MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953346762 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1706.03612

Engineering Inertial and Primary-frequency Response for Distributed Energy Resources

2017· preprint· en· W2953346762 on OpenAlexaff
Swaroop S. Guggilam, Changhong Zhao, Emiliano Dall’Anese, Yu Christine Chen, Sairaj V. Dhople

Bibliographic record

VenueArXiv.org · 2017
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrogrid Control and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVoltage droopControl theory (sociology)InertiaTransient (computer programming)Frequency domainInertial frame of referenceDistributed generationComputer scienceTransient responseAutomatic frequency controlTime domainControl engineeringSteady state (chemistry)EngineeringControl (management)VoltageRenewable energyVoltage regulatorPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a framework to engineer synthetic-inertia and droop-control parameters for distributed energy resources (DERs) so that the system frequency in a network composed of DERs and synchronous generators conforms to prescribed transient and steady-state performance specifications. Our approach is grounded in a second-order lumped-parameter model that captures the dynamics of synchronous generators and frequency-responsive DERs endowed with inertial and droop control. A key feature of this reduced-order model is that its parameters can be related to those of the originating higher-order dynamical model. This allows one to systematically design the DER inertial and droop-control coefficients leveraging classical frequency-domain response characteristics of second-order systems. Time-domain simulations validate the accuracy of the model-reduction method and demonstrate how DER controllers can be designed to meet steady-state-regulation and transient-performance specifications.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArXiv.orgSame topicMicrogrid Control and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207