## 3 Electrode Station Configuration
### General Remarks
Due to the more complicated shape, it is preferred, in the present case, to give the broader limits of the straight rectangles, which fully contain the corresponding zones above 1.25 V/m, and to investigate--in the specific frames under maintenance--what occurs in terms of electric field strength. Indicatively, Figure 23 shows the electric field strength and the area of developing electric field strength greater than 1.25 V/m, for the worst-case scenario of the Korakia area, with five frames operating (with one of the first or fifth frames out of operation, under maintenance conditions). From the study of the results for the region of Korakia, the following emerges:  
* The deviation at the extremes of the array (along the yOy\({}^{\prime}\) axis) reaches up to 42.2 m, depending on the loading method (especially when the five frames are loaded consecutively), while, along the xOx\({}^{\prime}\) axis, it reaches up to 49.25 m (especially when the five frames are loaded, except for one of the extreme ones, i.e., 1 st, 2 nd, 5 th, or 6 th). However, in the area of the non-operating frame, the electric field strength rises slightly over 2.5 V/m; therefore, no issues arise (regarding safety) when maintaining the frames, provided the diver has taken the appropriate measures. * The deviation in the maximum developing electric field strength of the electrode station compared to a single frame (26.12 V/m against 24.06 V/m according to Table 10 in [2]) is of the order of 8.6%, practically identical to that of the first configuration (26.12 V/m versus 26.09 V/m of Table 12 in [2]) and worse compared to that of the  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Supply Method**} & \( \begin{array}{c}\mathbf{J}_{st}\\ \mathbf{(\text{A/m}^{2})}\end{array} \) & \( \begin{array}{c}\mathbf{d}_{\textit{stv\_Ox}}\\ \mathbf{(\text{m})}\end{array} \) & \( \begin{array}{c}\mathbf{d}_{\textit{stv\_Ox}}\\ \mathbf{(\text{m})}\end{array} \) & \( \begin{array}{c}\mathbf{\ell}_{\textit{cud}}\\ \mathbf{(\text{m})}\end{array} \) & \( \begin{array}{c}\mathbf{\ell}_{\textit{cud}}\\ \mathbf{(\text{m})}\end{array} \) & \( \begin{array}{c}\mathbf{\ell}_{\textit{cud}}\\ \mathbf{(\text{V/m})}\end{array} \) & \( \begin{array}{c}\mathbf{E}_{\textit{eff}}\\ \mathbf{(\text{V/m})}\end{array} \) & \( \begin{array}{c}\mathbf{V}_{\textit{rel\_max}}\\ \mathbf{(\text{V/m})}\end{array} \) & \( \begin{array}{c}\mathbf{R}_{\textit{el}}\\ \mathbf{(\text{I})}\end{array} \) \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} \multirow{5}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} \multirow{2}{*}{\begin{  
second configuration (26.12 V/m against 24.98 V/m of Table 1). However, the necessary distances are observed here. * In Figure 23b, the areas between the electrode frames are marked, where the strength of the electric field is significantly reduced below 1.25 V/m. However, this does not occur in the area of the frame that has been turned off, although it does not exceed the value of 3.0 V/m. * The critical zone of the dam extends beyond it by 43.3 m (with a crest width of 5 m and a suspension distance of at least 1 m) along the xOx\({}^{\prime}\) axis (perpendicular to the dam), which is slightly better than that of the first configuration (44.3 m). * The critical zone of the dam extends beyond it by 52.2 m (i.e., 26.1 m on either side) along the yOy\({}^{\prime}\) axis (parallel to the dam axis) in the coastal area. Although the initially estimated required length of the assumed electrode station is 58.0 m (along the yOy\({}^{\prime}\) axis), the corresponding actual required length is 122.2 m (from the results of the superposition model, according to Table 2), while the available length is only 70 m.
* The developed absolute potentials and the corresponding values of the electrode station resistance, with respect to remote earth, are quite worse (26.98 kV, 23.12 \(\Omega\)) compared to the original configuration (22.77 kV and 19.5 \(\Omega\), according to Table 15 in [2]).