1. k. Then I get higher values after optimization while using LSF to place my DG than I get from weak bus placement. 2. And another question is for voltage sensitivities why do you add epsilon to voltage why not to subtract. 3. I get an error
>> t_get_losses Error using get_losses Too many output arguments. Error in t_get_losses (line 99) [loss, fchg, tchg, dloss_dV, dchg_dVm] = get_losses(r); why does this occur. *Nivedita.....* On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 9:37 PM, Ray Zimmerman <[email protected]> wrote: > In the t/t_get_losses.m file, the loss sensitivities are computed > analytically and numerically (just to check the correctness of the > analytically computed ones). The analytical computation of the > sensitivities is certainly much more computationally efficient. Adding them > across all lines does give you sensitivities of total losses, which I > believe is what you want. The only part I’m not convinced about is > subtracting epsilon from both PD and QD at the same time. This sensitivity > of losses to simultaneous and equal changes PD and QD seems an odd sort of > sensitivity to me. > > Ray > > > On Jan 29, 2015, at 9:40 AM, nivedita arunachalam < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Dear Ray, > I am working on optimal placement and optimal sizing of > solar generators on standard ieee 30 bus system. I determine the size of > generators using different algorithms and for optimal placement I use two > methods weak bus placement and loss sensitivity factor method. I calculate > the Loss sensitivity factor numerically alone as on the file you sent me. > But I subtract the epsilon values to both PD and QD at the same time. And > calculated the LSF. To order the sensitivity I added all the line losses > togather and ordered them. I got to know from the codings that the matrix I > got as numLSF is from making changes to each bus and gives line losses. > This is want I understood and process. Am I right or not. Please suggest me. > > >
