MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2277920473 · doi:10.1049/iet-gtd.2014.1228

Automatic droop control for a low voltage DC microgrid

2015· article· en· W2277920473 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Generation Transmission & Distribution · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrogrid Control and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVoltage droopMicrogridLow voltageControl theory (sociology)VoltageComputer scienceControl (management)Voltage regulatorElectrical engineeringEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A DC microgrid (DC‐MG) provides an effective mean to integrate various sources, energy storage units and loads at a common dc‐side. The droop‐based, in the context of a decentralised control, has been widely used for the control of the DC‐MG. However, the conventional droop control cannot achieve both accurate current sharing and desired voltage regulation. This study proposes a new adaptive control method for DC‐MG applications which satisfies both accurate current sharing and acceptable voltage regulation depending on the loading condition. At light load conditions where the output currents of the DG units are well below the maximum limits, the accuracy of the current sharing process is not an issue. As the load increases, the output currents of the DG units increase and under heavy load conditions accurate current sharing is necessary. The proposed control method increases the equivalent droop gains as the load level increases and achieves accurate current sharing. This study evaluates the performance and stability of the proposed method based on a linearised model and verifies the results by digital time‐domain simulation and hardware‐based experiments.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.871

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.200 · 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