MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074923527 · doi:10.1115/jrc2009-63058

Predicted Wheel Wear and RCF Performance Using VAMPIRE Automation Routines

2009· article· en· W2074923527 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Philip J. Rogers, Matthew G. Dick

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRailway Engineering and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVampireAutomotive engineeringTruckProcess (computing)AutomationComputer scienceService (business)SimulationEngineeringMechanical engineeringOperating systemArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Predicted wheel performance is an invaluable tool in developing new components such as wheel profiles and truck components and also in understanding and controlling wheel and rail wear and rolling contact fatigue (RCF). This paper outlines a vehicle dynamics trial using VAMPIRE Pro to compare the predicted wear and RCF performance of the WRISA2 wheel profile developed by the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) and the United Kingdom P8 wheel profile using measured wheel profiles from an in-service trial. WRISA2 and P8 profiles were fitted to two passenger trains running in normal service. Wheel profiles were measured every 10,000 miles. These measured profiles were used to predict wear and RCF damage for each wheel of the investigated rail vehicle, using a combination of VAMPIRE transient analysis and another program called the “Whole Life Rail Model” (WLRM). This process was repeated up to 190,000 miles run in service, allowing a clear comparison of the changing rail wear and RCF performance of the two profiles up to this mileage. This process was automated using new features within VAMPIRE that allow communication to 3rd party computer programs including the WLRM, Microsoft Excel, and Microsoft Visual Basic. This research process presents itself to be a very useful tool in predicting wheel wear performance for any number of new wheel and truck components.

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 score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.178 · 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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRailway Engineering and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207