Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,052

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

DC Power Flow Revisited

Stott, B., Jardim, J., Alsac, O.·2009·IEEE Transactions on Power Systems

Abstract

Linear MW-only ldquodcrdquo network power flow models are in widespread and even increasing use, particularly in congestion-constrained market applications. Many versions of these approximate models are possible. When their MW flows are reasonably correct (and this is by no means assured), they can often offer compelling advantages. Given their considerable importance in today's electric power industry, dc models merit closer scrutiny. This paper attempts such a re-examination.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tpwrs.2009.2021235

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 1,052

Metadata

Authors
Stott, B., Jardim, J., & Alsac, O.
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Power Systems
Published
2009-08
Volume
24
Issue
3
Pages
1290-1300
ISSN
  • 0885-8950 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-0679
OpenAlex
W2168283238
Cited by
1,052
References
6
FWCI
14.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: DC Power Flow Revisited. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/tpwrs.2009.2021235
The paper
Stott, B., Jardim, J., & Alsac, O. (2009). DC Power Flow Revisited. IEEE Transactions on Power Systems. https://doi.org/10.1109/tpwrs.2009.2021235

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.