MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113828448 · doi:10.1177/0954409712447230

A train air brake force model: Locomotive automatic brake valve and brake pipe flow formulations

2012· article· en· W2113828448 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part F Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRailway Engineering and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsCanadian Pacific Railway (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrakeOrdinary differential equationAir brakeDifferential equationAirflowPartial differential equationEngineeringCoordinate systemMechanicsControl theory (sociology)Mechanical engineeringComputer scienceMathematicsPhysicsMathematical analysisGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of this study is to integrate an air brake model with efficient algorithms for train longitudinal force calculation that are based on trajectory coordinate formulations. The air brake model, developed in this investigation and presented in this paper and a companion paper, consists of the locomotive automatic brake valve, air brake pipe and car control unit (CCU). The proposed air brake force model accounts for the effect of the air flow in long train pipes as well as the effect of leakage and branch pipe flows. This model can be used to study the dynamic behavior of the air flow in the train pipe and its effect on the longitudinal train forces during brake application and release. The governing equations of the air pressure flow are developed using the general fluid continuity and momentum equations, simplified using the assumptions of one-dimensional isothermal flow. Using these assumptions, one obtains two coupled air velocity/pressure partial differential equations that depend on time and the longitudinal coordinate of the brake pipes. The partial differential equations are converted to a set of first-order ordinary differential equations using the finite element method. The resulting air brake ordinary differential equations are solved simultaneously with the train’s second-order non-linear dynamic differential equations of motion that are based on the trajectory coordinates. The train car non-linear dynamics is defined using a body track coordinate system that follows the car motion. The body track coordinate system translation and orientation are defined in terms of one parameter that describes the distance traveled by the car. The configuration of the car with respect to its track coordinate system is described using two translation coordinates and three Euler angles. The operation modes of the brake system considered in this investigation are the brake release mode and the brake application mode that includes service and emergency brakes. A detailed model of the locomotive automatic brake valve is presented in this investigation and used to define the inputs to the air brake pipe during the simulation. A simplified model of this valve is also proposed in order to reduce the computational time of the simulation. In a companion paper, the detailed CCU formulation is presented. The coupling between the air brake, locomotive automatic brake valve, CCUs and train equations is established and used in the companion paper in the simulation of the non-linear dynamics of long trains. The air brake formulations presented in the two companion papers are implemented in a computer code called Analysis of Train/Track Interaction Forces (ATTIF) which is developed for the analysis of longitudinal train forces.

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 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)0.001
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 score0.377
Threshold uncertainty score0.750

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.184 · 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