Assert active power, reactive power and current consistency #545
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Geoffroy Jamgotchian <geoffroy.jamgotchian@gmail.com>
| var i1Eq = new ClosedBranchSide1CurrentMagnitudeEquationTerm(branch, bus1, bus2, variableSet, true, true); | ||
| i1Eq.setStateVector(sv); | ||
| double i1 = i1Eq.eval(); | ||
| assertEquals(i1, Math.hypot(p1, q1) / V_1, 10e-14); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@annetill is it normal to not have the sqrt(3) here ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
After looking at the code, yes it is normal. The sqrt(3) is managed by function PerUnit.ib() for sensitivity and security analysis.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It doesn't mean it is correct. As far as I understand main principle of peruniting is to perunit only 2 quantities (for us it is apparent power and voltage) and all the other quantities are calculated from the 2 chosen ones.
So for me, the values in per unit are not correct even if one in SI are correct.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-unit_system it seems correct
|
Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!
|
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)Does this PR already have an issue describing the problem ? If so, link to this issue using
'#XXX'and skip the restNo
What kind of change does this PR introduce? (Bug fix, feature, docs update, ...)
Unit test
What is the new behavior (if this is a feature change)?
A unit test has been added to assert p, q and i equations consistency
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)