MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2970880167 · doi:10.1111/ffe.13126

Aerodynamic load spectrum and fatigue behaviour of high‐speed train's equipment cabin

2019· article· en· W2970880167 on OpenAlexaff
Wei Zhou, Lin Chen, Zhonggang Wang, Sansan Ding

Bibliographic record

VenueFatigue & Fracture of Engineering Materials & Structures · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerodynamics and Fluid Dynamics Research
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Education and Child Care
FundersFundamental Research Funds for Central Universities of the Central South University
KeywordsNondestructive testingWeldingAerodynamicsStructural engineeringMatrix (chemical analysis)EngineeringHead (geology)Materials scienceComposite materialMechanical engineeringPhysicsGeologyAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In present study, the aerodynamic fatigue behaviour of train equipment cabin was investigated. Pressure sensors were arranged at train passing side. Eight‐grade load spectrum was constructed by means of rain‐flow counting, and fatigue damage was calculated with Miner's rule and Carten‐Dolan rule, both for the matrix metals and welds. For welds, defect detection was considered via visual inspection with nondestructive test (VI‐NDT), pure nondestructive test (P‐NDT), and without nondestructive test (W‐NDT). The result confirms that welds play an unfavourable role rather than matrix metals. Weld damage in W‐NDT exceeds its limit (1.0) to designed mileage. Then, damage influence was studied under tunnel passing, train passing, and running direction. Running direction as the head car contributes 82% to approximately 86% and 70% to approximately 77% of the total damage for matrix metal and welds, respectively. Train passing gives more damage to matrix metals than welds. Tunnel passing contributes 25% to approximately 26% for both matrix metals and welds.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations19
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFatigue & Fracture of Engineering Materials & StructuresSame topicAerodynamics and Fluid Dynamics ResearchFrench-language works237,207