Aerodynamic Effects of Ravine Wind to Pantograph of High-Speed Train Arriving and Leaving a Tunnel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The process of an eight-car, high-speed train running through a canyon wind zone from a tunnel in the state of favorable pantograph (closing stomata) and adverse pantograph (opening stomata) was simulated by using the sliding mesh method. The aerodynamic performance of the pantograph bow on the train was researched. The results show that when the train exits and enters the tunnel, the effect of cross wind on the change of the pantograph aerodynamic bow force is significant. The law of pantograph bow aerodynamic force peak with train speed and wind speed in the state of favorable pantograph is similar to the one in the state of adverse pantograph. The lift peak of the pantograph bow in the state of a favorable pantograph is a little larger than the one in the state of an adverse pantograph, and the difference of lateral force between them is little. Relative to the process of a train entering a tunnel, the pantograph bow lift pneumatic impact is worse when the train leaves the tunnel. When the wind speed is above 5m/s, the pantograph bow lift force peak process when the train is leaving the tunnel is larger than the one of the process when running from a canyon wind zone into a tunnel.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".