Wave propagation characteristics and computation improvements for transients on finite-length overhead lines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis first describes the derivation of the impedance and admittance of an infinitely long conductor line and a finite-length conductor line over the earth with finite resistivity. Then, the impedance, admittance, propagation constant (attenuation and velocity), and characteristic impedance of the finite-length and infinitely long conductors are compared, which has not been comprehensively reported in earlier literature. It is shown that the impedance of a finite-length conductor is always smaller than the PUL impedance and converges to the PUL impedance as the conductor length increases. The converging length, i.e. the applicable length of the PUL parameters, becomes smaller when the frequency is higher. The admittance of the finite-length conductor is greater than that of the PUL admittance. The attenuation constant is smaller and the propagation velocity is greater in the finite-length conductor. The characteristic impedance shows a similar trend to the impedance. To further investigate transient responses, an exponential Fourier transform method is adopted to evaluate the time domain responses from frequency domain formulae. The linear midpoint interpolation method is proposed to alleviate the Gibbs oscillation. By applying the weighting order, better results can be obtained in terms of Gibbs oscillation suppression. The Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) and inverse Fast Fourier Transform (IFFT) technique are also adopted to solve transmission line transients problems, and this technique can further improve efficiency. By applying the above explained approaches, the transient responses are calculated. The calculated results show that the difference is very small when the line length is large, regardless of the external power grid structure and parameters. When the length is short, the switching surges on a finite-length conductor are significantly different from those calculated by the conventional PUL approach. The difference between the finite-length and PUL parameters is less noticeable in a fault surge when the source impedance and/or fault impedance is large.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".