Experimental Assessment of Ground Fault Protection in Frequency-Selective Grounded Systems Fed by a Single Transformer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents performance assessment of ground fault protection for systems supplied by a transformer, which has frequency-selective grounding. Frequency-selective grounding is a new grounding system that is designed to act as a solid-grounding for high frequency currents, and as a low resistance-grounding for low frequency currents. This grounding system is composed from a parallel$R-C$circuit with an equivalent impedance able to affect system zero-sequence currents and ground potentials. Such effects on zero-sequence currents and ground potentials can directly impact the accuracy and response speed of ground fault protection. Effects of frequency-selective grounding on ground fault protection are experimentally assessed for different fault and non-fault events, when the transformer supplies linear and non-liner loads. Experimental results demonstrate responses of various implementations of ground fault protection to fault and non-fault events, when the protected system has frequency selective grounding. Moreover, presented results and discussions aim to demonstrate the ability of frequency-selective grounding to support the operation of ground fault protection during different loading conditions and fault events.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".