MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000851649 · doi:10.1109/tie.2012.2230601

Design and Evaluation of a New Converter Control Strategy for Near-Shore Tidal Turbines

2012· article· en· W2000851649 on OpenAlexaff
Mahda Jahromi, Ali I. Maswood, King Jet Tseng

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMultilevel Inverters and Converters
Canadian institutionsWind Energy Institute of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTidal powerShoreMarine energyPower (physics)Grid connectionWind powerMarine engineeringElectricity generationPower controlMaximum power point trackingEngineeringRenewable energyComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceAutomotive engineeringElectrical engineeringGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While tidal stream patterns of natural channels are essentially consistent and smooth, coastal tidal flows experience much more radical speed variations. This paper proposes a new converter control strategy for maximum power extraction of the fast-changing currents that are typically seen in open waters and near the shore. The proposed method makes use of variable-speed generation and has the ability to adapt to the nature of different tidal flows, thus enabling efficient exploitation of resources that require faster dynamic responses. The main motivation behind this study has been the exploration of the possibility of combined offshore wind–tidal cogeneration. The aspects discussed in this paper include interdependences between the injection of the fluctuating generated power, grid-tie connection, and maximum power capture with a view to addressing energy conversion and power quality requirements. Detailed insights into this novel power generation system are provided with a case study that involves a method for maximum power point tracking and power injection controls in a nonstiff network.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score0.729

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.091
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Industrial ElectronicsSame topicMultilevel Inverters and ConvertersFrench-language works237,207