MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163548507 · doi:10.1109/tie.2011.2141098

A Flexible Harmonic Control Approach Through Voltage-Controlled DG–Grid Interfacing Converters

2011· article· en· W2163548507 on OpenAlexaff
Jinwei He, Yunwei Li, Md. Shirajum Munir

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrogrid Control and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterfacingConvertersMicrogridDistributed generationHarmonicElectronic engineeringPower electronicsVoltageComputer scienceCompensation (psychology)EngineeringControl theory (sociology)Electrical engineeringPhysicsControl (management)Renewable energy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increased penetration of nonlinear loads and power-electronics-based distributed generation (DG) systems may introduce power quality issues to the distribution power system. However, if controlled and regulated properly, the DG–grid interfacing converters are able to improve the distribution system efficiency and power quality. This paper focuses on the distribution system harmonic control through the DG–grid interfacing converters. Two alternative DG systems, namely, current-controlled DG and voltage-controlled DG, are considered. While most of the previous works on harmonic compensation are based on the current-controlled method, a novel harmonic control scheme using a voltage-controlled method is developed in this paper. The voltage-controlled method is more flexible and has similar compensation performance compared to the conventional current-controlled method. In addition, by avoiding the implementation of a harmonic current tracking loop, the proposed voltage-based method can be seamlessly incorporated into a voltage-controlled DG unit, which is important to provide direct voltage and frequency support in a microgrid. Moreover, the possible harmonic circulating current among multiple DG systems is also investigated in this paper. Simulations and experimental results from a three-phase 5-kVA laboratory DG prototype are provided to validate the discussion.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.168 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations420
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Industrial ElectronicsSame topicMicrogrid Control and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207