High frequency response of grounding electrodes: effect of soil dielectric constant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Grounding electrodes have an important role in electric power transmission and distribution systems. They are used to prevent excessive hazardous voltages due to ground potential rise in the case of system faults or lightning surges. The electrical properties of soil, which vary substantially with geographical location and time of year, affect the process considerably along with the properties of the grounding electrode itself, such as its dimensions. To have an accurate estimation of the induced overvoltages due to lightning strike, one has to take into account the effect of the value of the soil electrical parameters, such as the electrical conductivity and dielectric constant. This study investigates the high frequency behaviour of the grounding electrodes by solving a full‐wave electromagnetic problem using the finite element method. The focus of this paper is on the effect of the variation of soil relative permittivity on the induced transient voltage in grounding electrodes. This allows an evaluation of the response of grounding systems due to seasonal changes, which would cause its electrical properties to vary significantly. This study demonstrates the importance of considering the variation of relative permittivity of the soil especially in the modelling of electrodes buried in highly resistive soil.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".