Mutual coupling simulation results

This section has shown the experimental and EMTP simulation results of an LS at a house. The simulation results agree qualitatively with the experimental results, and thus the simulation models in the chapter are adequate. Because measurements were calculated during different time periods over the course of 3 years, experimental conditions such as the soil resistivity, the voltage probe used, and the reference voltage line for each measurement varied, and these differences were not considered in the simulations. Some oscillations observed in the measured results are presumably caused by mutual coupling between the measuring wires and feeder lines in the experiments. Also, a grounding electrode may couple... 

A measured result involves noise due to mutual coupling between a current lead wire and a voltage reference wire, and also the unknown parameters such as soil resistivity and permittivity. An NEA method [38] can simulate a transient only by the geometrical and physical parameters of a given system, and thus, the NEA method is very effective to analyze the transient responses of a grounding electrode buried in soil of which the resistivity and permittivity are unknown. 

Figure 7.56 shows the simulation results with mutual coupling between a control cable and a counterpoise corresponding to Figure 7.54 with no mutual coupling. It is clear in Figure 7.56a that only an induced voltage of about 2.5 V, due to a counterpoise current, appears on the core... 

The simultaneous determination of a great number of constants is a serious disadvantage of this procedure, since it considerably reduces the reliability of the solution. Experimental results can in some, not too complex cases be described well by means of several different sets of equations or of constants. An example would be the study of Wajc et al. (14) who worked up the data of Germain and Blanchard (15) on the isomerization of cyclohexene to methylcyclopentenes under the assumption of a very simple mechanism, or the simulation of the course of the simplest consecutive catalytic reaction A — B —> C, performed by Thomas et al. (16) (Fig. 1). If one studies the kinetics of the coupled system as a whole, one cannot, as a rule, follow and express quantitatively mutually influencing single reactions. Furthermore, a reaction path which at first sight is less probable and has not been therefore considered in the original reaction network can be easily overlooked. 

This behavior was simulated in computer experiments with a simplified model of two excitable layers with linear coupling [52, 59]. Mutual acceleration of waves in crossing points was obtained resulting in a saw-tooth shape of the wave fronts. Development of spiral waves was also observed due to a partial annihilation of colliding waves propagating in both layers when different thresholds of excitability were taken for two layers. 

Simulated predictions and experimental results showed good consistency for the CMR performance obtained for a reaction coupled with separation by sweeping the hydrogen with nitrogen, but large discrepancy for a reaction coupled with vacuum-driven separation. CMR performance in the former mode is better due to excellent transport selectivity, which was attributed to mutual blocking of counter-diffusion by nitrogen and hydrocarbons. 

---