MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406948175 · doi:10.1109/tpwrs.2025.3534437

Voltage Collapse Owing to Cascading Failures Under Geomagnetic Disturbances in Electromagnetic Transient Perspective

2025· article· en· W4406948175 on OpenAlexaff
Wen-Kai Xin, Chunming Liu, Afshin Rezaei‐Zare, Zezhong Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Power Systems · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectrical Fault Detection and Protection
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsTransient (computer programming)VoltageGroundElectric power systemTransient analysisEngineeringControl theory (sociology)Electrical engineeringPhysicsComputer sciencePower (physics)Transient responseControl (management)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Under severe geomagnetic disturbances (GMDs) caused by intense solar activity, transformers in the power grid will generate groups of massive reactive power losses and harmonic currents. At the same time, harmonic currents can readily cause the mal-operation of relay protection device for reactive power compensation, which puts the power grid in a state of insufficient reactive power, leading to local reactive power imbalances. This may cause cascading failures and even voltage collapse, resulting in a large-scale power blackout. This article analyzes the mechanism and triggering conditions of cascading failures, proposes the development process of voltage collapse caused by sensitive equipment in the power grid. Based on this, the electromagnetic transient simulation of a four-station eight-node and IEEE 118-GMD grid was used to simulate the voltage collapse owing to cascading failures under GMDs, verifying the correctness of the proposed theory. Further, the occurrence patterns of cascading failures in the power grid during geomagnetic storms were summarized based on the simulation result, and the triggering conditions and influencing factors leading to voltage collapse were identified. This provides guidance for accurately and quickly identifying risk nodes during geomagnetic storms invasion to permit timely disaster prevention measures to avoid voltage collapse under GMDs.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Power SystemsSame topicElectrical Fault Detection and ProtectionFrench-language works237,207