Modelling the Floating Ladder Track Response to a Moving Load by an Infinite Bernoulli-Euler Beam on Periodic Flexible Supports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An infinite Bernoulli-Euler beam (representing the “combined rail” consisting of the rail and longitudinal sleeper) mounted on periodic flexible point supports (representing the railpads) has already proven to be a suitable mathematical model for the floating ladder track (FLT), to define its natural vibrations and its forced response due to a moving load. Adopting deliberately conservative parameters for the existing FLT design, we present further results for the response to a steadily (uniformly) moving load when the periodic supports are assumed to be elastic, and then introduce the mass and viscous damping of the periodic supports. Typical support damping significantly moderates the resulting steady deflexion at any load speed, and in particular substantially reduces the magnitude of the resonant response at the critical speed. The linear mathematical analysis is then extended to include the inertia of the load that otherwise moves uniformly along the beam, generating overstability at supercritical speeds – i.e. at load speeds notably above the critical speed predicted for the resonant response when the load inertia is neglected. Neither the resonance nor the overstability should prevent the safe implementation of the FLT design in modern high speed rail systems.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".