MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2327067595 · doi:10.1061/9780784479414.011

Recommendations for Steel Pole and Drilled Shaft Deflection Criteria Based on a Parametric Study of a 138kV Double Circuit Transmission Line

2015· article· en· W2327067595 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Adam G. Bowland, Paul G. Cass, Anthony M. DiGioia

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical stress and fatigue analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCentre for Energy Advancement through Technological Innovation
KeywordsDeflection (physics)Parametric statisticsStructural engineeringTransmission lineConductorEngineeringElectric power transmissionMechanical engineeringComputer scienceElectronic engineeringElectrical engineeringPhysicsGeometryOpticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a parametric study evaluating the impact of various deflection and rotation criteria for self-supporting, double circuit, 138kV steel pole structures and their foundations on the performance of the overall wire system. The study was used to develop guidelines for determining structure and foundation deflection, and rotation design criteria. The impact on conductor sag and blowout were evaluated by using PLS-Pole to model pole behavior and flexibility, PLS-Cadd to model the interaction between pole and wires, and MFAD to model foundation behavior. This study was conducted using a representative transmission line consisting of structures designed to varying levels of flexibility. This study focuses on the complex interactions between foundations, structures, and wires, and emphasizes the important effects these interactions can have on the overall system. Guidelines are developed for determining the deflection criteria for self-supported transmission structures, and their foundations, based on structure type and line angle.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.759
Threshold uncertainty score0.300

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.122
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMechanical stress and fatigue analysisFrench-language works237,207