Thanks Rui.

Quick question … is there a reason to do the updating of the Pg and Qg values 
after, rather than before calling pfsoln()? I’ve attached the updated version I 
propose to include in v6.0.

And what about Niccolò’s second question regarding the results being affected 
by system load rather than simply the measurements?

Thanks,
   Ray

Attachment: run_se.m
Description: Binary data


> On Dec 6, 2016, at 2:35 AM, Ray Bo <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ray,
> Sure I will take care of it.
> 
> Niccolò,
> As I don't have 6.02b2 right now, I did a quick check on v5.1, and did see 
> the issue you brought up. The state estimation results are actually correctly 
> presented in the last section of the screen output, where you can see the 
> Pg2=0.3034 pu, Pg3=0.1336 pu. So the gen, load and losses are balanced. The 
> Pg2 and Pg3 values you see in the 'Generator Data' output section are 
> actually the default values from the 3-bus case, and appear to be inbalanced 
> with load. The reason Pg2 and Pg3 values do not get updated in the 'Generator 
> Data' output section is that, to output the power flow solution in a nice 
> format, I simply took advantage of the MATPOWER function 'pfsoln' to update 
> bus, gen, branch data structures to match power flow solution. This function 
> however only updates Pg for the slack bus generator and not for the rest of 
> the generators (because those are PQ and PV buses and there is no need to do 
> it).
> 
> To clean up the output to avoid such confusion, I have implemented a quick 
> fix for the issue by updating the Pg and Qg using state estimation results. 
> The code with the quick fix is attached. I haven't tested it extensively. 
> Please use it and let me know if you find it useful or if you have additional 
> questions. I can be reached at [email protected].
> 
> Thanks,
> Rui
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: Ray Zimmerman
> Sent: Monday, December 5, 2016 9:27 AM
> To: Rui Bo
> Cc: MATPOWER discussion forum
> Subject: Re: state estimation: active power not balanced in test cases
> 
> Hi Rui and Niccolò,
> 
> The state estimation code was contributed by Rui Bo, so I’m not that familiar 
> with it. Rui, I was wondering if you might be able to address Niccolò's 
> questions.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>  Ray
> 
> 
> 
>> On Dec 1, 2016, at 6:20 PM, Niccolò Citroni <[email protected]> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hallo, I'm new to matpower, using it for my master thesis.
>> I'm trying to figure out how the se program works, and running the included 
>> test cases I noticed the following:
>> there is a big unbalance in active power in the network, for example in the 
>> 3 bus case there are more than 380 MW of active power in excess, considering 
>> generation, load, and losses. How is that possible?
>> Another thing: modifing the load i get different results runnning the se. 
>> Why is that? shouldn't the state estimation be based only on the input 
>> mesurements and the topology of the network? How has the load and generator 
>> power anything to do with the se, when not included in the mesurements? From 
>> what I know the power balance at each node should be a result of the se, not 
>> part of the input data (when not as mesurements of course).
>> I hope I've been clear enough.
>> I'm using version 6.0b2
>> Thankyou for the help and the program.
>> Niccolò Citroni
> 
> <run_se.m>

Reply via email to