MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407810594 · doi:10.1177/10775463251321198

Braking force distribution strategy for virtual rail trains based on I-curve

2025· article· en· W4407810594 on OpenAlexaff
Jianyong Zuo, Pengfei Diao, Jingxian Ding, Yuejian Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vibration and Control · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRailway Engineering and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrainDistribution (mathematics)EngineeringFreight trainsComputer scienceStructural engineeringControl theory (sociology)MathematicsMathematical analysisArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The virtual rail trains have attracted much attention in recent years thanks to their high passenger capacity and low construction cost. In this paper, braking force distribution strategy for virtual rail trains with three-car and six-axle was studied. Based on the principle of axle load proportion distribution, braking force distribution method of the four-wheel single car under curve braking was studied by applying the I-curve theory. The distribution laws of centrifugal force between axles during curve braking were analyzed, the lateral force provided by the tires of each axle can be calculated, and the remaining tire adhesion can be set as the upper limit of braking force, which can ensure the maximum utilization of tire adhesion. The method was extended to multi-series trains by analyzing the additional influence of hinge points on the lateral force, and a braking force distribution strategy considering the car body hinge coupling relationship was proposed. Finally, the effectiveness of the strategy was verified by hardware-in-the-loop tests. The research results provide guidelines on the brake control of newly emerged virtual rail trains.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

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 head0.218
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vibration and ControlSame topicRailway Engineering and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207