MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2555339733 · doi:10.1109/tii.2016.2632760

On the Use of Energy Storage Systems and Linear Feedback Optimal Control for Transient Stability

2016· article· en· W2555339733 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

VenueIEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower System Optimization and Stability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsControl theory (sociology)Transient (computer programming)Computer scienceController (irrigation)Electric power systemEnergy storageControl systemControl engineeringEngineeringPower (physics)Control (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we study a distributed control strategy that harnesses the highly granular data available in future power systems in order to improve system resilience to disturbances. Specifically, we investigate the role of external energy storage systems (ESSs) in stabilizing the dynamics of power systems during periods of disruption. We consider an information-rich multiagent framework and focus on ESS output control via linear feedback optimal (LFO) control to achieve transient stability. The LFO control scheme relies on receiving timely state information to actuate distributed ESSs in order to drive the synchronous generators to stability. We evaluate the performance of the LFO control on the 39-bus 10-generator New England test power system in the presence of ideal and nonideal conditions including communication latency, finite sampling rate, and sensor noise. The LFO controller is found to have a simple structure, be tunable, and to have fast response to achieving transient stability while being sensitive to information latency and data rate.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.921
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.158 · 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