Impacts of grounding configurations on responses of ground protective relays for DFIG-based WECSs-Part II: High-impedance ground faults
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ground faults are one of the major disruptions of the safety, stability, and economic operation of doubly fed induction generator (DFIGs)-based wind energy conversion systems (WECSs). On one hand, the minimization of possible damages caused by ground faults can be achieved by the accurate and reliable detection and identification of these faults. On the other hand, the fast response to ground faults is highly influenced by the grounding configuration, especially in cases of high impedance ground faults. This paper investigates the influences of grounding configurations on the responses of ground protective devices used in DFIGs-based WECSs when experiencing high impedance ground faults. The open (no-grounding), high-resistance, low-resistance, and solid grounding configurations are investigated in this paper. The influences of the grounding configurations are observed through the ability of protective devices to detect, identify, and respond to high impedance ground faults occurring in DFIG-WECSs. Test results show that the responses of ground protective devices, used in DFIG-based WECSs, can be sensitive to the grounding configuration, as well as the fault impedance.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it