Support of shunt compensator contingency in security analysis #422
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Anne Tilloy <anne.tilloy@rte-france.com>
annetill
changed the title
…mul shunt to false. Signed-off-by: Anne Tilloy <anne.tilloy@rte-france.com>
Signed-off-by: Anne Tilloy <anne.tilloy@rte-france.com>
| for (Pair<String, Double> shuntAndB : propagatedContingency.getShuntIdsToLose()) { | ||
| LfShunt shunt = network.getShuntById(shuntAndB.getKey()); | ||
| if (shunt != null) { | ||
| shunts.add(Pair.of(shunt, shuntAndB.getValue())); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The B value seems to be the global one (bus level) and not the one the targeting shunt?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In this case I think there is something tricky to implement in the LfShuntImpl::updateState to find the right section taking into account triggered IIDM shunt
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Indeed, in this PR, it is not obvious but I don't support shunt with voltage control on, so it means that I will always have fixed shunt and a global B. That is why it is working... I am going to add a unit test.
annetill
changed the title
| @@ -79,7 +87,7 @@ public double getActivePowerLoss() { | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| // check if contingency split this network into multiple components | |||
| if (branches.isEmpty()) { | |||
| if (branches.isEmpty() && propagatedContingency.getShuntIdsToLose().isEmpty()) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@geofjamg here maybe my check is not so clean... it was designed for branch contingencies only. Could you maybe improve it ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good, but probably an issue with other injection contingency
| } | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| public static List<PropagatedContingency> createListForSensitivityAnalysis(Network network, List<Contingency> contingencies) { | ||
| List<PropagatedContingency> propagatedContingencies = new ArrayList<>(); | ||
| for (int index = 0; index < contingencies.size(); index++) { | ||
| Contingency contingency = contingencies.get(index); | ||
| PropagatedContingency propagatedContingency = PropagatedContingency.create(network, contingency, index); | ||
| PropagatedContingency propagatedContingency = PropagatedContingency.create(network, contingency, index, null); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@geofjamg do you agree with null here?
# Conflicts: # src/test/java/com/powsybl/openloadflow/sa/OpenSecurityAnalysisTest.java
# Conflicts: # src/test/java/com/powsybl/openloadflow/sa/OpenSecurityAnalysisTest.java
Signed-off-by: Anne Tilloy <anne.tilloy@rte-france.com>
Signed-off-by: Geoffroy Jamgotchian <geoffroy.jamgotchian@rte-france.com>
| @@ -79,7 +87,7 @@ public double getActivePowerLoss() { | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| // check if contingency split this network into multiple components | |||
| if (branches.isEmpty()) { | |||
| if (branches.isEmpty() && propagatedContingency.getShuntIdsToLose().isEmpty()) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good, but probably an issue with other injection contingency
|
Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed! |
Signed-off-by: Anne Tilloy anne.tilloy@rte-france.com
Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements (please use
'[x]'to check the checkboxes, or submit the PR and then click the checkboxes)Does this PR already have an issue describing the problem ? If so, link to this issue using
'#XXX'and skip the restWhat kind of change does this PR introduce? (Bug fix, feature, docs update, ...)
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:
Other information:
(if any of the questions/checkboxes don't apply, please delete them entirely)