MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224304750 · doi:10.3390/electronics11081290

Optimal Pitch Angle Controller for DFIG-Based Wind Turbine System Using Computational Optimization Techniques

2022· article· en· W4224304750 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Arsalan Khurshid, Muhammad Ali Mughal, Achraf Othman, Tawfik Al-Hadhrami, Harish Kumar, Imtinan Khurshid, Arshad Ali, Jawad Ahmad

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWind Turbine Control Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKing Khalid UniversityTrent UniversityNottingham Trent UniversityCentre International de Recherche sur le Cancer
KeywordsControl theory (sociology)Particle swarm optimizationController (irrigation)PID controllerWind powerTurbinePitch angleGenetic algorithmMATLABComputer sciencePower (physics)EngineeringControl engineeringAlgorithmPhysicsControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the advent of high-speed and parallel computing, the applicability of computational optimization in engineering problems has increased, with greater validation than conventional methods. Pitch angle is an effective variable in extracting maximum wind power in a wind turbine system (WTS). The pitch angle controller contributes to improve the output power at different wind speeds. In this paper, the pitch angle controller with proportional (P) and proportional-integral (PI) controllers is used. The parameters of the controllers are tuned by computational optimization techniques for a doubly-fed induction generator (DFIG)-based WTS. The study is carried out on a 9 MW DFIG based WTS model in MATLAB/SIMULINK. Two computational optimization techniques: particle swarm optimization (PSO), a swarm intelligence algorithm, and a genetic algorithm (GA), an evolutionary algorithm, are applied. A multi-objective, multi-dimensional error function is defined and minimized by selecting an appropriate error criterion for each objective of the function which depicts the relative magnitude of each objective in the error function. The results of the output power flow and the dynamic response of the optimized P and PI controllers are compared with the conventional P and PI controller in three different cases. It is revealed that the PSO-based controllers performed better in comparison with both the conventional controllers and the GA-based controllers.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElectronicsSame topicWind Turbine Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207