IP Library Granted Patent US 12,269,524
Granted Patent B2
US 12,269,524 · App. 18/829,216 · Granted Apr 8, 2025

Apparatuses, systems, and methods for monitoring moving vehicles

Inventors: Mabby Nicholas Amouie (Atlanta, GA); Evan Thomas Gebhardt (Atlanta, GA)
Assignee: Norfolk Southern Corporation
B61L27/57B61L25/021G06T7/001G06T7/80G06T2207/30252
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,269,524
App. No.
18/829,216
Granted
Apr 8, 2025
Kind
B2
Abstract

Railcar inspection systems, methods, and apparatuses are disclosed, including a railcar inspection portal. The railcar inspection portal includes a physical structure positioned around a railroad track, and through which a railcar can travel. The railcar inspection portal can include wheel detection sensors along the railroad track for detecting the presence of a railcar passing over the sensors. The sensors can transmit signals, corresponding to railcars passing over the sensors, to computing devices for determining railcar speeds. The railcar inspection portal can include imaging devices configured to capture images and readings of railcars passing through the inspection portal. Based on a determined speed corresponding to a passing railcar, the computing devices can control the imaging devices to capture specific areas or components of the passing railcar, or individual cars thereon. The computing devices can process the captured images to detect defects corresponding to the passing railcar, or individual cars thereon.

Claims (73)

1. An inspection system comprising:

a plurality of wheel detection sensors configured to detect a presence and/or a non-presence of wheels of a passing railcar traveling along a railway;

one or more imaging devices configured to capture inspection images of the passing railcar travelling along the railway; and

one or more computing devices in communication with the plurality of wheel detection sensors and the one or more imaging devices, the one or more computing devices being configured to:

determine a current estimated train speed for the passing railcar based at least in part on wheel detection events detected by the plurality of wheel detection sensors;

output capture instructions for the one or more imaging devices to capture images of one or more target regions of the passing railcar, wherein one or more corresponding timings of the capture instructions are based at least in part on the current estimated train speed; and

perform a system health monitoring process comprising:

determining an expected data profile based on the current estimated train speed;

receiving captured image data associated with one or more captured images that were captured by the one or more imaging devices according to the capture instructions;

determining, based on a comparison of the captured image data to the expected data profile, whether a system health of the inspection system is acceptable; and

in response to determining that the system health of the inspection system is not acceptable, outputting a notification indicating the system health of the inspection system is not acceptable.

2. The system of claim 1 , wherein the captured image data comprises a time stamp for each of the one or more captured images.

3. The system of claim 2 , wherein:

performing the system health monitoring process further comprises determining, based at least in part on the time stamp for each of the one or more captured images, an inspection capture rate corresponding to each of the one or more imaging devices;

the expected data profile comprises an expected capture rate corresponding to each of the one or more imaging devices;

the captured image data comprises an inspection capture rate corresponding to each of the one or more imaging devices; and

determining whether the system health of the inspection system is acceptable comprises, for each of the one or more imaging devices:

comparing each expected capture rate to each corresponding inspection capture rate; and

determining whether the inspection capture rate is within an acceptable error tolerance of the expected capture rate.

4. The system of claim 2 , wherein:

the expected data profile comprises an expected number of images captured by each of the one or more imaging devices;

the captured image data comprises a number of captured images captured by each of the one or more imaging devices; and

determining whether the system health of the inspection system is acceptable comprises, for each of the one or more imaging devices:

comparing the expected number of images to the number of captured images; and

determining whether the number of captured images is within an acceptable error tolerance of the expected number of images.

5. The system of claim 1 , wherein determining that the system health of the inspection system is not acceptable is indicative of one or more damaged or malfunctioning imaging devices.

6. The system of claim 1 , wherein determining that the system health of the inspection system is not acceptable is indicative of a transmission error between the plurality of wheel detection sensors and the one or more computing devices or between at least one of the one or more imaging devices and the one or more computing devices.

7. The system of claim 1 , wherein the one or more computing devices are further configured to determine, based at least in part on the comparison of the captured image data to the expected data profile, a likely root cause of a detected abnormality of the inspection system, wherein the notification further comprising an indication of the detected abnormality and the likely root cause.

8. A method for determining a system health of an inspection system comprising (i) a plurality of wheel detection sensors configured to detect a presence and/or a non-presence of wheels of a passing railcar traveling along a railway; (ii) one or more imaging devices configured to capture inspection images of the passing railcar travelling along the railway; and (iii) one or more computing devices in communication with the plurality of wheel detection sensors and the one or more imaging devices, the method comprising:

determining a current estimated train speed for the passing railcar based at least in part on wheel detection events detected by the plurality of wheel detection sensors;

determining an expected data profile based on the current estimated train speed;

receiving captured image data associated with one or more captured images that were captured by the one or more imaging devices according to specific capture instructions;

determining, based on a comparison of the captured image data to the expected data profile, whether a system health of the inspection system is acceptable; and

in response to determining that the system health of the inspection system is not acceptable, outputting a notification indicating the system health of the inspection system is not acceptable.

9. The method of claim 8 , wherein the captured image data comprises a time stamp for each of the one or more captured images.

10. The method of claim 9 , wherein:

the method further comprises determining, based at least in part on the time stamp for each of the one or more captured images, an inspection capture rate corresponding to each of the one or more imaging devices;

the expected data profile comprises an expected capture rate corresponding to each of the one or more imaging devices;

the captured image data comprises an inspection capture rate corresponding to each of the one or more imaging devices; and

determining whether the system health of the inspection system is acceptable comprises, for each of the one or more imaging devices:

comparing each expected capture rate to each corresponding inspection capture rate; and

determining whether the inspection capture rate is within an acceptable error tolerance of the expected capture rate.

11. The method of claim 8 , wherein:

the expected data profile comprises an expected number of images captured by each of the one or more imaging devices;

the captured image data comprises a number of captured images captured by each of the one or more imaging devices; and

determining whether the system health of the inspection system is acceptable comprises, for each of the one or more imaging devices:

comparing the expected number of images to the number of captured images; and

determining whether the number of captured images is within an acceptable error tolerance of the expected number of images.

12. The method of claim 8 , wherein determining the system health of the inspection system is not acceptable is indicative of one or more damaged or malfunctioning imaging devices.

13. The method of claim 8 , wherein determining the system health of the inspection system is not acceptable is indicative of a transmission error between the plurality of wheel detection sensors and the one or more computing devices or between at least one of the one or more imaging devices and the one or more computing devices.

14. The method of claim 8 , further comprising determining, based at least in part on the comparison of the captured image data to the expected data profile, a likely root cause of a detected abnormality of the inspection system, wherein the notification further comprising an indication of the detected abnormality and the likely root cause.

15. A non-transitory, computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or processors, causes a computing system to determine a current estimated train speed for a passing railcar based at least in part on wheel detection events detected by a plurality of wheel detection sensors of an inspection system;

receive captured image data associated with one or more captured images of the passing railcar that were captured by one or more imaging devices of the inspection system, the one or more captured images having been captured according to specific capture instructions;

determine an expected data profile based on the current estimated train speed;

determine, based on a comparison of the captured image data to the expected data profile, whether a system health of the inspection system is acceptable; and

in response to determining that the system health of the inspection system is not acceptable, output a notification indicating the system health of the inspection system is not acceptable.

16. The non-transitory, computer readable medium of claim 15 , wherein the captured image data comprises a time stamp for each of the one or more captured images.

17. The non-transitory, computer readable medium of claim 16 , wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or processors, further causes the computing system to determine, based at least in part on the time stamp for each of the one or more captured images, an inspection capture rate corresponding to each of the one or more imaging devices,

wherein:

the expected data profile comprises an expected capture rate corresponding to each of the one or more imaging devices;

the captured image data comprises an inspection capture rate corresponding to each of the one or more imaging devices; and

determining whether the system health of the inspection system is acceptable comprises, for each of the one or more imaging devices:

comparing each expected capture rate to each corresponding inspection capture rate; and

determining whether the inspection capture rate is within an acceptable error tolerance of the expected capture rate.

18. The non-transitory, computer readable medium of claim 15 , wherein:

the expected data profile comprises an expected number of images captured by each of the one or more imaging devices;

the captured image data comprises a number of captured images captured by each of the one or more imaging devices; and

determining whether the system health of the inspection system is acceptable comprises, for each of the one or more imaging devices:

comparing the expected number of images to the number of captured images; and

determining whether the number of captured images is within an acceptable error tolerance of the expected number of images.

19. The non-transitory, computer readable medium of claim 15 , wherein determining the system health of the inspection system is not acceptable is indicative of one or more damaged or malfunctioning imaging devices.

20. The non-transitory, computer readable medium of claim 15 , wherein determining the system health of the inspection system is not acceptable is indicative of a transmission error between the plurality of wheel detection sensors and one or more computing devices of the inspection system or between at least one of the one or more imaging devices and the one or more computing devices.

21. The non-transitory, computer readable medium of claim 15 , wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or processors, further causes the computing system to determine, based at least in part on the comparison of the captured image data to the expected data profile, a likely root cause of a detected abnormality of the inspection system, wherein the notification further comprising an indication of the detected abnormality and the likely root cause.

Assignments (2)
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Mar 10, 2025
From: AMOUIE, MABBY NICHOLAS
To: NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION
Reel/Frame 070452/0311 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Mar 10, 2025
From: GEBHARDT, EVAN THOMAS
To: NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION
Reel/Frame 070452/0426 →
Continuity (3)
Provisional Application 63581554 · Sep 8, 2023
Provisional Application 63582165 · Sep 12, 2023
Related Publication 20250083721A1 · Mar 13, 2025
References Cited (79)
US 4915504A · Thurston · 1990 [cited by applicant]
US 5793492A · Vanaki · 1998 [cited by applicant]
US 6813581B1 · Snyder · 2004 [cited by applicant]
US 6909514B2 · Nayebi · 2005 [cited by applicant]
US 7681443B2 · Kilian et al. · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 7714886B2 · Kilian et al. · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 7715026B2 · Nayebi · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 8289526B2 · Kilian et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 8480008B1 · Arnold · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 8668136B2 · Ahern et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 8780189B2 · Kilian · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 8934007B2 · Snead · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 9033219B2 · Schoner et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 9073559B2 · Kilian et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 9129248B2 · Parasnis · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 9438754B2 · Schoner et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 9516199B2 · Kilian et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 9625607B2 · Tudor · 2017 [cited by examiner]
US 9671191B1 · Sullivan et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 9709394B2 · Schoner et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 9836893B2 · Chundru · 2017 [cited by examiner]
US 10513279B2 · Mulligan · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 10523858B1 · Arcaini et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 10984521B2 · Kohler et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 11107233B2 · Saniei et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 11172107B1 · Hoeppner · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 11235788B2 · Snyder et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 11285980B2 · Popplewell · 2022 [cited by examiner]
US 11423559B2 · Kohler · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 11620743B2 · Kohler et al. · 2023 [cited by applicant]
US 11688169B1 · Dryer et al. · 2023 [cited by applicant]
US 11763480B2 · Saniei et al. · 2023 [cited by applicant]
US 11776145B2 · Kohler · 2023 [cited by applicant]
US 11861509B2 · Neal, Jr. et al. · 2024 [cited by applicant]
US 11891098B1 · Smythe et al. · 2024 [cited by applicant]
US 11932290B2 · Davis et al. · 2024 [cited by applicant]
US 11974035B1 · Buschelman · 2024 [cited by applicant]
US 12033312B2 · Kohler et al. · 2024 [cited by applicant]
US 20040263624A1 · Nejikovsky et al. · 2004 [cited by applicant]
US 20050253926A1 · Chung et al. · 2005 [cited by applicant]
US 20060276985A1 · Xu et al. · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 20070040911A1 · Riley · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 20100100275A1 · Mian et al. · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 20120113259A1 · Jie et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20130054158A1 · Toms · 2013 [cited by examiner]
US 20160096536A1 · Toms · 2016 [cited by examiner]
US 20170199215A1 · Arcaini et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20180222498A1 · Kelley · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 20180237041A1 · Mesher · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20190061791A1 · Yaktine et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20190094154A1 · Iler · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20190260972A1 · Behety · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20200408682A1 · Mian et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20210058588A1 · Abreo · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20210403060A1 · Pertosa · 2021 [cited by examiner]
US 20220377251A1 · Grata et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 20230194746A1 · Morton · 2023 [cited by examiner]
US 20230410342A1 · Kohler · 2023 [cited by applicant]
US 20230410354A1 · Saniei et al. · 2023 [cited by applicant]
US 20240004775A1 · Liu · 2024 [cited by examiner]
US 20240035931A1 · Grata · 2024 [cited by applicant]
US 20240043043A1 · Brooks · 2024 [cited by examiner]
US 20240137635A1 · Buschelman · 2024 [cited by examiner]
US 20240236464A9 · Buschelman · 2024 [cited by examiner]
CN 111483496A · 2020 [cited by applicant]
CN 111923962A · 2020 [cited by applicant]
CN 111942434A · 2020 [cited by applicant]
WO 9532581A1 · 1995 [cited by applicant]
WO 2022192962A1 · 2022 [cited by applicant]
WO 2024050200A1 · 2023 [cited by applicant]
WO 2024050201A1 · 2024 [cited by applicant]
WO 2024196402A1 · 2024 [cited by applicant]
Gao et al., L. Anomaly Detection of Trackside Equipment Based on GPS and Image Matching, IEEE Access, vol. 6, Jan. 2020, pp. 17346-17355. (Year: 2020). [cited by examiner]
Qiushi et al, M. Composite Railway Health Monitoring System based on Fiber Optic Bragg Grating Sensing Array, 2014 IEEE Far East Forum on Nondestructive Evaluation/Testing, Jun. 2014, pp. 259-264. (Year: 2014). [cited by examiner]
Chong et al., S.Y. A Review of Health and Operation Monitoring Technologies for Trains, Google Scholar, Smart Structures and Systems, vol. 6, No. 9, 2010, pp. 1079-1105. (Year: 2010). [cited by examiner]
Non-Final Office Action For U.S. Appl. No. 18/829,189 dated Nov. 4, 2024, 18 pages. [cited by applicant]
Non-Final Office Action For U.S. Appl. No. 18/829,200 dated Oct. 29, 2024, 19 pages. [cited by applicant]
Non-Final Office Action For U.S. Appl. No. 18/829,194 dated Nov. 18, 2024, 18 pages. [cited by applicant]
Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 18/829,199, mailed Dec. 27, 2024, 12 Pages. [cited by applicant]