Is there any way to convert dcopf to acopf? On 10/17/14, Ray Zimmerman <[email protected]> wrote: > Looks like you are working on the same assignment as the previous poster? > ;-) > > If I understand your problem correctly, it makes perfect sense. If you > ignore violations, you have a lot more freedom to reduce losses. If you > restrict your solutions to those that have only small violations, you have > restricted yourself to a smaller search space so the losses will increase. > > For the pf.enforce_q_lims option (or ENFORCE_Q_LIMS for older versions) the > procedure is described in the last paragraph of section 4.1 of the User’s > Manual A value of 1 means that, at each iteration of the outer loop, all > buses with generators violating Q limits will be converted to PQ buses at > once. With a value of 2, only one will be converted before solving the power > flow again. The second method is slower, but more robust. > > -- > Ray Zimmerman > Senior Research Associate > B30 Warren Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853 USA > phone: (607) 255-9645 > > On Oct 17, 2014, at 3:40 AM, ambi ka <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Sir, >> I am working with reactive power optimization. If I run GSA algorithm >> without adding penalty terms, my power loss is less compared to the >> original system. But if I add penalty terms for voltage violation(PQ >> buses), line flow violation, reactive power violation(PV & Slack) and >> slack bus real power violation, my power losses are high compared to >> without penalty. (Without using Enforce Qlimits). What is the reason and >> how to correct it? >> To correct this, I tried the following. >> With Enforce Q limits set to 1, error occurs in setting ref bus. >> With Enforce q limits set to 2, no error occurs but with very low value of >> power loss compared to without penalty? >> My program is correct or not? >> What is the difference between Enforce Q limit set to 1 or 2? >> from >> ambika >> > >
-- <http://sig.graphicsfactory.com/> Emoticons <http://sig.graphicsfactory.com/>
