2018
DOI: 10.1080/15325008.2018.1460884
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Fault Diagnosis and Location Method for Active Distribution Network Based on Artificial Neural Network

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
(35 reference statements)
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Table 1 clearly shows that the proposed method decreases 1.779% location error comparing with the location method in [32]. Furthermore, the model-based method has advantage of the operating speed and reduces respond time 63.583 s comparing with the iterative algorithm and the neural network with training process [32][33][34]. The main reason is that in the location stage, the Fibonacci search algorithm optimizes the iteration and reduces uncertainty range by x m and x m ′.…”
Section: Comparative Assessment For Location Accuracy and Respond Timementioning
confidence: 93%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Table 1 clearly shows that the proposed method decreases 1.779% location error comparing with the location method in [32]. Furthermore, the model-based method has advantage of the operating speed and reduces respond time 63.583 s comparing with the iterative algorithm and the neural network with training process [32][33][34]. The main reason is that in the location stage, the Fibonacci search algorithm optimizes the iteration and reduces uncertainty range by x m and x m ′.…”
Section: Comparative Assessment For Location Accuracy and Respond Timementioning
confidence: 93%
“…Jiang [32] RBF [33] WNN [34] Location error (%) R f = 0.01 Ω 0.023 Table 3 Fault location result of different PMU installation scheme. phasors and synchronized current phasors at each DG.…”
Section: The Proposed Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…THD comparative analysis of inrush current for all techniques are shown in Figure 12-Figure 15 for frequency of 30Hz & 80Hz. The comparative THD analysis of inrush current for all three techniques and existing methods (Tong et al, 2018;Wang et al, 2019;Zhang et al, 2013) are shown in Table 6, while graphical THD comparison for the three proposed methods is shown in Figure 16. From Table 6, it is observed that THD is found to be less with the proposed three methods in comparison with existing methods.…”
Section: Fault Diagnostic Under Flcmentioning
confidence: 99%