Optimal Operation of Distribution Feeders in Smart Grids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a generic and comprehensive distribution optimal power flow (DOPF) model that can be used by local distribution companies (LDCs) to integrate their distribution system feeders into a Smart Grid. The proposed three-phase DOPF framework incorporates detailed modeling of distribution system components and considers various operating objectives. Phase specific and voltage dependent modeling of customer loads in the three-phase DOPF model allows LDC operators to determine realistic operating strategies that can improve the overall feeder efficiency. The proposed distribution system operation objective is based on the minimization of the energy drawn from the substation while seeking to minimize the number of switching operations of load tap changers and capacitors. A novel method for solving the three-phase DOPF model by transforming the mixed-integer nonlinear programming problem to a nonlinear programming problem is proposed which reduces the computational burden and facilitates its practical implementation and application. Two practical case studies, including a real distribution feeder test case, are presented to demonstrate the features of the proposed methodology. The results illustrate the benefits of the proposed DOPF in terms of reducing energy losses while limiting the number of switching operations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".