MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794971681 · doi:10.1109/tste.2018.2820696

Assessment and Enhancement Frameworks for System Reliability Performance Using Different PEV Charging Models

2018· article· en· W2794971681 on OpenAlexaff
Abdulaziz Almutairi, M.M.A. Salama

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Sustainable Energy · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Battery Technologies Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersMajmaah University
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)Reliability engineeringComputer scienceMonte Carlo methodElectric vehicleEngineeringPower (physics)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a comprehensive reliability framework for incorporating different plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) charging load models into the evaluation of generation adequacy. The proposed framework comprises special treatment and innovative models to achieve an accurate determination of the impact of PEV load models on reliability. First, a goodness-of-fit statistical model determines the probability distribution functions (PDFs) that best reflect the main characteristics of driver behavior. Second, robust and detailed stochastic methods are developed for modeling different charging scenarios (uncontrolled charging and charging based on time-of-use (TOU) pricing). These models are based on the use of a Monte Carlo simulation in conjunction with the fitted PDFs to generate and assess a large number of possible scenarios, while handling the uncertainties associated with driver behavior, penetration levels, charging levels, battery capacities, and customer response to TOU pricing. A novel reliability-based framework for the application of dynamic critical event call programs for use with PEV charging loads is also proposed. The effectiveness of the proposed framework with respect to improving system reliability is demonstrated using several case studies applied on the IEEE Reliability Test System.

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 score0.698
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations42
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Sustainable EnergySame topicAdvanced Battery Technologies ResearchFrench-language works237,207