Assessment of Behaviour and Cascade Failure of Tangent and End Towers of Transmission Lines Under Downbursts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thunderstorm-related failure incidents of transmission line structures have increased globally, resulting in widespread power outages, disruptions to infrastructure, and economic losses. Downbursts is one of the extreme wind events that occurs during thunderstorms. Failure of a tower during a downburst can trigger a cascade-type of progressive collapse to various towers along a line. Line segment typically consists of several tangent towers bounded by two end towers, which are stronger structures designed to contain the progression of the cascade failure. This Thesis is a part of an extensive research program conducted at the University of Western Ontario to study the behaviour of transmission lines under downbursts. In this Thesis, the effect of the downburst load provisions on transmission towers is compared to the effect of the design synoptic wind loads defined in different standards. This comparison indicates that transmission towers are susceptible to failure during severe downbursts. During the failure, the system experiences dynamic excitation due to the movement of the failed tower. Accordingly, the Thesis investigates the dynamic response of the tower-conductor system during tower failure under downburst loads using nonlinear dynamic analysis. The findings indicate that the conductor's tension force experiences some peaks over a short period of time during the failure so that the adjacent towers are unlikely to respond to such load. Since end towers are critical structures in the line segment, experimental test of a transmission line under simulated downburst is conducted at the Wind Engineering, Energy and Environment (WindEEE) Research Institute to assess the end tower behaviour under downburst loads. Additionally, numerical analysis of the tested line is conducted to assess the adequacy of the wind load provisions on transmission lines in estimating the downburst loads for end towers. A major outcome of this Thesis is the development of an innovative numerical model for conducting quasi-static analysis to study the cascade failure of an entire segment of a transmission line bounded by two end towers. This model can predict where the failure is initiated and how it progresses along the line, with considering different models of tangent and end towers.
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".