Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper provides an overview of IEC Publication No. 60826 (old number IEC 826) entitled `Loading and Strength of Overhead lines'. This publication has been a milestone in the introduction of improved structural design criteria of overhead transmission lines based on reliability methods. Originally published by IEC in 1991 as a technical report type II (i.e. a pre-standard phase), this document was then extensively reviewed by CIGRÉ and ISC/TC11/WG08, and a revised version of this document is currently being circulated to National Committees of IEC/TC11 for adoption as an IEC Standard. This IEC publication specifies loadings and strengths requirements of overhead lines derived from reliability-based design principles. It is based on the concept whereby a transmission line is designed as a system made of components such as supports, foundations, conductors and insulator strings. This approach enables to coordinate the strengths of components within the system taking into account the fact that in such a series system, the failure of any component could lead to the loss of power transmitting capability. It is expected that this approach should lead to an overall economical design without undesirable mismatch between strengths of line components. Many improvements were introduced in the revised version of IEC 60926 (IEC 2002) such as: dividing the document into a normative section containing all requirements and another section consisting of a commentary to the document and technical annexes, providing default load and strength factors when statistical data are scarce, improvements/simplifications to some loading requirements that existed in the previous version, but may not control the design, etc. The IEC 60826 has already been used in many national standards (ex. CSA C22.3, ex. IS 802, 2002, CENELEC) and utility practices, and has proven to be an essential tool for those migrating toward the more efficient and economical Reliability Based Design (RBD) concepts.
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) | 0.000 | 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".