MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2926367482 · doi:10.1049/iet-gtd.2018.6751

Generation maintenance scheduling in virtual power plants

2019· article· en· W2926367482 on OpenAlexaff
Omid Sadeghian, Amin Mohammadpour Shotorbani, Behnam Mohammadi‐Ivatloo

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Generation Transmission & Distribution · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Grid Energy Management
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReliability engineeringElectric power systemScheduling (production processes)Computer scienceRenewable energyGridWind powerVirtual power plantDistributed generationEngineeringPower (physics)Electrical engineeringOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In an active network, as a virtual power plant (VPP), periodic maintenance of distributed generators (DGs) is critically vital for the reliable operation of the power system. To prevent unexpected failure of DGs and avoid deterioration of the grid's reliability, coordination of maintenance scheduling is indispensable. In this study, maintenance management of a VPP is proposed for scheduling the planned outage of DGs, in order to preserve their useful lifespan. In addition to conventional DGs and the upstream power grid, renewable generation including wind turbines and photovoltaic systems, energy storage systems, and curtailable loads are considered as components of the VPP. The proposed maintenance scheduling scheme provides different advantages in viewpoints of cost and reliability. Moreover, risk management is also investigated to lower the risk of maintenance scheduling due to the uncertainty in price in an energy market by adopting the conditional value at risk as a measure of risk. The overall cost is minimised considering the power loss in the grid as well as the security constraints such as DGs operational constraints, voltage magnitude, and transmission lines’ power flow limit. The effectiveness of the proposed scheme is illustrated using numerical studies with short‐ and long‐term scheduling.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations39
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIET Generation Transmission & DistributionSame topicSmart Grid Energy ManagementFrench-language works237,207