MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4232525148 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14644656

Application of Newton-Raphson method in three-phase unbalanced power flow

2021· preprint· en· W4232525148 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Khadem Sameni

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptimal Power Flow Distribution
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJacobian matrix and determinantNewton's methodElectric power systemConvergence (economics)Computer scienceIterative methodApplied mathematicsPower (physics)MathematicsMathematical optimizationAlgorithmNonlinear system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Renewable energy sources are in the forefront of new energy in power systems. They are predominantly connected to distribution systems at lower voltage levels. Distribution systems have three phases and are largely unbalanced in their line parameters and loads. A large percentage of these systems suffer from severe imbalance in their phases. In the past, two methods of analysis were commonly used. The first is the 'ladder iterative technique' that consider unbalanced systems. However, this method does not possess information about the distribution system. The second method uses the 'Newton Raphson Technique' with 2N equations. It is superior since it computes a Jacobian that holds information about the distribution system. However, predominant implementations of Newton Raphson method assume that the system is balanced and they suffer from poor convergence properties. In order to overcome these difficulties, this research furthers a recent development of single phase 3N equation model of distribution systems by enlarging it to model three phase distribution systems. The Jacobian models each of the three phases using a set of 3N equations. Modeling of network components and formulation of three phase power flow equations are presented. The important characteristics of the Jacobin matrix are also presented. The method is developed and coded. It is tested on standard IEEE distribution systems with 4, 13,34,37, and 123 nodes. The results are compared with published IEEE data.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.280 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOptimal Power Flow DistributionFrench-language works237,207