Coordinated active and reactive power management for enhancing PV hosting capacity in distribution networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper proposes an operational planning model based on optimal active and reactive power control strategies to enhance solar photovoltaics (PV)’ hosting capacity in distribution networks. Reactive power control is carried out through optimum static VAr compensators (SVCs) placement, while active power control is performed through flexible loads, particularly shiftable and interruptible loads. The first stage of the proposed two‐stage stochastic model assigns decision‐making regarding calculating PV hosting capacity at different nodes, in addition to the allocation and capacity of SVCs. In the second stage, the first stage decisions are assessed to ensure the power flow constraints under various uncertainties such as daily load and stochastic PV generation. The presented model is investigated through numerical analyses on modified IEEE 15‐bus and IEEE 33‐bus distribution systems considering different active‐reactive strategy cases. While most previous works only rely on one type of active or reactive power control strategy, this study investigates the challenges of the respective application of active and reactive power control in various modes of fundamental practices. The obtained results prove the superiority of the proposed hybrid active‐reactive control strategy for enhancing PV hosting capacity compared to respective active or reactive power controls.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".