Ok. Here they go: similar to 7.2
0<=r_i<=Pmax for 7.3: Since I don't want the cost to be calculated separately, I don't need anything here (reserves from generators should be calculated as the total power generation cost, no separate cost for generator) for 7.4 pg^i+x*r_i<=pg^i,max x is given as parameters here. for 7.5; since I don't have zonal requirement I don't have anything for that. Let me know if you need anything for more clarification. On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 3:13 PM Ray Zimmerman <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok, so you are attempting to modify the existing fixed reserves > implementation to something with a similar, but not identical structure. I > think I need to fully understand the formulation. Can you provide the > equivalent of equations (7.2)–(7.5) for your problem so I can see exactly > where the differences are? > > Ray > > > On Apr 9, 2019, at 11:43 AM, Jubeyer Rahman <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ok. Thanks a lot for your reply. > > What I am trying to implement is something like this 'Pg+x*R', where 'Pg' > is real power generation, x is a collection of factors (parameters) usually > fraction number ranging between 0 and 1, and R will be a variable for > reserves. Usually the minimum value for R is 0 and maximum value is equal > to the 'Pmax' for each generator asked to provide reserves. What I also > want is that the reserve cost to be ignored ,rather the cost of total power > generation 'Pg+x*R' should be calculated from the generator cost > information and not from the reserve costs ( I have tried that by making > all the reserve costs zero). In addition to these I have no zonal reserve > requirement ( I have made the constraint deactivated and deleted the second > row of the mpc.reserves.zones, deactivated mpc.reserves.req and also > deactivated where 'req' has been implemented). > > > Can you suggest how can how I do it? or do you have any comments on the > process I am already following? > > Just to illustrate more on the reserve cost modification: > > For example, I have 'Pg' from a particular generator (generator 1) 5 MW, > now after implementing the reserve , it is supplying another 1 MW from its > capacity (it's Pmax is 10 MW). Now what I want is that this (5+1)=6 MW > generation cost to be calculated by using the polynomial cost information > from the mpc.gencost section. > > > > On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 10:38 AM Ray Zimmerman <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I think it might help me to have a high-level view of what you are trying >> to accomplish. If you are simply trying to *use* the already implemented >> fixed reserve capability, you shouldn’t need to even concern yourself at >> all with the implementation (i.e. the Ar matrix and the various callback >> functions, etc.). In that case, all you need is to understand the inputs in >> Table 7-5. If, on the other hand, you are modifying the implementation to >> do something other than what is currently implemented, then I need to >> understand what that is. >> >> In what is already implemented, the generation cost is simply the cost of >> Pg. There is a separate cost of R that is added as a user cost. See (7.3). >> So the cost coefficients of R are provided in mpc.reserves.cost (see >> Table 7-5). >> >> Ray >> >> >> >> On Apr 8, 2019, at 2:39 PM, Jubeyer Rahman <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I have another few questions regarding the addition of the fixed zonal >> reserves. So, far I understand, after adding the reserves, the real power >> output of the generator will be added with reserve amount, so in the part >> of the objective function where real power cost is being calculated, which >> power is fed into as for calculation is it the 'Pg' part of 'Pg+R' or is it >> the total 'Pg'? >> >> If I want to implement a reation like 'Pg+x*R' , where x is a collection >> of parameters (n-by-1) , which place can I feed into these parameters? I am >> assuming, this should be the second column of the Ar matrix. Is that >> correct? >> >> Regards >> >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 10:53 AM Jubeyer Rahman <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Please ignore the last email, I have figured this out. Every column in >>> the first row corresponds the generators supposed to participate in the >>> reserve provision , that's why they are made one. >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 5:27 PM Jubeyer Rahman <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Are you talking about the columns in the second row? >>>> >>>> On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 5:21 PM Ray Zimmerman <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The only thing you need to do is make sure the corresponding column in >>>>> mpc.reserves.zones is all zeros. >>>>> >>>>> Ray >>>>> >>>>> On Apr 1, 2019, at 10:31 AM, Jubeyer Rahman <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Ok, I got your point and realized my mistake in understanding the zone >>>>> handling section. So, if I want some of the generator's choosing not to >>>>> provide ramp, should just setting the element of Identity matrix's >>>>> corresponding rows of first column of Ar be Ok? or I may need to change >>>>> something else as well? >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 9:45 AM Ray Zimmerman <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Regarding your first question, as described by (7.2) in the User’s >>>>>> Manual, the reserve for a given generator is bounded above by both any >>>>>> limit provided in mpc.reserves.qty (r_i^{max}) and by any physical >>>>>> ramp rate (∆_i) given in mpc.gen(:, RAMP_10). It just so happens >>>>>> that the example in t_case30_userfcn does not specify any physical >>>>>> ramp rates, but the code still needs to handle cases which *do* provide >>>>>> physical ramp limits. >>>>>> >>>>>> I’m not sure why you say only two generators are supposed to take >>>>>> part in the reserve provision. In t_case30_userfcn there are two >>>>>> reserve zones defined, but all 6 generators are able to participate in >>>>>> providing the required reserves. >>>>>> >>>>>> You may want to review carefully the formulation in (7.2)–(7.5) and >>>>>> Table 7-2. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ray >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mar 29, 2019, at 4:06 PM, Jubeyer Rahman <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Referring to the 'userfcn_reserves_formulation', there is a line >>>>>> which is finding the value of k, which seems to be zero since none of the >>>>>> data in 'Ramp_10' column in t_case_30_userfcn is all zeros. so I don't >>>>>> see any point of using the line >>>>>> >>>>>> Rmax(k)=mpc.gen(k,Ramp_10), can you explain why the code is written >>>>>> that way. >>>>>> >>>>>> From my understanding only two generators are supposed to take part >>>>>> in the reserve provision, but the while putting the value for Rmax and >>>>>> Rmin, the code is considering all of them, which looks kind of >>>>>> unreasonable >>>>>> to me. Can you please explain this section as well? >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Jubeyer >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 12:43 PM Ray Zimmerman <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> That is correct. All of the callbacks are technically optional. >>>>>>> Typically you need the formulation callback to implement the actual >>>>>>> problem modifications, and possibly ext2int and int2ext if you need >>>>>>> to do some handling of input and output data, respectively. The >>>>>>> printpf and savecase callbacks are only needed if you want to add >>>>>>> things to the standard pretty-printed output or saved case data. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ray >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 29, 2019, at 12:15 PM, Jubeyer Rahman <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just how important it is to include printpf and savecase callback >>>>>>> during the extension of OPF, if I don't really need anything printed out >>>>>>> right after I call the power flow? Will it be still possible to extract >>>>>>> information from the 'results' when I say results=runopf(mycase)? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To my understanding, after runopf being called, 'results' struct >>>>>>> will be returned and can be accessed by writing some command like >>>>>>> results.gen(:,2), etc. Let me know if I am thinking correctly or not? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 9:53 AM Jubeyer Rahman <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you very much. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 8:43 AM Ray Zimmerman <[email protected]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Are you attempting to use the provided extension for fixed >>>>>>>>> reserves, or are you attempting to write your own extension? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If it’s the former, the full implementation is included in >>>>>>>>> toggle_reserves() >>>>>>>>> <http://www.pserc.cornell.edu/matpower/docs/ref/matpower6.0/toggle_reserves.html>. >>>>>>>>> Simply load your case file, use toggle_reserves() to enable the >>>>>>>>> callbacks, then run the OPF (or just call runopf_w_res() >>>>>>>>> <http://www.pserc.cornell.edu/matpower/docs/ref/matpower6.0/runopf_w_res.html>, >>>>>>>>> which does these 3 steps automatically for you). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you are attempting to write your own extension, I suggest >>>>>>>>> making a copy of toggle_reserves.m and rename it and all of the >>>>>>>>> functions in it and use it as a template for your own extension. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ray >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 28, 2019, at 12:40 PM, Jubeyer Rahman <[email protected]> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Recently I was digging through the extending OPF chapter of >>>>>>>>> Matpower manual, but I don't quite catch the process. Regarding the >>>>>>>>> example >>>>>>>>> given there on 'Fixed zonal reserves' what I understand from my >>>>>>>>> reading is, >>>>>>>>> it is required to write down a call back function for formulation >>>>>>>>> along >>>>>>>>> with some call of callback functions. I have followed every steps >>>>>>>>> mentioned >>>>>>>>> there but could not make the code run (I am using version 6.0). I am >>>>>>>>> adding >>>>>>>>> my code snippet here for better conveying. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> %%% >>>>>>>>> mpc=loadcase('case30.m'); >>>>>>>>> mpopt = mpoption('out.all', 0, 'verbose', 0); >>>>>>>>> mpc=add_usefcn(mpc,'formulation',@userfcn_reserves_formulation); >>>>>>>>> mpc=ext2int(mpc,mpopt); >>>>>>>>> results=runopf(mpc); >>>>>>>>> results=int2ext; >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> %%%% >>>>>>>>> *Error message:* >>>>>>>>> *Access to an object's fields is only permitted within its >>>>>>>>> methods.* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have added the mpc.reserve data(cost, req, zones) posted in >>>>>>>>> 't_case30_userfcns.m' file. >>>>>>>>> I have written the userfcn_reserves_formulation in a different >>>>>>>>> script , but it is not working. >>>>>>>>> I didn't write the add_var and add_constraint explicitly since the >>>>>>>>> add_userfcn callback function already contains those. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Can you tell me what I am missing? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>> Jubeyer >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >> >
