-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 122
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
Per unit system of DCOPF + AC DC line in the same system #694
Comments
Thanks @xuqingyu . Will start working on the issues this week, including this. |
Hi @xuqingyu Thanks for submitting the issue. Here's some explanation: If you take a look at the file src/load_inputs/load_network_data.jl, in lines 38-55, you can see that we tried to convert to PU system (I am pasting the code-snippet here:
Additionally, I have started drafting a PR in which I am about to make rooms for consideration for base MVA other than 100 MVA (It seems the present code assumes a base MVA of 100 always). I will tag you as a reviewer once I am done and also link the PR to this issue. Please let me know of your thoughts. |
Also @xuqingyu could you please clarify if by DC lines and AC lines, you mean DC tie lines, along with the usual transmission lines (that are AC)? Additionally, I am trying to code up explicitly as part of the new draft PR (in which I tagged you a reviewer) presence of transformers in the system with different turns ratio and different levels of kV and MVA and pu reactances in the HT and LT sides. Is that a good mdification of the existing code? |
Feature description
It's crucial to note that in many scenarios, the transmission network parameters are presented in the per-unit system. This allows us to make the transformer equivalent and remove it. However, the current dcopf_transmission.jl code does not yet support this per-unit system.
Furthermore, it seems that the current code does not support the scenario where DClines and AClines are both presented in the system, is it true?
Motivation
No response
Implementation strategy
Although we can put voltage as 1 and reactance as per unit * 100MVA to circumvent the situation, we should be clear about that.
Additional context
No response
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: