MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162230409 · doi:10.1109/tpwrs.2013.2296696

Introducing Dynamic Demand Response in the LFC Model

2014· article· en· W2162230409 on OpenAlexfundno aff
S. Ali Pourmousavi, M.H. Nehrir

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Power Systems · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFrequency Control in Power Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of TorontoMontana State University
KeywordsDemand responseElectric power systemDynamic demandAutomatic frequency controlControl theory (sociology)Controller (irrigation)Computer scienceControl engineeringStability (learning theory)Power demandControl (management)Power (physics)GridLoad regulationAutomatic Generation ControlPower controlEngineeringTelecommunicationsElectricityVoltageElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Demand response (DR) has proved to be an inevitable part of the future grid. Much research works have been reported in the literature on the benefits and implementation of DR. However, little works have been reported on the impacts of DR on dynamic performance of power systems, specifically on the load frequency control (LFC) problem. This paper makes an attempt to fill this gap by introducing a DR control loop in the traditional LFC model (called LFC-DR) for a single-area power system. The model has the feature of optimal operation through optimal power sharing between DR and supplementary control. The effect of DR communication delay in the controller design is also considered. It is shown that the addition of the DR control loop increases the stability margin of the system and DR effectively improves the system dynamic performance. Simulation studies are carried out for single-area power systems to verify the effectiveness of the proposed method.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.203 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations177
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Power SystemsSame topicFrequency Control in Power SystemsFrench-language works237,207