A New Control Strategy to Mitigate the Impact of Inverter-Based DGs on Protection System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite their undoubted advantages, Distributed Generation (DG) systems can negatively impact some aspects of the distribution system operation. In this paper, impacts of inverter-based DGs on fuse-recloser coordination in the fuse-saving protection scheme are thoroughly studied. Various fault conditions with different fault resistances and the effects of different DG locations are investigated. Also, the effects of DG reactive power injection, known as a DG potential ancillary service, on the protection scheme are studied. Furthermore, in order to mitigate the impact of DG on the protection coordination, a simple and effective control strategy is proposed. This strategy limits the DG output current according to the DG terminal voltage. Extensive simulations at different fault conditions and different DG penetration levels showed that the proposed control method is able to eliminate DG's contribution during the fault, and consequently eliminate its impact on the fuse-recloser coordination. In comparison to other methods, this strategy is inexpensive, easy to implement, does not limit DG capacity during normal condition, and does not require any change in the original protection system. The simulation results also demonstrated that the proposed method is robust against non-fault transient disturbances such as load switching, starting of induction motors, etc.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".