MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1625110079 · doi:10.1029/2006jd007959

On return stroke currents and remote electromagnetic fields associated with lightning strikes to tall structures: 2. Experiment and model validation

2007· article· en· W1625110079 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicLightning and Electromagnetic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsKinectrics (Canada)Toronto Metropolitan UniversityMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of TorontoSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsElectric fieldLightning (connector)Rogowski coilTowerMagnetic fieldPhysicsLightning strikeGeodesyElectromagnetic coilMeteorologyGeologyGeophysicsThunderstormEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, simultaneous GPS time‐stamped measurements of the electric and magnetic fields at three distances and of the return stroke current associated with lightning strikes to the Toronto CN Tower (553 m) during the summer of 2005 are presented. The lightning return stroke current was measured using a Rogowski coil installed at a height of 474 m above ground level (AGL). The vertical component of the electric field and the azimuthal component of the magnetic field were measured simultaneously at distances of 2.0 km, 16.8 km, and 50.9 km from the CN Tower. The propagation path from the CN Tower to the first two stations (2.0 and 16.8 km) was along the soil and through the Toronto city, whereas for the third location (50.9 km) the propagation path was nearly entirely across Lake Ontario. The waveforms of the electric and magnetic fields at 16.8 km and 50.9 km exhibit a first zero crossing about 5 μ s after the onset of the return stroke. This early zero crossing is part of a narrow undershoot. For fields at 50.9 km the expected zero crossing at about 40 μ s is also observed. Metallic beams and other conducting parts in buildings on which electric and magnetic field sensors were located cause an enhancement effect on the measured fields. Although an enhancement can be identified both on the electric and the magnetic fields, the degree of enhancement is actually more significant for the electric field than for the magnetic field. It is shown that the value of the wave impedance (E‐field peak to H‐field peak ratio) could give an estimate of the enhancement effect of the building on the electric field. Propagation effects (decrease of field amplitude and increase of its risetime) can also be observed in experimental records. It is shown that the fields at 50.9 km are less affected by such attenuation, compared to those at 16.8 km, presumably because the path of propagation is mostly across Lake Ontario. Measured waveforms are compared with theoretical predictions obtained using the five engineering return stroke models extended to include the presence of the strike object, namely, transmission line (TL), modified transmission line (MTLL and MTLE), Bruce‐Golde (BG), and traveling current source (TCS) models. A reasonable agreement is found with all five engineering models for the magnetic field waveforms at the three considered distances, although the peak values of the computed fields are systematically about 25% lower than measured values. None of the models was able to reproduce the early zero crossing and the narrow undershoot. As far as the electric field is concerned, larger differences have been observed between simulations and measurements. This may be due to the fact that the enhancement effect of the building on the electric field is stronger than that on the magnetic field. The expression relating current and field peaks associated with strikes to tall structures is also tested versus obtained sets of experimental data. The overall agreement between the theoretically predicted and the experimentally observed field‐to‐current ratio is reasonable, although the formula of Bermudez et al. (2005) appears also to underestimate the experimentally measured ratio (by about 25%). This may be due, at least in part, to the enhancement effect of the buildings on which the field measurement antennae were installed.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.416
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it