MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399071570 · doi:10.1049/icp.2024.1009

Modified empirical arc model for simulating HVdc open conductor faults

2024· article· en· W4399071570 on OpenAlexaff
MK Perera, Athula Rajapakse, A.M. Gole

Bibliographic record

VenueIET conference proceedings. · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrical Fault Detection and Protection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArc (geometry)ConductorElectrical conductorFault (geology)Arc flashElectric arcSkin effectTransient (computer programming)Arc-fault circuit interrupterMechanicsElectrical engineeringHigh-voltage direct currentVoltageShort circuitEngineeringComputer sciencePhysicsMaterials scienceMechanical engineeringDirect currentElectrodeGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One fault that has hitherto not widely been investigated is the open circuiting of an HVdc conductor, as its occurrence is relatively rare. Using electromagnetic transient (EMT) simulation, this paper addresses the void in HVdc fault analysis by giving useful insight into the impact of HVdc open conductor faults on current and voltage transients. In order to simulate the resulting series arc between falling HVdc conductors, the Schavemaker model, a well-known empirical model, is adapted by introducing the dynamics of varying arc length. The modified Schavemaker arc model is implemented in PSCAD/ EMTDC. This study analyzes the impact of each parameter of the Schavemaker arc model on the arc conductance variation during an open conductor fault. This study shows that the arc time constant is the most influential parameter on the arc conductance variation while the time-varying reference arc voltage and arc cooling power introduces the effect of variable arc lengths to the Schawmaker model.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIET conference proceedings.Same topicElectrical Fault Detection and ProtectionFrench-language works237,207