MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405440156 · doi:10.1109/tec.2024.3519490

Robust Distributed Secondary Control for DC Microgrids Enhancing Stability and Communication Delay Tolerance

2024· article· en· W4405440156 on OpenAlexaff
Basil Hamad, Ahmed Al‐Durra, Hatem Zeineldin, Yasser Abdel‐Rady I. Mohamed

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrogrid Control and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsControl theory (sociology)Stability (learning theory)Control (management)Robustness (evolution)Computer scienceControl engineeringEngineeringChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate power sharing and global voltage recovery are common secondary control objectives in DC microgrids (DCMGs). Distributed control outperforms centralized as it allows for plug-and-play capability and operates effectively with low-bandwidth communication. However, it remains sensitive to communication delays, compromising DCMG stability. This paper proposes an enhanced DCMG control architecture, improving its endurance against delays. Secondary control modifies droop nominal voltage to achieve its objectives through a PI controller. The PI gains have direct influences on stability and delay toleration. However, scheduling PI gains to counteract the delay comes with sluggish convergence. The proposed control hierarchy introduces derivative controllers in its structure to increase its degree of freedom. By broadening the PI gains range, communication delays are effectively addressed, thus offering more ample tuning choices that accelerate convergence. The small-signal linearized model is derived and the direct frequency domain method is used to accurately obtain the delay margin characterizing DCMG stability. Due to the transcendental delay terms in the characteristic equation, the roots' damping cannot be obtained. Thus, Pade approximation is engaged in obtaining a manageable number of roots facilitating dominant roots assessment. The proposed control hierarchy has been verified through a Controller-in-the-Loop (CIL) setup via the OPAL-RT environment.

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Energy ConversionSame topicMicrogrid Control and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207