MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014680910 · doi:10.3390/su12072813

Optimal Placement of TCSC for Congestion Management and Power Loss Reduction Using Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithm

2020· article· en· W3014680910 on OpenAlexaff
Thang Trung Nguyen, Fazel Mohammadi

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPower System Optimization and Stability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticle swarm optimizationMathematical optimizationReduction (mathematics)Genetic algorithmHeuristicElectric power systemConvergence (economics)Differential evolutionComputer scienceAlgorithmPower (physics)EngineeringControl theory (sociology)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electricity demand has been growing due to the increase in the world population and higher energy usage per capita as compared to the past. As a result, various methods have been proposed to increase the efficiency of power systems in terms of mitigating congestion and minimizing power losses. Power grids operating limitations result in congestion that specifies the final capacity of the system, which decreases the conventional power capabilities between coverage areas. Flexible AC Transmission Systems (FACTS) can help to decrease flows in heavily loaded lines and lead to lines loadability improvements and cost reduction. In this paper, total power loss reduction and line congestion improvement are assessed by determining the optimal locations and compensation rates of Thyristor-Controlled Series Compensator (TCSC) devices using the Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithm (MOGA). The results of applying the proposed method on the IEEE 30-bus test system confirmed the efficiency of the proposed procedure. In addition, to check the performance, applicability, and effectiveness of the proposed method, different heuristic algorithms, such as the multi-objective Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) algorithm, Differential Evolution (DE) algorithm, and Mixed-Integer Non-Linear Program (MINLP) technique, are used for comparison. The obtained results show the accuracy and fast convergence of the proposed method over the other heuristic techniques.

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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations70
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicPower System Optimization and StabilityFrench-language works237,207