MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Performance of Phase Comparison Line Protection Under Inverter-Based Resources and Impact of the German Grid Code

2020· article· en· W3114185216 on OpenAlexaff
Aboutaleb Haddadi, Ilhan Koçar, Jean Mahseredjian, Ulas Karaagac, Evangelos Farantatos

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHVDC Systems and Fault Protection
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInverterLine (geometry)GridGrid codeFault (geology)Phase (matter)Computer sciencePower (physics)Generator (circuit theory)Short circuitThree-phaseReliability engineeringElectrical engineeringEngineeringAC powerVoltagePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper studies the impact of inverter-based resources (IBRs) on the performance of phase comparison (PC) pilot line protection. The PC protection compares the phase angle of currents entering the zone of protection to detect a fault within the zone. IBRs have different fault current phase angle characteristics compared to conventional synchronous generators (SGs). This may have a detrimental impact on the performance of customary phase comparison protection schemes designed based on the assumption of a SG dominated power system. This paper provides examples of PC misoperation due to full-size converter (FSC) wind turbine generator (WTG). The case studies include various PC schemes including negative-sequence and mixed excitation and shows their misoperation. In both cases, the cause of misoperation is a shift in the phase angle of zone currents causing the PC to mistakenly classify an internal fault as external. The paper further studies the effectiveness of the German grid code in resolving the misoperation issue.

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)0.003
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations16
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHVDC Systems and Fault ProtectionFrench-language works237,207