MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297504229 · doi:10.3389/fenrg.2022.1030259

Multiple objective optimization based on particle swarm algorithm for MMC-MTDC system

2022· article· en· W4297504229 on OpenAlexaff
Wenyan Qian, Siyuan Cao, Yuanshi Zhang, Qinran Hu, Hengyu Li, Yang Li

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Energy Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHVDC Systems and Fault Protection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersJiangsu Provincial Key Research and Development ProgramGovernment of Jiangsu ProvinceNatural Science Foundation of Jiangsu ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsVoltage droopParticle swarm optimizationControl theory (sociology)Mathematical optimizationMulti-objective optimizationPower (physics)Computer scienceOptimization problemTOPSISElectric power systemModular designAlgorithmVoltageEngineeringMathematicsVoltage sourceControl (management)Electrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multi-terminal high voltage DC (MTDC) network is an effective technology to integrate large-scale offshore wind energy sources into conventional AC grids and improve the stability and flexibility of the power system. In this paper, firstly, an analytical model of a general applicable MTDC system integrated with several isolated AC grids is established. Then, an improved AC-DC power flow algorithm is used to eliminate the additional DC slack bus or droop bus iteration (SBI/DBI) step of the conventional AC-DC sequential power flow. A multi-objective optimal power flow (MOPF) algorithm is proposed to minimize two optimization targets, i.e., overall active power loss and generation costs of the system. To increase the degree of freedom, adaptive droop control is used in the proposed optimization algorithm in which the voltage references and droop coefficients of the modular multilevel converters (MMCs) are control variables. A multiple objective particle swarm optimization (MOPSO) method is applied to solve the MOPF problem and achieve the Pareto front. A technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) is incorporated in the decision analysis section and helps the decision maker to identify the best compromise solution.

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)0.001
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Energy ResearchSame topicHVDC Systems and Fault ProtectionFrench-language works237,207