MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135710804 · doi:10.1109/pes.2004.1373019

Optimization-enabled electromagnetic transient simulation

2004· article· en· W2135710804 on OpenAlexaff
Shaahin Filizadeh, R.W. Menzies, P. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting, 2004. · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReal-time simulation and control systems
Canadian institutionsResearch ManitobaUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmtpTransient (computer programming)Computer scienceConvertersRange (aeronautics)Power (physics)Electric power systemControl theory (sociology)Mathematical optimizationEngineeringControl (management)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary form only given. Electromagnetic transient simulation programs (EMTP-type programs) are powerful tools for the study of a wide range of power system transient problems. This paper introduces a novel tool in which an EMTP-type program becomes the objective function evaluator for a non-linear optimization algorithm. In this approach, the non-linear optimization program is given control to perform several consecutive runs with a view to minimizing (or maximizing) the desired objective function, which is computed from the results of each simulation run. Since the optimization algorithm strategically selects the parameters for the EMTP run, the overall design process is orders of magnitude faster than that possible from sequential or random (Monte-Carlo type) multiple-runs of the EMTP-type program. The paper discusses the mechanics of the interface as well as design of objective functions. The power of the proposed method is demonstrated through two examples for the design of power electronic converters.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.004

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 head0.195
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations11
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting, 2004.Same topicReal-time simulation and control systemsFrench-language works237,207