Investigation on the Implementation of the Single-Sheath Bonding Method for Power Cables
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sheath bonding is an essential requirement for transmission and distribution cables. Three bonding methods are widely used in industry at present: solid bonding, single-point bonding, and cross bonding. The latter two are for solving the ampacity reduction problem caused by solid bonding. This paper presents an in-depth investigation of a new cable sheath bonding method called single-sheath bonding. The new method uses one of the cable sheaths as the return path for the fault current and thus eliminates the need for the ground continuity conductor (GCC). In this paper, various configurations to implement the single-sheath bonding method are proposed. Their performances are comprehensively evaluated and compared with those of the existing bonding methods through simulation and sensitivity studies. The results show that single-sheath bonding can achieve a similar performance of either single-point bonding or cross bonding with a lower cost. Therefore, single-sheath bonding can be an alternative to single-point bonding and cross bonding. The potential applications of the single-sheath bonding method are also clarified in the paper.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it