A Survey on FOPID Controllers for LFO Damping in Power Systems Using Synchronous Generators, FACTS Devices and Inverter-Based Power Plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent decades, various types of control techniques have been proposed for use in power systems. Among them, the use of a proportional–integral–derivative (PID) controller is widely recognized as an effective technique. The generalized type of this controller is the fractional-order PID (FOPID) controller. This type of controller provides a wider range of stability area due to the fractional orders of integrals and derivatives. These types of controllers have been significantly considered as a new approach in power engineering that can enhance the operation and stability of power systems. This paper represents a comprehensive overview of the FOPID controller and its applications in modern power systems for enhancing low-frequency oscillation (LFO) damping. In addition, the performance of this type of controller has been evaluated in a benchmark test system. It can be a driver for the development of FOPID controller applications in modern power systems. Investigation of different pieces of research shows that FOPID controllers, as robust controllers, can play an efficient role in modern power systems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".