MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2749894116 · doi:10.1109/tie.2017.2740822

Hybrid AC/DC System Harmonics Control Through Grid Interfacing Converters With Low Switching Frequency

2017· article· en· W2749894116 on OpenAlexafffund
Hao Tian, Yunwei Li, Peng Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrogrid Control and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInterfacingHarmonicsConvertersHarmonicElectronic engineeringVoltage sourceComputer scienceControl theory (sociology)GridEngineeringVoltageElectrical engineeringControl (management)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The nonlinear loads in distribution grid may generate harmful low-order harmonics, polluting the grid and deteriorating the voltage quality particularly when the grid is weak. The grid interfacing converters in the distribution system, such as the distributed generation (DG) interfacing converters or hybrid ac/dc grid interlinking converters, can participate in distribution grid harmonic control. In this paper, two virtual-impedance-based harmonics control methods are developed for grid interfacing voltage-source inverters (VSIs) to improve the power quality of the distribution grid. As the control parameters are designed based on the virtual impedance theory, clear physical meanings are given to explain their impacts on the system. Also, the proposed methods do not rely on the closed loop feedback control and, therefore, are very suitable for VSIs with low switching frequency (such as those for high-power DGs or interlinking converters for hybrid ac/dc systems), whose closed-loop control feedback bandwidth may be limited for harmonic regulation. The influence of system delay and feedback control loop is considered and modeled in the design procedure; thus more accurate virtual impedance control is achieved for low-switching-frequency VSIs. Moreover, a comprehensive comparison of the two methods, including stability and harmonic compensation performance, are given. Their effectiveness is verified by experiment results.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations57
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Industrial ElectronicsSame topicMicrogrid Control and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207