MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2747787694 · doi:10.1109/compel.2017.8013405

Harmonic compensation in ac distribution systems using smart electronic loads with PFC converters

2017· article· en· W2747787694 on OpenAlexaff
Hua Chang, Yingwei Huang, Seyyedmilad Ebrahimi, Juri Jatskevich

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrogrid Control and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarmonicsConvertersPower factorCompensation (psychology)Smart gridHarmonicElectronic engineeringPower electronicsElectrical engineeringEngineeringElectric power systemHarmonic analysisComputer sciencePower (physics)Voltage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The number of electronic loads in ac distribution systems is rapidly increasing, and some of such nonlinear loads are injecting harmonics and reducing the power quality. At the same time, there are electronic loads that are equipped with high-bandwidth converters and power factor correction (PFC), which inject sinusoidal currents at line frequency back into the grid. Moreover, modern smart meters have the capability of measuring higher-order harmonics in addition to power. This paper proposes and investigates using the smart electronic loads with PFCs for compensation of harmonics in distributed power systems. Such smart loads may communicate with each other and the smart meter for monitoring and control of power quality in a building or community distribution systems and microgrids. Due to the topology and hardware constraints, the traditional PFCs cannot achieve ideal harmonic compensation. This paper analyzes the operation of PFC converter and proposes a new approach to broaden the range of harmonic compensation. Simulation and experimental results are presented based on a commercial PFC prototype to validate the proposed approach.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.336
Threshold uncertainty score0.365

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMicrogrid Control and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207