MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2787116879 · doi:10.1109/epec.2017.8286193

Modal identification of power system oscillation using parametric DFT technique

2017· article· en· W2787116879 on OpenAlexaff
Sakthivel Rajmurugan, B. Jeyasurya

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower System Optimization and Stability
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiscrete Fourier transform (general)Parametric statisticsOscillation (cell signaling)SIGNAL (programming language)Control theory (sociology)Fourier transformAmplitudeElectric power systemNoise (video)Parametric modelWhite noiseDamping ratioSystem identificationSignal processingModalPower (physics)AcousticsMathematicsComputer scienceEngineeringFourier analysisPhysicsElectronic engineeringMathematical analysisOpticsShort-time Fourier transformVibrationTelecommunicationsDigital signal processingMaterials scienceData modelingArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fourier based technique of system identification by mode decomposition has always been non-parametric which might not be accurate for power system applications. In this paper, a parametric Discrete Fourier transform (DFT) technique is used to identify both inter-area modes and local area modes of a power system oscillation. The natural frequency and damping ratio (the poles) are obtained from fitting a curve around the dominant peaks in the DFT of the measured signal. Using the estimated poles, the amplitude and phase are obtained by fitting with the measured signal like any other parametric method. In this paper, the parametric DFT is applied for a synthetic signal with closely spaced inter-area modes with poor-damping which is validated in the presence of two levels of white Gaussian noise. The WECC 9 bus system is considered as a case study and the parametric DFT technique is compared and contrasted with the traditional Prony analysis technique.

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 score0.837
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

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 head0.253
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPower System Optimization and StabilityFrench-language works237,207