Numerical investigation of electric field distortion induced by internal defects in composite insulators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents an exhaustive study of numerical investigations based on three‐dimensional finite‐element method modelling of several non‐ceramic insulators of 69, 110 and 230 kV having different internal semi‐conductive defects in terms of size and position. The internal defects were positioned close to the high‐voltage electrode, the ground electrode and at floating potential. The simulations effected on the distortion of the axial and radial E ‐field components close to the insulator shank between sheds. The results obtained showed that the radial E ‐field component is more sensitive to the presence of an internal defect as it shows a greater distortion in presence of the defect. It was also observed that the E ‐field component distortion increases with longer internal defect and that this increase is particularly important for a defect at floating potential. Moreover, it was demonstrated that the length of the insulator, for a defect of constant length, has no significant influence on the E ‐field component distortion. Finally, the results demonstrated that the presence of a grading ring, as used on the 230 kV insulator, does not have any influence on the E ‐field component distortion, independently of the defect position.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".