Taking the Heat: IEEE Standard 80 and Bimetallic Conductors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IEEE Standard 80-2013 provides the substation grounding system designer with simple formulae and tabulated data for the estimation of the maximum fault current that can flow through various types and sizes of conductor, for a given duration, before failure due to fusing occurs. Copper conductors are given exhaustive and reasonably accurate treatment. Other types of conductors, however, are given short thrift. Copper-clad steel (CCS) conductors, whose steel cores provide an effective heat sink, appear not to have been studied at all. As a result, the standard provides only an unrealistic simplified methodology based on fixed physical constants to be used for the calculation of CCS current-carrying limits. Computer modeling and lab testing have demonstrated that the highly non-linear heat absorption characteristics of the CCS core, when properly considered, yield considerably different fault current-carrying capacity than IEEE Standard 80-2013 would lead design engineers to expect. A theoretical framework for the calculation of these values is presented. Computed values are compared with those obtained by an independent accredited high voltage test laboratory.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".