Submitted:
02 August 2023
Posted:
03 August 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Data Acquisition and Processing
2.1. Experimental Setup
2.2. Moving Average and Moving Differential Method
3. Vibration Signal Extraction
| Two-Pass Algorithm |
|
Input: data.bmp Output: Structure labels of the same connected component 1: algorithm TwoPass(data) 2: linked = [] 3: labels = structure with dimensions of data, initialized with the value of Background 4: First pass 5: for row in data: 6: for column in row: 7: if data[row][column] is not Background 8: neighbors = connected elements with the current element's value 9: if neighbors is empty 10: linked[NextLabel] = set containing NextLabel 11: labels[row][column] = NextLabel 12: NextLabel += 1 13: else 14: Find the smallest label 15: L = neighbors labels 16: labels[row][column] = min(L) 17: for label in L 18: linked[label] = union(linked[label], L) 19: Second pass 20: for row in data 21: for column in row 22: if data[row][column] is not Background 23: labels[row][column] = find(labels[row][column]) 24: return label 25: end if |
4. Dataset Building
5. XGBoost-Based Defect Recognition Approaches for Ballastless Tracks
5.1. Feature Extraction
5.2. XGBoost
, The predictive function of XGBoost can be expressed as:
is the CART space, q represents the structure of each tree, mapping samples to corresponding leaf nodes and T is the number of leaf nodes in the tree. Each fk corresponds to a tree whose leaf node weight is w.
5.3. Evaluation Metrics
5.4. Results and Discussion
6. ResNet-Based Defect Recognition Approaches for Ballastless Tracks
6.1. Convolutional Neural Network
6.2. Residual Neural Network
6.3. Receptive Field
6.4. Results and Discussion
7. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Ye X Y, Luo Y Y, Li Z W, et al. A Feasibility Analysis of the Infrared Thermography Technique in Surface Crack Detection for High-Speed Rail Slab Track. Mathematical Problems in Engineering 2023, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Wang J, Lu C, Zhao Y. Reliability Assessment on Gap Height of Interface between CRTSⅡTrack Slab and CA Mortar. J. China Railway Soc 2023, 45, 117–125. [Google Scholar]
- Wu Y, Fu H, Bian X, et al. Impact of extreme climate and train traffic loads on the performance of high-speed railway geotechnical infrastructures. Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE A 2023, 24, 189–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liao H, Zhu Q, Zan Y, et al. Detection of ballastless track diseases in high-speed railway based on ground penetrating radar. Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University, 2016, 51(1).
- Guo Y, Liu G, Jing G, et al. Ballast fouling inspection and quantification with ground penetrating radar (GPR). International Journal of Rail Transportation 2023, 11, 151–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- TAYLOR H F, LEE C E. Apparatus and method for fiber optic intrusion sensing: US, US 5194847[P].1993.
- Hu X, Tu Z, Zhou F, et al. A hydraulic fracture geometry inversion model based on distributed-acoustic-sensing data. SPE Journal 2023, 28, 1560–1576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu J, Yuan S, Luo B, et al. Turning Telecommunication Fiber-Optic Cables into Distributed Acoustic Sensors for Vibration-Based Bridge Health Monitoring. Structural Control and Health Monitoring 2023, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Mata Flores D, Sladen A, Ampuero J P, et al. Monitoring deep sea currents with seafloor distributed acoustic sensing. Earth and Space Science 2023, 10, e2022EA002723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wagner A, Nash A, Michelberger F, et al. The Effectiveness of Distributed Acoustic Sensing (DAS) for Broken Rail Detection. Energies 2023, 16, 522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan B, Zhang K, Li H, et al. Acoustic Field Imaging of Pipeline Turbulence for Non-invasive and Distributed Gas Flow Measurement. IEEE Sensors Journal, 2023.
- Du X, Jia M, Huang S, et al. Event identification based on sample feature correction algorithm for Φ-OTDR. Measurement Science and Technology 2023, 34, 085120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu Y, Zhu T, Chen L, et al. Distributed vibration sensor based on coherent detection of phase-OTDR. Journal of lightwave Technology 2010, 28, 3243–3249. [Google Scholar]
- Zinsou R, Liu X, Wang Y, et al. Recent progress in the performance enhancement of phase-sensitive OTDR vibration sensing systems. Sensors 2019, 19, 1709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng F, Duan N, Rao Y J, et al. Real-time position and speed monitoring of trains using phase-sensitive OTDR. IEEE Photonics Technology Letters 2014, 26, 2055–2057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He M, Feng L, Zhao D. Application of distributed acoustic sensor technology in train running condition monitoring of the heavy-haul railway. Optik 2019, 181, 343–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Otsu, N. A threshold selection method from gray-level histograms. IEEE transactions on systems, man, and cybernetics 1979, 9, 62–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tabjula J, Sharma J. Feature extraction techniques for noisy distributed acoustic sensor data acquired in a wellbore. Applied Optics 2023, 62, E51–E61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mata Flores D, Mercerat E D, Ampuero J P, et al. Identification of two vibration regimes of underwater fibre optic cables by Distributed Acoustic Sensing. Geophysical Journal International 2023, 234, 1389–1400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen T, Guestrin C. Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system[C]//Proceedings of the 22nd acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. 2016: 785-794.
- LeCun Y, Kavukcuoglu K, Farabet C. Convolutional networks and applications in vision[C]//Proceedings of 2010 IEEE international symposium on circuits and systems. IEEE, 2010: 253-256.
- He K, Zhang X, Ren S, et al. Deep residual learning for image recognition[C]//Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 2016: 770-778.
- Araujo A, Norris W, Sim J. Computing receptive fields of convolutional neural networks. Distill 2019, 4, e21. [Google Scholar]
- Understanding the Effective Receptive Field in Deep Convolutional Neural Networks.
- The Receptive Field as a Regularizer in Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Acoustic Scene Classification.












| Name | Value | Unit |
|---|---|---|
| Spatial resolution | 6.4 | m |
| Track slab length | 6.45 | m |
| Pulse duration | 64 | ns |
| Sampling rate | 2564 | Hz |
| Domain | Feature Description | Number |
|---|---|---|
| Time | Average amplitude, Standard deviation, Zero crossing rate, Root mean square, Skewness, Kurtosis | 6 |
| Frequency | Average amplitude, Standard deviation, Skewness, Kurtosis, Spectral entropy, Spectral centroid | 6 |
| Wavelet packet | Wavelet packet energy spectra | 8 |
| Mel scale | Mel-Frequency Cepstral Coefficients | 13 |
| Total | 33 |
| Name | Formula | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | (TP+TN)/(TP+FP+TN+FN) | It simply measures how often the classifier makes the correct prediction. |
| Precision | TP/(TP+FP) | It is a measure of correctness that is achieved in true prediction. |
| Recall | TP/(TP+FN) | It is a measure of actual observations which are predicted correctly, i.e. how many observations of positive class are actually predicted as positive. |
| F1-score | (2*TP)/(2*TP+FP+FN) | It is a number between 0 and 1 and is the harmonic mean of precision and recall. |
| Label | Precision | Recall | F1-Score | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RF Accuracy=0.8307 |
0 | 0.8772 | 0.8152 | 0.8451 |
| 1 | 0.7368 | 0.7456 | 0.7412 | |
| 2 | 0.8365 | 0.8365 | 0.8365 | |
| 3 | 0.8606 | 0.8404 | 0.8504 | |
| 4 | 0.7198 | 0.7661 | 0.7422 | |
| 5 | 0.9583 | 0.9877 | 0.9728 | |
| GBDT Accuracy=0.8297 |
0 | 0.8508 | 0.8370 | 0.8438 |
| 1 | 0.7321 | 0.7278 | 0.7300 | |
| 2 | 0.8713 | 0.8462 | 0.8585 | |
| 3 | 0.8679 | 0.8638 | 0.8659 | |
| 4 | 0.7126 | 0.7251 | 0.7188 | |
| 5 | 0.9524 | 0.9816 | 0.9668 | |
| XGBoost Accuracy=0.8934 |
0 | 0.8636 | 0.9293 | 0.8953 |
| 1 | 0.8485 | 0.8284 | 0.8383 | |
| 2 | 0.9500 | 0.9135 | 0.9314 | |
| 3 | 0.9238 | 0.9108 | 0.9173 | |
| 4 | 0.8225 | 0.8129 | 0.8176 | |
| 5 | 0.9753 | 0.9693 | 0.9723 | |
| SVM Accuracy=0.8556 |
0 | 0.8595 | 0.8641 | 0.8618 |
| 1 | 0.7938 | 0.7515 | 0.7720 | |
| 2 | 0.8738 | 0.8654 | 0.8696 | |
| 3 | 0.8952 | 0.8826 | 0.8889 | |
| 4 | 0.7459 | 0.7895 | 0.7670 | |
| 5 | 0.9697 | 0.9816 | 0.9756 |
| Kernel sizes | Accuracy | Loss | Parameters | Output RF |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 129/2, 64 | 0.9157 | 0.3140 | 2.86M | 897 |
| 65/2, 64 | 0.9482 | 0.2061 | 2.33M | 449 |
| 33/2, 64 | 0.9414 | 0.2337 | 2.06M | 225 |
| 17/2, 64 | 0.9249 | 0.2803 | 1.93M | 113 |
| 11/2, 64 | 0.9068 | 0.3423 | 1.88M | 71 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).