Hybrid algorithm for rotor angle security assessment in power systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transient rotor angle stability assessment and oscillatory rotor angle stability assessment subsequent to a contingency are integral components of dynamic security assessment (DSA) in power systems. This study proposes a hybrid algorithm to determine whether the post‐fault power system is secure due to both transient rotor angle stability and oscillatory rotor angle stability subsequent to a set of known contingencies. The hybrid algorithm first uses a new security measure developed based on the concept of Lyapunov exponents (LEs) to determine the transient security of the post‐fault power system. Later, the transient secure power swing curves are analysed using an improved Prony algorithm which extracts the dominant oscillatory modes and estimates their damping ratios. The damping ratio is a security measure about the oscillatory security of the post‐fault power system subsequent to the contingency. The suitability of the proposed hybrid algorithm for DSA in power systems is illustrated using different contingencies of a 16‐generator 68‐bus test system and a 50‐generator 470‐bus test system. The accuracy of the stability conclusions and the acceptable computational burden indicate that the proposed hybrid algorithm is suitable for real‐time security assessment with respect to both transient rotor angle stability and oscillatory rotor angle stability under multiple contingencies of the power system.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".