Ray – I built the case in Siemens PSS/CAPE power flow module yesterday and it’s 
results match mine exactly for this case (same YBUS and same results).  I 
remember years ago when CAPE was owned by Electrocon that they went through an 
exercise to get off-nominal taps modeled correctly in their short-circuit 
module.  They reached out to me and I sent them Neunswander’s reference which 
they incorporated into their help documents in 2014 (all of the texts I’ve 
looked at – attached – result in the exact same model).  If you don’t model 
this correctly it results in an error – but it is not a huge error.  Plus, it 
only shows up if you have a parallel path to the off-nominal transformer.  If 
you just have an off-nominal transformer feeding a bus by itself – no error to 
the system flows.

 

In my test case I’m calculating by hand that the system supplies 1.19 MVAr (and 
CAPE reports 1.20).  MATPOWER and PW say 1.14.  Not a huge error, but an error 
none-the-less.


I’ll keep scratching at it. 

 

Just FYI

 

russ

 

From: [email protected] 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Russ Patterson
Sent: Tuesday, January 5, 2021 11:07 AM
To: 'MATPOWER discussion forum'
Subject: RE: circulating current (MVAR loss)

 

Ray – I just built and ran this same case in PowerWorld and it gives the exact 
same results as MATPOWER.  Including identical YBUS.  My problem is that I 
can’t reconcile the textbook approach to modeling the off-nominal tapped 
transformer in parallel with on-nominal tapped transformer with these results.  
I’ll keep pecking away at it – just wanted to let you know of the agreement in 
results with PW.

 

Fyi,

russ

 

From: [email protected] 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Russ Patterson
Sent: Monday, January 4, 2021 3:22 PM
To: 'MATPOWER discussion forum'
Subject: RE: circulating current (MVAR loss)

 

I’ll take a look, thanks Ray.  But, the pi-model’s I’m talking about are to 
accommodate an off-nominal transformer.  The pi- model you are talking about is 
to accommodate the shunt terms which are not present in my case (bc).  Two 
different animals, right?

 

russ

 

From: [email protected] 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ray Daniel 
Zimmerman
Sent: Monday, January 4, 2021 2:29 PM
To: MATPOWER-L
Subject: Re: circulating current (MVAR loss)

 

Actually, it looks to me like the difference is simply the convention of which 
end of the branch has the impedance and which end has the ideal transformer. If 
you flip the orientation of the branch in your MATPOWER case, so that it goes 
from bus 2 to bus 1 and invert the tap ratio, I think the MATPOWER results 
should match the other models exactly, right? 

 

   Ray

 

 

On Jan 4, 2021, at 12:32 PM, Ray Daniel Zimmerman <[email protected]> wrote:

 

Hi Russ, 

 

I suspect the models may not be identical. Are they using the model shown in 
the MATPOWER User’s Manual <https://matpower.org/docs/MATPOWER-manual-7.1.pdf>  
in Fig 3-1 with an ideal transformer in series with a pi-model? If not, that 
would explain the discrepancy.

 

I don’t have those books handy, so feel free to send me (off-list please) the 
PDFs of the relevant pages, as it would be useful to confirm.

 

Thanks,

 

    Ray

 

 

On Jan 4, 2021, at 11:19 AM, Russ Patterson <[email protected]> wrote:

 

Hi Ray,

 

I’ve chewed on this a while and it looks like the MATPOWER approach is 
equivalent to the circuit below for the off-nominal transformer (#2).  The 
<image001.png> I show is based on <image002.png> for both transformers (#1 is 
at nominal tap, #2 is at tap of 1.0502).  The <image003.png> below is = 
<image004.png>.  This is the <image001.png> that MATPOWER builds.  The 
secondary bus voltage is then 0.976 pu.

 

<image005.png>

 

 

 

Below is what you get if you follow the approach that Gross1, Neunswander2, and 
Kusic3 use (attached).

 

<image006.png>

 

 

Although the MATPOWER approach and Gross approach result in different 
<image007.png> matrices, they result in nearly exactly the same secondary bus 
voltage because the ratio of <image008.png> in both are nearly identical.  

 

It seems to me that the <image001.png> created by MATPOWER may be wrong when 
off-nominal taps are used.  I say that with a large dose of humility because 
surely I am missing something.  But, it seems clear that either Gross or 
MATPOWER is wrong here.  What am I missing?

 

References (I can provide pdf of the pages if needed):

1 – “Power System Analysis”, 2ed, Charles A. Gross (p. 204)

2 – “Modern Power Systems”, John. R. Neunswander (p. 251)

3 – “Computer-Aided Power System Analysis”, George L. Kusic (p. 95)

 

Best regards,

Russ

 

 

 

From:  <mailto:[email protected]> 
[email protected] [ 
<mailto:[email protected]> 
mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ray Daniel 
Zimmerman
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2020 11:44 AM
To: MATPOWER-L
Subject: Re: circulating current (MVAR loss)

 

I suggest double-checking your calculations against the code in makeYbus.m, 
which is pretty straightforward, and the model described in the  
<https://matpower.org/docs/MATPOWER-manual-7.1.pdf> User’s Manual see Figure 
3-1 and equation (3.2). Be sure to keep in mind the orientation of the taps in 
the model. 

 

    Ray

 

 

 

 

On Dec 16, 2020, at 3:52 PM, Russ Patterson < <mailto:[email protected]> 
[email protected]> wrote:

 

Carlos – thank you. Very helpful.

 

The YBus I get for my case is below.  I expected Y(1,1) to equal the of this 
sum:  (1/j0.1) + (1/j0.09522) + (1/-j1.991) =  j 19.9997 (negative sign is per 
coder preference).   Is attached (page 1) not how MATPOWER would modify the 
bank #2 impedances before creating YBUS?

 

Yb =

 

Compressed Column Sparse (rows = 2, cols = 2, nnz = 4 [100%])

 

  (1, 1) ->        0 - 19.0663i

 (2, 1) ->        0 + 19.5217i

  (1, 2) ->        0 + 19.5217i

  (2, 2) ->   0 - 20i

 

Best regards,

russ

 

 

 

 

From:  <mailto:[email protected]> 
[email protected] [ 
<mailto:[email protected]> 
mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Carlos E 
Murillo-Sanchez
Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 4:12 PM
To: MATPOWER discussion forum
Subject: Re: circulating current (MVAR loss)

 

Russ Patterson wrote:

Hi - I am still trying to hand calculate the flow into branch 2 from bus 1 to 
bus 2.  I can’t get my results to match MATPOWER.

 

I get Q into the banks from bus 1 of,

                Bank #1:    24.00 MVAR

                Bank #2:  -25.02 MVAr

 

Attached is my short calculation and the .m file.  Is there a way to have 
MATPOWER barf out the YBUS matrix?

>> help makeYbus

If buses are numbered consecutively starting from 1 in the bus table (see 
ext2int if not), simply type:

>> mpc = loadcase('mycase');
>> [Yb, Yf, Yt] = makeYbus(mpc)

To get all the relevant current injections in the solved case, simply do

>> mpc = runpf(mpc);
>> define_constants;
>> V = mpc.bus(:, VM) .* exp(1i * mpc.bus(:, VA)*pi/180);
>> Ibus = Yb * V
>> Ifrom = Yf * V;
>> Ito = Yt * V;

>From there, compute power injections as

>> Sbusinj = V .* conj(Yb * V);
>> Sfrominj = V(mpc.branch(:, F_BUS)) .* conj(Yf * V);
>> Stoinj  = V(mpc.branch(:, T_BUS)) .* conj(Yt * V);

carlos.

<power.pdf>

 

<image021.png><image007.png><image001.png><image012.png><image014.png><image022.png><image011.png><image005.png><image013.png><image020.png><image003.png><image019.png><snip.pdf>

 

 

Reply via email to