Rail profile design optimisation for a broad-gauge heavy haul line
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increasing axle loads and speeds in heavy-haul railway systems have intensified rail and wheel damage, leading to elevated maintenance costs and reduced operational efficiency. A promising solution to this issue without compromising service demands is enhancing wheel – rail interaction through optimisation of rail profiles. This study introduces a rail profile optimisation framework tailored for a broad-gauge heavy-haul network experiencing excessive rail wear, utilising Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA-II). The framework is designed to minimise wear and rolling contact fatigue (RCF) while maintaining satisfactory and safe vehicle dynamic performance. The framework includes optimisation of both high and low rail profiles for sharp and mild curves, as well as optimisation of two rail profiles for tangent track to improve contact point distribution and reduce hollow wear. The optimisation process is based on in-service profiles to ensure practical grindability and incorporates multi-body simulations (MBS) to assess wheel and rail damage as well as vehicle dynamic behaviour. The results indicate that the optimised profiles substantially reduce wear and RCF across various track sections. Furthermore, long-term wear and RCF evaluation of rail profiles on sharp and mild curves confirm the superior performance of optimised profiles, thereby validating their potential for integration into maintenance practices.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".