Oh, I got it. Mr. Todorovski, thank you so much.
________________________________ De: [email protected] <[email protected]> em nome de Mirko Todorovski <[email protected]> Enviado: quarta-feira, 5 de julho de 2017 22:04 Para: MATPOWER discussion forum Assunto: Re: Non-Convergence of Load Flow in Reconfiguration / Restoration Situations (via Optimization) You don't have to change the code, just use mpoption as in the following example >> opt = mpoption('pf.alg','YSUM','exp.sys_wide_zip_loads.pw',[0 0 1]); >> runpf('case18',opt) Best regards, Mirko On Wed, 2017-07-05 at 17:29 +0000, Andrey Vieira wrote: > Dear Mr. Todorovsk, > > Thanks for the answer. > Would such a change only be in the calc_v_y_sum function (line 37)? > Or in another function? > > > > > > > in the function calc_v_y_sum: > > . > > . > > . > > 33 - % ZIP load model > 34 - pw = mpopt.exp.sys_wide_zip_loads.pw; > 35 - qw = mpopt.exp.sys_wide_zip_loads.qw; > 36 - if isempty(pw) > 37 - pw = [1 0 0]; % CHANGE HERE to [0 0 1] > 38 - end > 39 - if isempty(qw) > 40 - qw = pw; > 41 - end > 42- Sdz = real(Sd) * pw(3) + 1j * imag(Sd) * qw(3); % > constantimpedance > 43- Sdi = real(Sd) * pw(2) + 1j * imag(Sd) * qw(2); % constantcurrent > 44- Sdp = real(Sd) * pw(1) + 1j * imag(Sd) * qw(1); % constantpower > . > > > . > . > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > De: [email protected] > <[email protected]> em nome de Mirko > Todorovski <[email protected]> > Enviado: segunda-feira, 3 de julho de 2017 21:24 > Para: MATPOWER discussion forum > Assunto: Re: Non-Convergence of Load Flow in Reconfiguration / > Restoration Situations (via Optimization) > > I would suggest that you try to use the option for setting > exp.sys_wide_zip_loads.pw. If you model all loads as constant > admittances by using pw = [0 0 1] you will certainly get a solution > with > YSUM since in this case the network is linear and the solution will be > obtained in single iteration. If you get low voltages in the network > (say 0.8 pu or lower) it is likely that the operating conditions are > not > acceptable and such configuration should be discarted. I suspect that > this is the problem, you can not mantain constant power requirement if > voltages go down and therefore all method divergee. > > Whether you can model your loads as constant impedances or constant > power is out of the scope of MATPOWER. Depending on the character of > consumers in a distribution network probably it is more realistic to > expect loads close to constant admittance that to constant power. If > you > have load static characteristics, i.e. dependence of P and Q on the > voltage you may choose appropriate values for the vector pw (not just > simply setting [1 0 0] or [0 0 1]). > > Best regards, > Mirko > > On Mon, 2017-07-03 at 15:56 -0400, Ray Zimmerman wrote: > > If you haven’t tried it, certainly try increasing the number of > > iterations for the radial methods. > > > > > > Ray > > > > > On Jul 3, 2017, at 3:15 PM, Andrey Vieira <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > for Reconfiguration/Restoration process, ie: > > > > > > Occurrence of significant concentration of buses/Loads in a given > healthy > > > region (region that will receive some or all of the disconnected > Loads) > > > Of the feeder (as shown below) via the relocation of disconnected > loads > > > (optimization process) due to the insulation of some faulty > upstream faults > > > Of the off region. > > > > > > Exemplifying Illustration: > > > > > > I took the 33bw case as an example in three different load flow > execution > > > scenarios to exemplify my issue. > > > SITUATION A: > > > The case 33wb is illustrated below for a specific type of > topology. > > > For this configuration, there was convergence for the > > > 4 methods (Newton, PQSUM, ISUM and YSUM) evaluated. > > > > > > <pastedImage.png> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Situation B: > > > Similarly, the case 33wb is illustrated below for another specific > type > > > of topology. For this new configuration, similar to the previous > one, > > > there was convergence for the 4 methods (Newton, PQSUM, ISUM > > > and YSUM) evaluated. > > > <pastedImage.png> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Situation C: > > > For this new configuration, the 33wb case, shown below, presents a > > > particular type of topology in which it has concentrated much > load > > > on the central feeder. The consequence of this was the > non-convergence > > > of all 4 methods (Newton, PQSUM, ISUM and YSUM) evaluated. > > > <pastedImage.png> > > > > > > Note: This analysis was also performed for other feeders (case 84, > > > case 85, case 135 and case70). It seems to me that in the act of > network > > > switching (each switching sequence is a possible solution), by > > > concentrating Loads in a given region of the network, the > possibility of > > > non-convergence is high, regardless of the method used. I would > like to > > > know how to proceed with this problem. For the evolutionary > algorithm > > > I use needs to evaluate this configuration, even Knowing that such > a > > > solution is not feasible and possibly will be ruled out by the > restriction > > > criteria of the optimization that I have adopted. What to do? > Increase the > > > number of iterations? How to make convergence of power flow occur > even for > > > those absurd configurations? > > > > > > > >
