Comprehensive comparison of FACTS devices for exclusive loadability enhancement
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A complete comparison of a number of well‐known flexible alternating current transmission system (FACTS) devices for static voltage stability enhancement is presented. Various performance measures including power–voltage ( P – V ) curves, voltage profiles, and power losses are compared under normal and contingency conditions. The importance of proper modeling of FACTS devices, including the DC side, is emphasized because, at their limits, most of these devices behave like a fixed capacitor or inductor. A simple placement technique of series FACTS devices and unified power flow controller (UPFC) is proposed considering exclusive loading margin enhancement. A new idea of loading margin increase per cost is proposed to find the appropriate FACTS devices for investment. The paper provides a guide for utilities to have an appropriate choice of FACTS device for enhancing static voltage stability and loading margin by comparing technical merits and demerits of each of these devices in terms of system performance. © 2012 Institute of Electrical Engineers of Japan. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it