MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2614623712 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.1130672

Optimization Of Doubly Fed Induction Generator Equivalent Circuit Parameters By Direct Search Method

2017· article· en· W2614623712 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mamidi Ramakrishna Rao

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWind Turbine Control Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAC powerInduction generatorControl theory (sociology)Rotor (electric)StatorWind powerFault (geology)Power (physics)VoltageComputer scienceEquivalent circuitAutomotive engineeringEngineeringElectrical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Doubly-fed induction generator (DFIG) is currently the choice for many wind turbines. These generators, when connected to the grid through a converter, is subjected to varied power system conditions like voltage variation, frequency variation, short circuit fault conditions, etc. Further, many countries like Canada, Germany, UK, Scotland, etc. have distinct grid codes relating to wind turbines. Accordingly, following the network faults, wind turbines have to supply a definite reactive current. To satisfy the requirements including reactive current capability, an optimum electrical design becomes a mandate for DFIG to function. This paper intends to optimize the equivalent circuit parameters of an electrical design for satisfactory DFIG performance. Direct search method has been used for optimization of the parameters. The variables selected include electromagnetic core dimensions (diameters and stack length), slot dimensions, radial air gap between stator and rotor and winding copper cross section area. Optimization for 2 MW DFIG has been executed separately for three objective functions - maximum reactive power capability (Case I), maximum efficiency (Case II) and minimum weight (Case III). In the optimization analysis program, voltage variations (10%), power factor- leading and lagging (0.95), speeds for corresponding to slips (-0.3 to +0.3) have been considered. The optimum designs obtained for objective functions were compared. It can be concluded that direct search method of optimization helps in determining an optimum electrical design for each objective function like efficiency or reactive power capability or weight minimization.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.811
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.206 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicWind Turbine Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207