ArticleScientific reports2026
A data-driven life cycle cost model for tender evaluation of metro pantograph carbon strips.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Statistical analysis of pantograph carbon strip procurement reveals substantial performance variation among suppliers and indicates that prevalent scoring methods often fall into a “low-bid trap,” yielding economically suboptimal outcomes. To address this issue, this study introduced a data-driven, discounted life cycle cost bidding model and applied it to Chongqing Metro Line 6 as a case study. The model treats high-frequency consumable expenditures as uniform annuity streams and integrates empirically estimated wear rates and service life variability into net present value cost functions for procurement, maintenance, inventory, and mileage non-compliance penalties. Application of the model produced a pronounced rank reversal: the supplier selected by the traditional lowest-bid rule incurred a life cycle cost roughly 1.6 times that of the best-value supplier. Sensitivity analysis showed that this cost-ratio and the resulting ranking did not change for discount rates between 0% and 8%, demonstrating that the economic advantage of greater durability persists when the time value of money is considered. Unlike static weighting schemes, the proposed framework explicitly monetizes both engineering variability and timing of cash flows, offering a principled basis to distinguish suppliers by actual operational value and thereby reducing adverse selection in public-transit infrastructure procurement.
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.