MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4255255064 · doi:10.1109/icps.1994.303567

Transient performance of substation structures and associated grounding systems

2002· article· en· W4255255064 on OpenAlexafffund
F.P. Dawalibi, W. Xiong

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicLightning and Electromagnetic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsSafe Engineering Services & Technologies (Canada)
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsEarthing systemLightning (connector)GroundLightning strikeElectromagnetic fieldElectromagnetic compatibilityFrequency domainTransient (computer programming)Time domainElectrical engineeringComputer sciencePhysicsAcousticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When lightning strikes an electric substation, large currents generated by the stroke flow in the aboveground structures and grounding system and dissipate in the soil. The electromagnetic fields generated by such high currents may cause damage to equipment and may be dangerous to personnel working nearby. In this paper, the frequency and time domain performance of a substation subjected to a lightning strike is described and discussed. The computed scalar potentials, electric fields and magnetic fields are presented graphically as a function of spatial coordinates, as a function of time and as a function of both. Two cases are considered. The first case examines the substation grounding system only, while the second case includes an aboveground structure as well. It is believed that the results of the second case have not been published before. A double exponential lightning surge current is injected at one corner of the substation. The response of the grounding system to the frequency domain electromagnetic spectrum of this signal is computed by a frequency domain electromagnetic field analysis software package. The temporal and spatial distributions of the electromagnetic fields inside and near the substation are obtained by an inverse Fourier transformation of all these responses. The presence of a soil with an arbitrary resistivity and permittivity is accurately taken account. Analysis sheds some new light on understanding of the effects which take place at the higher frequencies.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">&gt;</ETX>

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score0.163

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLightning and Electromagnetic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207