论文部分内容阅读
目的了解高铁CRH380A型、CRH380AL型和CRH380AL1型车厢内和相应站台工频电场强度。方法选择3型高铁列车各5套车底,测定35节车厢工频电场强度、动车运行和停靠站台处于待运行状态下的工频电场强度,并取站台没有车辆停靠时的工频电场强度作为对照。结果 3种车型停靠和运行两种不同状态下,各车厢之间电场强度的差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);同一车型,各车厢监测点比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01),车窗玻璃内侧0 m的电场强度较高,且会车侧电场强度高于非会车侧;3种车型车底电机位与车顶电弓位差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论所有监测点位电场强度均达标,CRH380系列车型工频电场屏蔽效果符合卫生学要求。
OBJECTIVE To understand the power frequency electric field strength in CRH380A, CRH380AL and CRH380AL1 high-speed railcar and corresponding platform. Methods The 5 sets of 3 types of high-speed trains were chosen to measure the power frequency electric field intensity of 35 cars, the power frequency electric field strength when the car running and the docking station was in operation, and the power frequency electric field intensity Control. Results There was no significant difference in the electric field strength between the three cars when the three models were parked and operated (P> 0.05). There was significant difference between the monitoring points of the same model and each car (P <0.01) , The electric field strength of 0 m inside the window glass is higher, and the electric field intensity on the side of the car is higher than that of the non-car side. There is no significant difference between the bottom motor position and the roof pantograph in the 3 models (P> 0.05). Conclusion The electric field strength of all the monitoring sites reached the standard. The power frequency electric field shielding effect of the CRH380 series models meets the hygiene requirements.