Effect of trench geometry, cable size and top layer thickness on the heat dissipation in buried cables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The geometrical dimensions of the trench and the type of top layer used for the installation of buried cable are considered. These dimensions include the trench width and depth, cable depth and diameter, and thickness of the top layer. The dimensions, such as the trench width and the cable diameter, are varied to emphasize their effect on the heat dissipation. A simple model using the finite difference technique is used to determine the temperature at each node of the grid, and the Gauss-Siedel iteration method is used to solve the temperature equations. The heat dissipation from buried cables can be increased either by using larger cable diameter or by increasing the width of the trench. The number of grid points has a remarkable influence on the predicted value of heat dissipation. The percentage of the change in the heat dissipation due to the diameter or the trench width remains approximately the same for various grid points. The heat balance analysis shows that the difference between the cable heat dissipation and the heat losses from the grid boundaries is less than 0.3%, and the convective surface at the grid top plays a major role in dissipating the heat produced by the cable by almost 86% for most of the trenches with various widths.>
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".