Evaluating the Integrity of a Railway Corridor Using Remote Sensing

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Evaluating the Integrity of a Railway Corridor Using Remote Sensing"

Andrea Malone
5 years ago
Views:

Vehicle Inspection Technology Conference DISCLAIMER: The views, opinions, findings, and conclusions reflected in this presentation are

1 Evaluating the Integrity of a Railway Corridor Using Remote Sensing El Hachemi Bouali 1, Thomas Oommen 1, Rüdiger Escobar-Wolf 1, Colin Brooks 2, and Pasi Lautala 1 1 Michigan Technological University 2 Michigan Tech Research Institute 2017 Rail Infrastructure and Vehicle Inspection Technology Conference DISCLAIMER: The views, opinions, findings, and conclusions reflected in this presentation are the responsibility of the authors only and do not represent the official policy or position of the USDOT/OST-R, or any State or other entity.

Performance and Condition Assessment Ch 7: Cost-Benefit Analysis Ch 2: Survey

2 Project Overview Ch 1: Background Ch 3: Remote Sensing (RS) Technologies Ch 5: Performance and Condition Assessment Ch 7: Cost-Benefit Analysis Ch 2: Survey on Current Practices Ch 4: Field Verification (RS & GAM) Ch 6: GAM Decision Support System Ch 8: Implementation Framework 2

3 Background Asset Management A systematic approach of maintaining, upgrading, and operating physical assets cost effectively. Remote Sensing InSAR LiDAR Optical Photo. Transportation Corridors/Networks Railway Highway Pipeline FHWA (1999) Asset Management Primer 3

4 Study Slope Slope Specifications Height 84 meters above track Width = 130 meters Maximum Slope Angle >65 Tvtw: Rhyolitic Welded Tuff and Breccia Tvt: Tuff and Tuffaceous Sediments Tvy: Volcanic Rocks, Undivided 4

5 Study Slope: Main Scarp Scarp width up to 6.5 m (about 21 ft) Tvtw Evidence of substantial horizontal and vertical displacements along scarp. Tvt Upper Wall Some areas with slickensides 5

6 Study Slope: Toe & Railroad Tracks 6

7 Survey on Current Practices Purpose was to investigate the current practices, perceived needs and perceived limitations of GAM Survey sent to 710 individuals working in transportation agencies; received 99 responses. 7

Identification of Remote Sensing Technologies Criteria InSAR LiDAR

Ground Resolution 2 3 3 Data Availability and Revisit Time 2 3 3

Indirect Cost for Data Collection and Analysis 3 1 3 Availability of

8 Identification of Remote Sensing Technologies Criteria InSAR LiDAR Optical Photogrammetry Information Content Spatial Density and Ground Resolution Data Availability and Revisit Time Accuracy Direct Cost for Data Collection and Analysis Indirect Cost for Data Collection and Analysis Availability of Historical Data Platform Satellite X Unmanned Aerial Vehicle X Terrestrial X X 8

9 Field Verification and Evaluation of Remote Sensing Technologies Satellites: ERS-1, ERS-2, and ENVISAT Images Total Ground Displacement Measurements 9

10 Field Verification and Evaluation of Remote Sensing Technologies 10

11 Field Verification and Evaluation of Remote Sensing Technologies Image taken from UAV DEM Hillshade (cm-scale) 11

12 Performance Monitoring and Condition Assessment

13 Performance Monitoring and Condition Assessment Buffer Relative Exposure of Railroad Track to Unstable Slopes Slopes Hazard Zones Slides InSAR 13

14 Conclusion Geotechnical Asset Type Reference Bernhardt and others (2003) Perry and others, cuttings (2003) Embankments and Slopes (includes rock Perry and others, embankments (2003) slopes, cut slopes, landslides, and rockfall Kelly (2005) sites) Stanley and Pierson (2011) American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (2011a) Bernhardt and others (2003) Tunnels AASHTO (2011a) Bernhardt and others (2003) Earth Retaining Structures (retaining walls, Brutus and Tauber (2009) reinforced soil slopes, and earth and rock DeMarco and others (2010) buttresses) Stanley and Pierson (2011) Bernhardt and others (2003) Culverts or Drainage Channels DeMarco and others (2010) AASHTO (2011a) Bernhardt and others (2003) Foundations Stanley and Pierson (2011) Pavement Subgrade Bernhardt and others (2003) United Kingdom Department for Subgrade and Land within Right-of-Way Transport (2003) Buried Reinforcing Elements, Rock Bolts, Stanley and Pierson (2011) Tieback Anchors, and other Buried Structural Elements Material and Quarry Sites Stanley and Pierson (2011) Horizontal Drains Stanley and Pierson (2011) 14

Conclusion MAP-21 Act Safety Infrastructure

Guide Safety Condition Mobility Reliability

15 Conclusion MAP-21 Act Safety Infrastructure Congestion Reduction System Reliability Freight Movement and Economic Vitality Environmental Sustainability Reduced Project Delivery Delays Life-Cycle Cost Customer Measures AASHTO Implementation Guide Safety Condition Mobility Reliability Mobility and Reliability Externalities Mobility and Reliability 15

16 Acknowledgments Funding provided by USDOT Data provided by European Space Agency DEMs provided by USGS and NASA/JPL Alyeska Pipeline Service Company TRE Canada Exelis VIS & SARMAP Team Michigan & Alaska DOTs Michigan Technological Research Institute Dr. Stanley Vitton, Daniel Cerminaro, and Zachary Champion from Michigan Technological University Dr. Keith Cunningham from University of Alaska-Fairbanks Rick Dobson, Dave Dean, and Ben Hart from Michigan Tech Research Institute 16

17 Questions? Thank You USDOT-Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, Commercial Remote Sensing & Spatial Information Technologies Phase V Program Manager: Caesar Singh Cooperative Agreement #RITARS-14-H-MTU

Department of Geological and Mining Engineering and Sciences Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI-49931, USA.

Department of Geological and Mining Engineering and Sciences Michigan Technological University, Houghton, MI-49931, USA. Indian Geotechnical Conference IGC2016 15-17 December 2016, IIT Madras, Chennai, India New Paradigm in Geotechnical Performance Monitoring Using Remote Sensing Thomas Oommen 1, El Hachemi Bouali 1, & Rudiger