Preventive control approach for voltage stability improvement using voltage stability constrained optimal power flow based on static line voltage stability indices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Voltage stability improvement is a challenging issue in planning and security assessment of power systems. As modern systems are being operated under heavily stressed conditions with reduced stability margins, incorporation of voltage stability criteria in the operation of power systems began receiving great attention. This study presents a novel voltage stability constrained optimal power flow (VSC‐OPF) approach based on static line voltage stability indices to simultaneously improve voltage stability and minimise power system losses under stressed and contingency conditions. The proposed methodology uses a voltage collapse proximity indicator (VCPI) to provide important information about the proximity of the system to voltage instability. The VCPI index is incorporated into the optimal power flow (OPF) formulation in two ways; first it can be added as a new voltage stability constraint in the OPF constraints, or used as a voltage stability objective function. The proposed approach has been evaluated on the standard IEEE 30‐bus and 57‐bus test systems under different cases and compared with two well proved VSC‐OPF approaches based on the bus voltage indicator L‐ index and the minimum singular value. The simulation results are promising and demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed VSC‐OPF based on the line voltage stability index.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".