Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Distributed active power calculation #544

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Jun 8, 2022
Merged

Distributed active power calculation #544

merged 5 commits into from
Jun 8, 2022

Conversation

geofjamg
Copy link
Member

@geofjamg geofjamg commented Jun 2, 2022

Signed-off-by: Geoffroy Jamgotchian geoffroy.jamgotchian@gmail.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)

  • 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
No

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

What is the new behavior (if this is a feature change)?
Distributed active power is calculated and stored in AcLoadFlowResult

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)

Signed-off-by: Geoffroy Jamgotchian <geoffroy.jamgotchian@gmail.com>
@geofjamg geofjamg requested a review from annetill June 2, 2022 20:21
geofjamg and others added 3 commits June 3, 2022 16:59
Signed-off-by: Geoffroy Jamgotchian <geoffroy.jamgotchian@rte-france.com>
Signed-off-by: Geoffroy Jamgotchian <geoffroy.jamgotchian@gmail.com>
@@ -60,6 +60,8 @@ void setUp() {
void test() {
Copy link
Member

@annetill annetill Jun 4, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have tried this use case with a distribution on loads and it seems that we have a or several sign issues... indeed the definition of distributed active power here does not depend on which equipment is called for it. In your use case, the distribution on generators means increasing generation. The distribution on loads means decreasing consumption.

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

sonarqubecloud bot commented Jun 4, 2022

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!    Quality Gate passed

Bug A 0 Bugs
Vulnerability A 0 Vulnerabilities
Security Hotspot A 0 Security Hotspots
Code Smell A 0 Code Smells

100.0% 100.0% Coverage
0.0% 0.0% Duplication

Copy link
Member

@annetill annetill left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have performed some tests and it seems that we follow a reasonable convention. So this distributed active power does not depend on the balance type and follows a load convention at slack bus. Right for you too?

@geofjamg geofjamg merged commit e48bc81 into main Jun 8, 2022
@geofjamg geofjamg deleted the distributed_p branch June 8, 2022 06:00
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants