MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010666561 · doi:10.1109/tpel.2012.2200108

Instantaneous Current-Sharing Control Strategy for Parallel Operation of UPS Modules Using Virtual Impedance

2012· article· en· W2010666561 on OpenAlexaff
Yu Zhang, Mi Yu, Fangrui Liu, Yong Kang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Power Electronics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrogrid Control and Optimization
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInductorVoltage droopInverterElectrical impedanceOutput impedanceWaveformModular designElectronic engineeringEngineeringControl theory (sociology)VoltageComputer scienceVoltage sourceElectrical engineeringControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By regulating the inverter output current every switching cycle, instantaneous current-sharing control strategies are usually employed in paralleled modular uninterruptible power supplies (UPSs). In this paper, virtual impedance, which is usually utilized in the droop method, is firstly introduced to the instantaneous current-sharing control strategy to achieve good load current-sharing performance. The instantaneous circulating current model of the paralleled system is developed and the circulating impedance is derived as well to clearly identify the intrinsic nature of unequal sharing of load current. By inserting the virtual impedance to the circulating impedance with the help of proper control strategy, good current-sharing capability can be obtained. The parallel inductor, e.g., coupled inductor, which is generally added at the output of each inverter to reduce the circulating current among modules, can be, therefore, eliminated, contributing to reduced weight, volume, and cost. In the meantime, the system output-voltage regulation performance, e.g., amplitude and waveform quality, is not affected by the introduction of the virtual impedance. The designation of the virtual impedance is provided and its implementation is simple but rather effective. Experimental results are also provided to verify the feasibility of the proposed method.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations126
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Power ElectronicsSame topicMicrogrid Control and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207