MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027374743 · doi:10.1109/pesgm.2014.6938859

Low-latency distance protective relay on FPGA

2014· article· en· W2027374743 on OpenAlexaff
Yifan Wang, Venkata Dinavahi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower Systems Fault Detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsField-programmable gate arrayRelayComputer scienceLatency (audio)Protective relayComputer hardwareDigital protective relayVHDLEmbedded systemLow latency (capital markets)SoftwareTelecommunicationsComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The need for high-speed multi-function protective relays in both traditional transmission systems and the new emerging paradigm of the smart grid is growing. As a widely used protective scheme for transmission lines, a distance relay's high speed and reliable operation to clear faults is essential. This paper proposes a real-time low-latency hardware digital distance protective relay on the field programmable gate array (FPGA). Taking advantage of inherent hard-wired architecture of the FPGA, the proposed hardware distance relay design is paralleled and fully pipelined to achieve low latencies in various relay modules which are developed in textual VHDL language. This low-latency feature allows fast operating and data throughput so that the relay can handle high-frequency sampled data and reach higher computational efficiency. In addition, the parallelism and hardwired architecture of the FPGA makes the design more reliable in computation than the sequential software-based numeric relay. The FPGA-based distance relay can operate on both phasor-based signals and instantaneous signals with 2.09 microseconds and 0.35 microseconds latency respectively based on the clock frequency of 100 MHz. The hardware relay is tested in real-time by feeding it with generated faulted current and voltage data for typical faults and the relay response recorded. The results demonstrate the speed and effectiveness of the hardware distance relay.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.609

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPower Systems Fault DetectionFrench-language works237,207