Evaluating hazards of lightning strike on stationary vehicles under overhead lines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines safety concerns concerning persons touching a vehicle located near an overhead line hit by lightning. Two models of lightning strikes are assumed for the analysis. The first model includes the entire lightning channel and current distribution along the channel while the second model is a short channel of surge current injected directly at the top of the struck tower. In order to evaluate the effects of the lightning model on the shock hazard level, the transient current passing through the body of a person touching the vehicle is evaluated and compared to the case of a person touching directly the struck tower. An integral formulation of Maxwell's equations is used to model the whole structure including the vehicle, power line, towers, grounding network, and lightning channel. The vehicle is modeled as an array of metallic plates, while the remainder of the system is modeled as an array of wire mesh conductors. Computations are carried out using the Method of Moments (MoM) for surface-wire integral equation in a stratified medium. Results show that safety is affected more by the indirect radiation and induction effects of the lightning channel for the case of a person touching the vehicle than for the case of a person touching the struck tower.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".