MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Fast-frequency response from wind generators ‒ Empirical data from a Type 4 wind farm

2023· article· en· W4387006245 on OpenAlexafffund
Eldrich Rebello, Marianne Rodgers, David A. Stanford, Markus Fischer, Mouhcine Akki

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWind Turbine Control Systems
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Department of EnergyWind Energy Institute of CanadaNatural Resources Canada
FundersNatural Resources Canada
KeywordsWind powerFrequency responseRotor (electric)Induction generatorStatorFrequency gridConvertersComputer scienceInverterPower (physics)Control theory (sociology)Electrical engineeringEngineeringPhysicsVoltage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Grid stability is an important consideration as inverter-based generators replace synchronous generators. Primary frequency response is one part of grid stability and counters rapid grid frequency changes. Synchronous generators achieve this via electromechanical coupling between the machine stator and the mechanical inertia of the rotor. Advances in power converter technology enable inverter-based generators to contribute to stability in a similar ‒ although not identical manner and provide fast-frequency response that is a component of primary frequency response. An important benefit is that converters provide a tunable response ‒ something not possible with synchronous generators. Wind turbines with full converters are able to extract some rotational kinetic energy from their spinning rotors and deliver it to the grid as electrical energy. This work documents and analyses the ability of full-converter wind turbines to provide fast-frequency response. We use a 50.6 MW, transmission connected wind farm and inject an artificial frequency signal with a sudden frequency dip. The wind farm remains connected to the grid as the fast-frequency response is triggered and rotor kinetic energy is converted into electrical energy. We repeat this at different power levels, gather high-frequency data and measure parameters such as response rise time, peak power boost and injected energy. We find that the resulting response aligns well with expectations although prevailing wind speeds influence performance in some instances.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.421
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.004

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWind Turbine Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207