MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3084299312 · doi:10.32393/csme.2020.106

Validation of a Low Fidelity Catenary Model Developed Using a Novel Optimization Algorithm

2020· article· en· W3084299312 on OpenAlexafffund
Rosalie Morin, Ben Shiff, Kee Seung Oh, Stephen Roper, Il Yong Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueProgress in Canadian Mechanical Engineering. Volume 3 · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOptical measurement and interference techniques
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCatenaryComputer scienceFidelityAlgorithmModel validationMathematical optimizationMathematicsEngineeringStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contact wire pre-sag directly impacts the current quality collection in a high-speed railway catenary.Due to this, the initial configuration of the catenary geometry plays an important role on the dynamic performance of the railway.Therefore, accurately representing the initial equilibrium state of the catenary based on specific design requirements is crucial to obtain accurate dynamic results.Despite its importance, there are only a few publications in this area that present methods that can accommodate desired amount of presag in the contact wire and are computationally efficient.The goal of this paper is to present a catenary system that has been modelled using a novel optimization method and validate its dynamic response from its interaction with a pantograph system against the reference model results in BS EN 50318.The novel optimization methodology presented in this paper employs a gradient-based algorithm with a modified finite difference method to solve the initial equilibrium geometry of the catenary.The pantograph and catenary systems are modelled using a commercial finite element software and the post-processing of the results is done using in-house code.A penalty contact-force model is used to represent the contact behavior between the pantograph-catenary system and a threestep simulation procedure is used to achieve better convergence of results.The results from the simulation demonstrated good accordance with the reference model results in BS EN 50318.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProgress in Canadian Mechanical Engineering. Volume 3Same topicOptical measurement and interference techniquesFrench-language works237,207