MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7044033859

Voltage flicker assessment in distribution feeders with large wind farms

2013· dissertation· en· W7044033859 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2013
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWind Turbine Control Systems
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersHydro-Québec
KeywordsFlickerWind powerTurbinePower qualityRule of thumbVoltageInduction generatorDoubly fed electric machineWind generator
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, Doubly Fed Induction Generator (DFIG) wind turbines connected to rural distribution feeders represents an emerging trend that has experienced growth.Higher penetration levels of embedded wind generation has interesting benefits (i.e.peak-shaving, congestion alleviation, reduction of losses, etc.) but raises important issues concerning the quality of power delivered to utility consumers.This thesis investigates the technical limitations involved with integrating large DFIG based wind farms into existing distribution feeders with regard to voltage flicker.This dissertation includes an overview of firstly, the applicable Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) standards related to the measurement and assessment of flicker emissions produced by distribution-connected wind farms.Secondly, aerodynamic, turbine and feeder characteristics which influence voltage flicker.Thirdly, the level of modeling required to conduct a pre-connection flicker study.Based on these three aspects, flicker emissions produced by a DFIG are quantified and a rule of thumb and a set of guidelines are presented for the acceptance of a 10 MW to 14 MW distributed wind farm, compliant to the allocated flicker emission quota.If the rule of thumb does indeed reveal a problem, both passive and active flicker mitigation techniques are proposed such that EMC of the power system is preserved.First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor, Prof. Géza Joós, for his continuous guidance and support throughout my engineering master's degree.Through the many discussions we had, his insight, knowledge and perspective have helped me develop the engineering skills required to tackle any challenge.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.205 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicWind Turbine Control SystemsFrench-language works237,207