MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412966441 · doi:10.1177/09544097251360450

Simulation-based evaluation of maintenance strategies using look-up tables

2025· article· en· W4412966441 on OpenAlexaff
Abderrahman Ait Ali, Saeed Hossein Nia, Kristofer Odolinski, Peter Torstensson, Sebastian Stichel

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part F Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRailway Engineering and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrack (disk drive)AxleAsset (computer security)Reliability engineeringCorrective maintenanceSensitivity (control systems)Computer scienceEngineeringIndustrial engineeringPreventive maintenanceMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A computationally efficient approach, that uses pre-calculated simulation-based look-up tables of long-term track degradation to evaluate and optimise maintenance strategies, is proposed. The methodology combines iterative multibody simulations – to model the evolution of rail profiles and the distribution of rolling-contact fatigue under realistic conditions – and an optimisation procedure aimed at minimising the lifecycle costs. The research explores the interplay between long-term track degradation, maintenance interventions, and lifecycle costs. The approach is illustrated through an application to a small radius curve on Sweden’s Iron-ore line, focusing on rail grinding and track gauge correction. Optimal renewal and maintenance strategies are analysed for different scenarios such as rail profiles and axle loads. The results highlight the importance of gauge widening rates, rail profiles and axle loads in track deterioration as well as their effects on the asset’s lifecycle costs. A sensitivity analysis is conducted to study the impact of different parameters such as maintenance and renewal costs, and gauge widening rates. The proposed approach offers infrastructure managers a systematic method for efficient planning of maintenance interventions on various assets. Future work could explore applications to larger infrastructure areas, encompassing multiple assets with a complex composition of tangent and curved track sections as well as switches & crossings.

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.378
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part F Journal of Rail and Rapid TransitSame topicRailway Engineering and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207