MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808461472 · doi:10.1115/jrc2018-6245

Tank Car Sloshing on Rail Transportation Safety Under Various Loading, Track and In-Train Force Conditions

2018· article· en· W2808461472 on OpenAlexaff
Wei Huang, Yan Liu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRailway Engineering and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSlosh dynamicsDerailmentMarshallingTrainEngineeringTrack (disk drive)TonnageMarine engineeringStructural engineeringAutomotive engineeringVehicle dynamicsComputer scienceMechanical engineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Analytical work was conducted to study if movement of liquid in a tank car (or sloshing) could contribute in any way to derailments of trains carrying dangerous goods liquids. A liquid sloshing model was developed for railway tank car with formulas generated based on available finite element analysis data. An empty tank car dynamics simulation model validated with measured data was used as the base model to implement the liquid sloshing model. Hundreds of thousands of dynamics simulations were conducted for the tank car with liquid cargo at various fill ratios and with equivalent solid (i.e., rigid) cargo on more than 1000 measured curves. The results show that under some conditions tank car sloshing could increase the risk of derailment. The detrimental effect of tank car sloshing on rail safety increases with the increase of outage, trailing tonnage, grade, car length difference, curvature, train speed and track geometry irregularities. Quantitative risk analysis could be improved by considering the effects of tank car sloshing on derailment risk. The findings can be used by regulators and the railroads to improve train marshalling practice and risk mapping of railway networks.

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 score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score0.584

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 head0.210
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRailway Engineering and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207