Optimal Capacitor Placement and Sizing in Unbalanced Distribution Systems With Harmonics Consideration Using Particle Swarm Optimization
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
Shunt capacitors installation in distribution systems requires optimal placement and sizing. More harmonics are being injected into distribution systems. Adding shunt capacitors may lead to high distortion levels. The capacitor placement and sizing problem is a nonlinear integer optimization problem, with locations and ratings of shunt capacitors being discrete values. The goal is to minimize the overall cost of the total real power loss and that of shunt capacitors while satisfying operating and power quality constraints. This paper proposes to solve the problem using particle swarm optimization (PSO). A discrete version of PSO is combined with a radial distribution power flow algorithm (RDPF) to form a hybrid PSO algorithm (HPSO). The former is employed as a global optimizer to find the global optimal solution, while the latter is used to calculate the objective function and to verify bus voltage limits. To include the presence of harmonics, the developed HPSO was integrated with a harmonic power flow algorithm (HPF). The proposed (HPSO-HPF)-based approach is tested on an IEEE 13-bus radial distribution system (13-Bus-RDS). The findings clearly demonstrate the necessity of including harmonics in optimal capacitor placement and sizing to avoid any possible problems associated with harmonics.
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