Evaluating Rail Surface Roughness from Axle-Box Acceleration Measurements: Computational Metrology Approach
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 study develops a new methodology based on computational metrology techniques to measure rail surface roughness from vertical axle-box accelerations. A VIA rail passenger rail car, operating in eastern Ontario, Canada, was instrumented with accelerometers on the car body, trucks, and axle-boxes. The rail surface was measured by a heavy track geometry inspection car. A Gaussian filter was applied to the measured rail surface data and the rail surface roughness was quantified by the root mean square (RMS), as recommended by ISO 11562 for evaluating engineering surfaces. Values of rail surface RMS roughness calculated from axle-box accelerometer data are verified with the measured surface RMS roughness. The overlap ratio and length of the moving window over which the rail surface RMS roughness is calculated are studied with respect to roughness wavelengths, statistical considerations, and maintenance planning purposes. The effect of rail car operating speed as well as the difference between axle-box accelerations measured at two axles of the instrumented rail car on the accuracy of estimating the rail surface RMS roughness are assessed. Filtering techniques and application limitations for calculating roughness are also discussed. The results of this study suggest axle-box acceleration data provide a useful assessment of rail surface roughness for the typical wavelengths between 3 and 25 m and a complementary technique to light and heavy track geometry inspections.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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