MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7160149882 · doi:10.63125/nwsgxf14

Quantitative Simulation-Based Model for Short-Circuit Analysis, Arc-Flash Risk Evaluation, and Protection Coordination in Industrial Electrical Systems

2023· article· W7160149882 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Advanced Technology and Engineering Solutions · 2023
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrical Fault Detection and Protection
Canadian institutionsOralys (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)Key (lock)Electric potential energySystem safetyElectrical equipmentSafety EquipmentClearing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study addresses the persistent safety and reliability problem in industrial electrical systems where short-circuit faults, arc-flash hazards, and poorly coordinated protective devices can jointly cause equipment damage, worker injury, unnecessary outages, and reduced operational continuity. The purpose of the research was to develop and test an integrated quantitative simulation-based model showing how short-circuit analysis, arc-flash risk evaluation, and protection coordination influence industrial electrical system safety and performance. Using a quantitative, cross-sectional, case-based design, the study combined survey data from 210 valid respondents drawn from industrial enterprise case environments, including electrical engineers, maintenance engineers, safety officers, technicians, and supervisors, with simulation outputs from key electrical locations such as the main LV switchboard, MCCs, and feeder buses. The main independent variables were short-circuiting analysis, arc-flash risk evaluation, and protection coordination, while the dependent variable was industrial electrical system safety and operational performance. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, and multiple regression. The findings showed high mean scores for all major constructs, including short-circuit analysis (M = 4.18, SD = 0.61), arc-flash risk evaluation (M = 4.24, SD = 0.57), protection coordination (M = 4.31, SD = 0.54), and industrial electrical safety and performance (M = 4.27, SD = 0.59). Simulation results identified the Main LV Switchboard Bus as the highest fault-current location at 31.6 kA, while arc-flash incident energy at MCC-1 decreased from 9.8 cal/cm² to 5.9 cal/cm² after coordination refinement, a reduction of about 39.8%, and clearing time improved from 0.42 s to 0.24 s. Correlation analysis revealed strong positive relationships with system safety and performance for short-circuit analysis (r = 0.71), arc-flash risk evaluation (r = 0.76), and protection coordination (r = 0.83), all at p < .001. Regression results further showed that the model explained 72.4% of the variance in safety and performance (R² = 0.724, F(3,206) = 180.24, p < .001), with protection coordination emerging as the strongest predictor (β = 0.401), followed by arc-flash risk evaluation (β = 0.287) and short-circuit analysis (β = 0.249). The study implies that industrial organizations can significantly improve electrical safety and system dependability by integrating fault studies, arc-flash assessment, and coordination review into a single protection management framework.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.672
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.010
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.263 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it