Understanding How Overhead Lines Respond to Localized High Intensity Wind Storms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many regions of the world not exposed to atmospheric icing, localized High Intensity Winds pose the greatest risk to failure of overhead lines. However, only a few countries have put in place codified procedures that provide a level of mitigation of the effects and provide increased security of overhead lines. In other regions where localized HIW events now appear to be more frequent than previously anticipated, utilities are looking at simple ways of reducing the risk of catastrophic failures. For existing lines, it is feasible to increase significantly the survival of supports to localized HIW storms with relatively simple improvements to the structures such as higher diagonal bracing capacity in self-supporting towers and higher flexural mast rigidity in guyed structures. For new supports, appropriate design loadings applicable to the predominant wind storm type of the region will necessarily influence the detailed design. Some simplified design loading cases are proposed here to account for the effects of localized HIW on overhead line supports. They are recommended for use by utilities without codified procedures in place. When the hazard is real and its mitigation on existing lines is impractical, security measures should be implemented to reduce the probability of cascading failures.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".