2018年华南理工大学研究生入学考试专业课真题812_汽车理论

华南理工大学2018年硕士研究生招生考试初试试卷--设计综合

821
华南理工大学
2018 年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）（根据历年真题可以了解出题的思路，总结一些出题的规律，找出经
常出题的一些知识点，以及这些知识点的出题考查方式和考察难度，
从而对高频考点进行重点巩固，针对性复习弄懂弄透。

）
科目名称：设计综合
适用专业：工业设计工程(专硕)；设计学一
题目：
手机导航是人们日常出行中非常重要的一个工具，但在行路的过程中使用手机往往带来一定的危险性，针对老年人出行的情境，为了规避潜在的安全隐患，结合老年人的生理与心理特征，从多媒体多通道接受信息的角度，设计一款老年人安全出行的可穿戴智能导航设备。

二答题要求：
1就以上命题提供相关设计方案五个以上，并完成每个方案的设计草图与简要说明。

（40 分）
2评估以上方案，甄选一个最佳方案作为定案，完成该定案的效果图与关键节点图。

（45 分）
3应用5W2H 的方法对该定案进行深入的设计分析，并就该定案的技术原理进行必要的可行性分析。

（45 分）
4卷面整洁，布局合理；设计说明逻辑清晰，有
理有据。

（20 分）。

2018年华南理工大学研究生入学考试专业课真题626_英语综合水平测试

626华南理工大学2018 年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）科目名称：英语综合水平测试适用专业：外国语言文学performances. Rather than playing tricks with alternatives presented to participants, we secretly altered the outcomes of their choices, and recorded how they react. For example, in an early study we showed our volunteers pairs of pictures of faces and asked them to choose the most attractive. In some trials, immediately after they made their choice, we asked people to explain the reasons behind their choices.Unknown to them, we sometimes used a double-card magic trick to secretly exchange one face for the other so they ended up with the face they did not choose. Common sense dictates that all of us would notice such a big change in the outcome of a choice. But the result showed that in 75 per cent of the trials our participants were blind to the mismatch, even offering “reasons” for their“choice”.We called this effect “choice blindness”, echoing change blindness,the phenomenon identified by psychologists where a remarkably large number of people fail to spot a major change in their environment. Recall the famous experiments where X asks Y for directions; while Y is struggling to help, X is switched for Z - and. Y fails to notice. Researchers are still pondering the full implications, but it does show how little information we use in daily life, and undermines the idea that we know what is going on around us.When we set out, we aimed to weigh in on the enduring, complicated debate about self-knowledge and intentionality. For all the intimate familiarity we feel we have with decision making, it is very difficult to know about it from the “inside”: one of the great barriers for scientific research is the nature of s ubjectivity.As anyone who has ever been in a verbal disagreement can prove, people tend to give elaborate justifications for their decisions, which we have every reason to believe are nothing more than rationalizations after the event. To prove such people wrong, though, or even provide enough evidence to change their mind, is an entirely different matter: who are you to say what my reasons are?But with choice blindness we drive a large wedge between intentions and actions in the mind. As our participants give us verbal explanations about choices they never made, we can show them beyond doubt - and prove it - that what they say cannot be true. So our experiments offer a unique window into confabulation (the story-telling we do to justify things after the fact) that is otherwise very difficult to come by. We can compare everyday explanations with those under lab conditions, looking for such things as the amount of detail in descriptions, how coherent the narrative is, the emotional tone, or even the timing or flow of the speech. Then we can create a theoretical framework to analyse any kind of exchange.This framework could provide a clinical use for choice blindness: for example, two of our ongoing studies examine how malingering might develop into truesymptoms, and how confabulation might play a role in obsessive-compulsive disorder.Importantly, the effects of choice blindness go beyond snap judgments. Depending on what our volunteers say in response to the mismatched outcomes of choices (whether they give short or long explanations, give numerical rating or labeling, and so on) we found this interaction could change their future preferences to the extent that they come to prefer the previously rejected alternative. This gives us a rare glimpse into the complicated dynamics of self-feedback (“I chose this, I publicly said so, therefore I must like it”), which we suspect lies behind the formation of many everyday preferences.We also want to explore the boundaries of choice blindness. Of course, it will be limited by choices we know to be of great importance in everyday life. Which bride or bridegroom would fail to notice if someone switched their partner at the altar through amazing sleight of hand? Yet there is ample territory between the absurd idea of spouse-swapping, and the results of our early face experiments.For example, in one recent study we invited supermarket customers to choose between two paired varieties of jam and tea. In order to switch each participant’s choice without them noticing, we created two sets of “magical” jars, with lids at both ends and a divider inside. The jars looked normal, but were designed to hold one variety of jam or tea at each end, and could easily be flipped over.Immediately after the participants chose, we asked them to taste their choice again and tell us verbally why they made that choice. Before they did, we turned over the sample containers, so the tasters were given the opposite of what they had intended in their selection. Strikingly, people detected no more than a third of all these trick trials. Even when we switched such remarkably different flavors as spicy cinnamon and apple for bitter grapefruit jam, the participants spotted less than half of all s witches.We have also documented this kind of effect when we simulate online shopping for consumer products such as laptops or cell phones, and even apartments. Our latest tests are exploring moral and political decisions, a domain where reflection and deliberation are supposed to play a central role, but which we believe is perfectly suited to investigating using choice blindness.Throughout our experiments, as well as registering whether our volunteers noticed that they had been presented with the alternative they did not choose, we also quizzed them about their beliefs about their decision processes. How did they think they would feel if they had been exposed to a study like ours? Did they think they would have noticed the switches? Consistently, between 80 and 90 per cent of people said that they believed they would have noticed something was wrong.Gervais, discovers a thing called “lying” and what it can get him. Within days, M ark is rich, famous, and courting the girl of his dreams. And because nobody knows what “lying” is? he goes on, happily living what has become a complete and utter farce.It’s meant to be funny, but it’s also a more serious commentary on us all. As Americans, we like to think we value the truth. Time and time again, public-opinion polls show that honesty is among the top five characteristics we want in a leader, friend, or lover; the world is full of sad stories about the tragic consequences of betrayal. At the same time, deception is all around us. We are lied to by government officials and public figures to a disturbing degree; many of our social relationships are based on little white lies we tell each other. We deceive our children, only to be deceived by them in return. And the average person, says psychologist Robert Feldman, the author of a new book on lying, tells at least three lies in the first 10 minutes of a conversation. “There’s always been a lot of lying,” says Feldman，whose new book, The Liar in Your Life, came out this month. “But I do think we’re seeing a kind of cultural shift where we’re lying more, it’s easier to lie, and in some ways it’s almost more acceptable.”As Paul Ekman, one of Feldman’s longtime lying colleagues and the inspiration behind the Fox IV series “Lie To Me” defines it，a liar is a person who “intends to mislead,”“deliberately,” without being asked to do so by the target of the lie. Which doesn’t mean that all lies are equally toxic: some are simply habitual –“My pleasure!”-- while others might be well-meaning white lies. But each, Feldman argues, is harmful, because of the standard it creates. And the more lies we tell, even if th ey’re little white lies, the more deceptive we and society become.We are a culture of liars, to put it bluntly, with deceit so deeply ingrained in our mind that we hardly even notice we’re engaging in it. Junk e-mail, deceptive advertising, the everyday p leasantries we don’t really mean –“It’s so great to meet you! I love that dress”– have, as Feldman puts it, become “a white noise we’ve learned to neglect.” And Feldman also argues that cheating is more common today than ever. The Josephson Institute, a nonprofit focused on youth ethics, concluded in a 2008 survey of nearly 30,000 high school students that “cheating in school continues to be rampant, and it’s getting worse.” In that survey, 64 percent of students said they’d cheated on a test during the past year, up from 60 percent in 2006. Another recent survey, by Junior Achievement, revealed that more than a third of teens believe lying, cheating, or plagiarizing can be necessary to succeed, while a brand-new study, commissioned by the publishers of Feldman’s book, shows that 18-to 34-year-olds--- those of us fully reared in this lying culture --- deceive more frequently than the general population.Teaching us to lie is not the purpose of Feldman’s book. His subtitle, in fact, is “the way to truthful relationships.” But if his book teaches us anything, it’s that we should sharpen our skills — and use them with abandon.Liars get what they want. They avoid punishment, and they win others’ affection. Liars make themselves sound smart and intelligent, they attain power over those of us who believe them, and they often use their lies to rise up in the professional world. Many liars have fun doing it. And many more take pride in getting away with it.As Feldman notes, there is an evolutionary basis for deception: in the wild, animals use deception to “play dead” when threatened. But in the modem world, the motives of our lying are more selfish. Research has linked socially successful people to those who are good liars. Students who succeed academically get picked for the best colleges, despite the fact that, as one recent Duke University study found, as many as 90 percent of high-schoolers admit to cheating. Even lying adolescents are more popular among their peers.And all it takes is a quick flip of the remote to see how our public figures fare when they get caught in a lie: Clinton keeps his wife and goes on to become a national hero. Fabricating author James Frey gets a million-dollar book deal. Eliot Spitzer’s wife stands by his side, while “Appalachian hiker” Mark Sanford still gets to keep his post. If everyone else is being rewarded for lying，don’t we need to lie, too, just to keep up?But what’s funny is that even as we admit to being liars, study after study shows that most of us believe we can tell when others are lying to us. And while lying may be easy, spotting a liar is far from it. A nervous sweat or shifty eyes can certainly mean a person’s uncomfortable, but it doesn’t necessarily mean they’re lying. Gaze aversion, meanwhile, has more to do with shyness than actual deception. Even polygraph machines are unreliable. And according to one study, by researcher Bella DePaulo, we’re only able to differentiate a lie from truth only 47 percent of the time, less than if we guessed randomly. “Basically everything we’ve heard about catching a liar is wrong,” says Feldman, who heads the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Ekman, meanwhile, has spent decades studying micro-facial expressions of liars: the split-second eyebrow arch that shows surprise when a spouse asks who was on the phone; the furrowed nose that gives away a hint of disgust when a person says “I love you.” He’s trained everyone from the Secret Service to the TSA, and believes that with close study, it’s possible to identify those tiny emotions. The hard part, of course, is proving them. “A lot of times, it’s easier to believe,” says Feldman. “It takes a lot ofThere were, however, different explanations of this unhappy fact. Sean Pidgeon put the blame on “humanities departments who are responsible for the leftist politics that still turn people off.” Kedar Kulkarni blamed “the absence of a culture that privileges Learning to improve oneself as a human being.” Bethany blamed universities, which because they are obsessed with “maintaining funding” default on th e obligation to produce “well rounded citizens.” Matthew blamed no one，because i n his view the report’s priorities are just what they should be: “When a poet creates a vaccine or a tangible good that can be produced by a Fortune 500 company, I’ll rescind my comment.”Although none of these commentators uses the word, the issue they implicitly raise is justification. How does one justify funding the arts and humanities? It is clear which justifications are not available. You cannot argue that the arts and humanities are able to support themselves through grants and private donations. You cannot argue that a state’s economy will benefit by a new reading of “Hamlet.” You can’t argue -- well you can, but it won’t fly -- that a graduate who is well-versed in the history of Byzantine art will be attractive to employers (unless the employer is a museum). You can talk as Bethany does about “well rounded citizens,” but that ideal belongs to an earlier period, when the ability to refer knowledgeably to Shakespeare or Gibbon or the Thirty Years War had some cash value (the sociologists call it cultural capital). Nowadays, larding your conversations with small bits of erudition is more likely to irritate than to win friends and influence people.At one time justification of the arts and humanities was unnecessary because, as Anthony Kronman puts it in a new book, “Education’s End: Why Our Colleges and Universities Have Given Up on the Meaning of Life，” it was assumed that “a college was above all a place for the training of character, for the nurturing of those intellectual and moral habits that together from the basis for living the best life one can.”It followed that the realization of this goal required an immersion in the great texts of literature, philosophy and history even to the extent of memorizing them, for “to acquire a text by memory is to fix in one’s mind the image and example of the author and his subject.”It is to a version of this old ideal that Kronman would have us return, not because of a professional investment in the humanities (he is a professor of law and a former dean of the Yale Law School), but because he believes that only the humanities can address “the crisis of spirit we now confront” and “restore the wonder which those who have glimpsed the human condition have always felt, and which our scientific civilization, with its gadgets and discoveries, obscures.”As this last quotation makes clear, Kronman is not so much mounting a defense ofthe humanities as he is mounting an attack on everything else. Other spokespersons for the humanities argue for their utility by connecting them (in largely unconvincing ways) to the goals of science, technology and the building of careers. Kronman, however, identifies science, technology and careerism as impediments to living a life with meaning. The real enemies, he declares，are “the careerism that distracts from life as a whole” and “the blind acceptance of science and technology that disguise and deny our human condition.” These false idols，he says，block the way to understanding. We must turn to the humanities if we are to “meet the need for meaning in an age of vast but pointless powers,”for only the humanities can help us recover the urgency of “the question of what living is for.”The humanities do this, Kronman explains, by exposing students to “a range of texts that express with matchless power a number of competing answers to this question.” In the course of this program —Kronman calls it “secular humanism”—students will be moved “to consider which alternatives lie closest to their own evolving sense of self?” As they survey “the different ways of living that have been held up by different authors,” they will be encouraged “to enter as deeply as they can into the experiences, ideas, and values that give each its permanent appeal.” And not only would such a “revitalized humanism” contribute to the growth of the self,it “would put the conventional pieties of our moral and political world in question” and “bring what is hidden into the open — the highest goal of the humanities and the first responsibility of every teache r.”Here then is a justification of the humanities that is neither strained (reading poetry contributes to the state’s bottom line) nor crassly careerist. It is a stirring vision that promises the highest reward to those who respond to it. Entering into a conversation with the great authors of the western tradition holds out the prospect of experiencing “a kind of immortality” and achieving “a position immune to the corrupting powers of time.”Sounds great, but I have my doubts. Does it really work that way? Do the humanities ennoble? And for that matter, is it the business of the humanities, or of any other area of academic study, to save us?The answer in both cases, I think, is no. The premise of secular humanism (or of just old-fashioned humanism) is that the examples of action and thought portrayed in the enduring works of literature, philosophy and history can create in readers the desire to emulate them. Philip Sydney put it as well as anyone ever has when he asks (in “The Defense of Poesy” 1595), “Who reads Aeneas carrying old Anchises on his back that wishes not it was his fortune to perform such an excellent act?” Thrill to this picture of42.What does Anthony Kronman oppose in the process to strive for meaningful life?A.Secular humanism.B. Careerism.C. Revitalized humanismD. Cultural capital.43.Which of the following is NOT mentioned in this article?A.Sidney Carton killed himself.B.A new reading of Hamlet may not benefit economy.C.Faust was not willing to sell his soul.D.Philip Sydney wrote The Defense of Poesy.44.Which is NOT true about the author?A.At the time of writing, he has been in the field of the humanities for 45 years.B.He thinks the humanities are supposed to save at least those who study them.C.He thinks teachers and students of the humanities just learn how to analyze literary effects and to distinguish between different accounts of the foundations of knowledge.D.He thin ks Kronman’s remarks compromise the object its supposed praise.45.Which statement could best summarize this article?A.The arts and humanities fail to produce well-rounded citizens.B.The humanities won’t save us because humanities departments are too leftist.C.The humanities are expected to train character and nurture those intellectual andmoral habits for living a life with meaning.D.The humanities don’t bring about effects in the world but just give pleasure to those who enjoy them.Passage fourJust over a decade into the 21st century, women’s progress can be celebrated across a range of fields. They hold the highest political offices from Thailand to Brazil, Costa Rica to Australia. A woman holds the top spot at the International Monetary Fund; another won the Nobel Prize in economics. Self-made billionaires in Beijing, tech innovators in Silicon Valley, pioneering justices in Ghana—in these and countless other areas, women are leaving their mark.But hold the applause. In Saudi Arabia, women aren’t allowed to drive. In Pakistan, 1,000 women die in honor killings every year. In the developed world, women lag behind men in pay and political power. The poverty rate among women in the U.S. rose to 14.5% last year.To measure the state of women’s progress. Newsweek ranked 165countries, looking at five areas that affect women’s lives; treatment under the law, workforce participation, political power, and access to education and health care. Analyzing datafrom the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, among others, and consulting with experts and academics, we measured 28 factors to come up with our rankings.Countries with the highest scores tend to be clustered in the West, where gender discrimination is against the law, and equal rights are constitutionally enshrined. But there were some surprises. Some otherwise high-ranking countries had relatively low scores for political representation. Canada ranked third overall but 26th in power, behind countries such as Cuba and Burundi. Does this suggest that a woman in a nation’s top office translates to better lives for women in general? Not exactly.“Trying to quantify or measure the impact of women in politics is hard because in very few countries have there been enough women in politics to make a difference,” says Anne-Marie Goetz, peace and security adviser for U.N. Women.Of course, no index can account for everything. Declaring that one country is better than another in the way that it treats more than half its citizens means relying on broad strokes and generalities. Some things simply can’t be measured.And cross-cultural comparisons can t account for difference of opinion.Certain conclusions are nonetheless clear. For one thing, our index backs up a simple but profound statement made by Hillary Clinton at the recent Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit. “When we liberate the economic potential of women, we elevate the economic performance of communities, nations, and the world,”she said. “There’s a simulative effect that kicks in when women have greater access to jobs and the economic lives of our countries: Greater political stability. Fewer military conflicts. More food. More educational opportunity for children. By harnessing the economic potential of all women, we boost opportunity for all people.”46.What does the author think about women’s progress so far?A.It still leaves much to be desired.B.It is too remarkable to be measured.C.It has greatly changed women's fate.D.It is achieved through hard struggle.47.In what countries have women made the greatest progress?A.Where women hold key posts in government.B.Where women’s rights are protected by law.C.Where women’s participation in management is high.D.Where women enjoy better education and health care.48.What do Newsweek rankings reveal about women in Canada?A.They care little about political participation.B.They are generally treated as equals by men.C.They have a surprisingly low social status.D.They are underrepresented in politics.49.What does Anne-Marie Goetz think of a woman being in a nation's top office?A.It does not necessarily raise women's political awareness.B.It does not guarantee a better life for the nation's women.C.It enhances women's status.D.It boosts women's confidence.50.What does Hillary Clinton suggest we do to make the world a better place?A.Give women more political power.B.Stimulate women's creativity.C.Allow women access to education.D.Tap women's economic potential.Passage fiveThe idea that government should regulate intellectual property through copyrights and patents is relatively recent in human history, and the precise details of what intellectual property is protected for how long vary across nations and occasionally change. There are two standard sociological justifications for patents or copyrights: They reward creators for their labor, and they encourage greater creativity. Both of these are empirical claims that can be tested scientifically and could be false in some realms.Consider music. Star performers existed before the 20th century, such as Franz Liszt and Niccolo Paganini, but mass media produced a celebrity system promoting a few stars whose music was not necessarily the best or most diverse. Copyright provides protection for distribution companies and for a few celebrities, thereby helping to support the industry as currently defined, but it may actually harm the majority of performers. This is comparable to Anatole France's famous irony, "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges." In theory, copyright covers the creations of celebrities and obscurities equally, but only major distribution companies have the resources to defend their property rights in court. In a sense, this is quite fair, because nobody wants to steal unpopular music, but by supporting the property rights of celebrities, copyright strengthens them as a class in contrast to anonymous musicians.Internet music file sharing has become a significant factor in the social lives of children, who download bootleg music tracks for their own use and to give as gifts to friends. If we are to believe one recent poll done by a marketing firm rather than social。

华南理工大学812汽车理论2004--2018年考研真题

试求：（1）稳定性因数 K，并据此判断该车的稳态横向特性属何种类型？
并求出其相应的特征车速 uch 或临界车速 ucr 。
（2）静态储备系数 S M 及侧向加速度为 0.4g 时的前、后轮侧偏
角绝对值之差1 2 。
第2页
412 华南理工大学
2005 年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷
（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）
为 ua0＝30km/h 时，该车的最短制动距离是多少？（不计制动器反应时间及制动减速度上升时间） 3、二自由度轿车模型的有关参数如下：总质量 m＝1800kg，轴距 L＝3.1m，质心至前轴距离 a＝1.46m，前轮总侧偏刚度 k1＝－62600N/rad，后轮总侧偏刚度 k2＝－11020N/rad。
4 变形转向
5 轮胎的驻波现象
6 轮胎侧偏角
7 发动机使用外特性
8 悬架刚度
9 侧倾转向
10 车轮的滚动半径
二、问答题（每小题 10 分，总计 100 分）
1 汽车轮胎的滚动阻尼是如何产生的？滚动阻尼与哪些因素有关？如何影响？
2 汽车在阶跃输入下汽车的稳态响应用哪些量来评价？各个量的物理意义是什么？
10 汽车传动装置的最小与最大传动比选择的原则是什么？三、分析与计算题（每小题 10 分，总计 20 分） 1 图 3 为双轴汽车的平面模型，在何种条件下，可以利用图 4 的模型分析汽车车身的振动？在何种条件下，图 4 可以简化为图 2 所示的单质量模型？（要求有必要的推导过程）
第2页
2 图 5 为单横臂悬架的模型，试推导该悬架的线刚度（要求有推导过程）
）。
4、汽车的燃油经济性常用一定运行工况下，汽车行驶（）的燃油消耗量或

历年华南理工大学汽车理论考研真题共22页文档

华南理工大学2002年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷（请在答题纸上作答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）科目名称：汽车理论与设计适用专业：车辆工程第一部分汽车理论部分（共50分）一．解释概念（每小题3分，共15分）1.发动机的外特性曲线；2.附着力；3.制动力系数；4.汽车的制动强度；5.汽车的比功率；二．问答题（每小题6分，共24分）1.什么叫汽车的动力性？汽车动力性的主要评价指标是什么？2.画出4×2后驱动汽车的驱动轮在加速过程中的受力图并进行受力分析。

3.如何根据汽车发动机的万有特性曲线及汽车的功率平衡图计算汽车的等速百公里油耗？并写出有关的计算公式及公式中各物理量所使用的量纲。

4.试证明在特征车速下，不足转向汽车的横摆角速度增益为与轴距L相等的中性转向汽车横摆角速度增益的一半。

三．计算题（11分）对于简化为车身振动的单质量系统模型，它由车身质量m2和弹簧刚度、减震器阻力系数为C 的悬架组成。

设车身垂直位移坐标Z 的原点取在静力平衡位置，其自由振动齐次方程的解为：其中，；m c n 22= ως0n=称为阻尼比；ω0为单质量振动系统无阻尼自由振动的固有频率。

当阻尼比时，3.0=ς（1）单质量系统有阻尼自由振动系统的固有频率ωr （2）求减幅系数d第二部分汽车设计部分（共50分）一．汽车传动系统设计的计算载荷若按发动机最大转矩计算和按驱动轮最大附着力矩计算时，取其中计算得出的较大值还是较小值作为计算载荷？为什么（10分）。

二．分析汽车主减速器传动比i 0值的大小变化会导致汽车主动力性有何变化？（10分）三．汽车改装设计时，若将汽车的轴距加大或减小过多时，应对汽车转向梯形机构进行设计校核，为什么？（10分）四．双轴汽车前后车轮制动器的设计计算载荷如何确定？（10分）五．现代汽车设计时选用自动变速器、主动式悬架、动力转向和ABS 制动系统的日益增多，试述它们分别对汽车哪些性能有何影响？华南理工大学2004年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）科目名称：汽车理论适用专业：车辆工程一、解释概念（每小题4分，共40分）1、汽车的最大爬坡度i max2、发动机部分负荷特性曲线3、汽车的驱动力图4、发动机的燃油消耗率b5、制动时汽车的方向稳定性6、峰值附着系数pϕ7、转向盘角阶跃输入下汽车的瞬态响应8、轮胎的侧偏角9、车轮与路面间的相对动载10、汽车悬架系统阻尼比ξ二、填空题（每小题2分，共20分）1、随着驱动力系数的加大，滚动阻力系数（）。

2018年华南理工大学研究生入学考试专业课真题827_材料科学基础

827华南理工大学2018 年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）科目名称：材料科学基础适用专业：材料科学与工程；材料工程(专硕)共8 页一、填空题：（每空0.5 分，共20 分）1、金属材料的（1 ）和（2 ）是决定材料性能的基本依据，金属材料的热处理是在明晰材料（3 ）的前提下来设计热处理工艺。

2、晶界本身的强度与温度有关。

一般情况下，若晶粒的熔点为T，则当温度低于T/2 时，晶界强度（4 ）晶内强度；当温度高于T/2 时，晶界强度（5 ）晶内强度，晶粒形成粘滞流动，使材料形成蠕变变形。

3、碳钢经奥氏体化后经过冷至C 曲线中珠光体和马氏体线之间的区域保温将形成贝氏体，保温温度接近珠氏体转变温度时，形成的组织是（6 ）；保温温度接近马氏体转变温度时，形成的组织是（7 ），等温淬火热处理希望获得的组织是（8 ）。

4、下图立方晶系中，ABC 面和ADEF 面的晶面指数分别为（9 ）和（10 ），这两个面所在晶带轴指数为（11 ）。

5、置换固溶体的溶解度与原子尺寸因素、（12 ）因素、原子价因素和晶体结构有关。

6、室温下Fe 的晶体结构类型为（13 ），它的晶格常数为0.2863nm，原子半径为（14 ）。

7、α-Fe 转变为γ-Fe 时，体积会（15 ），这是因为（16 ）；γ-Fe 的（17 ）间隙比（18 ）间隙大，奥氏体中碳原子位于（19 ）间隙中。

8、组元A、B 在液态和固态都无限互溶，它们形成的相图称为（20 ）相图。

如平衡分配系数K0<1，则可判断组元（21 ）的熔点较高。

9、刃型位错既可以作（22 ）运动，又可以作（23 ）运动；而螺型位错只能作（24 ）运动。

10、冷变形金属低温回复时，主要是（25 ）密度下降；高温回复时，主要发生（26 ）过程。

11、金属再结晶后的晶粒大小与（27 ）、原始晶粒大小、（28 ）和杂质等有关。

2018年华南理工大学研究生入学考试专业课真题820_高分子化学与物理

820华南理工大学2018年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）科目名称：高分子化学与物理适用专业：高分子化学与物理；材料科学与工程；材料工程(专硕)共页高分子化学部分一、单项选择题（共15题。

每题1分，共15分）1、以下已商品化的聚合物中，采用阳离子聚合机理合成的是（）。

A、ABSB、乳聚丁苯橡胶C、高抗冲聚苯乙烯D、丁基橡胶2、以下聚合物中，由配位聚合制得、且不涉及立体异构的是（）。

A、低密度聚乙烯B、高密度聚乙烯C、溶聚丁苯橡胶D、全同聚丙烯3、下列单体进行自由基聚合反应时，最难获得高分子链均聚物的单体是（）。

A、四氟乙烯B、苯乙烯C、马来酸酐D、丙烯酸甲酯4、无定形态聚合物与小分子的化学反应中，控制反应速率的主要因素是（）。

A、小分子在聚合物中的扩散速率B、小分子中官能团的反应活性C、聚合物中官能团的反应活性D、反应温度5、应用活性阴离子聚合制备苯乙烯、甲基丙烯酸甲酯、丙烯酸甲酯的三嵌段共聚物，正确的加料顺序是（）。

A、甲基丙烯酸甲酯、丙烯酸甲酯、苯乙烯B、苯乙烯、甲基丙烯酸甲酯、丙烯酸甲酯C、丙烯酸甲酯、甲基丙烯酸甲酯、苯乙烯D、苯乙烯、丙烯酸甲酯、甲基丙烯酸甲酯6、某聚合体系的配方为：苯乙烯 50 g，水 250 g，过氧化苯甲酰 0.3 g，聚乙烯醇2g，碳酸钙 3g。

以下关于该聚合体系的描述，正确的是（）。

A、该体系进行的是溶液聚合，PVA和碳酸钙起聚合活性剂作用B、该体系进行的是乳液聚合，PVA和碳酸钙起乳化作用C、该体系进行的是悬浮聚合，PVA和碳酸钙起分散作用D、该体系进行的是悬浮聚合，PVA和碳酸钙起乳化作用7、下列聚合物属于杂链聚合物的是（）。

A、聚丙烯B、聚硅氧烷C、聚苯乙烯D、天然橡胶8、外加酸催化聚酯化反应的平均聚合度（X n）与时间（t）的关系为（）。

A、X n与t 成线性关系B、X n与t1/2 成线性关系C、X n与t2 成线性关系D、(X n)2 与t成线性关系9、下列单体可以发生自由基聚合反应的是（）。

华南理工大学2018年硕士研究生招生专业目录(含非全日制)

曹贤武陈玉坤冯彦洪
戈明亮何光建何和智
胡小芳
蒋果麻向军
彭响方文劲松吴宏武
杨智韬
085224 安全工程(专业学位)
29
工程硕士
陈国华 ①101 思想政治理论
01 工业安全管理与风险评价技术
方江敏冯毅
②204 英语二 ③302 数学二
黄思
④815 普通化学或 842 安全系统
02 过程控制安全监控与故障诊断技术 03 材料安全技术 04 资源安全与工程灾害防治 05 特种设备和过程装备的安全与节能技术
综合
同上
同上
同上
同上
陈国华方江敏江赛华姜立春李建三马小明张永君
①101 思想政治理论
②201 英语一
③302 数学二
复试笔试科目：937 安全技术
④815 普通化学或 842 安全系统基础
工程
同上
同上
085201 机械工程(专业学位)
81
01 精密制造技术及装备
02 现代设计理论与机器人技术 03 轻工机械与模具技术 04 数字化控制与智能制造 05 零件成形工艺与装备
05 风景园林经营与管理
005 土木与交通学院 080100 力学 01 固体力学 02 工程力学 03 基础力学与力学交叉
周剑云
21
风景园林硕士
05 制造工程智能化检测及仪器
01 方向导师 ① 101 思想政治理论
Sergej ②201 英语一
Fatikow
③301 数学一
陈松茂 ④801 材料力学或 813 自动控制
邓文君原理
黄珍媛邝泳聪李伟光李勇李宗涛梁良刘其洪刘旺玉

华南理工大学《汽车理论》历年真题——按章节汇编(计算、推导题)教材

第一章动力性1、某前轮驱动的轿车，其前轮负荷为汽车总重力的61.5%。

该车的总质量=m 1600kg ，D C =0.45，A=2.002m ，f =0.02，=δ 1.00 。

试确定该车在ϕ=0.5的路面上的附着力，并求由附着力所决定的极限最高车速与极限最大爬坡度及极限最大加速度。

(在求最大爬坡度和最大加速度时可设W F =0)——20032、某4×2后驱动轻型货车的总质量m ＝3880kg ，轴距L ＝3.2m ，质心至前轴距离a ＝1.94m ，质心高度h g =0.9m ，车轮半径r ＝0.367m ，主减速器传动比i 0＝5.83，一档传动比i g1＝5.56，传动系机械效率T η＝0.85，发动机最大转矩tg T ＝175m N ⋅。

试求：汽车的最大爬坡度及克服该坡度时相应的附着率（忽略滚动阻力及驱动阻力）——20043、若后轴驱动的双轴汽车在滚动阻力系数f=0.03的道路上能克服道路的上升坡度角为α=200。

汽车数据：轴距L=4.2m，重心至前轴距离a=3.2m，重心高度h g=1.1m，车轮滚动半径r=0.46m。

问：此时路面的附着系数ϕ值最小应为多少？——20054、若后轴驱动的双轴汽车在滚动阻力系数f=0.03的道路上能克服道路的上升坡度角为α=200。

汽车数据：轴距L=4.2m，重心至前轴距离a=3.2m，重心高度h g=1.1m，车轮滚动半径r=0.46m。

问：此时路面的附着系数ϕ值最小应为多少？——20065、汽车用某一挡位在 f =0.03的道路上能克服的最大坡度I max =20%,若用同一挡位在f =0.02的水平道路上行驶，求此时汽车可能达到的加速度的最大值是多少？（δ=1.15 且忽略空气阻力）。

——20076、若后轴驱动的双轴汽车在滚动阻力系数f=0.03 的道路上能克服道路的上升坡度角为α=20 。

汽车数据：轴距L=4.25m ，重心至前轴距离a=3.52m ，重心高度hg =1.13m，车轮滚动半径r=0.45m 。

2018年华南理工大学研究生入学考试专业课真题626_英语综合水平测试

626华南理工大学2018 年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）科目名称：英语综合水平测试适用专业：外国语言文学performances. Rather than playing tricks with alternatives presented to participants, we secretly altered the outcomes of their choices, and recorded how they react. For example, in an early study we showed our volunteers pairs of pictures of faces and asked them to choose the most attractive. In some trials, immediately after they made their choice, we asked people to explain the reasons behind their choices.Unknown to them, we sometimes used a double-card magic trick to secretly exchange one face for the other so they ended up with the face they did not choose. Common sense dictates that all of us would notice such a big change in the outcome of a choice. But the result showed that in 75 per cent of the trials our participants were blind to the mismatch, even offering “reasons” for their“choice”.We called this effect “choice blindness”, echoing change blindness,the phenomenon identified by psychologists where a remarkably large number of people fail to spot a major change in their environment. Recall the famous experiments where X asks Y for directions; while Y is struggling to help, X is switched for Z - and. Y fails to notice. Researchers are still pondering the full implications, but it does show how little information we use in daily life, and undermines the idea that we know what is going on around us.When we set out, we aimed to weigh in on the enduring, complicated debate about self-knowledge and intentionality. For all the intimate familiarity we feel we have with decision making, it is very difficult to know about it from the “inside”: one of the great barriers for scientific research is the nature of s ubjectivity.As anyone who has ever been in a verbal disagreement can prove, people tend to give elaborate justifications for their decisions, which we have every reason to believe are nothing more than rationalizations after the event. To prove such people wrong, though, or even provide enough evidence to change their mind, is an entirely different matter: who are you to say what my reasons are?But with choice blindness we drive a large wedge between intentions and actions in the mind. As our participants give us verbal explanations about choices they never made, we can show them beyond doubt - and prove it - that what they say cannot be true. So our experiments offer a unique window into confabulation (the story-telling we do to justify things after the fact) that is otherwise very difficult to come by. We can compare everyday explanations with those under lab conditions, looking for such things as the amount of detail in descriptions, how coherent the narrative is, the emotional tone, or even the timing or flow of the speech. Then we can create a theoretical framework to analyse any kind of exchange.This framework could provide a clinical use for choice blindness: for example, two of our ongoing studies examine how malingering might develop into truesymptoms, and how confabulation might play a role in obsessive-compulsive disorder.Importantly, the effects of choice blindness go beyond snap judgments. Depending on what our volunteers say in response to the mismatched outcomes of choices (whether they give short or long explanations, give numerical rating or labeling, and so on) we found this interaction could change their future preferences to the extent that they come to prefer the previously rejected alternative. This gives us a rare glimpse into the complicated dynamics of self-feedback (“I chose this, I publicly said so, therefore I must like it”), which we suspect lies behind the formation of many everyday preferences.We also want to explore the boundaries of choice blindness. Of course, it will be limited by choices we know to be of great importance in everyday life. Which bride or bridegroom would fail to notice if someone switched their partner at the altar through amazing sleight of hand? Yet there is ample territory between the absurd idea of spouse-swapping, and the results of our early face experiments.For example, in one recent study we invited supermarket customers to choose between two paired varieties of jam and tea. In order to switch each participant’s choice without them noticing, we created two sets of “magical” jars, with lids at both ends and a divider inside. The jars looked normal, but were designed to hold one variety of jam or tea at each end, and could easily be flipped over.Immediately after the participants chose, we asked them to taste their choice again and tell us verbally why they made that choice. Before they did, we turned over the sample containers, so the tasters were given the opposite of what they had intended in their selection. Strikingly, people detected no more than a third of all these trick trials. Even when we switched such remarkably different flavors as spicy cinnamon and apple for bitter grapefruit jam, the participants spotted less than half of all s witches.We have also documented this kind of effect when we simulate online shopping for consumer products such as laptops or cell phones, and even apartments. Our latest tests are exploring moral and political decisions, a domain where reflection and deliberation are supposed to play a central role, but which we believe is perfectly suited to investigating using choice blindness.Throughout our experiments, as well as registering whether our volunteers noticed that they had been presented with the alternative they did not choose, we also quizzed them about their beliefs about their decision processes. How did they think they would feel if they had been exposed to a study like ours? Did they think they would have noticed the switches? Consistently, between 80 and 90 per cent of people said that they believed they would have noticed something was wrong.Gervais, discovers a thing called “lying” and what it can get him. Within days, M ark is rich, famous, and courting the girl of his dreams. And because nobody knows what “lying” is? he goes on, happily living what has become a complete and utter farce.It’s meant to be funny, but it’s also a more serious commentary on us all. As Americans, we like to think we value the truth. Time and time again, public-opinion polls show that honesty is among the top five characteristics we want in a leader, friend, or lover; the world is full of sad stories about the tragic consequences of betrayal. At the same time, deception is all around us. We are lied to by government officials and public figures to a disturbing degree; many of our social relationships are based on little white lies we tell each other. We deceive our children, only to be deceived by them in return. And the average person, says psychologist Robert Feldman, the author of a new book on lying, tells at least three lies in the first 10 minutes of a conversation. “There’s always been a lot of lying,” says Feldman，whose new book, The Liar in Your Life, came out this month. “But I do think we’re seeing a kind of cultural shift where we’re lying more, it’s easier to lie, and in some ways it’s almost more acceptable.”As Paul Ekman, one of Feldman’s longtime lying colleagues and the inspiration behind the Fox IV series “Lie To Me” defines it，a liar is a person who “intends to mislead,”“deliberately,” without being asked to do so by the target of the lie. Which doesn’t mean that all lies are equally toxic: some are simply habitual –“My pleasure!”-- while others might be well-meaning white lies. But each, Feldman argues, is harmful, because of the standard it creates. And the more lies we tell, even if th ey’re little white lies, the more deceptive we and society become.We are a culture of liars, to put it bluntly, with deceit so deeply ingrained in our mind that we hardly even notice we’re engaging in it. Junk e-mail, deceptive advertising, the everyday p leasantries we don’t really mean –“It’s so great to meet you! I love that dress”– have, as Feldman puts it, become “a white noise we’ve learned to neglect.” And Feldman also argues that cheating is more common today than ever. The Josephson Institute, a nonprofit focused on youth ethics, concluded in a 2008 survey of nearly 30,000 high school students that “cheating in school continues to be rampant, and it’s getting worse.” In that survey, 64 percent of students said they’d cheated on a test during the past year, up from 60 percent in 2006. Another recent survey, by Junior Achievement, revealed that more than a third of teens believe lying, cheating, or plagiarizing can be necessary to succeed, while a brand-new study, commissioned by the publishers of Feldman’s book, shows that 18-to 34-year-olds--- those of us fully reared in this lying culture --- deceive more frequently than the general population.Teaching us to lie is not the purpose of Feldman’s book. His subtitle, in fact, is “the way to truthful relationships.” But if his book teaches us anything, it’s that we should sharpen our skills — and use them with abandon.Liars get what they want. They avoid punishment, and they win others’ affection. Liars make themselves sound smart and intelligent, they attain power over those of us who believe them, and they often use their lies to rise up in the professional world. Many liars have fun doing it. And many more take pride in getting away with it.As Feldman notes, there is an evolutionary basis for deception: in the wild, animals use deception to “play dead” when threatened. But in the modem world, the motives of our lying are more selfish. Research has linked socially successful people to those who are good liars. Students who succeed academically get picked for the best colleges, despite the fact that, as one recent Duke University study found, as many as 90 percent of high-schoolers admit to cheating. Even lying adolescents are more popular among their peers.And all it takes is a quick flip of the remote to see how our public figures fare when they get caught in a lie: Clinton keeps his wife and goes on to become a national hero. Fabricating author James Frey gets a million-dollar book deal. Eliot Spitzer’s wife stands by his side, while “Appalachian hiker” Mark Sanford still gets to keep his post. If everyone else is being rewarded for lying，don’t we need to lie, too, just to keep up?But what’s funny is that even as we admit to being liars, study after study shows that most of us believe we can tell when others are lying to us. And while lying may be easy, spotting a liar is far from it. A nervous sweat or shifty eyes can certainly mean a person’s uncomfortable, but it doesn’t necessarily mean they’re lying. Gaze aversion, meanwhile, has more to do with shyness than actual deception. Even polygraph machines are unreliable. And according to one study, by researcher Bella DePaulo, we’re only able to differentiate a lie from truth only 47 percent of the time, less than if we guessed randomly. “Basically everything we’ve heard about catching a liar is wrong,” says Feldman, who heads the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Ekman, meanwhile, has spent decades studying micro-facial expressions of liars: the split-second eyebrow arch that shows surprise when a spouse asks who was on the phone; the furrowed nose that gives away a hint of disgust when a person says “I love you.” He’s trained everyone from the Secret Service to the TSA, and believes that with close study, it’s possible to identify those tiny emotions. The hard part, of course, is proving them. “A lot of times, it’s easier to believe,” says Feldman. “It takes a lot ofThere were, however, different explanations of this unhappy fact. Sean Pidgeon put the blame on “humanities departments who are responsible for the leftist politics that still turn people off.” Kedar Kulkarni blamed “the absence of a culture that privileges Learning to improve oneself as a human being.” Bethany blamed universities, which because they are obsessed with “maintaining funding” default on th e obligation to produce “well rounded citizens.” Matthew blamed no one，because i n his view the report’s priorities are just what they should be: “When a poet creates a vaccine or a tangible good that can be produced by a Fortune 500 company, I’ll rescind my comment.”Although none of these commentators uses the word, the issue they implicitly raise is justification. How does one justify funding the arts and humanities? It is clear which justifications are not available. You cannot argue that the arts and humanities are able to support themselves through grants and private donations. You cannot argue that a state’s economy will benefit by a new reading of “Hamlet.” You can’t argue -- well you can, but it won’t fly -- that a graduate who is well-versed in the history of Byzantine art will be attractive to employers (unless the employer is a museum). You can talk as Bethany does about “well rounded citizens,” but that ideal belongs to an earlier period, when the ability to refer knowledgeably to Shakespeare or Gibbon or the Thirty Years War had some cash value (the sociologists call it cultural capital). Nowadays, larding your conversations with small bits of erudition is more likely to irritate than to win friends and influence people.At one time justification of the arts and humanities was unnecessary because, as Anthony Kronman puts it in a new book, “Education’s End: Why Our Colleges and Universities Have Given Up on the Meaning of Life，” it was assumed that “a college was above all a place for the training of character, for the nurturing of those intellectual and moral habits that together from the basis for living the best life one can.”It followed that the realization of this goal required an immersion in the great texts of literature, philosophy and history even to the extent of memorizing them, for “to acquire a text by memory is to fix in one’s mind the image and example of the author and his subject.”It is to a version of this old ideal that Kronman would have us return, not because of a professional investment in the humanities (he is a professor of law and a former dean of the Yale Law School), but because he believes that only the humanities can address “the crisis of spirit we now confront” and “restore the wonder which those who have glimpsed the human condition have always felt, and which our scientific civilization, with its gadgets and discoveries, obscures.”As this last quotation makes clear, Kronman is not so much mounting a defense ofthe humanities as he is mounting an attack on everything else. Other spokespersons for the humanities argue for their utility by connecting them (in largely unconvincing ways) to the goals of science, technology and the building of careers. Kronman, however, identifies science, technology and careerism as impediments to living a life with meaning. The real enemies, he declares，are “the careerism that distracts from life as a whole” and “the blind acceptance of science and technology that disguise and deny our human condition.” These false idols，he says，block the way to understanding. We must turn to the humanities if we are to “meet the need for meaning in an age of vast but pointless powers,”for only the humanities can help us recover the urgency of “the question of what living is for.”The humanities do this, Kronman explains, by exposing students to “a range of texts that express with matchless power a number of competing answers to this question.” In the course of this program —Kronman calls it “secular humanism”—students will be moved “to consider which alternatives lie closest to their own evolving sense of self?” As they survey “the different ways of living that have been held up by different authors,” they will be encouraged “to enter as deeply as they can into the experiences, ideas, and values that give each its permanent appeal.” And not only would such a “revitalized humanism” contribute to the growth of the self,it “would put the conventional pieties of our moral and political world in question” and “bring what is hidden into the open — the highest goal of the humanities and the first responsibility of every teache r.”Here then is a justification of the humanities that is neither strained (reading poetry contributes to the state’s bottom line) nor crassly careerist. It is a stirring vision that promises the highest reward to those who respond to it. Entering into a conversation with the great authors of the western tradition holds out the prospect of experiencing “a kind of immortality” and achieving “a position immune to the corrupting powers of time.”Sounds great, but I have my doubts. Does it really work that way? Do the humanities ennoble? And for that matter, is it the business of the humanities, or of any other area of academic study, to save us?The answer in both cases, I think, is no. The premise of secular humanism (or of just old-fashioned humanism) is that the examples of action and thought portrayed in the enduring works of literature, philosophy and history can create in readers the desire to emulate them. Philip Sydney put it as well as anyone ever has when he asks (in “The Defense of Poesy” 1595), “Who reads Aeneas carrying old Anchises on his back that wishes not it was his fortune to perform such an excellent act?” Thrill to this picture of42.What does Anthony Kronman oppose in the process to strive for meaningful life?A.Secular humanism.B. Careerism.C. Revitalized humanismD. Cultural capital.43.Which of the following is NOT mentioned in this article?A.Sidney Carton killed himself.B.A new reading of Hamlet may not benefit economy.C.Faust was not willing to sell his soul.D.Philip Sydney wrote The Defense of Poesy.44.Which is NOT true about the author?A.At the time of writing, he has been in the field of the humanities for 45 years.B.He thinks the humanities are supposed to save at least those who study them.C.He thinks teachers and students of the humanities just learn how to analyze literary effects and to distinguish between different accounts of the foundations of knowledge.D.He thin ks Kronman’s remarks compromise the object its supposed praise.45.Which statement could best summarize this article?A.The arts and humanities fail to produce well-rounded citizens.B.The humanities won’t save us because humanities departments are too leftist.C.The humanities are expected to train character and nurture those intellectual andmoral habits for living a life with meaning.D.The humanities don’t bring about effects in the world but just give pleasure to those who enjoy them.Passage fourJust over a decade into the 21st century, women’s progress can be celebrated across a range of fields. They hold the highest political offices from Thailand to Brazil, Costa Rica to Australia. A woman holds the top spot at the International Monetary Fund; another won the Nobel Prize in economics. Self-made billionaires in Beijing, tech innovators in Silicon Valley, pioneering justices in Ghana—in these and countless other areas, women are leaving their mark.But hold the applause. In Saudi Arabia, women aren’t allowed to drive. In Pakistan, 1,000 women die in honor killings every year. In the developed world, women lag behind men in pay and political power. The poverty rate among women in the U.S. rose to 14.5% last year.To measure the state of women’s progress. Newsweek ranked 165countries, looking at five areas that affect women’s lives; treatment under the law, workforce participation, political power, and access to education and health care. Analyzing datafrom the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, among others, and consulting with experts and academics, we measured 28 factors to come up with our rankings.Countries with the highest scores tend to be clustered in the West, where gender discrimination is against the law, and equal rights are constitutionally enshrined. But there were some surprises. Some otherwise high-ranking countries had relatively low scores for political representation. Canada ranked third overall but 26th in power, behind countries such as Cuba and Burundi. Does this suggest that a woman in a nation’s top office translates to better lives for women in general? Not exactly.“Trying to quantify or measure the impact of women in politics is hard because in very few countries have there been enough women in politics to make a difference,” says Anne-Marie Goetz, peace and security adviser for U.N. Women.Of course, no index can account for everything. Declaring that one country is better than another in the way that it treats more than half its citizens means relying on broad strokes and generalities. Some things simply can’t be measured.And cross-cultural comparisons can t account for difference of opinion.Certain conclusions are nonetheless clear. For one thing, our index backs up a simple but profound statement made by Hillary Clinton at the recent Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit. “When we liberate the economic potential of women, we elevate the economic performance of communities, nations, and the world,”she said. “There’s a simulative effect that kicks in when women have greater access to jobs and the economic lives of our countries: Greater political stability. Fewer military conflicts. More food. More educational opportunity for children. By harnessing the economic potential of all women, we boost opportunity for all people.”46.What does the author think about women’s progress so far?A.It still leaves much to be desired.B.It is too remarkable to be measured.C.It has greatly changed women's fate.D.It is achieved through hard struggle.47.In what countries have women made the greatest progress?A.Where women hold key posts in government.B.Where women’s rights are protected by law.C.Where women’s participation in management is high.D.Where women enjoy better education and health care.48.What do Newsweek rankings reveal about women in Canada?A.They care little about political participation.B.They are generally treated as equals by men.C.They have a surprisingly low social status.D.They are underrepresented in politics.49.What does Anne-Marie Goetz think of a woman being in a nation's top office?A.It does not necessarily raise women's political awareness.B.It does not guarantee a better life for the nation's women.C.It enhances women's status.D.It boosts women's confidence.50.What does Hillary Clinton suggest we do to make the world a better place?A.Give women more political power.B.Stimulate women's creativity.C.Allow women access to education.D.Tap women's economic potential.Passage fiveThe idea that government should regulate intellectual property through copyrights and patents is relatively recent in human history, and the precise details of what intellectual property is protected for how long vary across nations and occasionally change. There are two standard sociological justifications for patents or copyrights: They reward creators for their labor, and they encourage greater creativity. Both of these are empirical claims that can be tested scientifically and could be false in some realms.Consider music. Star performers existed before the 20th century, such as Franz Liszt and Niccolo Paganini, but mass media produced a celebrity system promoting a few stars whose music was not necessarily the best or most diverse. Copyright provides protection for distribution companies and for a few celebrities, thereby helping to support the industry as currently defined, but it may actually harm the majority of performers. This is comparable to Anatole France's famous irony, "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges." In theory, copyright covers the creations of celebrities and obscurities equally, but only major distribution companies have the resources to defend their property rights in court. In a sense, this is quite fair, because nobody wants to steal unpopular music, but by supporting the property rights of celebrities, copyright strengthens them as a class in contrast to anonymous musicians.Internet music file sharing has become a significant factor in the social lives of children, who download bootleg music tracks for their own use and to give as gifts to friends. If we are to believe one recent poll done by a marketing firm rather than social。

2021年华南理工大学812汽车理论考研试题(回忆版)

2021 年华南理工大学 812 汽车理论考研试题（回忆版）
一、名词解释
1、稳态横摆角速度
2、侧倾角刚度
3、侧向转向角
4、变形转向角
5、汽车通过性
6、汽车动力因数
二、简答
1、驱动力图的步骤和相关公式
2、等速燃油消耗量得步骤和相关公式
3、汽车发生跑偏的原因并画图分析
4、汽车的独立单横臂非悬挂质量离心力引起的悬架侧倾画图分析
5、汽车的固有频率和阻尼比的选择原则和轿车一般固有频率和阻尼比的选择范围
6、汽车振动的三个点的输入有哪些？汽车的加权加速度均方根值如何计算写出步骤？
三、计算
1、推导出同步附着系数的公式和计算同步附着系数
2、车身单质量系统的振动方程和固有频率和阻尼比和频率函数、并画出图，说出特点。

华南理工大学《汽车理论》历年真题——按章节汇编(计算、推导题)

第一章动力性1、某前轮驱动的轿车，其前轮负荷为汽车总重力的61.5%。

该车的总质量=m 1600kg ，D C =0.45，A=2.002m ，f =0.02，=δ 1.00 。

试确定该车在ϕ=0.5的路面上的附着力，并求由附着力所决定的极限最高车速与极限最大爬坡度及极限最大加速度。

(在求最大爬坡度和最大加速度时可设W F =0)——20032、某4×2后驱动轻型货车的总质量m ＝3880kg ，轴距L ＝3.2m ，质心至前轴距离a ＝1.94m ，质心高度h g =0.9m ，车轮半径r ＝0.367m ，主减速器传动比i 0＝5.83，一档传动比i g1＝5.56，传动系机械效率T η＝0.85，发动机最大转矩tg T ＝175m N ⋅。

试求：汽车的最大爬坡度及克服该坡度时相应的附着率（忽略滚动阻力及驱动阻力）——20043、若后轴驱动的双轴汽车在滚动阻力系数f=0.03的道路上能克服道路的上升坡度角为α=200。

汽车数据：轴距L=4.2m，重心至前轴距离a=3.2m，重心高度h g=1.1m，车轮滚动半径r=0.46m。

问：此时路面的附着系数ϕ值最小应为多少？——20054、若后轴驱动的双轴汽车在滚动阻力系数f=0.03的道路上能克服道路的上升坡度角为α=200。

汽车数据：轴距L=4.2m，重心至前轴距离a=3.2m，重心高度h g=1.1m，车轮滚动半径r=0.46m。

问：此时路面的附着系数ϕ值最小应为多少？——20065、汽车用某一挡位在f =0.03的道路上能克服的最大坡度I=20%,若用同一挡位在fmax=0.02的水平道路上行驶，求此时汽车可能达到的加速度的最大值是多少？（δ=1.15 且忽略空气阻力）。

——20076、若后轴驱动的双轴汽车在滚动阻力系数f=0.03 的道路上能克服道路的上升坡度角为α=20 。

汽车数据：轴距L=4.25m ，重心至前轴距离a=3.52m ，重心高度hg =1.13m，车轮滚动半径r=0.45m 。

2018年华南理工大学研究生入学考试专业课真题880_分析化学

880华南理工大学2018 年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）科目名称：分析化学适用专业：分析化学共13 页一、单项选择题【1-20 题每题1 分，21-30 题每题2 分】1. 按照酸碱质子理论，Na2HPO4是（）A．中性物质B．酸性物质C．碱性物质D．两性物质2. 下列有关随机误差的论述中不正确的是（）A．随机误差是由一些不确定的偶然因素造成的B．随机误差出现正误差和负误差的机会均等C．随机误差在分析测定中是不可避免的D．随机误差具有单向性3. 用氧化锌标定EDTA 溶液时，下列操作会导致EDTA 浓度偏高的是（）A．氧化锌未进行干燥B．滴定管洗净后，未用EDTA 溶液润洗C．滴定完成后，最终读数时，发现滴定管挂水珠D．最终读数时，终点颜色偏深4. 间接碘量法测定可溶性铜盐时，若放置一段时间后出现“回蓝”现象，则可能是由于（）A．反应不完全B．空气中O2氧化I-C．氧化还原反应速度慢D．淀粉指示剂变质5. 摩尔法测定Cl-，控制溶液pH=4.0，其滴定终点将（）A．不受影响B．提前到达C．推迟到达D．刚好等于化学计量点6. 用高锰酸钾法测定铁，一般使用硫酸而不是盐酸调节酸度，其主要原因是（）A．盐酸有挥发性B．硫酸可以起催化作用C．盐酸强度不够D．Cl-可能与KMnO4 反应7. AgCl 在0.01mol/L HCl 中溶解度比在纯水中小，是（）的结果。

A．共同离子效应B．酸效应C．盐效应D．配位效应8. 氧化还原反应的条件平衡常数与下列哪个因素无关（）A．氧化剂与还原剂的初始浓度B．氧化剂与还原剂的副反应系数C．两个半反应电对的标准电位D．反应中两个电对的电子转移数9. pH 玻璃电极使用前必须在水中浸泡，其主要目的是（）A．清洗电极B．活化电极C．校正电极D．清除吸附杂质10. 用氟离子选择性电极测定水中（含有微量的Fe3+、Al3+、Ca2+、Cl-）的氟离子时，应选用的离子强度调节缓冲溶液为（）A．0.1 mol/L KNO3B．0.1 mol/L NaOHC．0.1 mol/L 柠檬酸钠（pH 调至5-6）D．0.1 mol/L NaAc（pH 调至5-6）11. 在正相色谱柱上分离含物质1,2,3 的混合物，其极性大小依次为：物质1>物质2>物质3，其保留时间t 的相对大小依次为（）A．t1>t2>t3B．t1<t2<t3C．t2>t1>t3D．t2<t1<t312. 常用于评价色谱分离条件选择是否适宜的参数是（）A．理论塔板数B．塔板高度C．分离度D．死时间13. 在符合朗伯-比尔定律的范围内，有色物质的浓度、最大吸收波长、吸光度三者的关系是（）A．增加、增加、增加B．减小、不变、减小C．减小、增加、增加D．增加、不变、减小14. 下列仪器分析方法中适宜采用内标法定量的是（）A. 紫外-可见分光光度法B. 原子吸收光谱法C. 色谱分析法D. 极谱分析法15. 用0.10 mol/L NaOH 滴定同浓度HAc（pKa=4.74）的pH 突跃范围为7.7~9.7。

2018年华南理工大学研究生入学考试专业课真题625_数学分析

625 华南理工大学 2018 年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回〉科目名称：数学分析适用专业：基础数学；计算数学：概率论与数理统计：应用数学：运筹学与控制论主主旦7. ( 13 分）求曲线对＋ xy + y2 + 2x -2y 一 12 = 0 上的点到原点的距离之极值．8. (13 分）计算 fo''ln(2 + c 叫你 ,..x',.vI d l arctantdt I. (12 分）求 l im Jo 归x->o x(I -cosx) 9. (13 分）设对任意 X E 归，坷，u,,( x ) un+1( x ) > -0 且｛un( x ）｝收敛于零，并且对每个 n ,函数u,,( x ）都在［a, b ］上单调递增，试证汇（ 1）” ＇u ρ2. （时）计算!f xy2dx -x2 y 吵，，其中r 为三＋f = I ，方向为逆时针a2 b IO. C 13 分）设｛元）｝是有界闭区间［α，b ］上的连续函数列，且／，， (x ）注／，，＋1 (x ）及1 3. (12 分）计算 Jf xz ，＋（x2 - z )y ， J 哟，其中S -!i:. x2 ＋卢蚓0 :::;; z :::;; I) 的lim /,, (x) = f ( x ）在［α，b ］上处处存在，试证 f ( x ）在［α，b ］上必有最大值．下侧． 11. ( 13 分）设函数 f 在点（剖，Yo ）的某个邻域中有连续偏导数儿，在该点存在偏导数4. ( 12 分）试在变换 U = x + y , v = x - y 及 Z = W -2.xy 下，将方程 Z 且＋ 2z 秽＋ Z Y.Y = 0到成 w = w(u,v ）满足的方程．元，试证f 在该点可微．12. C 13 分〉设非负函数列｛ J,,(x ）｝中的每个儿（x ）在（0, l ］上有界可积，且对任意5. （口分〉设 I =f fJ( x +y - z +lO ）俐在，其中 Q 是问2 + z2 = 3 的内部区域，、 Q证 28/iπ s/ ss2Jjπ ． 6. ( 12 分）在曲面 z -2xy = O 上找一点，使这点的法线垂直于平面 x + 2y + 3z + 4 = 0 , 并写出此法线方程．C E (0, 1) ，儿（x ）在［c, I ］上一致趋于零，若川江（x ）战斗，试证lim f I 1J,,(x)sin 2xdx = 2 .n →国J O X 第 1 页第 2 页。

华南理工大学汽车理论历年真题问答题答案整理

16.试从汽车平顺性和安全性的角度出发,分析铝合金轮辋的优点. 7
答：铝合金轮辋与传统钢制轮辋相比，在汽车行驶平顺性和安全性方面主要有以下优点：1）刚性好。可以有效地减少路面冲击对轮辋形状的破坏，提高行驶安全性；
2）散热性能好。可以提高轮胎寿命，有些铝合金轮辋还可以依靠本身的造型，在旋转时将气流导向制动器，提高制动器的散热能力，使之保持较好的制动性能从而提高行驶安全性；
08.车厢的侧倾力矩由哪几部分组成? 87 P166
答:由以下三部分组成,
1）悬挂质量离心力引起的侧倾力矩M
φrI;
2）侧倾后,悬挂质量重力引起的侧倾力矩M
φrII;
3）独立悬架中,非悬挂质量的离心力引起的侧倾力矩M
φrIII
09.影响汽车动力性的因素有哪些? 85
答:汽车的动力性指汽车在良好路面上直线行驶时，由汽车受到的纵向外力决定的、所能达到的平均行驶速度。有三个评价指标：汽车的最高车速u
7）行驶车速对侧偏刚度的影响很小。
02.分析主传动比i
0的大小对汽车后备功率及燃油经济性能的影响? 9865
答:主传动比i
0较小时，汽车的后备功率较小，汽车的动力性较差，但此时发动机功率利用率高，燃油经济性好。主传动比i
0较大时，汽车的后备功率较大，汽车的动力性较好，但此时发动机功率利用率低，燃油经济性差。P77图3-3
（另：氮气加速系统NOS，Nitrous Oxide System或下坡路）
12.汽车横摆角速度的瞬态响应的特点是什么？用什么量来表示？9 P133
答:有以下几个特点：
1）在时间上有滞后（反应时间τ）
汽车的横摆角速度要经过一段时间后才能第一次达到稳态横摆角速度ω
r0。用反应时间τ来表示。τ应小些为好，这样转向响应才迅速。

最全的历年华南理工大学汽车理论考研真题分析解析

6、峰值附着系数 p
7、转向盘角阶跃输入下汽车的瞬态响应 8、轮胎的侧偏角 9、车轮与路面间的相对动载
10、汽车悬架系统阻尼比
二、填空题（每小题 2 分，共 20 分）
1、随着驱动力系数的加大，滚动阻力系数（
）。
2、汽车的动力性能不只受驱动力的制约，它还受到（
）的限制。
3、附着率是指汽车直线行驶状况下，充分发挥驱动力作用时要求的（
ABS制动系统的日益增多，
华南理工大学
2004 年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷
（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回）
科目名称：汽车理论适用专业：车辆工程一、解释概念（每小题 4 分，共 40 分）
1、汽车的最大爬坡度 i max 2、发动机部分负荷特性曲线 3、汽车的驱动力图 4、发动机的燃油消耗率 b 5、制动时汽车的方向稳定性
1.94m，质心高度 hg=0.9m，车轮半径 r＝ 0.367m，主减速器传动比 i 0＝ 5.83，一档传动比 i g1＝5.56，传动系机械效率 T ＝ 0.85，发动机最大转矩 Ttg ＝175 N m 。
试求：汽车的最大爬坡度及克服该坡度时相应的附着率（忽略滚动阻力及驱动阻力）。
2、某汽车总质量 m＝1320kg，在附着系数 0.6 、坡度为 i＝ 20％的下坡道路上制动。试求：（ 1）该车能获得的最大地面制动力 Fxbmax是多少？（ 2）不计滚动阻力和空气阻力，最大制动减速度是多少？当车速为 ua0＝
4. 汽车的制动强度；
5. 汽车的比功率；
二．问答题（每小题 6 分，共 24 分）
1. 什么叫汽车的动力性？汽车动力性的主要评价指标是什么？
2. 画出 4×2 后驱动汽车的驱动轮在加速过程中的受力图并进行受力分析。

2018年华南理工大学研究生入学考试专业课真题860_普通物理(含力、热、电、光学)

-m2 V 1 .线温等为CG线虚中图’hu la－'P Lw h －G R 俨l i l －－L rn Ef $4过Ch ！－OL W ’r E’1程判是Md 川热吸口玉咄L 还’过体－线热气，肉强吸阳山 l 姥色刷拙J ：i线柑川机川川执…M热勾虚两这断 · 队放但吸 F F 吸程中惆热程程放叩2阳－1 ．860华南理工大学2018 年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试试卷（试卷上做答无效，请在答题纸上做答，试后本卷必须与答题纸一同交回〉。

d科目名称：普通物理（含力、热、电、光学）适用专业：理论物理：凝聚态物理：声学：光学；材料科学与工程：物理电子学：共 f 页。

;7' v材料工程（专硕）一、选择题（共 48 分，每题 4 分〉l 、几个不同倾角的光滑斜面，有共同的底边，顶点也在同一坚直面上．若使一物倒（视为质点）从斜面上端由静止滑到下端的时间最短，则斜面的倾角应选(A) 60。

. (B) 45° . (C) 30。

.(D) 15。

．［］2、某物体的运动规律为 d v / d t = -k v 勺，式中的 k 为大于零的常量．当t = O 时，初速为 Vo ，则速度 U 与时间 t 的函数关系是(D) abc 过程和 def 过程都放热．［］6、一定量的理想气体经历二cb 过程时吸热500 J. 则经历 cbda 过程时，吸热为(A ）马200 J. (B ）一700 J.p （×105 Pa)(A) v=kt 2 叫(C) -400 J .(D) 700 J.。

V （ 10-3 m3)1 kt2 1(C) 一＝－－：：－－＋一’ ， U 二L Vo3、一质量为 m 的质点，在半径为 R 的半球形容器中，由静止开始自边缘上的 A 点滑下，到达最低点 B 时，它对容器的正压力为N. 则质点自 A℃!57［］47、一铜板厚度为 D= l .OO mm ，放罩在磁感强度为 B= 1.35 T 的匀强磁场中，磁场方｜向垂直于导体的侧表面，如图所示，现测得铜板上下两面电势差为 V=1.10×10 5 v ，己B 知铜板中自由电子数密度 n =4.20 ×102s m 3, 滑到 B 的过程中，摩擦力对其作的功为A(A）护（N 训电子电荷 e=l.60 ×10-19 c，则此铜板中的电歹争叶阳一mg ) .(D)i R( N 切）［］8、如图所示．一电荷为 q 的点电荷，以匀角速度ω作圆周运动，圆周的半径为 R. 设 t = O 时 q 所在点的坐标为 xo = R , 4、如图，两木块质量为 m1 和叫，由一轻弹簧连接，放在光滑水平桌面上，先使网木块靠近而将弹簧压紧，然后由静止释放．若在弹簧伸长到原长时，m1 的速率为 V1,则弹簧原来在压缩状态时所具有的势能是o = O ，以T , ］分别表示 x 轴和 y 轴上的单位矢景，则圆心处点的位移电流密度为：1 m1 + m2 2总二点点达-2.口._L 二sm w t Iqw『x(i )(A) 一m 1V12(B) (A)(B)一一一τcos mt J2 m1 4 π R 24πRqw -qw-1 m1 + m2 z(C)一一k(D)一丁（sin wti - c os mtj) (C)三（m1 + m2 ) V 1 .(D ) -m1V 1 . 4πR 22 m24πR第页第 2 页\Y i u )－E Er 饨A ～「， D G的一市民川r E F图nu 品UF 历经。