ArticlePloS one2025
Magnetic field sensing for 2D fault localization in underground power cables.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Localizing faults in underground cables is a two-dimensional inverse problem, including the depth as the vertical dimension and the horizontal distance from the supply point. In this paper, a new approach based on magnetic field sensing is developed to accurately locate faults in underground cables without physically accessing them. Three types of fault are addressed, line-to-ground fault (LGF), leakage current fault (LCF), and line-to-line fault (LLF). Based on magnetic field sensing, the cable is first localized. Afterwards, the depth is calculated using the Quotient method and finally, the horizontal distance is determined using Kirchhoff's law (KVL). The simulation results show average errors of 5.25%, 4.77%, and 3.53% for LGF, LCF, and LLF. respectively, while the experimental results yield errors of 20% and 29% for LGF and LLF. These findings highlight the reliability of the proposed approach. Additionally, since the method requires only a single magnetic field sensing device with minimal computational effort, it offers a practical and cost-effective solution for the location of underground cable faults.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.