Questions on Terminology

Hi everyone.
I need some help from English-speaking professionals.
I'm trying to find a proper wording for "Calculations made to show the fatigue resistance of a railcar to which multicycle loading is applied"
Would someone please advise how to rephrase the phrase so it sounds good and professional?
"Calculations of fatigue resistance of the car for/with/under/in case of multicycle loading ", probably? Though I’m not sure about the preposition (being no native English speaker, I'm kind of having a hard time).
(P.S. Loading here refers to cargo loading/unloading procedures).
Thank you.

Altai wrote:Hi everyone.
I need some help from English-speaking professionals.
I'm trying to find a proper wording for "Calculations made to show the fatigue resistance of a railcar to which multicycle loading is applied"
Would someone please advise how to rephrase the phrase so it sounds good and professional?
"Calculations of fatigue resistance of the car for/with/under/in case of multicycle loading ", probably? Though I’m not sure about the preposition (being no native English speaker, I'm kind of having a hard time).
(P.S. Loading here refers to cargo loading/unloading procedures).
Thank you.

I think your first sentence is correct. However, a few questions jump to mind immediately that may be answered by the rest of your paper.

-What particualr part or apparatus of the car is being subjected to the cyclical loading?
-Is the loading due to train dynamics or the actual load being carried?

Hope this helps.

DAW

The opinion is held by this respondent that there is too much reliance placed on the use of the passive voice and the excessive use of prepositions when the effort of writers could be better spent in styles of a simpler nature.
In other words we tend, especially I've noticed in so-called professional papers, to add lots of prepositions when we don't need them and use passive instead of active voice.

I agree with Altai
"Calculations made to show the fatigue resistance of a railcar to which multicycle loading is applied"
is grammatically correct, and maybe in some folks' opinion is professional.
I'd prefer simpler
"Calculations that show railcar fatigue resistance when applying multicycle loads"

I'm not a professional technical writer, I do admit I see lots of professional technical documents styled like your example, so maybe the people who write them like it that way. I don't like reading them that way.

I am an ex-technical writer/editor (avionics). My approach would be to make "calculations" subordinate in the phrase as follows:

Railcar multicycle loading fatigue resistance calculations

Patrick Boylan wrote:The opinion is held by this respondent that there is too much reliance placed on the use of the passive voice and the excessive use of prepositions when the effort of writers could be better spent in styles of a simpler nature ... I'm not a professional technical writer, I do admit I see lots of professional technical documents styled like your example, so maybe the people who write them like it that way. I don't like reading them that way.

Scientific writing tends to be heavily laced with passive voice due to how things are observed and done and, although we are all taught to avoid passive voice at all costs, it is even worse to use a subject indicative of the writers:

"We observed the salt to dissolve in water in 20 minutes" would be phrased something like "After 20 minutes, all of the salt was observed to have dissolved into the water". Passive yes, but "we" has been successfully omitted.

Estimate of work-load fatigue dynamics on rail car involved in long-term loading.

Thanks everybody for so much help! Though it's kind of hard to chose now...

By the way, I have made quite a blooper. In fact, "multicycle loading" does not have anything to do with cargo, it's about physical loading applied to the car due to lateral, longitudinal and other forces. Sorry,my mistake.

So now I think it probably should be put like this: "Calculation of the fatigue resistance of a rail car subjected to cyclic loading".

it might be easier to say "wonder how many loads the car will take, until it breaks"?