Fatigue strength evaluation for individual strands of overhead conductors using a biaxial fretting fatigue test bench
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a biaxial fretting fatigue test bench which provides the capability of performing fretting fatigue experiments on individual wires of a conductor combining the effect of both alternating tension and bending loadings to represent a more realistic state of a conductor individual strand under periodic loading caused by aeolian vibrations. Preliminary tests with only uniaxial alternating tension loading were carried out on 1350-H19 aluminum wires having the same mechanical and geometric characteristics as those of the ACSR Bersfort conductor aluminum strands. Different levels of alternating stress were tested in order to validate the performance of the apparatus. Preliminary results showed that the experimental setup allows reproducing the local loading state which leads to the fretting fatigue damage on the tested wires. Biaxial tests were also conducted at a high level of alternating loadings. The results of these tests reveals that, at high alternating stress amplitudes, the biaxial loading allows to observe some fretting fatigue failures, whereas early plain fatigue failures were observed when applying similar uniaxial loading.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".