Enhanced Reactive Power Sharing and Voltage Restoration Based on Adaptive Virtual Impedance and Consensus Algorithm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, power-sharing management control on an AC islanded microgrid is investigated to achieve accurate reactive power sharing. The droop control method is primarily used to manage the active and reactive power sharing among the DGs in the microgrid. However, the line impedance mismatch causes unbalanced reactive power sharing. As a solution a consensus-based adaptive virtual impedance controller is proposed, where the consensus algorithm is used to set the reactive power mismatch; then a virtual impedance correction term is generated through a proportional-integral controller to eliminate the line impedance mismatch. Thus, reactive power sharing is achieved without knowledge of the line impedances or using a central controller. Moreover, the consensus algorithm is used to restore the AC bus voltage to the nominal value by estimating the DGs average voltage using neighbor communication to compensate for the decreased magnitude of the voltage reference. Matlab/Simulink is used to validate the accuracy of reactive power sharing and voltage restauration achievement of the proposed solution through simulation of different scenarios. In addition, a dSPACE DS1104 is used within a developed experimental testbench based on two parallel DGs to validate the effectiveness of the proposed solution in the real world.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".