## 5 Discussion--Comparison of Different Electrode Station Configurations
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**No.** & **Configuration** & \(d_{Ox}\) **(m)** & \(\begin{array}{c}1d_{Ox}1\\ \textbf{(m)}\end{array}\) & \(d_{Oy}\) **(m)** & \(\begin{array}{c}1d_{Op}1\\ \textbf{(m)}\end{array}\) & \(S_{\sigma}\) **(m\({}^{2}\))** & \(\begin{array}{c}E_{\pi}\\ \textbf{(V/m)}\end{array}\) & \(\begin{array}{c}V_{rd\_max}\\ \textbf{(V/m)}\end{array}\) & \(R_{d}\) **(f)** & **No. of** \\ \hline
1 & Straight frames in a row, placed parallel to a 70 m dam & 50.29 & 50.29 & 67.81 & 67.81 & 13,641 & 3.13 & 26.09 & 22,772 & 19.51 &
\begin{tabular}{c} 10 and 15 \\ in [2] \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
2 & Straight frames in a row, placed vertical to a 70 m dam & 48.70 & 54.70 & 65.75 & 65.75 & 13,597 & 2.86 & 24.98 & 22,475 & 19.26 & 1 \\ \hline
3 & Straight frames in two overlapping rows, placed parallel with each other & 49.26 & 60.25 & 61.10 & 61.10 & 13,382 & 2.98 & 26.12 & 26,978 & 23.12 & 2 \\ \hline
4 & Straight frames in two overlapping rows, placed parallel to the axis of a 70 m dam, non-overlapping on the vertical axis of the dam & 49.01 & 60.01 & 62.41 & 62.41 & 13,608 & 3.09 & 26.13 & 26,142 & 22.40 & 3 \\ \hline
5 & Straight frames in two successive rows, placed vertical to the axis of a 70 m dam, aligned with each other & 46.64 & 67.64 & 58.35 & 58.35 & **13,336** & 3.31 & 26.29 & 25,705 & 22.02 & 4 \\ \hline
6 & Straight frames in two successive rows, placed vertical to the axis of a 70 m dam, aligned with each other & 46.74 & 67.74 & 58.89 & 58.89 & 13,483 & 3.42 & 26.25 & 25,942 & 22.23 & 5 \\ \hline
7 & Straight frames in preimetals placement to a dam, adapted to a pond outline of 192.5 m & 44.60 & 74.04 & 55.80 & 62.92 & 14,085 & **1.55** & **24.78** & **21,873** & **18.74** & 6 \\ \hline
8 & Straight frames adapted to a & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - & - \\ \hline
9 & Straight frames adapted to a central base \(R_{x1}=11\) m & 58.26 & 58.26 & 58.09 & 58.09 &
\begin{tabular}{c} 13,537 \\ 10,663 * \\ \end{tabular} & 2.59 & 26.13 & 11,096 & 9.507 & 8 \\ \hline
10 & Straight frames adapted symmetrically to a central base & 58.54 & 58.54 & 58.36 & 58.36 &
\begin{tabular}{c} 13,666 \\ 10,766 * \\ \end{tabular} & 2.21 & 24.94 & 16,831 & 14.42 & 9 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 10: Summary of the simulation of field results for an electrode station with 6 frames for the area of Korakia, where \({}^{**}\) denotes the calculation of the corresponding circular disk area. tion) is the maximum electric field strength (within the area of the frame that is out of operation) \(E_{\mathit{off}}\) less than 2.5 V/m. * The placement of straight frames, radially or perimetrically to a central base (ninth and tenth configuration, respectively), improves the field results (and especially the values of the absolute potential and ground resistance of the electrode station), but not the distances of the influence zones. From the study of the relevant results of Table 11, for the area of Stachtoroi, the following emerges:
* From the cases of typical designs (1 st to 8 th configuration), the shortest required length, in front of the dam, results from the case of placing straight frames around the perimeter (inner side) of the dam that are adapted to the outline of the pond (seventh configuration). * From the cases of typical designs, the smallest indicative equivalent area of the electric field zone of influence \(S_{\sigma}\) results from the case of placing straight frames in two overlapping rows, with respect to the dam, perpendicular to its axis and aligned with each other (fifth configuration). * From the cases of typical designs, the optimal value for the maximum electric field strength of the arrangement \(E_{\mathit{max}}\) results from the case of placing straight frames perpendicular to the axis of the dam (second configuration).