MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311052886 · doi:10.1049/tje2.12221

A review of modelling techniques of power transformers for digital real‐time simulation

2022· review· en· W4311052886 on OpenAlexaff
Md Maidul Islam, Matthias Musil, Md Jamal Ahmed Shohan, Omar Faruque, Georg Lauss, Ali Banitalebi Dehkordi, Paul Forsyth, Panos Kotsampopoulos, Kai Strunz, Zhihui Li, Yi Zhang, Peng Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Engineering · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicReal-time simulation and control systems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaRTDS Technologies (Canada)
FundersH2020 Research Infrastructures
KeywordsTransformerComputer scienceReal-time simulationReal Time Digital SimulatorElectric power systemSimulationPower (physics)Electrical engineeringEngineeringVoltage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This task‐force paper documents and summarizes the models of power transformers that have been proposed, used, and validated in the exercise of digital real‐time simulation. Power transformer is one of the most important equipment in power systems, and its modelling for electromagnetic transient simulation has evolved over time, especially in the area of real‐time simulation. The focus of the paper is to document and archive the models that have been well accepted and used for transient analysis in digital real‐time simulation so that readers can use it as a master document for transformer modelling in real‐time simulation studies. It includes both conventional and specialized models of power transformers that have been broadly acknowledged by the power engineering community. The models provided here come with detailed mathematical representation and their implementation techniques. A comparative study is also performed to illustrate the differences in their performances. In the end, an application guideline has been provided to guide the readers to select the appropriate model for their study.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of EngineeringSame topicReal-time simulation and control systemsFrench-language works237,207