Shunt compensator voltage control #391

annetill · 2021-12-01T08:15:35Z

Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements (please use '[x]' to check the checkboxes, or submit the PR and then click the checkboxes)

The commit message follows our guidelines
Tests for the changes have been added (for bug fixes / features)
Docs have been added / updated (for bug fixes / features)

**Does this PR already have an issue describing the problem ? If so, link to this issue using '#XXX' and skip the rest

Yes, an issue: #107

**What kind of change does this PR introduce? (Bug fix, feature, docs update, ...)

For the moment, this PR is a first minimal feature that supports:

Voltage control for a single shunt connected to a bus: local and remote control ;
Voltage control for several shunts connected to a bus: local and remote control. But, the algorithm to dispatch B has to be improved (it is instead more an optimization that has to be implemented) ;
But we don't support shared remote control between several controller buses.
Then, in case of a bus controlled by generators or transformers and a shunt compensator, the shunt regulation is disabled. It is the first approach.

What is the current behavior? (You can also link to an open issue here)

What is the new behavior (if this is a feature change)?

Does this PR introduce a breaking change or deprecate an API? If yes, check the following:

The Breaking Change or Deprecated label has been added
The migration guide has been updated in the github wiki (What changes might users need to make in their application due to this PR?)

Other information:

(if any of the questions/checkboxes don't apply, please delete them entirely)

annetill · 2021-12-01T08:25:35Z

src/main/java/com/powsybl/openloadflow/ac/equations/AcEquationSystem.java

+            }
+        } else {
+            Optional<DiscreteVoltageControl> dvc = bus.getDiscreteVoltageControl();
+            if (dvc.isPresent() && dvc.get().getControllerBuses().contains(bus)) {


This part is the most hard to understand and probably the implementation is not the good one. In case of several shunts connected on the same bus, instead of creating several B variables, I have decided to create just one variable B that takes all we need to control voltage and to redispatch the amount of B on the physical shunts after the resolution.

You have to use only one b variable, but maybe you could improve your implementation by spreading the b into each shunt by just adding a scalar to the term.

Can you explain with more details what you have in mind ? In my implementation, I use only one b variable on a bus, but if I have several shunts, I have to find the best combination of the sections of the shunts that is close to the solved b. How can we do that through a scalar ?

So we cannot just have a proportional distribution of b across all shunts directly in the equation system?
I don't remember why we create as many LfShunt by bus as in the IIDM network. Maybe it would be simpler to have only one LfShunt by LfBus that would aggregate IIDM shunt compensator. In the case of non regulating shunt compensators that would only required in the updateState method to distribute the q proportionally to individual b and in your regulating shunt case that would be simpler to model.

The distribution could not be proportional to be optimal because each shunt have sections (in a different number too), that could be non linear too. So I have to fill the shunt one by one to find the optimal combinaison that is the closest to the continuous value. But for sure, it would be easier to have a single LfShunt by a bus, with one or two shunt equations: one for the constant B shunts and the other one for the regulating ones. But it is a huge change... and maybe the refactoring should be done before or after this PR.

geofjamg · 2021-12-25T15:03:09Z

src/main/java/com/powsybl/openloadflow/ac/equations/AcEquationSystem.java

+            }
+        } else {
+            Optional<DiscreteVoltageControl> dvc = bus.getDiscreteVoltageControl();
+            if (dvc.isPresent() && dvc.get().getControllerBuses().contains(bus)) {


You have to use only one b variable, but maybe you could improve your implementation by spreading the b into each shunt by just adding a scalar to the term.

geofjamg · 2021-12-25T15:07:13Z

src/main/java/com/powsybl/openloadflow/network/DiscreteVoltageControl.java

@@ -17,15 +17,18 @@
 public class DiscreteVoltageControl {

    public enum Mode {
-        VOLTAGE,
+        VOLTAGE_TRANSFORMER,
+        VOLTAGE_SHUNT,


What was the motivation to share the same object control with transformer one?
This look to me 2 different things.
The implementation looks now very confusing to me as we have 2 modes and 2 controller lists and that both have to be consistent.
What about renaming existing DiscreteVoltageControl to TransformerVoltageControl and adding a new ShuntCompensatorVoltageControl ?

Okay, no problem to do that.

@flo-dup I think that we can simplify the code now by removing the notion of "discrete" for phase controls.

geofjamg · 2021-12-25T15:11:55Z

src/main/java/com/powsybl/openloadflow/OpenLoadFlowProvider.java

@@ -162,6 +162,7 @@ public static AcLoadFlowParameters createAcParameters(Network network, MatrixFac
        LOGGER.info("Connected component mode: {}", parameters.getConnectedComponentMode());
        LOGGER.info("Voltage per reactive power control: {}", parametersExt.isVoltagePerReactivePowerControl());
        LOGGER.info("Reactive Power Remote control: {}", parametersExt.hasReactivePowerRemoteControl());
+        LOGGER.info("Shunt voltage control: {}", parameters.isSimulShunt());


A comment for the loadflow api: "simulShunt" is poorly named...
For a user point of view, what does "simulate shunts" means? It does not appear clearly that we are talking about shunt voltage control.

Yes, you are right. I have created an issue : powsybl/powsybl-core#1929

annetill · 2021-12-27T10:37:03Z

@geofjamg With your last merged PRs, it is my third huge rebase for that PR: I guess that it is my Christmas present!

geofjamg · 2021-12-27T10:40:58Z

@geofjamg With your last merged PRs, it is my third huge rebase for that PR: I guess that it is my Christmas present!

I will do it

annetill · 2021-12-27T10:43:15Z

@geofjamg With your last merged PRs, it is my third huge rebase for that PR: I guess that it is my Christmas present!

I will do it

No that is okay, indeed I have time to do it and it will be a good way to understand your recent changes.

src/main/java/com/powsybl/openloadflow/ac/ShuntVoltageControlOuterLoop.java

annetill · 2021-12-28T12:55:14Z

src/main/java/com/powsybl/openloadflow/ac/ShuntVoltageControlOuterLoop.java

+
+        for (LfBus controllerBus : vc.getControllers()) {
+            // round the rho shift to the closest tap
+            List<LfShunt> controllerShunts = controllerBus.getControllerShunts();


I am obliged to OFF the VC after this dispatching.

Signed-off-by: Anne Tilloy <anne.tilloy@rte-france.com>

annetill · 2022-01-04T12:56:32Z

src/main/java/com/powsybl/openloadflow/ac/equations/AcEquationSystem.java

+            ShuntCompensatorReactiveFlowEquationTerm q = new ShuntCompensatorReactiveFlowEquationTerm(shunt, controllerBus, variableSet, false);
+            terms.add(q);
+        });
+        controllerBus.getControllerShunt().ifPresent(shunt -> {


I am not totally sure of this term.

Signed-off-by: Anne Tilloy <anne.tilloy@rte-france.com>

Signed-off-by: Geoffroy Jamgotchian <geoffroy.jamgotchian@gmail.com>

geofjamg

Maybe there is room for simplying the LfShuntImplcode
I suspect the shared remote control is not working. Like for any other shared control you need to add extra equation for b distribution => as there is no real use case and as it will complexity the code, I would not support it now but throws an exception instead and only support local and non shared remote control.
My main concern is that there is exactly the same functional issue as for transformer voltage control. There is no management of min/max susceptance. Like for transformers at a given loop, if some shunt reach the min or max b, they should be switched to fixed value (min ou max value) and the other ones should continue to control voltage at next loop. Everything stop when no other shunt reach min or max or if all shunts have reached min or max b. Also control mode should not be managed at control object level but at each of the controller bus so that control mode status is the result of individual controller status. This will allow for a given control to have at some moment, part of the controllers controlling and other ones not (if at min/max). But maybe we should let it like this and fix both transformer and shunt voltage control afterward in another PR.

geofjamg · 2022-01-04T21:28:30Z

...ain/java/com/powsybl/openloadflow/ac/equations/ShuntCompensatorReactiveFlowEquationTerm.java

@@ -56,12 +59,20 @@ private double v() {
        return stateVector.get(vVar.getRow());
    }

+    private double b() {
+        return bVar != null ? stateVector.get(bVar.getRow()) : shunt.getB(); // FIXME


Is the FIXME still relevant?

No, I am going to remove it, thanks!

geofjamg · 2022-01-04T21:40:17Z

src/main/java/com/powsybl/openloadflow/network/AbstractLfNetworkListener.java

@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@ public void onDiscretePhaseControlModeChange(DiscretePhaseControl phaseControl,
    }

    @Override
-    public void onDiscreteVoltageControlModeChange(DiscreteVoltageControl voltageControl, DiscreteVoltageControl.Mode oldMode, DiscreteVoltageControl.Mode newMode) {
+    public void onDiscreteVoltageControlModeChange(DiscreteVoltageControl voltageControl, DiscreteVoltageControl.Mode newMode) {


Is it on purpose that you removed the oldMode?

Just because it is not used in the code.

I would keep it as it can be useful later

geofjamg · 2022-01-04T22:05:49Z

src/main/java/com/powsybl/openloadflow/network/impl/LfShuntImpl.java

+
+    private double zb;
+
+    private static class ControllerLfShunt {


Not clear to me why you need to create this intermediate data model

geofjamg · 2022-01-04T22:06:40Z

src/main/java/com/powsybl/openloadflow/network/impl/LfShuntImpl.java

    public LfShuntImpl(List<ShuntCompensator> shuntCompensators, LfNetwork network) {
        super(network);
        if (shuntCompensators.isEmpty()) {
            throw new IllegalArgumentException("Empty shunt compensator list");
        }
-        this.shuntCompensators = Objects.requireNonNull(shuntCompensators);
+        for (ShuntCompensator sc : shuntCompensators) {


But looking at how you build ShuntImpl, there either only shunts controlling voltage or only shunts not controlling voltage?

Yes, so I think that you are right I can simply the LfShuntImpl knowing that.

annetill · 2022-01-05T07:08:01Z

Maybe there is room for simplying the LfShuntImplcode

I am going to try to have only one list of ShuntCompensator but it am not sure I can do better without loosing in readability.

I suspect the shared remote control is not working. Like for any other shared control you need to add extra equation for b distribution => as there is no real use case and as it will complexity the code, I would not support it now but throws an exception instead and only support local and non shared remote control.

No it is not supported, I have to commit my work: it is "easy" to support it as we do for transformers but it has to be refactor later.

My main concern is that there is exactly the same functional issue as for transformer voltage control. There is no management of min/max susceptance. Like for transformers at a given loop, if some shunt reach the min or max b, they should be switched to fixed value (min ou max value) and the other ones should continue to control voltage at next loop. Everything stop when no other shunt reach min or max or if all shunts have reached min or max b. Also control mode should not be managed at control object level but at each of the controller bus so that control mode status is the result of individual controller status. This will allow for a given control to have at some moment, part of the controllers controlling and other ones not (if at min/max). But maybe we should let it like this and fix both transformer and shunt voltage control afterward in another PR.

Yes, I know because you explain me that for transfromers. But I really prefer that we merge this PR first and deal with that later (just after this one). The rebases are really really time consuming for me. For the control mode, I understand that you want me to add a hasVoltageControl boolean in LfShunt and in a transformer, as we do for generators?

geofjamg · 2022-01-05T08:26:25Z

No it is not supported, I have to commit my work: it is "easy" to support it as we do for transformers but it has to be refactor later.

If you can, try to do it using just activation and not equation removal.

geofjamg · 2022-01-05T08:26:41Z

Yes, I know because you explain me that for transfromers. But I really prefer that we merge this PR first and deal with that later (just after this one). The rebases are really really time consuming for me. For the control mode, I understand that you want me to add a hasVoltageControl boolean in LfShunt and in a transformer, as we do for generators?

ok

Fix linear model support. Signed-off-by: Anne Tilloy <anne.tilloy@rte-france.com>

Signed-off-by: Anne Tilloy <anne.tilloy@rte-france.com>

Signed-off-by: Geoffroy Jamgotchian <geoffroy.jamgotchian@rte-france.com>

sonarqubecloud · 2022-01-05T13:53:09Z

Please retry analysis of this Pull-Request directly on SonarCloud.

annetill · 2022-01-05T14:00:04Z

:-)

annetill requested review from geofjamg and flo-dup and removed request for geofjamg December 1, 2021 08:15

annetill mentioned this pull request Dec 1, 2021

[WIP] Shunt compensator voltage control #191

Closed

5 tasks

annetill changed the title ~~Shunt voltage control~~ Shunt compensator voltage control Dec 1, 2021

annetill commented Dec 1, 2021

View reviewed changes

annetill requested a review from geofjamg December 16, 2021 11:03

geofjamg requested changes Dec 25, 2021

View reviewed changes

geofjamg requested changes Dec 27, 2021

View reviewed changes

src/main/java/com/powsybl/openloadflow/ac/ShuntVoltageControlOuterLoop.java Show resolved Hide resolved

annetill commented Dec 28, 2021

View reviewed changes

annetill added 2 commits January 4, 2022 09:42

LfShunt with voltage controllers.

098aa32

Signed-off-by: Anne Tilloy <anne.tilloy@rte-france.com>

Merge and refactor.

270cddf

Signed-off-by: Anne Tilloy <anne.tilloy@rte-france.com>

annetill force-pushed the shunt-voltage-control-2 branch from 7138367 to 270cddf Compare January 4, 2022 12:53

annetill commented Jan 4, 2022

View reviewed changes

annetill and others added 7 commits January 4, 2022 14:15

fix bugs.

8252a49

Signed-off-by: Anne Tilloy <anne.tilloy@rte-france.com>

Add a test.

c2d216a

Signed-off-by: Anne Tilloy <anne.tilloy@rte-france.com>

Avoid exposing abstract class

78c6ee5

Signed-off-by: Geoffroy Jamgotchian <geoffroy.jamgotchian@gmail.com>

Cleanup

d216c65

Signed-off-by: Geoffroy Jamgotchian <geoffroy.jamgotchian@gmail.com>

Cleanup

fdee442

Signed-off-by: Geoffroy Jamgotchian <geoffroy.jamgotchian@gmail.com>

Cleanup

733d68a

Signed-off-by: Geoffroy Jamgotchian <geoffroy.jamgotchian@gmail.com>

Cleanup

d60c53d

Signed-off-by: Geoffroy Jamgotchian <geoffroy.jamgotchian@gmail.com>

geofjamg reviewed Jan 4, 2022

View reviewed changes

annetill added 2 commits January 5, 2022 11:28

Support of shared remote control.

2d8976e

Fix linear model support. Signed-off-by: Anne Tilloy <anne.tilloy@rte-france.com>

Fix.

84a1fcc

Signed-off-by: Anne Tilloy <anne.tilloy@rte-france.com>

annetill and others added 4 commits January 5, 2022 12:55

Simplify LfShuntImpl.

b51ddf7

Signed-off-by: Anne Tilloy <anne.tilloy@rte-france.com>

Cleanup

4209a14

Signed-off-by: Geoffroy Jamgotchian <geoffroy.jamgotchian@rte-france.com>

Cleanup

69fff21

Signed-off-by: Geoffroy Jamgotchian <geoffroy.jamgotchian@rte-france.com>

Cleanup

da52103

Signed-off-by: Geoffroy Jamgotchian <geoffroy.jamgotchian@rte-france.com>

geofjamg approved these changes Jan 5, 2022

View reviewed changes

geofjamg merged commit 39966c9 into main Jan 5, 2022

geofjamg deleted the shunt-voltage-control-2 branch January 5, 2022 14:01

geofjamg mentioned this pull request Mar 13, 2022

Static var compensator voltage control increasing #97

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Shunt compensator voltage control #391

Shunt compensator voltage control #391

annetill commented Dec 1, 2021

annetill Dec 1, 2021 •

edited

Loading

geofjamg Dec 25, 2021 •

edited

Loading

annetill Dec 27, 2021

geofjamg Dec 27, 2021

annetill Dec 28, 2021

geofjamg Dec 25, 2021 •

edited

Loading

geofjamg Dec 25, 2021

annetill Dec 27, 2021

annetill Dec 28, 2021

annetill Dec 28, 2021

geofjamg Dec 25, 2021

annetill Dec 27, 2021

annetill commented Dec 27, 2021

geofjamg commented Dec 27, 2021

annetill commented Dec 27, 2021

annetill Dec 28, 2021

annetill Jan 4, 2022

geofjamg left a comment

geofjamg Jan 4, 2022

annetill Jan 5, 2022

geofjamg Jan 4, 2022

annetill Jan 5, 2022

geofjamg Jan 5, 2022

geofjamg Jan 4, 2022

geofjamg Jan 4, 2022

annetill Jan 5, 2022

annetill commented Jan 5, 2022

geofjamg commented Jan 5, 2022

geofjamg commented Jan 5, 2022

sonarqubecloud bot commented Jan 5, 2022

annetill commented Jan 5, 2022

Shunt compensator voltage control #391

Shunt compensator voltage control #391

Conversation

annetill commented Dec 1, 2021

annetill Dec 1, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

geofjamg Dec 25, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

geofjamg Dec 25, 2021 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

annetill commented Dec 27, 2021

geofjamg commented Dec 27, 2021

annetill commented Dec 27, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

geofjamg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

annetill commented Jan 5, 2022

geofjamg commented Jan 5, 2022

geofjamg commented Jan 5, 2022

sonarqubecloud bot commented Jan 5, 2022

annetill commented Jan 5, 2022

annetill Dec 1, 2021 •

edited

Loading

geofjamg Dec 25, 2021 •

edited

Loading

geofjamg Dec 25, 2021 •

edited

Loading