Modeling the mechanical behavior of railway ballast using artificial neural networks
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ballast is one of the most commonly used construction materials in railway tracks. Under heavy train loads, ballast is subjected to a high stress level that is always associated with significant track deformation. Consequently, an accurate prediction of the mechanical behavior of ballast under static and dynamic loading conditions is important for the stability of railway tracks. In this paper, the feasibility of using artificial neural networks (ANNs) for modeling the mechanical behavior of railway ballast under static loading is investigated. The database used for the development of the ANN model is obtained from selected literature and comprises a series of 29 large-scale drained triaxial compression tests conducted on three types of commonly used ballast (i.e., basalt, dolomite, and granite). Predictions from the ANN model are compared with the results of experimental tests and with those obtained from the hardening-soil constitutive model in PLAXIS finite-element code. The results indicate that the ANN model is able to accurately predict the stress–strain and volume change behavior of ballast. The plastic dilation and contraction of ballast at various confining pressures and the strain-hardening and postpeak strain-softening behavior of ballast are also well simulated.Key words: ballast, modeling, neural networks, prediction, railway, triaxial tests.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it