MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2951890792 · doi:10.1049/iet-pel.2018.6287

Switch fault diagnosis for boost DC–DC converters in photovoltaic MPPT systems by using high‐gain observers

2019· article· en· W2951890792 on OpenAlexaff
Diego R. Espinoza-Trejo, Shamsodin Taheri, José Ángel Pecina-Sánchez

Bibliographic record

VenueIET Power Electronics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicPhotovoltaic System Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Outaouais
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotovoltaic systemMaximum power point trackingConvertersControl theory (sociology)Fault (geology)Computer scienceBoost converterResidualEngineeringVoltageInverterControl (management)AlgorithmElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Open‐ and short‐circuit faults (OSCFs) in boost dc–dc converters for photovoltaic (PV) maximum power point trackers (MPPTs) imply an inefficiency after fault is triggered, which affect the security and profitability of PV projects. Hence, fault detection and isolation (FDI) techniques have become an important issue for PV technology. In this study, a model‐based FDI technique is proposed to boost dc–dc converters in PV MPPT systems. As is well‐known, major issues of model‐based FDI techniques have always been parametric uncertainty and no‐modelled dynamics. This study focuses on how to mitigate these shortcomings by applying a high‐gain observer (HGO) as a residual generator. A striking feature of HGO's is that exponential stability is still guaranteed for bounded disturbances (or faults). As demonstrated in this study, under an integral control action in the closed‐loop control system, OSCFs are characterised for ever‐growing signals, enabling the suggested FDI scheme. Also, the FDI proposal is decoupled from PV current (irradiance changes) and load variations, thereby avoiding false alarms. Moreover, the output‐injection gain and thresholds are selected such that the fault diagnosis is achieved in eight switching cycles, enabling a fast and reliable diagnosis. Experimental results are illustrated to validate the FDI scheme proposed in this study.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations17
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIET Power ElectronicsSame topicPhotovoltaic System Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207