Fix DcEquationSystem with disabled non impedant branch #663
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Anne Tilloy <anne.tilloy@rte-france.com>
Signed-off-by: Anne Tilloy <anne.tilloy@rte-france.com>
| @@ -51,19 +51,24 @@ public static void createNonImpedantBranch(EquationSystem<DcVariableType, DcEqua | |||
| equationSystem.createEquation(branch.getNum(), DcEquationType.ZERO_PHI) | |||
| .addTerm(equationSystem.getVariable(bus1.getNum(), DcVariableType.BUS_PHI).createTerm()) | |||
| .addTerm(equationSystem.getVariable(bus2.getNum(), DcVariableType.BUS_PHI).<DcEquationType>createTerm() | |||
| .minus()); | |||
| .minus()).setActive(!branch.isDisabled()); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I really don't understand why but this first setActive is not needed in AcEquationSystem. So I don't know if this fix is the good one.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
EquationSystem.createEquation has 2 overloads:
- initial one just take an element num
- newest one take directly the LfElement and so on is able to internally disable equation according to LfElement status
DcEquationSystem had unfortunately not been migrated to new one
# Conflicts: # src/main/java/com/powsybl/openloadflow/dc/DcLoadFlowEngine.java
|
Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed! |
| new AcloadFlowEngine(context).run(); | ||
| } | ||
| // should be the same as with previous LF | ||
| assertEquals(401.740, largestNetwork.getBranchById("L1").getP1().eval() * PerUnit.SB, LoadFlowAssert.DELTA_POWER); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@annetill why we don't get exactly the value we had with the initial LF: 401.757 vs 401.740 ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe because in the first case, we have a system resolution based on the bus/view and in the second case, we are based on the bus/breaker view.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes right, this is not exactly the same system, so make sense to not have numerically the same solution
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)