Bibliographic record
Abstract
In dynamic wheel/rail models, the Hertzian contact stiffness is an important parameter. A track structure and wheel set connected by means of a Hertzian spring is used to describe high frequency vertical vibrations. Unfortunately the Hertzian contact stiffness has been a subject of some dispute by various authors and the suggested values of Hertzian contact stiffness by different authors spread over a wide range between 1,400 and 2,300 kN/mm. In an earlier paper the author used Bousinesque equation for vertical deformation of rail under the center of a circular loaded surface to derive a linearized Hertzian contact stiffness formula. Eisenmann has devised a simplified calculation method for the wheel-rail contact problem with the assumption that all curve radii in the mathematical formulation of the contact problem are infinitely large except the radius of the wheel. Measurements have proven that a simplified two-dimensional calculation under Eisenmann assumptions suffices for wheel diameters between 600 and 1,200 mm. In this paper, a formula for the contact length under Eisenmann assumptions is derived first before deriving a formula for the contact stiffness. The formulation is validated by application on data taking from literature and by comparing Hertzian contact stiffness values with the earlier formula.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".