MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393253108 · doi:10.1109/tpwrd.2024.3382814

Power Swing in Systems With Inverter-Based Resources—Part I: Dynamic Model Development

2024· article· en· W4393253108 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamad‐Amin Nasr, Ali Hooshyar

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Power Delivery · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrogrid Control and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSwingElectric power systemInverterDevelopment (topology)Computer sciencePower (physics)EngineeringElectrical engineeringControl engineeringElectronic engineeringVoltagePhysicsMathematicsMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While power swing is a well-understood phenomenon in conventional power systems, the power swing characteristics of systems with inverter-based resources (IBRs) remain significantly under-theorized. This paper demonstrates that this knowledge gap carries practical ramifications, including the potential to undermine the stability and reliable protection of future grids, where swing dynamics can be heavily influenced by IBRs. The paper investigates power swing in systems with IBRs in two parts. Part I of the paper develops the necessary relations to devise a novel state-space model for systems with IBRs. This analytical model is necessary to (i) quantitatively identify the distinct characteristics of power swings in IBR-rich grids, and (ii) theoretically prove that these characteristics can be generalized. The paper highlights fundamental differences between this new model and the well-established model for power swings in systems that consist solely of synchronous machines (SMs). To reveal the features of power swing in systems with mixed generation types, the paper also systematically incorporates the dynamic equations of SMs into the developed model. The accuracy of the proposed model is evaluated against PSCAD/EMTDC simulation results for a benchmark test system that includes multiple IBR plants and their detailed control systems. Part II of the paper will build upon the findings from Part I to investigate the implications of the specific features of IBRs' power swing from the perspective of power system protection.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.174
Teacher spread0.168 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Power DeliverySame topicMicrogrid Control and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207