Reliability Assessment of Reconfigurable Split-Bus Substation Topology for Adding Power Transformers Without Increasing Fault Current
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thispaperinvestigates thereliability ofthereconfigurable split-bus substation topology forthepurpose ofadding newtransformers withoutincreasing thefault current level. A planning analysis (deterministic method) anda reliability analysis (probabilistic method) were usedtothisend.Theplanning analysis allows ustodetermine the firmandextremeloading capability (FLCandELC)ofthistopology,aswellasobserve itssensitivity toloadgrowth overtime.The reliability analysis further enriches theseresults byquantifying the riskassociated withoperation withapeakloadinthevicinity ofthe FLC ortheELC.An original loadnormalization methodisalsoproposed, whichallows theplanner todealconveniently withtemperaturedependent transformer loading factors byincluding theminthedaily peakloadcurve.Therisks ofoperating asubstation aboveitsFLC are alsoevaluated through areal casebased onanexisting Hydro-Quebec substation. Themainconclusions aboutthereconfigurable split-bus topology are(whencompared toparallel transformer topology atsame loading level): 1)substation reliability isreduced duetotheuneven loading oftransformers andthepresence ofadditional switchgear, and 2)reliability isverysensitive toloadgrowth deviation fromitsoptimalloading point, whichmightresult inspending additional money toproperly balance thesubstation loadamongbuses.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".