MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022043824 · doi:10.1115/jrc2012-74120

Multiple Regression Analysis of the Impact of Track Geometry on Wheel-Rail Forces

2012· article· en· W2022043824 on OpenAlexaff
Wei Huang, Yan Liu, J. Preston–Thomas

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRailway Engineering and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrack geometryTrack (disk drive)TruckCurvatureRegression analysisStructural engineeringGeometryMathematicsEngineeringAutomotive engineeringMechanical engineeringStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the fundamental keys to improving track safety standards is to establish a strong correlation between track geometry variations and wheel-rail force parameters that are indicators of vehicle-track safety performance. In this study, wheel-rail forces were collected during field tests of a loaded lumber car and an empty tank car. Computer models of the two tested freight cars were built, and the models were calibrated using field test results. The computer models were then used to evaluate the impact of varying track geometry parameters on track safety using the maximum single wheel L/V ratio, maximum truck side L/V ratio, and minimum vertical wheel load ratio. It was confirmed again that the correlations between these force parameters and any individual geometry parameter were weak. With further investigation, it was found that much better correlation can be achieved using multiple regression techniques to define each wheel-rail force parameter as a function of all track geometry parameters combined together. Expressions of the maximum truck side L/V ratio, maximum single wheel L/V ratio, and minimum vertical wheel load ratio were obtained as functions of curvature, cross level, alignment, gauge, and cant deficiency using multiple regression analysis.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.231
Threshold uncertainty score0.249

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRailway Engineering and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207