Performance Assessment of Frequency Selective Grounding for Grid-Connected Photovoltaic Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Photovoltaic (PV) panels and their grid-connection circuitries have to be grounded to comply with various standards and industrial codes. Objectives of grounding a PV system include limiting ground currents and potentials, supporting the operation of protective devices therein, and preventing the accumulation of static charges on PV panels. These objectives can be translated into design constraints for an impedance to connect a PV system to the ground. This paper presents the design and performance assessment of a frequency selective grounding (FSGR) for grid-connected PV systems. The proposed FSGR is composed of a parallel$R$,$L$, and$C$circuit, which provides a resistive path for dc currents and a low capacitive impedance path for harmonic currents. The FSGR is designed and experimentally tested for a 2 kW,$3\phi$, laboratory grid-connected PV system under fault and non-fault conditions. The performance of the proposed grounding is also compared with the solid grounding under similar conditions to further assess its capabilities. Experimental results show that the FSGR can reduce ground currents, limit ground potentials, and reduce the dc leakage currents. These observed features are complimented with minor effects on the operation of protective devices in a grid connected PV system.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".