Analysing the effects of different types of FACTS devices on the steady‐state performance of the Hydro‐Québec network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydro‐Québec's electrical transmission system is an extensive, international grid located in Québec, Canada with extensions into the northeastern United States of America. For large power systems such as this, one of the major issues is to maintain the steady‐state performance of the network. From this point of view, flexible AC transmission system (FACTS) devices could be effective tools to improve power system security by reducing the power flow on overloaded lines, which in turn would result in an increased loadability of the power system, reduced transmission line losses, improved stability and security and, ultimately, a more energy‐efficient transmission system. Therefore in this study, the authors will present the effects of different types of FACTS devices on the performance of Hydro‐Québec's power system. The optimal locations and rating of these FACTS controllers will be determined with a view to improving network security using an optimisation algorithm based on a genetic algorithm. The effects of six different FACTS devices including static VAR compensator (SVC), thyristor‐controlled series capacitor (TCSC), thyristor‐controlled voltage regulator (TCVR), thyristor‐controlled phase‐shifting transformer (TCPST), unified power flow controller (UPFC) and static synchronous compensator (STATCOM) with energy storage are compared. Using the presented results, the effects of different types of FACTS devices on the Hydro‐Québec network will be analysed and compared with those of a STATCOM equipped with energy storage from the viewpoints of static loadability and losses.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".