MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2324784466 · doi:10.1061/40790(218)12

AEP's 765 kV Transmission Line: Mechanical Considerations in Spacer-Damper Hardware Design

2006· article· en· W2324784466 on OpenAlexaff
Bruce Freimark, C. J. Pon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVibration and Dynamic Analysis
Canadian institutionsKinectrics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConductorDamperElectrical conductorBundleStructural engineeringElectric power transmissionTransmission lineEngineeringElectrical engineeringMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prior to the construction of the new 90 mile line, American Electric Power (AEP) had been operating a 2,025 mile 765 kV network consisting of a 4-conductor phase bundle with either "Rail" ACSR or "Dipper" ACSR subconductors. These lines were energized before 1984. Prior to the siting hearings for this new line it was apparent that audible noise due to corona was a significant issue. To satisfactorily address this issue, a decision was made to build the new line using a 6-conductor phase bundle with "Tern" ACSR conductors. This new phase bundle design required that new spacer-damper units be designed, manufactured and tested. AEP revised their specifications for mechanical testing of spacer-dampers and performed a full range of laboratory testing to ensure that the spacer-dampers met all the necessary requirements to withstand the rigors of aeolian vibration, differential ice loadings, forces due to electrical line faults, etc. This paper describes some of the key mechanical tests performed on the new designs of 6-conductor bundle spacer-dampers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVibration and Dynamic AnalysisFrench-language works237,207