on the vehicles, infrastructure, and type of
service of an operator, the preferred method of condition monitoring may vary. High-speed passenger
train operators can be assumed to be more willing to pay for an advanced system capable of predict-
ing faults or detecting poor performance at an early stage, as well as pinpointing the exact sources of
the issue. There may also be a demand that these systems can be integrated in such a way that enables
monitoring of other onboard systems such as motors and power equipment, HVAC, doors, etc. Thus
most likely leading to an expensive condition monitoring suite installed on the vehicles. On the other
hand, a freight train operator with thousands of freight wagons without any electronics equipment
may be more interested in cheaper and simpler ways of monitoring their vehicles. Perhaps instead
using a track-side monitoring system, that will be cheaper than installing monitoring equipment on
all their vehicles.

1.2 Purpose and goals

The purpose of this report is to investigate and evaluate methods for condition monitoring in railway
applications. As this project is in the field of vehicle dynamics, the focus of the work will be in the
condition monitoring of vehicle running gear and track condition. The investigation and analysis
will therefore study the use of different sensors, sensor placements, and fault detection methods for
vehicle and infrastructure condition monitoring.
With the background to the work, the overall focus will be on practical and applicable solutions for
condition monitoring. With the goal of finding efficient condition monitoring methods, that can be
applied in a realistic and practical manner. It means that all methods discussed and suggestions in
this report will take into account factors such as:
• Estimated benefits of the studied method and system
• Fault detection reliability of the studied method and system
• Range of faults and issues that can be detected with the studied method
The report will therefore initially focus on summarizing the field of condition monitoring in the rail-
way industry. A literature review of the current research in this field as well as a review of some
applications of condition monitoring and other market-ready solutions are provided. Some of the
reviewed methods deemed more suitable for analysis in this project are also evaluated and tested in
later parts of the report, through a simple experiment and simulations.

2
2 Literature review
The field of condition monitoring is currently very active and spans a large range of applications and
different industries. The concept of condition monitoring is in itself not new or recent, resulting in
the existence of textbooks and large amount of papers on the matter of general condition monitoring.
On the subject of railway condition monitoring there is also ongoing research into both new theory
and applications. In recent years some condition monitoring systems have also been introduced into
the rail networks and vehicle fleets, and more are becoming market ready.
This section therefore gives a small look into the field of condition monitoring in a general sense and
then in more detail summarizes the state of the research in the railway industry. While also looking
into some of the existing applications for rail vehicle and infrastructure condition monitoring.

2.1 Condition monitoring - General

In textbooks on the subject, condition monitoring is defined as a management technique that uses the
regular evaluation of actual operating condition to optimize the use of and continued operation of the
equipment. The idea is that with the use of frequently sampled or real-time data, the current condition
of a system or component can be monitored. This way it’s easier to know when the system is starting
to degrade or about to fail. Consequently, when there is an awareness that the system is about to
fail or deteriorate, maintenance can be carried out just in time to prevent faults or poor performance.
With this, maintenance can be optimized so that it is not carried out too early, optimizing the use and
efficiency of the system. [1] [2]
In the manufacturing industry, tools and stationary machine condition are often monitored to hinder
unplanned stops in production. As many of the applications of condition monitoring today are used
in the manufacturing industry, the textbook literature [2] often uses examples from this industry and
speaks of the potential advantages regarding:
• Improved machine availability and reliability
• Improved operating efficiency
• Better planning of maintenance and lower costs
But, the methods are not completely without drawbacks. The same literature also mentions some
potential disadvantages, such as:
• High monitoring equipment costs
• Risk of increased operating costs
• Skilled personnel is often needed for the upkeep of the condition monitoring system
• Need of commitment of management for full benefits
According to the same reference [2], the specific tasks which must be carried out for the successful im-
plementation of a machine condition monitoring system and fault detection program include:
• Detection requires data gathering, comparison to standards that is used by the equipment, and
trending over time.
• A diagnosis method capable of recognizing the type of a developing fault and determining the
impact of given errors once detected and diagnosed.

3
 • Prognosis methods, including forecasting the expected time of failure, trending the condition
and planning the appropriate maintenance timing. This task is considered one of the most
challenging in condition monitoring.
• A "postmortem" method, meaning the investigation of root-cause failure analysis after a fault
has occurred.
• A "prescription activity" dictated by the information collected, that may be applied at any stage
of condition monitoring.
There are two main practices of condition monitoring mentioned in the textbooks; these are periodic
monitoring and continuous monitoring. Periodic monitoring uses intermittent data gathering, of-
ten using portable equipment, reducing the need for sensors on all components and machines. This
method is highly suitable for the use of non-critical equipment, or where failure either can be pre-
dicted easily or where changes occur very slowly. Continuous monitoring is instead the practice of
collecting data at a specific, fixed sampling rate, the systems of sensors then usually installed perma-
nently on the machines and components. It’s often used for critical equipment, which needs more
attention because of the large cost effect if that equipment fails. Alternatively, in situations where
the cost of replacing a component or the complete breakdown of malfunctioning component is too
expensive.
The primary output of any condition monitoring system is data. Until action is taken to resolve any
problems revealed by the system, the performance cannot be considerer improved. Therefore, all peo-
ple who are related to the maintenance system, the management, engineers and maintenance plan-
ners must be fully committed to the adoption of the condition monitoring methods. Failing to adapt
maintenance leads to failing in the fulfilling of the more significant goal of improving the perfor-
mance of the system. [1] A paper by K. Laakso et al. [3] discusses this impact of condition monitoring
on maintenance decision making. They define two objectives in the context of strategic and opera-
tive decision making related to condition monitoring. The basic problem in operative maintenance
decision-making based on the information from a condition monitoring system is "what should be
done when the hidden fault or an indication of incipient is detected?". Continued operation may lead
to costs due to decreased performance, and if a breakdown occurs the costs may rise even further.
The definition of a "strategic condition monitoring objective" is the objectives a condition monitoring
system is supposed to fulfill. If it is to improve the overall cost-effectiveness, or operation safety of
a larger production chain or entire factory. The author’s definition of an "operative condition mon-
itoring objective" is how the condition monitoring is to reduce the costs and safety hazards due to
functional breakdowns, given indications of an incipient or hidden fault from a condition monitoring
system.
Conclusively it’s important to consider the overall strategies and aims when implementing a condi-
tion monitoring system, and on what level the condition monitoring solution is supposed to operate.
If it is to monitor critical performance indicators, to improve the performance on a more large-scale
strategic level of an operation. Or it is to be used for more local, operational purposes.

2.2 Condition monitoring - Railway applications

Research into condition monitoring on rail vehicles and infrastructure is in itself a very sprawling
field. Research is currently aimed at a lot of different areas in the vehicle-track-interaction, such
as wheel condition, track irregularities, and suspension component condition. The approaches also
differ, with methods relying on data from either vehicle or track based sensors. As well as a wide
range of data analysis and detection methods, ranging from signal analysis or general performance

4
indicators of track and vehicle. To advanced systems relying on parallel modeling, residual analysis
and correlation of vehicle behavior to determine the state of single suspension components.
Most of the advanced condition monitoring research is currently being performed in simulation envi-
ronments, but there are some research focusing on tests and measurements carried out on real vehicles
and track sections as well. Some applications have come so far as to be offered as parts of commercial
systems for both track and vehicle condition monitoring.

2.2.1 Summaries and other literature reviews

The overall state of the field of research into railway condition monitoring is summarized in a set
of journal-, conference articles and papers. One paper by A. Ball et al. [4] provides an excellent
summary of the current railway condition monitoring field aimed at monitoring vehicle dynamics.
Reviewing solutions for condition monitoring of rail vehicles, with evaluations of current condition
monitoring techniques as well as an investigation into the current research. The paper summaries
different model-based techniques, utilizing, for instance, Kalman filters and the so-called observer-
based fault detection methods for vehicle suspension and wheels. Another interesting method of
fault detection mentioned is mode-matching. By looking at modeled damage behavior modes and
comparing them to the damage mode of the real vehicle. Different signal analysis based techniques
are summarized, utilizing accelerometers, microphones and gyroscope data to detect faults such as
wheel flats, wheel-, and track corrugation as well as vibration behavior related to specific component
failures. The paper also introduces some practical applications and commercial systems used today.
Track-based and vehicle-based systems are discussed. As well as the types of sensors used, with
their respective benefits and drawbacks when used for monitoring specific parameters are compared.
Figure 1 shows some of these typical placements.

Figure 1: Illustration of typical sensor placement on vehicle and track.1

A more detailed summary of the field of wheel and wheelset condition monitoring can also be found
in a paper by G. Lodwijks et al. [5]. It reviews the possibilities of going from the current visual inspec-
tions and manual measurement to ultrasonic, infrared and electromagnetic cameras for monitoring
in workshops and depots. All these techniques are described as improvements to the out-of-service
condition monitoring carried out today on rail vehicles, which would allow for more exact and fre-
quent measurements between traffic assignments of the vehicles. In-service monitoring methods are
also reviewed and evaluated. Including magnetic gap-sensors mounted close to the wheel to de-
termine lateral track forces from wheel bending. Ultrasonic sensors mounted on the wheel rings,
capable of picking up tread irregularities and flange contact, which can be used together with other
1 A. Ball et al., Modern techniques for condition monitoring of railway vehicle dynamics, 2016 [4]

5
data to determine wheel health. These techniques unfortunately often rely on simulation results and
thus have the risk of not proving to be robust and practical enough for large-scale implementations.
Other ways of monitoring wheel health of in-service vehicles are presented. Such as acoustic and
vibration techniques for wheel crack searching, wheel flats, and rail damage using signal analysis
methods such as "crest factor", "skewness" and Fast Fourier Transforms (FFT). The paper looks into
several track-side methods of monitoring wheel health, using for instance strain gauges on the track
web to determine track forces when vehicles pass over. A system stated to be capable of providing
information about both wheelset and suspension health. Other reviewed track-side monitoring sys-
tems are those utilizing image processing, with the use of high-speed cameras and laser to capture
the wheel profiles, at vehicle speeds up to 160 km/h. Image processing algorithms and image noise
cancellation techniques are discussed. The paper concludes that current In-workshop inspection sys-
tems can monitor wheel condition with high accuracy, and that it’s still the most exact and reliable
method for monitoring wheel health in general. Furthermore, it points out the fact that many of the
proposed methods are only implemented in simulation or test rigs, while field measurements are
scarce. As a result, in-service monitoring of the wheel condition still has many complications waiting
to be solved.
Another paper by C. Roberts et al. [6] goes into a summary of the most commonly discussed detection
algorithms for condition monitoring in the rail industry applications. Drawing similar conclusions
as [4]. They state that the industry can promote the technology by standardization and integration
of condition monitoring solutions in new products. This paper also dives deeper into data analysis
possibilities for different condition monitoring techniques, such as qualitative and quantitative mod-
els. Signal analysis as well as analysis models utilizing “fuzzy logic” with the discussion leading to
the possibility of artificial intelligence and machine learning to come up with more advanced fault
detection and prediction methods. The paper concludes that there are extensive possibilities for bet-
ter analysis of data regarding fault detection and prediction. However, it states that the proposed
methods still have some way to go before they can be heavily relied upon, as many of the systems
that are to be monitored using these techniques are safety critical.

2.2.2 Condition monitoring of track and infrastructure

Referenced in the state of the art papers [4] [6] [5] is a multitude of research into specific applications
and methods for condition monitoring. A large part of the research is focused into monitoring of
track conditions. Today, specialized track monitoring trains with a variety of advanced measurement
equipment are used to monitor the infrastructure, often on an annual or even more infrequent basis.
Therefore most of the research into track condition monitoring relates to the use of in-service trains to
improve the frequency of the data generation with concerns to track condition as well as maximizing
the usefulness of the data generated by a limited set of sensors.
One approach for track condition monitoring is the use of axlebox-mounted accelerometers, Figure 2
shows a typical placement of accelerometers on the sides of the axlebox. A paper by M. Matsumoto
et al. [7] looks into the use of these kind of accelerometers to detect the issue of track corrugation with
great success. In their work the signals from the accelerometers are analyzed with help of power spec-
tral density-spectra (PSD), taking into account vehicle speed and studying the relationship between
acceleration for different known track roughnesses and corrugations. In their experiment the use of
both the actual track roughness, measured with a specialized track measurement train, and then the
accelerometer data show strong correlation between the signal and track corrugation where existent.
The conclusion is that data generated from axlebox mounted accelerometers should have no issue
finding track faults such a corrugation, or other similar track roughness issues. This paper, therefore,
can be seen as giving commendation to the use of axlebox accelerometers to determine vertical track
irregularities. Although, axlebox accelerometers can be argued to have some disadvantages over

6
accelerometers in the bogie frame or carbody, as the harsh environment and high vibrations of the
axlebox pose very high requirements on robustness and reliability of the accelerometers used.

Figure 2: axlebox accelerometers used for track monitoring.2

Another approach is to use accelerometers mounted on the carbody, this has been done in works by H.
Tsunashima et al. [8] and F. Balouchi et al. [9]. H. Tsunashima et al. in their paper describe a compact,
portable sensor-box installed inside the carbody. Utilizing microphones as well as accelerometers,
gyroscope, and GPS. The sensor-box is used to detect track corrugation and some other vertical track
irregularities. The idea is that all types of vehicles can use this system while in service, to provide
more frequent information for a more substantial track condition monitoring system. The detection
methods utilize a cross correlation analysis of the roll, vertical and lateral accelerations of the carbody
to determine the existence of track irregularities. And FFT analysis was carried out on the microphone
signal for the detection of track corrugation. When irregularities or issues were picked up, the GPS
provides the location of the track irregularity. The authors report of successful experiments with the
methods, but it’s unclear how exact and detailed the results are. Or if the output from their method is
good enough to replace specialized track monitoring trains. However, the methods and results of the
paper strengthen the hypothesis that simple sensor equipment in the carbody of in-service vehicles
can generate useful data for more active condition monitoring of the track condition. F. Balouchi et al.
[9] uses a similar approach, with accelerometers mounted in the carbody and with the use of multiple
in-service vehicles. In their paper the sought after fault are track voids e.g., changes in ballast stiffness
causing issues similar to vertical irregularities in the track. Track voids can be foretelling for issues
in the railway embankments, and more frequent monitoring may help reduce the risk of sudden
landslides destroying the track and embankment. The signal processing is done through FFT analysis,
bandwidth separation and so-called multi-resolution analysis. The most important conclusion and
argument in the paper are that the use of multiple in-service trains gives the closest to real-time data
of the track void conditions. This arrangement holds for similar condition monitoring techniques as
those discussed in [7]. The paper also brings up the suggestion of using machine learning algorithms
in the long-term development for better detection and prediction of track faults.
While vertical track irregularities is shown to be possible to distinguish and monitor with the help of
accelerometers mounted on the axleboxes, as in [7], or even in the carbody, as in [8] [9], lateral irreg-
ularities are harder to distinguish with the help of accelerometers and similar sensors in the vehicles.
A paper by S. Bruni et al. [10] looks into this in particular, simulating a number of accelerometers
mounted on the axles, bogie frames and carbody of a vehicle. However, the paper concludes that
the actual lateral track displacements are hard to find due to the complexity of the wheel-rail lateral
interactions. In their simulation, the lateral track irregularity was to be measured from a vehicle ne-
2 M. Matsumoto et al, Application of axle-box acceleration to track condition monitoring for rail corrugation management, 2016 [7]

7
gotiating a curve. A total of 17 accelerometers were used in the simulation of one vehicle, but it was
not enough to get a reliable estimate of the track irregularities in the lateral plane. The accelerometer
data was analyzed through comparison to simpler wheel-rail interaction- and vehicle models. And
from these models the track irregularities could be estimated. Some success was achieved in esti-
mating roll irregularities and lateral track irregularities of wavelengths longer than 110 meters. The
conclusions in this paper reflect of the complexity and issues with trying to approximate lateral track
irregularities using only dynamic models and sensors.
Another interesting issue is the one of precise localization of irregularities and faults once a track
issue is found, especially in situations where only GPS and similar systems might not be enough or
applicable. A paper by A. M. Boronahin et al. [11] discusses some techniques of track fault moni-
toring, similar to [8] [9] and has an interesting conclusion on the issue of localization. It states that
some track monitoring methods can also operate as to precisely pinpoint the position for the detected
faults. By for example detecting existing track joints, which have known positions in the rail sys-
tems, used together with odometers and to get exact localization of a track irregularities, cracks or
other damages. Similar techniques could be used in track systems that can not rely on GPS, such as
subways or in tunnels.

2.2.3 Condition monitoring of rail vehicles

The next big area of research, almost to be considered a field in itself, is the research into vehicle con-
dition monitoring. Here the different methods and techniques are even more varied and sprawling
than those for track contrition monitoring. The focus of the research into vehicle condition monitoring
is varied as well, with some research aiming specifically at wheelset or axle monitoring, and others
towards suspension parameters or the running gear system as a whole. The approaches differ, and
proposed methods are using both track based and vehicle-based sensors, with both systems prov-
ing to have a set of benefits and drawbacks in some applications. In terms of condition monitoring
practice, the vehicle based sensors represents continuous monitoring, whereas a track based moni-
toring system provides a more periodic monitoring approach, in accordance to condition monitoring
textbooks. [1] [2]
A good starting point is a paper by C. P. Ward et al. [12], which investigates vehicle-based sensors
for monitoring the running gear, both suspension and wheel parameters. The work in this case relies
on simulations, utilizing model-based condition monitoring and Kalman filters with accelerometer
data. By carrying out simulations of a vehicle with accelerometers and gyros, the methods show
some success in determining the state of the suspension, such as the different damper coefficients.
However, when the method is applied to approximate the conicity of the wheel profile, it showed
limited success. The method is stated to be quite computationally heavy, as modeling is being done
as a part of the data processing and analysis. It therefore poses some challenges when it comes to
the processing power of onboard equipment in rail vehicles, as well as issues with bandwidth if the
data is to be transmitted elsewhere for processing. The method also requires knowledge of the track
irregularities as well as accelerometers on all bodies for the best results.
As computationally heavy methods can be an issue, simpler ways of determining vehicle faults with
the help of vehicle-based sensors are presented in a paper by X.J. Ding et al. [13]. Their work looks
into detection of suspension element faults with the help of cross-correlation and relative variance
of acceleration signals between pitch, roll, and bounce of bogie frames. Using simulations of a sim-
ple vehicle model to test the methods, it shows promising results, as different changes in the run-
ning cross-correlation coefficients can be linked to the failure of individual suspension elements. The
method is also practical in the sense that a small number of accelerometers and gyros placed in the
bogie frames can be used to monitor the primary suspension. The method is also shown to be robust
in the sense that it is not largely affected by different track irregularities or speed of the vehicle in the

8
simulation. Nor does the method require any knowledge of track irregularity. For this reason, this
method can be considered an auspicious way of carrying out condition monitoring on rail vehicles
suspension system. Another paper [14] by the same authors can be seen as a prestudy on the concept
of cross correlation, and shows similarly promising results for the method of cross correlation.
Many of the proposed methods are also aimed more specifically at faults in wheels and wheelsets,
as they are among the most safety critical components. Papers by M. Carboni et al. [15], J. Chen et
al. [16], M. Paolo [17] and C. Wei et al. [18] all touch on this subject while using different methods.
In the paper by M. Carboni et al. [15] the authors simulate and assess signal analysis methods to
find propagating cracks in the wheelset axles. They conclude that changes in the horizontal vibration
behavior are the best way for detecting cracks. Moreover, that vertical vibration can also be used,
but is profoundly affected by noise and other wheel issues, such as out of roundness or spalling.
Accelerometers and senors in their simulation are mounted on the axle, which is an extremely harsh
environment to mount sensors in. The practicality of their method could, therefore, be put in ques-
tion. The use of axlebox mounted sensors such as those previously described in [7] could possibly
be used for the vertical vibrations, but cannot be used to record the exact lateral accelerations, as the
picked up acceleration would be profoundly affected by the lateral play between the axle and the
bearings.
Wheel flats are another commonly sought after issue. J. Chen et al. [16] looks into the detection of
wheel flats using vehicle-based accelerometers. Analysis of accelerometer data is carried out using
FFT signal analysis, looking for typical patterns caused of wheel flats. Accelerometers are simulated
on several positions in the vehicle, with the axle mounted sensor providing the best results. The
authors still conclude that bogie mounted sensors make the most sense from a practical standpoint.
Distinguishing wheel flats from track faults in case of small wheel flats are also stated as an issue.
The wheel flat used in the detection study could also be considered quite significant (9 mm deep
into the tread) and smaller wheel-flats could be harder to find using this method. Another approach
to this problem is also presented in the licentiate thesis by M. Paolo [17], the focus of work being
on condition monitoring of ore-hoppers. Ore-hoppers are freight wagons, usually without any form
of electronics equipment whatsoever and are often used in large numbers by the freight operators.
Vehicle-based monitoring equipment is therefore not considered an economic choice, and track-based
monitoring is preferred instead. Track based monitoring is advantageous in this case where vehicles
are limited to operation on one or a few railway lines. As the vehicles pass through a single track sec-
tion several times a week or day, they can be monitored by track-side equipment on those passages.
In Paolo’s thesis the main method reviewed utilized manual wheel profile measurements combined
with maintenance data and the active monitoring of wheel-rail forces, using strain gauges mounted
on track web on some positions on the iron-ore line, shown in Figure 3. With the vibration data sup-
plied from the strain gauges, wheel-flats and other wheel surface damage is possible to distinguish.
Strain gauges mounted on the track web in curves where also able to measure the track-shift forces for
passing trains, thus giving a good indicator of the condition of suspension and wheels. The method
of using wheel-rail forces is concluded to be a useful method to find poorly performing wheelsets and
bogies. It can also be considered an excellent example of a condition monitoring solution that per-
haps doesn’t provide an exact figure for any of the commonly searched for parameters, such as wheel
profiles or specific suspension coefficients. However, it still provides an excellent key figure of the
performance of the vehicle for condition monitoring when combined with other data from manual
wheel measurements and workshop logs.
Very much alike to Paolo’s work a paper by C. Wei et al. [18] had a similar aim and method. The dif-
ference being the authors use of Fiber Bragg Grating (FBG) sensors, which are used as an alternative
to standard strain gauges. The sensors are supposedly very robust, wear resistants and capable of
very high sampling frequencies. The authors argue that the sensors and method provides a good pic-
ture of possible wheel damage on the entire circumference of the wheel. Moreover, the authors also

9
 Figure 3: Strain gauges mounted on rail web for monitoring of wheel and suspension
condition.3

argue that the FBG sensor could be applied in more condition monitoring roles, as it is very robust as
well as entirely resistant to disturbance in high emf-environments
Another, different approach to condition monitoring of vehicles, is the real-time monitoring "simpler"
key factors, such as acceleration RMS or ride comfort. By logging and monitoring the deterioration of
such factors over time for large fleets of vehicles. A paper by J.H. Lin et al. [19] presents this method
with the suggestion that multiple vehicles fitted with accelerometers, continuously measuring ride
comfort, combined with big data analysis can provide valuable information for condition monitoring.
In their method, they divide different track sections the vehicles have been running on to get an idea
of how the track section affects the ride comfort and how it changes over time. Even if the authors
do not suggest it in the paper, the method also points to the possibility of cross-referencing data
from different vehicles to get an idea of track condition. Apart from this, the authors do not draw
many conclusions themselves, and it is, therefore, hard to determine the usefulness of their choice of
approach.
Finally, S.R. Duncan et al. [20] in their paper shows the usefulness of image processing as a solution in
situations where forces and acceleration can be hard to measure; on the vehicle’s pantographs. In this
paper cameras mounted on the roof of train continuously monitor the pantographs movement with
the help of two reflective markers on the pantograph horns, see Figure 4. Pantograph accelerations
and contact forces on the carbon strip are then derived from the recorded movement. The authors also
state that the system could possibly be expanded to monitor the the catenary using the same method,
suggesting a combination of both vehicle and infrastructure monitoring using the same system and
sensors.

3 M. Paolo, Condition Monitoring of Railway Vehicles: A Study on Wheel Condition for Heavy Haul Rolling Stock, 2008. [17]

10
 Figure 4: Vehicle based pantograph condition monitoring using image processing.4

2.2.4 Condition monitoring systemization

Apart from research into condition monitoring solutions aimed to specific vehicle and track issues
there are also many papers looking into condition monitoring as an integrated system. As condi-
tion monitoring also poses many challenges linked to the system infrastructure, data transmission,
security, processing, etc. Much relevant research therefore also goes into studying the practical im-
plementation of more wide spanning condition monitoring systems in the railway industry.
Addressing the issues on data handling, systemization and integration of condition monitoring sys-
tems are a number of papers. A paper by G.D. Horler et al. [21] focuses on the systemization of
condition monitoring systems in a railway application. Tying multiple sensors system into a larger
condition monitoring framework, using both wireless technology and other methods of data trans-
mission, handling and storage. As well as the possibility of cross referencing data of different sources.
The paper also discusses the application of wireless sensors and the transmissions of large amounts
of data, as well as providing a very good summary of commonly used sensors. V.J. Hodge et al. [22]
similarly studies the combination of varied monitoring systems and sensors into a complete suite.
Both papers draw conclusions that there are opportunities to combine different systems into larger
and more effective condition monitoring suites. Another paper produced Alstom by B. Escartin-
Calaveria et al. [23] also discusses the issues of data handling in extensive vehicle condition monitor-
ing systems. The paper brings up the benefits and drawbacks of "data based" in comparison to "event
based" handling of faults. Where data based means that the data is sent from vehicles to a land based
system for processing and analysis, limited by bandwidth, latency and stability of connection. But
with benefit of being able to log complete data history, run cross-fleet data analysis as well as more
freely search larger trends. In the event based system the data is instead processed in the vehicles,
generating an "event" that is sent to the land system in case of a detected fault. The raw sensory data
then remains on the train and is removed after time. The benefits with these kind of systems is that
data processing and data transfer from the trains can be made simpler. But the system may only detect
and report events concerning that which the on-board data processing system is capable of finding.
The suggested approach in this paper is a combination, where some data with a lower resolution, is
sent to the ground based system for logging and simpler analysis. And where the on-board system
handles the real time data processing and analysis and generates "events", together with a complete
data dump for set time window, that is then also sent to the ground system.
On the subject of cross referencing data between vehicles in a fleet and track side condition monitoring
systems are a paper by M.C. Gallop et al. [24]. This paper discusses how data, service and systems are
4 S.R. Duncan et al., Non-Contact Force Measurement for Current Collection in a 25kV Overhead Line Electrified Railway, 2016 [20]

11
to be handled in a condition monitoring system. Much similar to the subjects discussed for general
condition monitoring in [2] [1] [3], but now aimed specifically at a railway application. The paper also
specifies and points out some important factors to consider when setting out for condition monitoring
on large vehicle fleets. As many of the vehicle monitoring solutions rely on vehicle sensors and
models that would probably require individual calibration for each vehicle, and risk the need for
recalibration when components are changed or repaired. Other similar factors mentioned are the
variation of the same asset from operation to operation and the different response due to atmospheric
conditions, such as rain and snow.

2.2.5 Condition monitoring currently in use

While research is ongoing, there are already some on market applications of condition monitoring for
the railway industry. The most common ones today usually involve track based equipment, which
monitors aspects of the trains passing by. Such as "hot-box" detectors, running gear monitoring using
high speed cameras as well as others. Together with RFID identification systems these condition
monitoring solutions are often constructed so that automatic alarms are sent to the operators as soon
as a vehicle fault is suspected or identified.
Some examples of implemented condition monitoring systems are those employed by Swedish infras-
tructure authority Trafikverket. Systems already in use are so called "hot-box" detectors and a panto-
graph monitoring system. The hot-box detectors used by Trafikverket are of the brands SERVO,SAT
and FEUS [25]. These detectors are all mounted on the track side and monitor the temperature of the
axleboxes of passing trains. The temperature is registered with a set of infrared sensors, and with the
help of axle counters and the RFID tag system currently used on most Swedish main line vehicles, the
system can generate an alarm if any axlebox have an elevated temperature. The axlebox temperature
in itself is a good indicator of the health and condition of the roller bearings inside. The KIKA [26]
pantograph monitoring system works in similar manner, taking pictures of the pantographs of trains
passing. This system utilizes image processing to look for damage on the carbon strip of the panto-
graph. But as many false alarms are produced by the system, the pictures still often require human
inspection to determine if there is actual damage. But in this sense, it is still a condition monitoring
system, although somewhat crude. With time it’s not unlikely that this system will be complemented
with more advanced image processing and automatic fault detection algorithms.
Other condition monitoring applications also exist on the vehicle manufacturer side of the industry.
Where’s there are already a set of different market ready condition monitoring systems and suites.
They are usually bundled with the vehicles and thus provided by the manufacturers. Bombardier’s
Orbita [27] is an example of one of these systems. Other manufactures, such as Alstom [23], also offers
similar solutions. Although these systems are today mostly monitoring motors, power electronics and
auxiliary systems and not the running gear or dynamic behavior of the vehicles and faults thereof.
The systems still offer the basic framework for a larger condition monitoring system, that would
allow integration of sensors such as accelerometers and gyros in the future. There is however an
issue with these "OEM" (original equipment manufacturer) condition monitoring systems, and that
is lack of compatibility with other manufacturer’s and third party systems. Apart from the vehicle
manufacturer’s options there are also third party companies like Trimble, with its Nexala system [28].
This system offers the same sort of condition monitoring solutions as the vehicle manufactures but as
a third party package that can be installed and retrofitted to any vehicle already carrying sensors of
different sorts. Part of the Trimble group are also a lot of other condition monitoring solutions, both
for track and vehicle, capable of operating in the same data and analysis system. One of these market
ready applications is the Beena Vision WheelView [29]. WheelView is part of large suite of condition
monitoring systems for rail vehicles, based on track side equipment and sensors. The system is based
on advanced image processing, getting its data from high speed cameras mounted in the track, see

12
Figure 5. WheelView in itself is capable of taking a measurements of the wheel profile at speeds up
to 140 km/h.

Figure 5: Illustration of the WheelView wheel profile condition monitoring system.5

2.3 Literature review summary

For easier overview of the material discussed in the literature review Table 1 summarizes the literature
review contents.

5 Beena Vision, WheelView presentation video, 2017 [29]

13
Table 1: Literature overview

14
3 Methods for evaluating condition monitoring approaches
In this project a simple experiment followed by simulations are used to evaluate some of the methods
in the research discussed in the literature review. This allows for the testing of some different methods
and hypothesizes in both an experiment and a simulation environment. Furthermore, with the aim
and limitations of the project, the experiment and simulations are focused on studying methods for
detecting vehicle faults and some track faults using vehicle based sensors. This is because track side
measurements aren’t possible to do as an experiment in this case, as it requires the mounting of
sensors on the rails or very close to the rails, which the authors have had no authority to do in this
project. On the other hand, vehicle based measurements are simpler to carry out in experiment and
is also possible to model in the simulation environment.

3.1 Experiment

The experiment approach for evaluating some different condition monitoring methods are done in
the first part of the project. The idea behind the experiment is to test and analyze some hypothe-
sizes about data gathering for condition monitoring. It can also be used to evaluate the practicality
of some of the methods that is then tested in the simulation environment. Simulations would in ret-
rospect have been a useful starting point to help in designing the experiment. However, since the
experiment is conducted in the first part of the project, while the simulation is in the second part,
the decision regarding measurement setup and sensor placement bases itself on similar setups in the
papers reviewed.
The experiment was planned to test condition monitoring methods using simple sensors and model-
less fault detection techniques. As one aim of the project is to evaluate the effectiveness of "simple"
and possibly cheap methods of condition monitoring this is a fitting approach. The other reason was
that the experiment had to be possible to do within the limitations of the project. The setup of the
experiment is therefore inspired by the use of the carbody based sensor box used in H. Tsunashima
et al. [8] paper, as well as the results from simulations by Mei and Ding [13]. Where simple vehicle
based sensors was shown to be capable of detecting suspension faults using cross correlation analysis,
without the need for modeling or any extra knowledge of the track irregularity. But in their case the
sensors was placed in the top of bogie frame, while the experiments carried out in this project they
are placed in the carbody. With this it’s also assumed that the method can be applied to a car-body
in a similar manner as for the bogie frames. As well as cross correlation analysis the measurement
data for the experiment is also analyzed using quantitative signal analysis, such as FFT and running
acceleration RMS.
The experiment itself is therefore carried out through the measurements of carbody dynamics on
in-service rail vehicles. The experiment work-flow can be summarized as:
1. Choose a suitable vehicle and track section where the measurements can be carried out.
2. Choose sensors and supporting software that will be used for the measurement.
3. Test the sensor and supporting software, evaluating performance.
4. Carry out the measurements, collect a number of data sets possible to compare with each other.
5. Analyze the measured data using the different analysis methods and try to find patterns that
could possibly indicate faults or other issues.
In this case the vehicle that measurements was carried out on is the C20 subway vehicle on the Stock-
holm metro Green line. The sensors that was decided for the experiment was the authors own smart-

15
phone accelerometers and the supporting software became "Matlab mobile", a software that allows
sensor sampling up to 100 Hz. The measurements was also decided to be done on line between
Alvik and Stora Mossen, with 10 set of measurements per direction. The detailed description of the
experiment setup can be found in section 4.

3.2 Simulation

In this project the simulations are carried out after the experiment has taken place. Simulations of-
fer a good basis for analysis as the simulation environment can be fully controlled and faults can be
introduced freely into the system. Simulations are therefore often the preferred way of testing con-
dition monitoring methods. One example is the work done by Wei and Chen [16], where wheel-flats
are introduced into a simulation model. Their results showed that the corners of the bogie frames
are the most appropriate place to put sensor to detect wheel-flats. Wheel flats as those tested in the
simulations would in an experiment risk causing damage to both track and vehicle. Another example
is the work done by Alfi et al. [10], where simulation results showed that 17 sensors per vehicle are
needed to be able to get a good estimation of lateral track irregularities from on-board measurements.
A real world experiment for this would require much more time, as well as a vehicle equipped with
all necessary sensors and track section with a suitable irregularity to detect.
The simulations in this project are mainly used to test different ways of using some of the reviewed
condition monitoring methods. The program used is Gensys [30] (Software developed by AB DE-
solver), a multi-body simulation software specially developed for rail vehicle dynamics simulation.
The general plan for the simulation work and how it is carried out can be summarized as:
1. Use of an existing vehicle and track model, here provided by Ingemar Persson of AB DEsolver
2. Create systematic, controlled suspension failures in the vehicle system
3. Collect acceleration data at different points in the vehicle model, simulating sensors
4. Analyze the data using some of the studied condition monitoring methods and see if fault pat-
terns can be detected
The strategy for the simulation is to introduce different systematic failures in the vehicle’s suspension.
This is done by reducing damping coefficients or in other ways altering the suspension parameters of
the vehicle, simulating different commonly occurring faults. By also reducing one suspension param-
eter slowly, it’s possible to simulate a slowly degrading component. And thus be able to determine
if it is possible to see at what percentage of the initial value a fault could be detected. Following this
it is also possible to try multiple suspension failures as well as failures at different positions in the
vehicle and then search for changes in vehicle behavior and data patterns. A detailed description of
the simulation setup can be found in section 5.

3.3 Faults and components to be monitored

It’s important to investigate and choose what kind of faults are being searched after with condition
monitoring methods. Different types of vehicle and infrastructure faults and failures behave differ-
ently, and may cause different response in systems. It’s therefore important to initially focus the
condition monitoring methods on those faults that can be considered the most important, in rela-
tion to safety, cost and ride comfort. In the case of the experiment, no control or knowledge over
vehicle or track faults were available, and thus the choice of what faults to monitor is limited to the
simulations.

16
The focus is therefore on critical faults, i.e. on those that are related to safety, such as the main suspen-
sion elements in the vehicles. One of the most important components, especially in faster trains, are
the yaw dampers. The yaw dampers usually connect between bogie frame and carboy and limit the
effects of hunting oscillations in the bogie frame at higher speeds. The function of the yaw damper is
therefore critical both for safety and comfort. Other dampers in the vehicle suspension are also im-
portant, both out of a safety and comfort standpoint. The dampers function is to dissipate the energy
transferred into the system. If a damper fails, the power from the input signal, in this case the track
irregularity will be transfered up into the carbody at a larger magnitude. Therefore all dampers can
be considered important as they all contribute to stability and ride comfort of the vehicle. Spring ele-
ments generally do not fail as often as dampers. Dampers are the component that protect the springs
and thus fail first.
In this case the authors have chosen to mainly simulate and analyze single faults in the primary
vertical, secondary lateral and bogie yaw dampers. These three damper types where chosen as they
all greatly affect running performance, stability and also ride comfort of the vehicle. The choice to go
with single faults and not combinations are mainly to limit the scope of the simulation work. But it
can also be argued that studying single faults is a valid approach, as breakdowns usually begin with
a single component failing, causing more stress and wear on the others, making them fail later. If
the single fault can be detected early or even predicted, a breakdown can thus be prevented, this is
therefore a good starting point.
Other safety critical faults are those related to wheel profile wear and poor wheel condition. While
some research on vehicle based detection methods have tried and showed some limited success in
determining factors such as poor conicity and tread damage. The cases studied in the literature review
point to that track based monitoring systems are better suited today to monitor the wheel condition,
especially if it’s to be done in a reliable and efficient manner. Therefore the choice is to not study
wheel faults in the simulations in this project, as the focus is on vehicle based sensors.

3.4 Fault detection methods

The methods that will be used for analyzing the data and hopefully detecting faults and issues, both
for the experiment and simulations, will be based on quantitative signal analysis. The methods found
suitable in this case are Fast Fourier Transform (FFT), cross correlation, and finally running accelera-
tion RMS. Each of these methods will be further explained in the following subsections.

3.4.1 Fast Fourier transforms

Discrete Fast Fourier Transforms (DFFT) will be used to process acceleration data, generating a spec-
trogram where the acceleration signals in the time and frequency domains can be studied. The equa-
tion for DFFT is

∞
Accel ( f ) = ∑ accel (nT ) · e−2πj f nT (1)
−∞

In this case it’s possible to do two kinds of DFFT, the first one is when the number of time "windows"
(n) for which the calculation is carried out is only one for the time period (T). Which generates
a amplitude density spectra of the entire time domain signal. The second way would be to use a so
called "moving window" where there is a certain window period (T) that is smaller than the total time
period of the signal. The DFFT is then calculated for the window as it moves over the signal in the
time domain. Generating a spectrogram or "waterfall" plot making it possible to see the acceleration

17
responses in the frequency domain for different positions in the time domain, in this case related to
different positions as a rail vehicle moves along a track.
Using DFFT to transform acceleration data from only the time domain, into time and frequency do-
main, it should be possible to to see recurring patterns for similar vehicles over the same track section.
And it could be possible to find vehicles with unusual frequency responses that may be an indicator
of faults in the vehicle. As well as locations along the track with recurring high intensity accelerations,
across the entire frequency spectra, where one instead could assume a track fault of some sort.

3.4.2 Transfer function and gain function analysis

As a continuation of the DFFT analysis it’s also possible to calculate the transfer functions for the
amplitude and phase shift between two different vehicle bodies after a DFFT spectra for both of them
have been calculated. When calculating the DFFT spectra for a longer time window, the time domain
effects are less pronounced, and thus information about local track faults are lost. What is had instead
are more comprehensive frequency responses for the different vehicle bodies.
With accelerometers mounted on axleboxes, bogie frames and carbody the gain function between
each of these bodies can be calculated. This is simply done by dividing the the FFT spectra for the
different bodies with each other. As long as the bodies and suspension between them remain un-
changed the gain functions should remain similar in shape over time. When a component changes
properties, this change should also change the shape of the computed gain functions.

3.4.3 Cross Correlation

Cross correlation is a signal analysis method, meant to express the similarity between two input
signals. The method is used in this project since it has been shown that it can also be used to detect
suspension faults in rail vehicles, in simulation work done by Mei and Ding [13]. In their simulations,
Mei and Ding used cross correlation to determine whether there are faults present in the primary
suspension system of a rail vehicle by calculating the cross correlation coefficient between any two
acceleration measurements among bounce, pitch, and roll accelerations of a bogie frame. The paper
only conducts simulation analysis, thus the method will be tried in combination with the experiment
carried out in this project to evaluate it’s practical application.
The idea behind cross correlation as a fault detection method is that the bounce, pitch, and roll move-
ment of the rail vehicle bodies are related to each other. So if a fault happen at some point in the sus-
pension system, then the correlation coefficients between those different movements will change [14].
Moreover, Mei and Ding [13] also showed that cross correlation coefficient can be independent from
factors such as vehicle speed, track irregularities, and random noise.
The way of calculating the cross correlation coefficients that is proposed in the paper by Mei and Ding
is as following:

SBP (k )
SCBP (k) = p (2)
SBB (0) · SPP (0)

SBR (k )
SCBR (k) = p (3)
SBB (0) · SRR (0)

SPR (k )
SCPR (k) = p (4)
SPP (0) · SRR (0)

18
where

N
SCxx (0) = ∑ x (i ) · x (i ) (5)
i =1

N
SCxy (k ) = ∑ x (i + k ) · y (i ) (6)
i =1

In these equations pitch is stated as P, roll as R, and bounce as B. SBB is the auto correlation of the
bounce acceleration, while SBP is the cross correlation coefficient between bounce acceleration and
pitch acceleration. It should noted that cross correlation coefficient here is based on normalized cross
correlation, so the value will be −1 ≤ SCBP ≤ 1, with 0 means there is no correlation between both
movements, 1 means the the movements is the same, and −1 means the movements is the same but
shifted 180 deg.
Furthermore, N is the size of the "sliding window" for which the coefficients are calculated. The
calculated cross correlation coefficients therefore are for all the data points between − N to + N, where
k is the time shift. The cross correlation is with this somewhat similar in function as for the DFFT
analysis. As the cross correlation coefficients also are calculated for moving window over a set of
data points in time. As long as no of the suspension elements in the systems are altered or starts to
deteriorate the cross correlation coefficients should remain stable over time.

3.4.4 Acceleration Root Mean Square (RMS)

Running acceleration root mean square (RMS) is also a method that could be used together with
FFT and cross correlation, as a general performance index. The acceleration RMS is closely linked to
the general health of the running gear and track and it may therefore be hard to detect single faults
with the acceleration RMS, but the parameter can still be monitored to find out when or if there is
a fault present. One of example of the use can be found in work done by Mei and Ding [14], where
running acceleration RMS value is used together with running cross correlation coefficient to detect
the presence of suspension faults.
The running acceleration RMS equation is simply
v
N
u
u1
arms 2
=t
N ∑ a ( i )2 (7)
i =1

With N is the sliding window size. Just as for the DFFT and cross correlation methods this window
will move in the time domain so that the acceleration RMS values will change with time.

19
4 Experiment

Possibilities for condition monitoring

using simple sensors in in-service vehicles

As part of the project an experiment was carried out to test some of the studied methods of condition
monitoring. The hypothesis tested was if the use of multiple simple and cheap sensors, like those
found in most smartphones today, can be used together with some of the studied condition monitor-
ing techniques to generate useful results. The experiment in this case consist of two parts, the data
collection through measurement on vehicles and the testing of the different methods of data analysis
linked to condition monitoring.
Together with the hypothesis there would also be an attempt to answer some specific research ques-
tions with the experiment results. These were:
• Can simple accelerometers and GPS receivers like the ones commonly used in smartphones be
used to generate useful data for condition monitoring of track and rail vehicles?
• Can simple accelerometers mounted in a carboy of a rail vehicle provide enough useful data as
to be able to draw conclusion surrounding both track and vehicle condition?
• Can several data sets of similar vehicles passing over the same track section be used to evaluate
parameters related to the condition on the track?
The main factor in all these questions is the usefulness of the data and results generated by the pro-
posed measurements and data analysis. The overall usefulness can be argued to be a combination
of the factors discussed in the purpose and aim of this project. This means the factors such as cost,
reliability, and the number of faults the method can detect are interesting to study in this case. The
choice of using simple sensors in the carbodies of the vehicle is in this case partly due to the limita-
tions of the experiment, as no other sensor placement were possible and no other or more advanced
sensor equipment was available for use. But the use of smartphone-sensors can still be argued as
suitable for this specific experiment and its purpose. As smartphone sensors are simple and cheap,
a positive result for the experiment would possibly show their usefulness for condition monitoring.
The carbody placement of the sensors work in a similar manner, as a positive result from that sensor
placement would show the possibilities of sensors placed inside the carbodies. Where they are gen-
erally more protected and will likely last longer, than in the harsh environments of the bogie frame
or on the journal boxes.

4.1 Experiment setup

To test the hypothesis and answer the questions posed, measurements had to be carried out on a rail
vehicle on a set of track. The choice of doing the measurements on the vehicle instead of doing it from
the track-side was that there was no suitable method for track-side monitoring using smartphone
sensors. The use of vehicle based measurements provide the ability to monitor vehicle behavior and
also how the track condition affect the vehicle, consequently, the track condition could possibly also
be monitored.
To get the amount of data necessary for analysis and comparisons, for both vehicle type and track, it
was necessary to choose a system using a limited number of vehicle types as well as high frequency
service with short station distances. The choice for the measurements was therefore to carry them
out on the subway lines of Stockholm’s Tunnelbana. By gathering data from many vehicles of the
same type, over the same section of track, the performance of the vehicles on that track section can

20
be compared and monitored. It can as well give some general idea of the track condition. If there
for instance is a track section on which all vehicles behave poorly, this would indicate that there is
something wrong with the track locally rather than the vehicles.

4.1.1 Choice of track section

The chosen track section where the measurements were carried out is an open section of the green
subway line in Stockholm, in this case between Alvik and Stora Mossen, see Figure 6. One of the main
reasons for choosing the green line for the measurement was that the green line exclusively uses C20
trainsets for its operation, allowing multiple measurements on the same type of vehicle. The line
between Alvik and Stora Mossen is a double track of ca 1000 meters and usually takes about two
minutes from start-to-stop with the regular service, resulting in an average speed of ca 30 km/h. The
line passes through two large horizontal curves, over two bridges as well as a set of turnouts between
the two stations. The choice of line and track section was due to high frequency of trains running on
this certain section. The high frequency allowed several measurements to be carried out in a limited
time. The outdoors environment also allowed for GPS positioning necessary for location tracking,
with the possibility of locating track sections with irregularities.

Figure 6: Track section chosen for experiment

As there was no data available about the track condition on the section, there was no knowledge
if or where on the line track issues could exist. Therefore, to be able to verify the methods in the
experiment, some reference points on the line similar to track irregularities had to be looked for. In
this case the bridges and turnouts on the track sections allowed for some known points of possible
vibrations and impacts that can be picked up by the measurement equipment. Turnouts usually cause
some vertical vibration when the wheel passes over the track crossing in the center of the turnout,
and bridges usually cause both some lateral and vertical vibration as the train passes from a ballasted
section of track onto a stiffer bridge mounted track.

4.1.2 Choice of vehicle

As the green line between Alvik and Stora Mossen exclusively uses Adtranz/Bombardier C20 sub-
way trains all the measurements for the experiment where carried out on this vehicle type. The C20
is an EMU, consisting of three carbodies resting on four bogies in total, which can be seen in Figure
7. The EMU is also articulated and the leading and trailing carbodies are semitrailers, only resting on
a single bogie in one end and connected to the center carbody in the other. All measurements where
carried out in the center carbody, as this carbody rests on two bogies and therefore are the most

21
suitable for the data analysis methods later employed. Here a possible source of error in this exper-
iment is also identified, as the semitrailers dynamic behavior also greatly affect the center carbody’s
movement in the case of the C20.
Just as with the track section there is also no initial knowledge about any actual vehicle faults or how
they would affect the behavior of the vehicles. These factors, together with limited knowledge of
other vehicle parameters and current lack of a simulation model to compare with, the analysis and
conclusions that can be drawn from the data generated will also be limited. The aim of the experiment
is then primarily to see if it is possible to pick up patterns in vibration behavior in the ranges common
for vehicle dynamics e.g., in the 1-10 Hz range. If patterns can be detected in these measurements they
could in a later stage perhaps be linked to certain vehicle factors and issues.

4.2 Carrying out the measurements

Measurements where taken with the authors own smartphones, that are capable of logging accelerom-
eter data as well as position using GPS. The accelerometers used in the smartphones are three axis lin-
ear accelerometers, with the highest sensitivity in the z-direction (axis usually going back to screen).
The software used to register and log the data for the measurements was Matlab mobile, which is
an extension of Matlab that can be installed on smartphones. The data recording requires a stable
internet connection, as data is directly transmitted from the phone to a computer via a remote server.
The need for a stable internet connection was also a factor taken into account when the track section
was selected. To then be able to record and save the accelerometers and GPS data from the phone’s
sensors Matlab is then run on a set of computers to which the data is sent.
For the measurements the plan was to use four positions in the carbody where accelerations where to
be recorded, close to the corners and bogies. The different points on the vehicle carbody that can be
seen in Figure 7 (A-D).

Figure 7: Sensor placement in the C20

During the measurement the phones would be placed on a flat handle on the carbody wall under-
neath the windows, which are shown in Figure 8. As this was the flattest possible position stiffly
connected to the carbody. The floor was disregarded as an option as passenger vehicles such as sub-
way trains often use some sort of floor dampening or a floating floor.
One station distance in each direction was used as a buffer, where the computers and phones where
set up and taken down between data recording, making the full distance of each measurement run
between Abrahamsberg and Kristineberg. The lack of an off-line recording function for the Matlab
mobile software and the inability to record data from more than one phone at a time made it necessary
to also use four different computers for data recording.

22
 Figure 8: Sensor placement on the handle bar

Sensors during the measurements where set to the maximum sampling frequency allowed by the
software, which was 100 Hz. The measurements started when the train started moving from the
initial station (Alvik or Stora Mossen) and stopped when the train is stopped at the final station
(Alvik or Stora Mossen).

23
5 Simulation
In the simulation environment the vehicle and track parameters can easily be changed and modi-
fied, different faults can thus be tested and different detection methods studied. Theoretical sensor
placements, in the car body, bogie frame, journal boxes or combinations can also be simulated and
evaluated for the different faults and detection methods.
The research questions that the simulation is to answer in this project are:
• Can cross correlation analysis be used on the secondary suspension and in the lateral plane?
• Can combinations of the different analysis methods be used for more efficient fault detection?
• Can more optimal sensor positions in the vehicle be found for the monitoring of certain faults,
out a economic and practical standpoint?
One of the most promising methods studied in the literature review is the cross correlation method
suggested by Mei and Ding [13]. In their work, cross correlation was carried out on a simple vehicle
model, studying primary vertical damper faults. It’s therefore interesting to try the cross correlation
method on a more advanced and nonlinear vehicle model. Mei and Ding also only studied the mo-
tions of the bogie frames in their work. Here, both bogie frames and carbody will be subject to the
cross correlation analysis. As well as used together and compared with other detection methods to
try and determine their combined usefulness.
For the simulation of vehicle and track the software Gensys is used. Gensys is a multi-body-dynamics
program developed specifically for the simulation rail vehicles and track. Both software and model
is lent to the authors by Ingemar Persson, the owner of AB DEsolver. The vehicle and track model
has previously been used in another work on condition monitoring by Ingemar Persson and Matthias
Asplund [31]. In which gain function analysis was used as the main method of fault detection, there
shown to be successful in detecting faults such as multiple damper failures and ice-packing.

5.1 Vehicle and track model

The vehicle model used is supposed to represent a generic passenger EMU, in this case based on
the X2 trains operated by SJ AB. The track model is a 5 km long track section with the possibility of
modifying both the curve radius and irregularity used in the simulation.
The vehicle model is reminiscent of the X2 locomotive (or power unit), in both size and suspension
layout. The difference is that the vehicle in the model is lighter than the real world counterpart, thus
making the simulation model more similar to an EMU vehicle rather than a locomotive. In figure 9 the
graphical representation of the vehicle model is shown, it has a complete set of primary and secondary
suspension components, including two yaw dampers on each bogie, making it representative for
many existing EMU’s and passenger vehicles in general. Noteworthy here is the arrangement of the
primary vertical dampers, which is also reminiscent of the real world X2 trains. The primary dampers
are mounted at a 4̃5 deg angle, effectively making them combined lateral and vertical dampers for
the axle boxes. And just like on the X2 locomotive the vehicle model does not have any carbody tilt
mechanism, unlike the X2 passenger cars, and thus also makes it more representative of common
EMU vehicles. The model only consists of one vehicle in this case, thus disregarding any effects from
coupled vehicles.

24
 Figure 9: Graphical representation of vehicle model in Gensys, with closeup of running gear

The track model used is a 5 km long track section. In the reference case the track section is a straight
track with a simulated track irregularity called "V200b" in the software. This irregularity is close to be
what can be considered a normal track state. The track model can then also easily be modified with
another track irregularity or a constant curve radius. The reason for the 5 km length of the track is due
to the reference speed of the vehicle model which is 200 km/h. With this speed it takes 90 seconds to
travel the 5 km of track. The 90 second time frame is absolutely necessary for the FFT generation for
the transfer and gain function analysis. As a shorter time frame would limit limit the quality of the
computed FFTs.

5.2 Simulation method

In the simulation environment all relevant factors can be controlled and measured, in this case all the
different accelerations of the vehicle bodies. Ideal sensors can be used and placed on all the vehicle
bodies and connections, including practically impossible positions like on the wheel axle. In this
project the simulated sensor positions will be limited to the carbody, bogie frames and axleboxes,
as these can be considerer realistic positions for sensors in a real world application. Some of the
accelerations picked up by the theoretical sensors are also filtered through two second order low-pass
filters built into the simulation program, filtering out frequencies above 20 Hz and 25 Hz respectively.
The impact of these filters are assumed to be insignificant, as the more pronounced dynamic motions
of the vehicle bodies usually reside below 10 Hz. Even so the effect of the filters is further studied in
the results, section 6.
The simulations are carried out for different single suspension element faults, in this case of the pri-
mary vertical dampers, secondary lateral dampers and bogie yaw dampers. The vehicle model file
is then first modified so that is allows for the change of single suspension component, in this case
the damping coefficient for the different dampers studied. All single suspension element failures are
simulated for 50%, 25% 1% of the damping had in the reference case. The 1% damping case is in this
case the closest possible to 0% damping, as the software cant handle a damping coefficient to close
to zero. It is also possible to manually remove the dampers in the vehicle model and thus simulate a
zero damping case, but this was not possible to do in the program-loop used for trying out the many
different suspension faults.
The data generated by Gensys is then read into a Matlab file for post processing. In Matlab RMS,
DFFT, Transfer functions and Cross correlation calculations are carried out on both filtered and un-
filtered data sets from the Gensys output. Some post-processing is also done in Gensys, in this case
the gain function plots used by Ingemar Persson and Matthias Asplund in their work [31] are gener-
ated automatically by the simulation program. The gain functions can therefore also be used in the

25
results analysis and compared with the other detection methods used in Matlab after post processing
there.
As the simulation software is quite computationally heavy, and generates large amounts of data that
requires similarly slow post-processing, there is a limit to the number of simulations and combi-
nations of faults that practically be carried out for the analysis. As the goal is to answer the main
research questions and goals, that means testing detection methods for different suspension faults in
the vehicle. Mainly in the primary, secondary lateral and yaw dampers. Track faults, wheel profile
wear and other suspension components damage are also possible to simulate but are not tested for in
this project.

26
6 Results
The main results of the experiment, simulations and post processing of data are presented in this
section. As many data sets where generated both for the experiment and simulations the results
presented here will be excerpts and highlights from the data analysis.

6.1 Experiment

In this part of the results section, acceleration data from one of the experiment measurements will be
presented. For some of the analysis, results from the other measurement will also be brought up for
comparison and to point out some recurring patterns. The data pairs presented in this section where
all measured from Alvik to Stora Mossen stations. One set of them is always measured from the front
position of the car-body, over the leading bogie, and the other one is measured from the rear position
over the trailing bogie. Depending on the measurement run, the positions also switches between left
and right sides, resulting in some data sets recorded for both right and left side, and some where both
data sets were from the same side.
During the measurements described in the experiment chapter, 16 sets of data from two out of four
phones where recorded successfully. The internet connection turned out to be an issue for two of
the four phones used, and the data recording was therefore limited to one position in each carbody
end, over the leading and trailing bogies. The data recorded for the two phones that didn’t have
connection issues was still enough to carry out most of the planned data analysis.
The raw data usually contains noticeable amounts of noise, with a signal to noise ration calculated
to be 15 dB on average. As the speeds on the test track was often quite slow, this means that the ac-
celeration signals were quite weak at those points, which means that the noise affects some data sets
more than others. A low-pass filter was also applied to the recorded data in Matlab, in an attempt to
filter out some of the noise above 25 Hz in this case, as the lower frequencies are more interesting con-
cerning the vehicle dynamics. The filtered accelerations rerecorded between Alvik and Stora Mossen
along x, y, z − axes are shown in the following Figure, 10.
As can be seen from the data, the acceleration measurement from the two different phones are gener-
ally similar, with almost identical measurements for the acceleration along the longitudinal axis. For
the acceleration along the vertical and lateral axes, a small time shift around 1-2 seconds can be noted,
this is caused by the time delay between the leading and trailing bogie.
It is also possible to see that the data clearly reflects the dynamic changes of the train. The acceleration
along the longitudinal axis clearly shows when the train accelerates and decelerates, and the longer
wavelength accelerations along lateral axis reflects when the train turns into one of the two large
horizontal curves on the track. For the other 15 pairs of data, the acceleration appears similar, thus it’s
possible to conclude that the sensors like those inside smartphones are capable and possible to use for
acceleration measurements of the general dynamics, registering train acceleration, deceleration and
curving.
One issue with the recorded data can also be identified here, and that is the slow de-synchronization
of the two data sets over time. Even if the phones were both set to sample at 100 Hz there seems to be
a small difference in sample frequency between them, making the data pair more and more skewed
over time. Which can be observed at the end of the longitudinal acceleration data shown in Figure
10. Another issue that affects the comparison between the different runs is also the very different
driving patters between runs. Trains often drove at different speeds through the curves and some
slowed down between stations, this both changes the position in time where some of the track related

27
 Figure 10: Filtered acceleration data measured from Alvik to Stora Mossen (run 7)

acceleration signals are picked up. It also affects the signal strength of some of the accelerations, as a
faster train usually generates stronger acceleration signals.

Data analysis

In order to draw conclusions about the possibilities for condition monitoring, the data needs to be
analyzed using the applicable methods chosen and described in the methodology chapter. Since there
is no additional knowledge about the actual track or vehicle conditions, the aim of the analysis will be
to analyze the acceleration measurements in different ways in an attempt to find recurring patterns
possible to link to the dynamic behavior of the vehicle or certain track positions. Currently there are
three methods that can be applied to the data that doesn’t require any extra data or knowledge about
the system, which is cross correlation analysis, acceleration RMS(Root-Mean-Square) performance
analysis and FFT signal analysis (spectrogram).

6.1.1 Cross Correlation

For the cross correlation analysis it’s assumed that the method could also be successfully applied
to the carbody on a real vehicle. The method here utilizes a moving window to calculate the cross
correlation coefficient, in this case the window size was chosen to N = 250 samples with a step length
k = 5, which gives the same 0.05 second time shift used in the paper, since the sample frequency is 100
Hz. The running cross correlation coefficient between the bounce and pitch motions of the carbody is
then calculated for all data sets, see Figure 11 for an example.

28
 Figure 11: Cross correlation coefficient for bounce and pitch accelerations (at 0 and +0.05s
time shift)

According to the paper describing the method [13], with an added time shift the calculated cross
correlation coefficients should have a noticeable difference between each other. While according to
the data and calculations, the results are almost identical. It can also be noted that while the value
appears to vary quite a lot, it is very close to zero. Meaning that the correlation between the two
carbody motions is very low.
The poor correlation may be caused by a number of reasons. First, the assumption that the method
can be effectively applied to the carbody motions combined with the fact that the center carbody of the
C20 is also affected by the motions of the two semitrailer connected to it. Secondly, the measurements
from different sensors in different phones becomes desynchronized over time, meaning that a motion
that should be registered as a bounce movement may be registered as a pitch movement and vice
versa due to to a time difference of the two phones. Finally, the paper describing the method has
only been relying on simulation of the method, using ideal sensors and at higher speeds, 180 km/h.
While in our experiment, the average speed of the train is only about 30 km/h, possibility resulting
in quite weak acceleration signals. As mentioned before, the raw data also contains noise, and when
the train is moving at lower speeds, the signal is greatly affected by the noise. Thus it cannot reflect
the actual dynamic behavior precisely, which will cause poor correlation between the measurements
from different sensors.
Although this proposed condition monitoring method is inconclusive for this experiment, the reasons
for this is possibly not due to the method but rather the quality of the data used. The method will
therefore be analyzed further in later stages of the project, through simulations. As the method shows
great promise in its ability to link certain changes of cross correlation coefficients to single suspension
element failures.

29
6.1.2 Acceleration RMS

The second method tested is the monitoring of a general performance indicator, such as the accel-
eration RMS. With this method it should be possible to find local track irregularities and faults by
calculating and studying the RMS value of the acceleration along vertical and lateral axes for differ-
ent sections along the track. Here the method is once again the calculation of RMS using a "sliding
window" method, built into Matlab. With a sliding window size of 50 data points, which corresponds
0.5 seconds, and the break length between the calculations of 1 data point. The calculated acceleration
RMS for some of the runs between Alvik and Stora Mossen are shown in Figures 12-15.

Figure 12: Acceleration RMS for data set 5 Figure 13: Acceleration RMS for data set 7

Figure 14: Acceleration RMS for data set 9 Figure 15: Acceleration RMS for data set 17

The acceleration RMS shown in the plots are for the vertical and lateral directions, which are easily
distinguished as the gravitation has not been subtracted from the vertical acceleration. From the plots
it’s also possible to detect some recurring patterns, showing that at certain sections of the track (re-
flected by the time axis), certain vehicle-track interactions causes noticeable and distinct acceleration
peaks. GPS data from these runs reveal that the different peaks correspond to when the trains passed
over a bridge and when the curve section of the route began. The peaks occur in the same pattern in
most of the data sets, and the four plots shown in Figures 12-15 are the clear examples of this.
As the measurements were carried out on different vehicle individuals but on the same track section
it’s possible to conclude that this kind of acceleration RMS analysis of multiple in-service vehicles
is a viable method to conduct simple condition monitoring of the track. With the combination of
RMS analysis and GPS, it is possible to locate sections of track were faults cause strong recurring

30
acceleration peaks. Although different trains may have different behavior on the same section of
track, possibly due to different speeds, vehicle type and the condition of the vehicle, it is very possible
that large scale data analysis methods like machine learning can be used to eliminate the errors and
increase the accuracy of this detection method.

6.1.3 FFT spectrogram

Finally the acceleration data is analyzed using FFT. Just as for the acceleration RMS and the cross
correlation analysis the FFT spectrogram method uses a moving window to calculate the amplitude
spectra for different positions in time. The sliding window size in this case is set to 250 samples,
with a break length of 25. The spectrograms are generated using a built in function in Matlab and the
results are shown in Figure 16. Due to measurement data being limited to the carbody, no transfer or
gain functions can be calculated, limiting the analysis to the FFT of the carbody signal.

Figure 16: FFT spectrogram for leading and trailing bogies, vertical and lateral (run 7)

From Figure 16 its possible to see similar patterns in both the leading and trailing ends of the carbody.
The spectrogram plots also makes it possible to distinguish patterns in the time domain as well as the
frequency domain. For example, along the time axis there are certain spikes or "impacts" causing a
higher amplitude across the entire frequency spectra. This could possibly reflect certain local events
linked to the track condition, similarly to those found in the acceleration RMS analysis. On the other
hand, there are also distinguishable patters along the frequency axis. In this case there are patterns
of higher amplitudes in the lower frequencies, between 0-1 Hz, but there is also a small peak at the
frequencies around 10 Hz. These frequency peaks, that occur across the time axis could possible
reflect certain dynamic behaviors of the vehicle itself.
Due to the limited knowledge of the C20 vehicle and its dynamic behavior it’s currently hard to
determine what the different amplitude peaks in the frequency domain could refer to. But the results
still show some possibility of using FFT spectrogram analysis in condition monitoring, as similar
patterns as those seen in the acceleration RMS analysis can be had, linking certain track positions

31
to high amplitudes across the entire spectra. And the fact that there are recurring patterns in the
frequency domain as well, possibly linked to the vehicle behavior in itself. Conclusively it can be said
that with the use of FFT spectrogram analysis, it’s possible to monitor the dynamic behaviors of the
carbody and also linking it to certain track positions. Making the method interesting for condition
monitoring applications that want to be able to monitor both vehicle and infrastructure.

32
6.2 Simulation

In the simulation environment a large number of different fault cases are tested and compared to
a reference case. The faults simulated are those in the primary vertical, secondary lateral and yaw
dampers. All damper faults are tested for three different levels of failure; 50% damping rate, 25%
damping rate and 0% damping rates (simulated at 1% due to software limitations). All simulation
runs take place during 90 seconds, on the same 5 km track section, at the same speed of 200 km/h and
with the same vehicle. After simulation the data is stored and later post-processed in both Gensys
and Matlab.

Data analysis

For the data analysis Matlab is mainly used. In the vehicle model provided there are already imple-
mented some post processing and analysis tools. One of these is a gain function calculator, that com-
putes the gain function between the different vehicle bodies with the help of their respective DFFT
spectra. As mentioned in the description of the simulations (section 5), these gain functions have
previously been used by Ingemar Persson and Mattihas Asplund [31] and shown to be applicable for
condition monitoring of some running gear faults and issues.
As also mentioned in the simulation description, there are two low pass filters applied in the model
to some of the theoretical sensors used. Filtering out signals above 20 and 25 Hz. As the dynamic
motions of bounce, pitch, roll etc. of carbody and bogie frames usually reside in lower frequencies,
often well below 20 Hz. Tests both with and without these filters applied have had no noticeable
effect on the data or results.

6.2.1 Acceleration RMS

The Root Mean Square of the acceleration is a useful tool for comparing the intensity of the acceler-
ations between different bodies and sensor positions. For condition monitoring purposes the RMS
could be used as a simple performance indicator that can be monitored over time and thus possibly
be used to detect slow changes in the performance of both track and vehicles.
The RMS for the recorded acceleration in the simulation is calculated with a moving window of 5
seconds, with a times-step of 1 second. The results in Figure 17 show the lateral acceleration RMS
in the bogie frame for a reference case (dashed blue line) and for when one of the secondary lateral
dampers have failed completely (0 % of original damping).

33
 Figure 17: RMS of lateral acceleration over first bogie

The difference in intensity between the cases are quite small, but shows that somewhat higher in-
tensity accelerations are present in the lateral plane when the damper has failed. This difference in
acceleration intensity could possibly be used to monitor the general condition of the suspension, as it
may be hard to know exactly which component is causing the issue. In a real world application the
different values of the RMS would have to be cross referenced between vehicles, track sections and
previous data to be able to detect a deviation in performance. Most likely requiring the use of big
data analysis methods and possibly machine learning of some sort. This would be necessary as no
simple reference value for the acceleration RMS would be possible to formulate, as too many factors
contribute to it.

6.2.2 Transfer functions

In the Matlab program the acceleration data for the longitudinal, lateral, and vertical acceleration for
the different bodies are used to calculate the moving window DFFT spectra, as well as the transfer
functions between them. Figures 18, 19, 20 below show the lateral acceleration transfer functions from
from first bogie to carbody. The different fault cases displayed are for one secondary lateral damper
on the first bogie at 50%, 25% and 0% of its original damping rate.

34
Figure 18: Transfer functions (Hay ) of acceleration in lateral direction,
from bogie 1 to carbody, one secondary lateral damper at 50%

Figure 19: Transfer functions (Hay ) of acceleration in lateral direction,

from bogie 1 to carbody, one secondary lateral damper at 25%

35
 Figure 20: Transfer functions (Hay ) of acceleration in lateral direction,
from bogie 1 to carbody, one secondary lateral damper at 0%

In these figures, only the lateral components are analyzed, because the failures happen at the sec-
ondary lateral damper a change in the lateral transfer function is expected. At very low frequencies
around 0 − 2 Hz, there is a slight change in the lateral transfer function between the different levels
of failure. The amplitudes are going up parallel to a lower damping rate. Furthermore, at higher
frequencies it can also be seen that the signal become more pronounced as the damping rate become
lower, which means more high frequency content is transferred from bogie to carbody. This behavior
could also be linked to the track irregularity in combination with the speed of the vehicle, as the high
speed of 200 km/h means that more high frequency content generated by the track irregularity is
transferred into the vehicle when the suspension start to fail. Apart from the small changes not much
information can be found in the transfer functions, in terms of how the amplitude change with single
component failure of the system. Analysis was also carried out for other faults and longitudinal and
vertical directions, together with the phase angle of the transfer function. But neither of these provide
a pronounced visible change when a damper fails or start to fail.
In the study conducted by Ingemar Persson and Matthias Asplund [31] gain functions (similarly
calculated amplitude of the transfer functions) was studied for some other suspension faults. The
gain function analysis there showed similar strengths and weaknesses. For instance, the best results
showed in their paper usually involved multiple damper failures or other more sever failures. Fault
detection is shown to be possible in cases where dampers are completely broken, but not for cases
where one single component begin to deteriorate. Transfer and gain functions therefore suffer from
the fact that the failure in the suspension components needs to be quite large for the change to be
detectable, making the method viable for detection of component failures but maybe not for fault
prediction.

6.2.3 Cross correlation

The cross correlation analysis is carried out on all of the vehicle bodies where it’s practically appli-
cable, in this case the bogies and carbody. The cross correlations are calculated between the different
rigid body modes of each of body. In the paper by X.J. Ding and T.X. Mei [13] the cross correlation for
one of the bogie frames was shown to successfully detect faults in the primary dampers. These results

36
are also repeated in this work when the cross correlation coefficients are calculated for the bogies for
some of the primary damper failure cases. In this case the primary dampers are not mounted verti-
cally, as they were in the model used by Mei and Ding, but in 45 deg angle towards the axlebox (see
Figure 9). This means that lateral and yaw motions also can be shown to be useful for fault detection
when calculating the cross correlation, see Figures 21 and 22.

Figure 21: Cross corr. of bogie 1 lateral-yaw and yaw-roll movement for one primary damper
at 50% in bogie 1

The y-axis in the figure, SCbog1 denotes the cross correlation coefficient of the first bogie, where
’SC’ is a denotation of the cross correlation coefficient borrowed from Mei and Ding. The last part
(e.g. ’Lateral-Yaw’) then shows which movements that are being cross correlated. In the figures the
continuous lines are the failure case, and the dashed lines are the corresponding reference cases (no
failure). The three different colors denotes the time shifts used, red for zero seconds time shift, blue
for non-zero positive time shift, and green for non-zero negative time shift.
It can be seen that the cross correlation results of lateral-yaw and yaw-roll motions show a changing
value compared to the reference when damper value is at 50 and 0%, the average value is clearly
changing for all the time shifts. It also can be seen that for lateral-yaw movement, the cross correlation
coefficient is getting closer to zero as the primary damper coefficient becomes lower, while for yaw-
roll the cross correlation coefficient is getting closer to 1 for 0 seconds time shift. While also getting
closer to -1 for the 0.05 and -0.05 second time-shifts.
Cross correlation of the carbody motions can also be used to detect faults and changes in the primary
dampers. By similarly studying the cross correlation in the bounce, pitch and roll motions of the
carbody. Figures 23 and 24 shows the cross correlation coefficients for the different tested cases with
a single primary dampers in bogie 1 at 50% and 0%.
The small change makes it possible to detect when one or more dampers are starting to degrade or
fail, in one of the bogies. This shows that both carbody and bogie frame cross correlation can be used
to detect faults in the primary dampers.
For the carbody the cross correlation method can also be used to detect faults in both secondary
lateral and yaw dampers. As these motions have less correlation with the bounce and pith motions,
the correlations are instead carried out between the yaw, roll and lateral motions. Failure cases for

37
 Figure 22: Cross corr. of bogie 1 lateral-yaw and yaw-roll movement for one primary damper
at 0% in bogie 1

both lateral and yaw dampers show promising results. An example of the results for one failing yaw
damper are here shown in Figures 25 and 26.
The cross correlation proves to be a powerful tool for fault detection, even for non completely failed
components. The different changes in average cross correlation coefficients for different time-shifts
could also be used to indicate which component is the faulty one in a larger system. As shown in
the paper by Mei and Ding [13] the direction of the cross correlation coefficient change can be used
to detect for instance which side of the bogie frame a primary damper is starting to fail. The different
fault cases tested, together with the vehicle body, correlated motions, and time shifts that produced
the biggest difference between the cross correlation coefficients for fault- and reference case are here
summarized in Table 2.

38
Figure 23: Cross corr. of carbody bounce-roll and pitch-roll movement for one primary
damper at 50% in bogie 1

Figure 24: Cross corr. of carbody bounce-roll and pitch-roll movement for one primary
damper at 0% in bogie 1

39
Figure 25: Cross corr. of carbody lateral-yaw and yaw-roll movement for one yaw damper at
50% in bogie 1

Figure 26: Cross corr. of carbody lateral-yaw and yaw-roll movement for one yaw damper at
0% in bogie 1

40
 Table 2: Summary of cross correlation analysis results. Listing the bodies, correlated motions
and time-shifts capable of distinguishing faults from reference case

Failing component Vehicle body Correlated motions Timeshift(s) [sec]

Left yaw damper, Carbody Lateral-Yaw and 0.2 and -0.2
first bogie Lateral-Roll
Left yaw damper, Carbody Lateral-Yaw and 0.2 , 0 , and -0.2
second bogie Lateral-Roll
Left yaw damper, Bogie 1 Lateral-Yaw and 0.05 and -0.05
first bogie Lateral-Roll
Left yaw damper, Bogie 2 Lateral-Yaw 0.05 and -0.05
second bogie and Yaw-Roll
Left secondary lateral Carbody Lateral-Yaw 0
damper, first bogie
Left secondary lateral Carbody Lateral-Yaw 0
damper, second bogie
Left secondary lateral Bogie 1 Lateral-Roll 0.05
damper, first bogie
Left secondary lateral Bogie 2 Lateral-Yaw 0.05 and -0.05
damper, second bogie
Left primary damper, Carbody Bounce-Roll 0.2 , 0 , and -0.2
first bogie, first axle and Pitch-Roll
Left primary Carbody Bounce-Roll 0.2 , 0 , and -0.2
damper, first bo- and Pitch-Roll
gie, second axle
Left primary Carbody Pitch-Roll 0
damper, second
bogie, first axle
Left primary Carbody Pitch-Roll 0
damper, second
bogie, second axle
Left primary damper, Bogie 1 Bounce-Pitch 0.05, 0, -0.05 for
first bogie, first axle and Yaw-Roll Bounce-Pitch and 0,
-0.05 for Yaw-Roll
Left primary Bogie 1 Bounce-Pitch, Lateral- 0.05, 0, and -0.05
damper, first bo- Yaw and Yaw-Roll
gie, second axle
Left primary Bogie 2 Bounce-Pitch 0.05, 0, -0.05 for
damper, second and Yaw-Roll Bounce-Pitch and 0,
bogie, first axle -0.05 for Yaw-Roll
Left primary Bogie 2 Bounce-Pitch, Lateral- 0.05, 0, and -0.05
damper, second Yaw and Yaw-Roll
bogie, second axle

41
In Table 2 the cases where there are more than one listed correlated motion or time-shift means that
they all produce an equally large change in the cross correlation coefficient, and thus is equally suit-
able for detecting the fault. It’s noted that for the two bogies, different motions and time shifts pro-
duce the best results for either one. This is because the bogies suspension is not symmetrical in the
longitudinal direction and that they also behave differently depending on if they’re running as trail-
ing or leading bogie in the vehicle. In the cases of primary damper failures the correlation of the bogie
frame motions produce the best results. Still, the carbody motions can also be used to detect faults in
the primary suspension to some extent.
Unfortunately, the cross correlation coefficients calculated from the simulations fluctuate a lot, thus
requiring some average reference value to be determined for comparison. Tests with varying speeds
and curve radius also show some effect on the computed cross correlation coefficients in the reference
case (vehicle with no failures). A change in curve radius mainly show a variation in the cross correla-
tion before the vehicle has stabilized into a quasi-static curving state, see Figures 27 and 28.

Figure 27: Cross corr. of bogie 1 lateral-yaw, lateral-roll and yaw-roll movement comparison
of 3000m curve (Curv) and tangent track (Tang)

In difference to Mei and Ding’s work [13] speed is here also noted to greatly affect the cross correla-
tion coefficients, especially for lower speeds, see Figure 29. This could perhaps be due to the signal
content analyzed, as for higher speeds the dynamic motions should be more pronounced, but for
lower speeds there could be more interference from the system’s many non-linearities. As the biggest
difference, that clearly affect the results, in comparison to those presented by Mei and Ding in their
paper is that the model used in this study is more advanced and highly nonlinear in many cases.
In general the cross correlation coefficients are more stable and easy to monitor in a system which
behave linearly. Thus the reason for some of the high fluctuations in the cross correlation coefficients
calculated here could be due to the more advanced model, as well as the nonlinearities. Due to these
differences, it’s not possible to say here that speed does not have an effect.

42
Figure 28: Cross corr. of bogie 1 lateral-yaw, lateral-roll and yaw-roll movement comparison
of 5000m curve (Curv) and tangent track (Tang)

Figure 29: Cross corr. of no fault condition at the speed of 80 km/h compared to 200 km/h for
positive, zero, and negative time shift

43
7 Conclusions
The experiment results show that some condition monitoring solutions could possibly be made both
cheap and efficient, using sensors such as those commonly found in smartphones today. From the
experiment results and data analysis, it can be concluded that with measurements done using simple
sensors, certain condition monitoring analysis can indeed be conducted. Analysis of experiment
results using FFT spectrogram and RMS analysis both showed some promise in detecting possible
track related issues. However, cross correlation analysis conducted in the experiment is inconclusive,
most probably due to the quality of data used and some uncertainties surrounding the assumptions
for the methods used in this case. Possible sources of error also include vibrations induced by the
semitrailer configuration of the C20 vehicle, the handlebar on which the phones where is placed, as
well as any vibrations in the inner carbody walls.
The problem however for these kind of sensors in an experiment, is that not all phone manufacturer
describe their detailed sensor specifications and usually the phone user cannot access the sensor freely
and thus have to rely on third-party software to use the sensor. In which the software itself is not yet
proven to be effective for accurate and precise measurement. Another problem that existed during
the experiment where start-stop time synchronizing problems for different phones as well as issues
with varying sampling frequencies in the different phones, even though the sensors are initially set
at 100 Hz sampling rate.
The simulation results show the most success when applying cross correlation analysis on the car
body as well as bogie frame motions when studying faults in primary vertical, secondary lateral, and
yaw dampers. The cross correlation method theoretically requires few sensors, in this case only on
the carbody and bogie frames, for the monitoring of both primary and secondary suspension com-
ponents. It is also model-less and requires no knowledge of the track irregularity, which makes it
less computationally heavy and easier to implement. Therefore, cross correlation can be concluded
to be a promising tool in terms of an efficient all-round condition monitoring method. Unfortunately,
the results also show some issues for cross correlation when running at different speeds and while
transitioning into curves. As reference values would be necessary for fault detection using cross
correlation, it would necessary to investigate how these reference values are affected by different
confounding factors. It is also important to note that the cross correlation of different motions be-
have differently when a fault happens, just as shown in the results. So for reliable fault detection it
would be necessary to study more closely how the cross correlation coefficient changes for different
correlated motions and different suspension faults.
Simulation results analysis using frequency response and transfer functions do not show any major
promise in the detection of single suspension faults. It would also require sensors on the axleboxes
to detect faults in the primary suspension efficiently. Acceleration RMS by itself cannot be seen as a
way of effectively detecting and identifying vehicle faults by itself. But it can be seen as a good choice
of a general performance indicator that can easily be recorded and monitored, especially if a vehicle
is already fitted with accelerometers for condition monitoring using other methods.
The results of the experiment and simulation together generally show some promise in the condition
monitoring methods chosen for the study. The simulation generates some results that show possibil-
ities for fault detection and possibly fault prediction. The experiment results also show the general
usefulness of simple sensors mounted in a carbody, generating data capable of reflecting some the
dynamics of the vehicle and track. A conclusion that can be drawn from the compiled results in
this project is that the aim of achieving a simple but efficient condition monitoring solution possibly
could be reached through combinations of the different methods. With accelerometers mounted on
the carbodies and bogie frames, cross correlation, gain function analysis and general performance
monitoring such as acceleration RMS could be used together using the same sensors. Thus gen-

44
erating a broader picture, where faults could be more easily detected and distinguished from each
other.

7.1 Continued work

The conclusions drawn from the simulations are based on the analysis of single faults in a limited
number of suspension components in the case of this project. Therefore, an essential next step in the
analysis would be to more closely study how multiple faults affect the detection patterns, as well as
including a larger number of components into the study.
The simulations in this project also showed great promise for the cross correlation methods, and
previous studies of gain functions done by Ingemar Persson using the same model and software
also showed a success. However, both these methods turn out to be affected by curve radius and
vehicle speed, especially for lower speeds. Fortunately, various track irregularities had limited effect
on both cross correlation and gain function methods. Speed has the largest impact, but this effect
could perhaps be investigated more closely and linked to the speed of the vehicle. These changes
have to be taken into account when designing a detection algorithm for faults. Curve radius and
track regularity had quite small impacts but would also need closer analysis. As suggested in the
results section more filtering could perhaps be applied to focus the cross correlation calculation on
signals in a more narrow frequency band, focusing on the main dynamics motions of the different
vehicle bodies.
With the experiment performed on the subways trains of the Stockholm metro, the results can as of
now neither be compared to any corresponding data or model. Therefore a suggested aim of any con-
tinued work would be to simulate the C20 vehicle behavior. It could hopefully identify some possible
causes for the different behaviors picked up between some of the vehicles in the experiment.

45
References
[1] BKN Rao. Handbook of condition monitoring. Elsevier, 1996.
[2] Clarence W De Silva. Vibration and shock handbook. CRC Press, 2005.
[3] Kari Laakso, Tony Rosqvist, and Jette L Paulsen. The use of condition monitoring information
for maintenance planning and decision-making, 2002.
[4] A. Ball W. Ngigi, C. Pislaru and F. Gu. Modern techniques for condition monitoring of railway
vehicle dynamics. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 364, 2016.
[5] Gabriel Lodewijks Alireza Alemi, Francesco Corman. Review on condition monitoring ap-
proaches for the detection of railway wheel defects, 2017.
[6] C. Roberts R.M. Goodall. Concepts and techniques for railway condition monitoring. IET Railway
Condition Monitoring, 2006.
[7] M. Matsumoto H. Tanaka and Y. Harada. Application of axle-box acceleration to track condition
monitoring for rail corrugation management. IET Railway Condition Monitoring, 2016.
[8] Hitoshi Tsunashima, Yasukuni Naganuma, Akira Matsumoto, Takeshi Mizuma, and Hirotaka
Mori. Condition monitoring of railway track using in-service vehicle. Reliability and Safety in
Railway, 2012.
[9] Dr. F. Balouchi and Dr. A. Bevan. Detecting railway under-track voids using multi-train in-
service vehicle accelerometer. IET Railway Condition Monitoring, 2016.
[10] S. Bruni S. Alfi, A. De Rosa. Estimation of lateral track irregularities from on-board measurement:
effect of wheel-rail contact model. IET Railway Condition Monitoring, 2016.
[11] A. M. Boronahin, Yu. V. Filatov, D. Yu. Larionov, L. N. Podgornaya, and R. V. Shalymov. Measure-
ment system for railway track condition monitoring. Young Researchers in Electrical and Electronic
Engineering Conference, 2015.
[12] Christopher P. Ward, Roger M. Goodall, Roger Dixon, and Guy Charles. Condition monitoring
of rail vehicle bogies. IET Railway Condition Monitoring, 2010.
[13] X.J. Ding T.X. Mei. New condition monitoring techniques for vehicle suspensions. IET Railway
Condition Monitoring, 2008.
[14] X.J Ding and T.X. Mei. A model-less technique for the fault detection of rail vehicle suspensions.
Vehicle System Dynamics, 46(S1):277–287, 2008.
[15] M. Carboni M. Hassan, S. Bruni. Crack detection in railway axle using horizontal and vertical
vibration measurements. IET Railway Condition Monitoring, 2016.
[16] Jun Chen Xiukun Wei. Study on wheel-flat detection method based on vehicle system accelera-
tion measurement. 2nd International Conference on Measurement, Information and Control, 2013.
[17] Mikael Palo. Condition monitoring of railway vehicles: A study on wheel condition for heavy
haul rolling stock, 2012, Licentiate Thesis, Luleå University of Technology.
[18] Chuliang Wei, Qin Xin, W. H. Chung, Shun yee Liu, Hwa yaw Tam, , and S. L. Ho. Real-time train
wheel condition monitoring by fiber bragg grating sensors. International Journal of Distributed
Sensor Networks, 2016.
[19] J.H. Lin, L. Liu, C. Yi, and W.Y. Wu. Research on evolution law of service performance of high-
speed train based on tracking monitoring. IET Railway Condition Monitoring, 2016.

46
 [20] Professor S.R. Duncan Dr M.R. Arthington, P.T. Barnes. Non-contact force measurement for
current collection in a 25kv overhead line electrified railway. IET Railway Condition Monitoring,
2016.
[21] G.D. Horler E.P.C. Morris, G. Feng. Enabling the multiple use of condition monitoring devices
for real-time monitoring, real-time data logging and remote condition monitoring. IET Railway
Condition Monitoring, 2016.
[22] Victoria J. Hodge, Simon O’Keefe, Michael Weeks, and Anthony Moulds. Wireless sensor net-
works for condition monitoring in the railway industry: A survey. IEEE Transactions on intelligent
transportation systems, 2015.
[23] B. Escartin-Claveria A. T. S. Worth. Alstom’s approach to railway condition monitoring. IET
Railway Condition Monitoring, 2014.
[24] Dr M.C. Gallop P.T. Barnes, A. Olney. The development of condition based maintenance and
operational response on network rail’s western route. IET Railway Condition Monitoring, 2016.
[25] Björn Svanberg Banverket. Detektorer, förutsättningar för varmgångs- och tjuvbromsdetektering
av järnvägsfordon. Banverket standard, 2008.
[26] Fredrik Ekström Trafikverket. Detektorer. Dataprduktspecifikation, 2012.
[27] Michael J. Provost Bombardier. Orbita, railway asset manager for the 21st century. Bombardier
Transportation, 2009.
[28] Trimble. Nexala R2M Real-time Remote Diagnostic Monitoring. URL:
http://www.nexala.com/products/real-time-remote-diagnostic-monitoring/ , 2017 Oct.
[29] Trimble. Beena Vision WheelView. URL: http://www.beenavision.com/products_wheelview.html#,
2017 Oct.
[30] AB DEsolver. Gensys version 1709. http://www.gensys.se/.
[31] Ingemar Persson and Matthias Asplund. A railway vehicle fault detection system. International
Symposium on Dynamics of Vehicles on Roads and Tracks, 2017.

47

View publication stats