MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Parallel High-Fidelity Electromagnetic Transient Simulation of Large-Scale Multi-Terminal DC Grids

2020· article· en· W3116561874 on OpenAlexaff
Ning Lin, Venkata Dinavahi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHVDC Systems and Fault Protection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTransient (computer programming)MultithreadingCUDAGridGraphics processing unitSpeedupMassively parallelGraphicsParallel computingCentral processing unitComputational scienceComputer hardwareThread (computing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary form only given. Electromagnetic transient (EMT) simulation of power electronics conducted on the CPU slows down as the system scales up. Thus, the massively parallelism of the graphics processing unit (GPU) is utilized to expedite the simulation of the multi-terminal DC (MTDC) grid, where detailed models of the semiconductor switches are adopted to provide comprehensive device-level information. As the large number of nodes leads to an inefficient solution of the DC grid, three levels of circuit partitioning are applied, i.e., the transmission line-based natural separation of converter stations, splitting of the apparatus inside the station, and the coupled voltage-current sources for fine-grained partitioning. Components of similar attributes are written as one CUDA C function and computed in massive parallelism by means of single-instruction multithreading. The GPU's potential as a new EMT simulation platform for the analysis of large-scale MTDC grids is demonstrated by a remarkable speedup of up to 270 times for the Greater CIGRÉ DC grid with time-steps of 50 ns and 1 μs for device-level and system-level simulation over the CPU implementation. Finally, the accuracy of GPU simulation is validated by the commercial tools SaberRD and PSCAD/EMTDC.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.469
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHVDC Systems and Fault ProtectionFrench-language works237,207