Evaluating the applicability of the finite element method for modelling of geoelectric fields
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Geomagnetically induced currents in power systems are due to space weather events which create geomagnetic disturbances accompanied by electric fields at the surface of the Earth. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the use of the finite element method (FEM) to calculate the magnetic and electric fields to which long transmission lines of power systems on the Earth are exposed. The well-known technique of FEM is used for the first time to simulate magnetic and electric fields applicable to power systems. Several test cases are modelled and compared with known solutions. It is shown that FEM is an effective modelling technique that can be applied to determine the electric fields which affect power systems. FEM enables an increased capability beyond the traditional methods for modelling electric and magnetic fields with layered earth conductivity structures, as spatially more complex structures can be considered using FEM. As an example results are presented for induction, due to a line current source, in adjacent regions with different layered conductivity structures. The results show the electric field away from the interface is the same as calculated for a single region; however near the interface the electric field is influenced by both regions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".