MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123768375 · doi:10.1109/tdcllm.2011.6042219

Optimization of high voltage substations using a random walk technique

2011· article· en· W2123768375 on OpenAlexaff
Gary Gilbert, Y.L. Chow, D. Bouchard, M.M.A. Salama

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicLightning and Electromagnetic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGridGroundMathematical optimizationConductorComputer scienceVoltageOptimization problemOptimal designEngineeringAlgorithmElectrical engineeringMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A grounding system is on one of the most important points inside transmission and power distribution systems. Poor design methods and simplified calculations can lead to high construction costs and unsafe conditions. This paper introduces a method to design a grounding grid while minimizing time and cost of construction. In this work, computer software has been developed using the equations to solve the optimization problem that considers the parameters of a grounding grid, including geometry, depth, conductor size and the number of grounding rods. The problem is formulated as a mixed integer linear optimization problem. The method incorporates the variables that define the grid characteristics of all possible configurations, including the grid geometry, grid depth, conductor size, and number of grounding rods, size of grounding rods, and, lastly, excavation and installation costs. The optimization problem is subject to safety constraints related to the maximum allowed ground potential rise (GPR), touch and step voltages. The method determines the optimum grid from several possible configurations, so that is a very useful tool for engineering design. A novel optimization technique using a random walk technique to find an optimized grounding grid in a two-layer soil model is proposed. Several examples prove the efficacy of the method.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.776
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLightning and Electromagnetic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207