MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099586972 · doi:10.1109/ccece.1999.808161

SYNSIM-a simulation model of a cogeneration plant, for stability analysis and augmentation

2003· article· en· W2099586972 on OpenAlexaffabout
K. Gooden, Paul W. Morgan, David White, R. Rink, W Young

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicNumerical methods for differential equations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaSyncrude (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultivariable calculusCogenerationSteam turbineControl theory (sociology)Boiler feedwaterControl engineeringStability (learning theory)Control systemElectric power systemEngineeringTurbineHeaderNonlinear systemComputer scienceElectricity generationControl (management)Power (physics)Mechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1994, several Syncrude Canada Ltd. and University of Alberta personnel began the development of a computer simulation model of the Syncrude Utilities steam and electrical plant. Motivation arose out of a concern regarding dynamic stability of the steam header system under upset conditions such as tie line or turbine trips. The model was developed from physical principles and includes all boilers, steam headers, letdowns, turbogenerators and electrical system, and the feedwater system. This large nonlinear simulation model (SYNSIM) has subsequently been used to identify sets of lower-order transfer functions that provide linear multivariable system approximations to the plant under various operating conditions and balances. Using these sets of linear models, well-known methods for designing optimal multivariable controllers were used to design a stability augmentation system for the plant. Its purpose is to improve the stability margins for the oscillatory response modes of the current plant, without replacing or interfering with the existing control system. The augmented system has been tested using SYNSIM, with encouraging results.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.492
Threshold uncertainty score0.246

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.247
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNumerical methods for differential equationsFrench-language works237,207