Application of Regenerative Braking with Optimized Speed Profiles for Sustainable Train Operation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a method for synergizing the energy-saving strategies of integrated coasting and regenerative braking in urban rail transit operations. Coasting saves energy by maintaining motion with propulsion disabled, but it induces longer travel time. Regenerative braking captures and reuses the braking energy of the train and could shorten travel time but reduces the time available for coasting, indicating a tradeoff between the two strategies. A simulation model was developed based on fundamental kinematic equations for assessing sustainable train operation with Wayside Energy-Saving Systems (WESSs). The objective of this study is to optimize speed profiles that minimize energy consumption, considering the train schedule and specifications, track alignment, speed limit, and the WESS parameters such as storage limit and energy losses in the transmission lines. The decision variables are the acceleration at each time step of the respective motion regimes. Since the study optimization problem is combinatorial, a Genetic Algorithm was developed to search for the solution. A case study was conducted which examined various scenarios with and without WESS on a segment of an urban rail transit line to test the applicability of the proposed model and to provide a platform for the application of ideas developed in this study. It was determined that synergizing the energy-saving strategies of coasting and regenerative braking yielded the greatest efficiency of the scenarios examined.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it