Source author record

Florian Schaefer

Florian Schaefer appears in the imported research catalog. Authorship, coauthor and topic links are available while profile ownership is still unclaimed.

ResearcherUnclaimed source record

Catalog footprint

What is connected

1works
2topics
2close collaborators

Actions

Connect this record

Log in to claim

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent papers, topics, institutions and collaborators without losing the researcher page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

1 published item(s)

preprint2020arXiv

Evaluating Machine Learning Models for the Fast Identification of Contingency Cases

Fast approximations of power flow results are beneficial in power system planning and live operation. In planning, millions of power flow calculations are necessary if multiple years, different control strategies or contingency policies are to be considered. In live operation, grid operators must assess if grid states comply with contingency requirements in a short time. In this paper, we compare regression and classification methods to either predict multi-variable results, e.g. bus voltage magnitudes and line loadings, or binary classifications of time steps to identify critical loading situations. We test the methods on three realistic power systems based on time series in 15 min and 5 min resolution of one year. We compare different machine learning models, such as multilayer perceptrons (MLPs), decision trees, k-nearest neighbours, gradient boosting, and evaluate the required training time and prediction times as well as the prediction errors. We additionally determine the amount of training data needed for each method and show results, including the approximation of untrained curtailment of generation. Regarding the compared methods, we identified the MLPs as most suitable for the task. The MLP-based models can predict critical situations with an accuracy of 97-98 % and a very low number of false negative predictions of 0.0-0.64 %.