ArticleHeliyon2024
Research on resilience assessment method of train control on-board system.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Resilience assessment of EMU train control onboard system considering degraded operation modes.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To address the problem of difficult performance assessment of train control on-board system after recovery from failures, we have proposed a resilience assessment methodology that uses reliability as an indicator of system resilience. Since the system failures are time-dependent, we adopted the Discrete Time Bayesian Network method to obtain the system's reliability before and after failure. Subsequently, we used an exponential recovery model to quantify the system's performance curve during the recovery phase, and finally utilized the resilient triangle area method to quantify its resilience size. Analyzing the CTCS3-300T train control on-board system, we found that the resilience of the system with cold standby redundancy design and hot standby redundancy design were 89.44 % and 87.34 %, respectively, indicating a slight decrease in system performance after recovery from failures compared to pre-failure levels. At that time, it was necessary to adjust operational plans based on actual conditions to avoid greater impact on the railway network. This paper realizes performance resilience of train control on-board system after failure recovery, which can be applied to similar systems and provide theoretical references for realizing intelligent maintenance of the high-speed train.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.