Hello Vagelis, You should make the amendment in the mpc.branch array. I am not sure about transformers, but thinking about their model probably it will work there,too. Why don't you just give it a try? Try first with a very tight limit, so that the OPF will not converge and then run again with zeros at the appropriate branch columns.
Best regards, Panagis Vovos On 6 December 2012 17:52, Evangelos Galinas <[email protected]> wrote: > Hallo Panagis, > > and thanks for your answer. > > so just making the mpc.gen(:,6)=0 will disregard the constraint without > having to change the impedance. This is great. > > and if for example I do not want the transformers to be a bottleneck, can I > just make their 6th column 0 while keeping the same correct value for the > line branches? > > Thanks a lot. > > Vagelis > >> Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2012 12:12:52 +0200 >> Subject: Re: Disregard the branch constraints >> From: [email protected] >> To: [email protected] > >> >> Dear Vagelis, >> >> I think there is no flow constraint if you set the MVA limit to 0 in >> "branches". I remember such an if/case in the code, but I am not sure >> if this is about the constraint. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Panagis Vovos >> >> On 5 December 2012 20:52, Evangelos Galinas <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > Dear all, >> > >> > I have a small question regarding the max P constraints of the branches. >> > >> > With Regard to how matPower is implemented, how would be better to >> > disregard >> > the branch constraints? >> > >> > I cannot just make the constraints too high (e.g. 9999) because the R >> > and X >> > do not change so this will affect the flow. >> > >> > So, does multiplying the branch's actual limit by 10 and at the same >> > time >> > decreasing its R and X tenfold solve the issue? >> > >> > Isn't that the correct way to simulate a second // branch to the initial >> > one? (i.e. Pmax (x)2 and R (/)2 X (/)2 ) >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> > Vagelis >> > >> > >>
