Performance of HVDC ground electrode in various soil structures
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper discusses and compares HVDC ground electrode design methods in various soil structures. A number of cases are selected based on existing HVDC ground electrodes in order to compare the conventional simplified design method (Method A) with a more advanced grounding design method using a specialized engineering software (Method B). Various soil structures considered include horizontally layered soils, vertically layered soils and finite volume soils. In all cases studied, grounding grid resistances, current distributions, earth surface potentials and touch/step voltages are computed and compared. The results of Method B are also compared with measurements.. For the cases studied in this paper, it is found that the step voltages computed by Method A are usually lower than those obtained using Method B. This is especially true for a horizontal linear electrode for which the step voltages near the end of electrode could be underestimated by as much as 48%. The results presented in this paper provide useful insight and information for accurately designing DC ground electrodes in various soil structures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it