MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2548566047 · doi:10.1109/iecon.2008.4758284

Adaptive algorithm for fast maximum power point tracking in wind energy systems

2008· article· en· W2548566047 on OpenAlexaff
Joanne Hui, Alireza Bakhshai

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWind Energy Research and Development
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWind powerComputer scienceMaximum power principlePower (physics)Renewable energyRange (aeronautics)AlgorithmRotor (electric)ClimbMaximum power point trackingEnergy (signal processing)Wind speedElectric power systemEngineeringElectrical engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wind energy systems are being closely studied because of its benefits as an environmentally friendly and renewable source of energy. Because of its unpredictable nature, power management concepts are essential to extract as much power as possible from the wind when it becomes available. In this paper an algorithm has been developed to keep the system at its highest possible efficiency at all times. The proposed algorithm uses a modified version of hill climb search (HCS) and intelligent memory to implement its power management scheme. Because it does not require that the turbinepsilas characteristics be pre-programmed to obtain the optimal operating points for maximum power transfer, it can be applied to a wide range of wind turbines. The algorithm determines the turbinepsilas internal characteristics through operation. Once the algorithm obtains knowledge of the turbinepsilas characteristics, it can infer the optimum rotor speeds for wind speeds that have not occurred before. The main focus of this paper is the algorithm structure and its effectiveness under fluctuating atmospheric conditions. PSIM simulation studies have been done to confirm the effectiveness of the proposed algorithm.

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 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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.528

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations17
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWind Energy Research and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207