2020 International Conference on Emerging Trends in Smart Technologies (ICETST) 2020
DOI: 10.1109/icetst49965.2020.9080722
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Pattern Analysis for Classification of Power Quality Disturbances

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In this sense, Table 2 summarizes the results obtained by the previous literature and also shows the conditions evaluated, as well as the used classification technique. Results reported in [19,20] present general values with high accuracy (99.7%); however, a classification percentage around 79% has been reported when the sag disturbance appears. This situation may be explained by the fact that the behavior of a signal with a sag is very similar to one that presents a healthy signal.…”
Section: Comparative Analysismentioning
confidence: 85%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…In this sense, Table 2 summarizes the results obtained by the previous literature and also shows the conditions evaluated, as well as the used classification technique. Results reported in [19,20] present general values with high accuracy (99.7%); however, a classification percentage around 79% has been reported when the sag disturbance appears. This situation may be explained by the fact that the behavior of a signal with a sag is very similar to one that presents a healthy signal.…”
Section: Comparative Analysismentioning
confidence: 85%
“…This situation may be explained by the fact that the behavior of a signal with a sag is very similar to one that presents a healthy signal. Another important aspect is that the signals analyzed in [19,20] are free of noise, which is an important issue that significantly affects the performance of classification when real signals are under evaluation. For the remaining works, such as in [22][23][24], the overall percentages show variations within the range of 80% to 96.67%, which are lower than the accuracy reached by the proposed approach.…”
Section: Comparative Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation