Cognitive Principles for Remote Condition Monitoring Applied to a Rail Pantograph System
Source abstract
Abstract
Remote condition monitoring (RCM) aims to ensure the availability of railway assets. Previous work has indicated the importance of a user-centred RCM design approach based on cognitive principles, but there has been no known demonstration of the application of these principles. The following paper takes this theory-based approach and applies it to the design of an RCM system for the rail pantograph/Overhead Line (OHL) system. The paper first presents a high-level conceptual architecture, based on four stages of cognitive decision-making (notification, acceptance, analysis and clearance), linked to the wider monitoring architecture. Second, the paper uses cognitive principles to propose demonstration Human–Machine Interface designs for the OHL system. These HMIs were presented in an evaluation with subject matter experts. The outcomes of the process generated user-centred design recommendations for RCM. Furthermore, the evaluation suggested the importance of multiple paths through the HMI dependent on the type and urgency of fault. Finally, the outcomes of the evaluation also highlighted the importance of considering context when deploying user-centred RCM.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Safety Warnings and Signage · Transportation Systems and Safety · Advanced Research in Systems and Signal Processing
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
School of Engineering, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK
References (50)
Show source-provided references
1. The railway as a socio-technical system: Human factors at the heart of successful rail engineering10.1243/09544097JRRT78 ↗
2. Defining the methodological challenges and opportunities for an effective science of sociotechnical systems and safety10.1080/00140139.2015.1015622 ↗
3. Implications of climate change for railway infrastructure10.1002/wcc.728 ↗
4. Caught between a rail and a hard place: A two-country meta-analysis of factors that impact Track Worker safety in Lookout-related rail incidents10.1080/1463922X.2019.1605630 ↗
5. (2024, June 15). Rail Accident Investigation Branch (2020) Report 11/2020: Track Workers Struck by a Train at Margam, Available online: https://www.gov.uk/raib-reports/report-11-2020-track-workers-struck-by-a-train-at-margam.
6. A reliability centered approach to remote condition monitoring. A railway points case study10.1016/S0951-8320(02)00166-7 ↗
7. Wireless sensor networks for condition monitoring in the railway industry: A survey10.1109/TITS.2014.2366512 ↗
8. An autonomous system for maintenance scheduling data-rich complex infrastructure: Fusing the railways’ condition, planning and cost10.1016/j.trc.2018.02.010 ↗
9. Dadashi, N., Golightly, D., Sharples, S., and Bye, R. (2023). Intelligent Infrastructure: User-Centred Remote Condition Monitoring, CRC Press.10.1201/9781315587288 ↗
10. Context-based and human-centred information fusion in diagnostics10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.11.038 ↗
11. Modelling decision-making within rail maintenance control rooms10.1007/s10111-020-00636-x ↗
12. Houghton, R.J., and Patel, H. (2015, January 9–14). Interface design for prognostic asset maintenance. Proceedings of the 19th Triennial Congress of the IEA, Melbourne, Australia.
13. Vollert, S., Atzmueller, M., and Theissler, A. (2021, January 7–10). Interpretable Machine Learning: A brief survey from the predictive maintenance perspective. Proceedings of the 2021 26th IEEE International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA), Vasteras, Sweden.10.1109/ETFA45728.2021.9613467 ↗
14. Industrial alarm systems: Challenges and opportunities10.1016/j.jlp.2017.09.001 ↗
15. A cross-sector analysis of human and organisational factors in the deployment of data-driven predictive maintenance10.1007/s10257-017-0343-1 ↗
16. Cortés-Leal, A., Cárdenas, C., and Del-Valle-Soto, C. (2022). Maintenance 5.0: Towards a worker-in-the-loop framework for resilient smart manufacturing. Appl. Sci., 12.10.3390/app122211330 ↗
17. Karwowski, W. (2006). Alarm initiated activities. International Encyclopaedia of Ergonomics and Human Factors, Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. [2nd ed.].
18. A robust pantograph–catenary interaction condition monitoring method based on deep convolutional network10.1109/TIM.2019.2920721 ↗
19. Condition monitoring of railway pantographs to achieve fault detection and fault diagnosis10.1177/0954409718800567 ↗
20. Keen, P.M. (1998, January 2). Monitoring overhead line equipment. Proceedings of the IEE Current Collections for High Speed Trains Seminar (Ref. No. 1998/509), London, UK.10.1049/ic:19981002 ↗
21. Ostlund, S., Gustafsson, A., Buhrkall, L., and Skoglund, M. (2008, January 18–20). Condition monitoring of pantograph contact strip. Proceedings of the 2008 4th IET International Conference on Railway Condition Monitoring, Derby, UK.10.1049/ic:20080343 ↗
22. Betts, A., Hall, J., and Keen, P. (1989, January 25–28). Condition monitoring of pantographs. Proceedings of the International Conference on Main Line Railway Electrification, North Yorkshire, UK.
23. Complex fuzzy system based predictive maintenance approach in railways10.1109/TII.2020.2973231 ↗
24. Defect detection of pantograph slide based on deep learning and image processing technology10.1109/TITS.2019.2900385 ↗
25. Na, K.M., Lee, K., Shin, S.K., and Kim, H. (2020). Detecting deformation on pantograph contact strip of railway vehicle on image processing and deep learning. Appl. Sci., 10.10.3390/app10238509 ↗
26. A new approach based on firefly algorithm for vision-based railway overhead inspection system10.1016/j.measurement.2015.07.022 ↗
27. A survey of the Hough transform10.1016/S0734-189X(88)80033-1 ↗
28. Aydin, I., Karaköse, M., and Akin, E. (2012, January 5–7). A new contactless fault diagnosis approach for pantograph-catenary system. Proceedings of the 15th International Conference MECHATRONIKA, Prague, Czech Republic.
29. Ikeda, M., Nagasaka, S., and Takayuki, A.U. (2001, January 25–29). A precise contact force measuring method for overhead catenary system. Proceedings of the World Congress on Railway Research, Köln, Germany.
30. (2022, April 22). Report 09/2015: Parting of Live Overhead Wire at Walkergate. GOV.UK, Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/report-092015-parting-of-live-overhead-wire-at-walkergate.
31. A framework to support human factors of automation in railway intelligent infrastructure10.1080/00140139.2014.893026 ↗
32. Hollnagel, E., and Woods, D.A. (2005). Joint Cognitive Systems: Foundations of Cognitive Systems Engineering, CRC Press.10.1201/9781420038194 ↗
33. (2010). Ergonomics of Human System Interaction—Part 210: Human-Centred Design for Interactive Systems (Standard No. ISO DIS 9241-210).
34. Predicting e-readiness at firm-level: An analysis of technological, organizational and environmental (TOE) effects on e-maintenance readiness in manufacturing firms10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.05.002 ↗
35. From preventative to predictive maintenance: The organisational challenge10.1177/0954409717701785 ↗
36. Organizational dimensions of e-maintenance: A multi-contextual perspective10.1007/s13198-011-0043-z ↗
37. Challenges and solutions in condition-based maintenance implementation-A multiple case study10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.126420 ↗
38. Garrone, A., Minisi, S., Oneto, L., Dambra, C., Borinato, M., Sanetti, P., Vignola, G., Papa, F., Mazzino, N., and Anguita, D. (2022, January 7–9). Simple Non Regressive Informed Machine Learning Model for Prescriptive Maintenance of Track Circuits in a Subway Environment. Proceedings of the International Conference on System-Integrated Intelligence, Genova, Italy.10.1007/978-3-031-16281-7_8 ↗
39. Nielsen, J. (2022, April 22). 10 Usability Heuristics for User Interface Design. Nielsen Norman Group. Available online: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ten-usability-heuristics.
40. General Principles of User Interface Design and Websites
41. On the independence of compliance and reliance: Are automation false alarms worse than misses?10.1518/001872007X215656 ↗
42. Work-domain knowledge in usability evaluation: Experiences with Cooperative Usability Testing10.1016/j.jss.2010.02.026 ↗
43. Hignett, S., and McDermott, H. (2015). Qualitative methodology. Evaluation of Human Work, CRC Press.
44. Applications, value and barriers of common data frameworks in the rail industry of Great Britain10.1177/0954409713499148 ↗
45. Practical use of work analysis to support rail electrical control rooms: A case of alarm handling10.1177/0954409712465709 ↗
46. Analysing activity in complex systems with cognitive work analysis: Concepts, guidelines and case study for control task analysis10.1080/14639220500098821 ↗
47. Rasmussen, J. (1986). Information Processing and Human-Machine Interaction: An Approach to cognitive Engineering, North-Holland.
48. Bevan, N., Barnum, C., Cockton, G., Nielsen, J., Spool, J., and Wixon, D. (2003, January 5–10). The “magic number 5” is it enough for web testing?. Proceedings of the CHI’03 Extended Abstracts on Human factors in Computing Systems, Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA.10.1145/765891.765936 ↗
49. An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale10.1080/10447310802205776 ↗
50. A/B testing: A systematic literature review10.1016/j.jss.2024.112011 ↗