Rotary power flow controller performance in power systems part II - RPFC performances in a transmission corridor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This part II of the work proposes the performance study of the RPFC operating in a two-line transmission corridor. The part I has presented the RPFC model and its implementation in SPS/Matlab. The present paper presents the simulation results of the RPFC operating in the corridor during the post-contingency period, when one of the two lines is out of service. From the RPFC model and the RPFC control system, derived in part I, this paper first determines the model of the electrical corridor equipped with the RPFC, and then implements the entire model including the RPFC control system, in the SPS/Matlab. The obtained results provide the behavior of the RPFC, as well as that of the corridor during the post-contingency period. The work analyzes, among other parameters, the influence of the RPST number of poles on the RPFC performances. Finally, the utilization of the RPFC, associated with the shunt capacitive compensation, allows restoring the post-contingency power flow conditions to be equal to those of the pre-contingency period.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".