Impacts of grounding configurations on responses of ground protective relays for DFIG-based WECSs
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the requirements for safe, stable, sustainable, and profitable operation of doubly-fed induction generators (DFIGs)-based wind energy conversion systems (WECSs) is the accurate and reliable protection against electrical faults, in particular ground faults. The performance of protective devices employed to achieve this requirement is highly dependent on the grounding configuration of the DFIG-based WECS. This paper investigates impacts of the grounding configuration on the performance of protective devices used to protect DFIGs-based WECSs from electrical ground faults. Investigated grounding configurations include solid-grounding, low-resistance grounding, high-resistance grounding, and no-grounding. The impacts of the grounding configurations on protective devices are observed through their ability to identify faults, as well as their speed to respond to identified faults. Simulation and experimental results reveal that adequately designed low-resistance grounding offers the minimum impacts on protective devices used for ground protection of DFIG-based WECSs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it