A Comprehensive Analysis on the Influence of the Adopted Cumulative Peak Current Distribution in the Assessment of Overhead Lines Lightning Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Backflashover rate (BFR) is strongly dependent on the cumulative peak current distribution (CCD) adopted in the calculations. An original aspect of the present work is that such dependence is simultaneously assessed in estimating the probability of the critical current being exceeded as well as in the annual number of flashes to the line. An IEEE brochure recommends that the distribution values that characterize the atmospheric characteristic of the region under study as accurately as possible be used. The objective of this article is to evaluate the impact of the use of different CCDs, related to several measurements carried out around the world, in the estimation of the lightning performance of transmission lines (TLs). Structures of 138, 230 and 500 kV were analyzed. In the simulations, representative curves of lightning associated with measurements taken at Monte San Salvatore (MSS), Morro do Cachimbo (MCS) and TLs in Japan (TLJ) were considered. The distributions recommended by the IEEE and by the CIGRE and the distributions of Berger obtained from MSS, MCS and TLJ were considered. The presented results indicate differences of up to 100% between the considered work distributions and the IEEE one for certain values of tower footing impedance.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".