On the Role of Shield Wires in Mitigating Lightning-Induced Overvoltages in Overhead Lines - Part II: Simulation Results for Practical Configurations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the companion Part I, the theory relevant to the role of shield wires in mitigating lightning-induced overvoltages in overhead lines has been analyzed and clarified. A more consistent meaning has been assigned to the concept of Shielding Factor by introducing two innovations compared to the current literature: the first one concerning the distinction between <italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">internal</i> and <italic xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">external</i> parameters, and the other one concerning the point along the line where to assess the mitigation effect. Thanks to this new approach, uncertainties seen in the literature have been sorted out, and the Shielding Factor has been shown to be a parameter which can be precisely quantified. However, our new contribution was applied to a schematic (unrealistic) configuration: a line with a shield wire grounded at only one point. This Part II is precisely devoted to confirming the results obtained in Part I, by applying the proposed approach to more realistic and practical line configurations, namely a line with multi-grounded shield wire, and a line equipped with laterals too.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".