Hallo and thank you very much for the input. 
my system has 14 generators of which 3 are supposed to be wind gens.
What i'm changing in the infeasible case,is that I'm making the min P =0.1 
"mpc.gen(i,10)=0.1" for only the three Wind generators. Even if I make it 0.99 
of the original limit it becomes infeasible. As I said, I'm relaxing the 
constraints, it does not make any sense becoming infeasible.
Thanks once more,
Vagelis
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: opf issue while cahnging the Pmin of gens
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 11:56:47 -0400
To: [email protected]

I'm not sure I understand what you are changing between the feasible case and 
the infeasible one. But if it is infeasible, then it will not solve 
successfully, and any results (generation levels, line flows, etc.) are 
meaningless.
    Ray


On Oct 1, 2012, at 8:10 PM, Evangelos Galinas <[email protected]> 
wrote:Dear all,
I have the following issue when I'm implementing an OPF I would like to ask if 
anyone has experienced ever something similar.
Well, I want to check feasibility for constrained and unconstrained OPF's. When 
I have only the max limits of Gens on, the opf solves and the same happens when 
I have minimum limits on as well as when I include max flow limits for 
branches. All the above take plave by manipulating the mpc.gen(:,10)-> 0 or 
something close to and mpc.branch(i,6)-> 0 or 9999.
The really weird thing happens when I include the regular min limits for 
conventional units but I limit the min P of my Wind gens to 0 or sth close to. 
Then the opf runs crazy and instead of solving even easier since I relaxed the 
constraints the system becomes infeasible. For the same Load conditions (4,4 G) 
while before the Generation was the same now, it increases to 5,3 G and all the 
branch loading go up to 300-400 %. 
Does anyone have a hint on why this can be happening. It sounds like an error 
from my side, but I can see in the results that the constraints are exactly as 
I had told matlab to do it.
Any kind of help would be much appreciated.
Best Regards,
Vagelis
                                          

Reply via email to