A Tale of Two Out-of-Phase Synchronizing Events at BC Hydro
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper tells the tale of two out-of-phase synchronizing (OOPS) events that occurred at BC Hydro. A generator was synchronized 180 degrees out-of-phase without staff awareness of the faulty synchronization. During testing, the staff suspected a poor synchronization, after which the transient event records were investigated. The investigation concluded that the reference voltage signal was inverted because of a wiring error in the auxiliary voltage transformer (VT) circuit, which provided a common input to the autosynchronizer, synchroscope, and synchronism-check relay. The 16 kV generator breaker that is normally used to sync-close the unit to the system was equipped with OOPS protection, but the protection was not enabled because the breaker was closed before the event. A 500 kV breaker was used for synchronization; however, it was not equipped with OOPS protection, because the protection was not expected to perform well with high bus current ratings. During the OOPS event, many elements picked up, but none tripped. For instance, the loss-of-field and current unbalance elements asserted. However, because of their long time delays, these elements did not trip. The out-of-step protection qualified this disturbance as an event that did not cause an unstable power swing. The protection performed as designed, but it did not indicate poor synchronization. This paper provides an analysis of the different generator protection elements and discusses considerations for dedicated OOPS alarming and protection. This paper also discusses the follow-up diagnostics that were performed and provides recommendations to prevent the occurrence of a future OOPS event.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".