Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes the design, construction and operation of a guyed suspension tower used in extra high-voltage (EHV) transmission lines, known as the Cross Rope Suspension (CRS) structure. The CRS concept, whereby conductor phases are suspended from a transverse spanning wire rope instead of from rigid crossarms, is a line structure like no other, as different from square-based rigid latticed towers, Guyed-Vs, H-frames and the rest as a jet plane is from a propeller-driven one, or as an aluminum overhead conductor is from a copper one. With a design based on simplicity, flexibility and strength, and utilizing the two most efficient elements of structural engineering, namely a wire rope in tension and a lattice mast in compression, it comes close to being a truly optimum structure. The CRS structural concept has been utilized in difficult and remote areas and across valleys in North America and, as a tower system, in long transmission systems in Canada, South Africa and Argentina. A compact variation of the CRS tower has been used in Europe, taking advantage of its low visual impact, narrow Right of Way and marginally improved electricand magnetic field characteristics. In spite of such strong credentials, including its all-important low impact on the environment and very low cost to strength benefits, designers, utilities and the public are still reluctant or hesitant, or simply decline, to consider the CRS tower in new or existing projects. This may possibly be due to poor understanding of the strength of this design and its behavior, and unfounded reservations that its somewhat larger base area would sterilize more arable land. In the event that inaction is the result of lack of information about this unusual structure, this paper is presented to compile in one place many of the qualities and advantages of the CRS tower, a few perceived disadvantages and a brief review of major applications.
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 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) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".