Flexibility of controllable power transformers for managing wind uncertainty using robust adjustable linearised optimal power flow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As renewable energy sources (RESs) penetration increases in the power system, the transmission system operators face new challenges to ensure system reliability and flexibility while ensuring high utilisation of uncertain RES generation. Controllable transformers with on‐load tap changers and phase shifting capability are the promising flexibility tools to keep the system acceptable security and flexibility levels by controlling the voltage levels and energy flow. The AC optimal power flow (AC OPF) with detailed modelling considerations such as the bus voltage magnitude by including these devices is challenging. This study develops the AC OPF model to propose a robust flexibility optimisation framework for daily scheduling problem with uncertain wind energy sources. Nevertheless, the proposed formulation representation is an intractable mixed integer nonlinear programming (MINLP) while it includes AC grid constraints and the augmented modelling of the mentioned transformers. Accordingly, the proposed MINLP problem has been converted into a mixed‐integer linear program where a certain level of solution accuracy can be achieved for the available time budget. The effectiveness of the proposed method is demonstrated using a modified 6‐bus and IEEE 118‐bus test systems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".