This is the way I am going to face this issue then.
In the worst case, I will perform the simulation without constraints on the 
lines I think...
Thank you very much for your precious help, time and advices!

Sincerely,
Enrico

> Il giorno 21/feb/2017, alle ore 10:36, Samuel Perkin <[email protected]> ha 
> scritto:
> 
> Dear Enrico,
>  
> I’m happy to help.
>  
> The resistance and reactance values don’t necessarily look too high or low. 
> Nothing stood out as obviously wrong to me at least. I reduced the values 
> just to see if the convergence of the ACOPF was a topology issue. I find that 
> simplifying a system until it works is useful when dealing with problems like 
> this. Another thing you could try is to solve parts of the system (e.g. 
> simplify your network to only 380kV nodes, or a small area) and gradually add 
> complexity back into your model until it fails.
>  
> In response to your last question, you’re almost correct. In an OPF the 
> values you put in to mpc.gen(:,PG) will change, as PG is an optimisation 
> variable, but the initial guess will affect the convergence of the algorithm. 
> In some cases (possibly yours!) a bad initial guess for PG and QG can prevent 
> the ACOPF from converging to a solution.
>  
> Kind regards,
>  
> Samuel
>  
>  
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Enrico 
> Vaccariello
> Sent: 21. febrúar 2017 00:48
> To: MATPOWER discussion forum <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Sequential OPF: Non-convergence of both OPF and PF
>  
> Dear Samuel,
> I really appreciate your help, thank you.
>  
> After reading your reply I have made some further tests, and I believe that 
> the very issue is the branch matrix too.
> The ACOPF actually converges with your corrections on the branch matrix, and 
> I have noticed that it still works even keeping the original values for the 
> lines' resistances. Keeping the original values of mpc.branch(:,BR_R) results 
> in active power losses accounting for around 3% of the total generated active 
> power, which seems reasonable to me, suggesting that the p.u. values of the 
> resistances are acceptable.
>  
> So the problem should lie in the values of X and of the MVA ratings.
> Did u reduce the values of X because they looked too high to you or just to 
> get the ACOPF to converge?
> As for the MVA ratings given in mpc.branch(:,RATE_A), setting them all equal 
> to zero, as you suggested, and running the ACOPF clearly shows that in the 
> optimal solution some branches have power flows much higher than their limit 
> in the original case. Some of these branches are the same that you indicated 
> (150,369,...).
> What I think is weird is that all these branches link PQ buses, with no power 
> generation. So, it's difficult to understand what is the logic behind it.
> Anyway, I have checked all the branches and their From and To indexes are all 
> correct.
>  
> I hope I will find a way to fix this.
> Until then, thank you again.
>  
> One last thing I wanted to ask about your reply (first paragraph of your 
> mail): I have understood that the values that you use to initialize 
> mpc.bus(:,PG) do affect the solution of the PF problem, while they are not 
> considered by the OPF solver. Is that right?
>  
> Best regards,
> Enrico
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> 2017-02-20 12:31 GMT+01:00 Samuel Perkin <[email protected]>:
> Hi Enrico,
>  
> I had a quick look at your case. Firstly, the results you get when running an 
> DC PF on your case are normal. The active power is fixed at all Load and 
> Generator buses, and therefore only the slack bus can add/remove active power 
> to the system in order to find a solution. Given that all your generators 
> begin with 0 MW of active power production, you find that all power must be 
> produced at your slack bus.
>  
> I tried running an ACOPF on your model, using:
> mpopt = mpoption('verbose', 3, 'out.force', 1,'pf.nr.max_it',10);
> runopf(mpc,mpopt);
>  
> This doesn’t converge, but the output suggests a few issues with your model. 
> If you look at the branch constraints, you’ll find that some of your branches 
> with the greatest capacity are only being utilized <5%. Whilst a few low 
> capacity branches (150, 290, 369, 370) have absurdly large flows. This 
> implies to me that you either have some branches connected to the wrong 
> buses, or have some errors in the electrical parameters of your lines.
>  
> Note that it is possible to get an ACOPF to converge on your case if you 
> apply the following modifications/simplifications, which supports my argument 
> that there is probably a few errors in your branch data:
> mpc.branch(:,RATE_A) = 0;
> mpc.branch(:,BR_R) = 0.1*mpc.branch(:,BR_R);
> mpc.branch(:,BR_X) = 0.001*mpc.branch(:,BR_X);
>  
> I hope this helps you debug your case, and good luck with your thesis.
>  
> Kind regards,
>  
> Samuel Perkin
>  
> From: [email protected] 
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Enrico 
> Vaccariello
> Sent: 20. febrúar 2017 02:25
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Sequential OPF: Non-convergence of both OPF and PF
>  
> Dear All MATPOWER developers and users,
> I really hope some of you can give me some advice.
> I am working on sequential OPF simulations (not using MOST, but simply 
> running MATPOWER's runopf in a loop and manually updating some values the 
> MATPOWER case at each time-step t) to be performed on a case(s) that I have 
> been working a lot to prepare.
> Anyway, unfortunately, now that the time of running the simulation has 
> finally come, I have some serious convergence issues.
>  
> With the 285-bus case structs that I have built, the OPF simulation running 
> with the default MIPS does not converge.
> The case structs differ one from another for some parameters as a function of 
> t (time-step of the loop). Anyway, whatever the t I set, the OPF won't 
> converge in any case, so there must be some structural issue of my cases I 
> guess.
> I'll attach the case of t=1 to this mail for who wishes to have a look.
>  
> Making some tests, I have found out that the PF simulation does not converge 
> either. Among the (non-converged) results of the PF it seems that the slack 
> bus is the only trying to generate active power (a lot of), whereas all the 
> others do not dispatch, i.e. results.gen(:,PG) is zero for all the generators 
> of the PV buses.
> What is more, the same generators dispatch very high quantities of reactive 
> power, much beyond their lower and upper limits.
>  
> If someone could help I would be very grateful... Last days for my thesis, 
> very hard times!
>  
> Thank you and best regards.
> Enrico
>  
>  

Reply via email to