Sequential Mechanical Testing of Conductor Designs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Like many utilities, American Electric Power (AEP) has concerns regarding the longevity of new high temperature low sag conductors using non-traditional materials. For example, conductor designs such as ACCC (Aluminum Conductor Composite Core) and ACCR (Aluminum Conductor Composite Reinforced) that have entered the market in recent years as well as other new conductor designs that may be coming in the future. While vendors of the new conductors generally run their product through individual tests such as sheave, galloping, aeolian vibration, etc., they typically do not run a single sample through a sequence of tests to represent the mechanical loadings that generally occur during installation and operation of an actual line. For example, conductor installation (sheave testing), exposure to galloping conditions, aeolian vibrations and tension cycles due to varying weather loads. AEP has developed a testing protocol with the goal of evaluating new conductor designs in a few months (approx. 90 days) rather than having to wait years. In order to verify that the testing protocol is not excessively burdensome, AEP has partnered with Alcan Cable and Kinectrics to run samples of commonly used Drake ACSR (Aluminum Conductor Steel Reinforced) and Drake ACSS (Aluminum Conductor Steel Supported) through the same protocol. The only difference between ACSR and ACSS is that ACSR is stranded using hard-drawn aluminum wires, while in ACSS the aluminum wires have been annealed to remove any hardness and strength due to the wire drawing process. This paper discusses the findings of the test program. See Table 1 for the conductor properties.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".