MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415168994 · doi:10.1049/icp.2025.1775

Tackling PV-caused overvoltages - synthesis of Monte-Carlo simulation outputs and multi-criteria assessment of mitigation measures

2025· article· en· W4415168994 on OpenAlexaff
Quentin Antoine, Loïc Maudoux, Kristof Vliegen, H. Grandjean, Jonathan Rochet, Thomas Bertrand

Bibliographic record

VenueIET conference proceedings. · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicPhotovoltaic System Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsIron Ore Company (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOvervoltageInverterVoltageProcess (computing)Point (geometry)GridPower (physics)Low voltage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the rapid increase in residential PV capacity, it gets more and more difficult for a Low Voltage (LV) grid to absorb power at peak hours due to overvoltage issues causing concerns to DSOs and prosumers, who are temporarily unable to inject power into the grid. Multiple mitigation measures exist against PV-caused overvoltages in LV distribution grids, among which the following have been investigated via statistical analyses (Monte-Carlo simulations) in previous papers: larger neutral conductor sizing, PV inverter P-Q control, manual tap change of MV/LV transformer, manual household phase swapping, use of an On-Load Tap Changer (OLTC) of MV/LV transformer, use of a neutral point compensator, use of a line voltage regulator/stabilizer or use of centralized battery. A comparison of those options is proposed in this paper and insights are provided based on M-C simulation results, notably regarding the best implementation practices. The comparative analysis notably highlighted that some technologies can either be very effective or not at all depending on the feeder circumstances, such as the potential role of phase unbalance in the overvoltage issue. A simplified decision-making process for DSOs is also proposed to help in the selection of the most suitable solution on a case-by-case approach.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.583
Threshold uncertainty score0.843

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.294 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIET conference proceedings.Same topicPhotovoltaic System Optimization TechniquesFrench-language works237,207