Detects coupler when propagating contingency in sensitivity analysis #303
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
flo-dup
force-pushed
the
coupler_propagating_contingency
branch
from
35e2073 to
1dcd82d
Compare
flo-dup
changed the title
Signed-off-by: Hadrien <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Sylvain Leclerc <[email protected]>
Done for sensitivity analysis, not for security analysis Signed-off-by: Florian Dupuy <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Florian Dupuy <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Florian Dupuy <[email protected]>
Add switches set Signed-off-by: Florian Dupuy <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Florian Dupuy <[email protected]>
flo-dup
force-pushed
the
coupler_propagating_contingency
branch
from
c8cc735 to
f46f5d6
Compare
annetill
reviewed
May 6, 2021
| return new PropagatedContingency(contingency, index, branchIdsToOpen, hvdcIdsToOpen, switchesToOpen, terminalsToDisconnect); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| private static boolean isCoupler(Switch s) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
hasBusBarSectionCoulper could be better here, what do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
for me coupler already means busbar section coupler
annetill
reviewed
May 6, 2021
| propagatedContingencies.add(propagatedContingency); | ||
| } else { | ||
| // Sensitivity analysis works in bus view, it cannot deal (yet) with contingencies whose propagation encounters a coupler | ||
| LOGGER.warn("Propagated contingency '{}' not processed: coupler '{}' has been encountered while propagating the contingency", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't know if coupler has a meaning in English indeed. But for sure you have to precise that it is between two bus bar sections.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Coupler is a well known term in power system
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Here you skip the contingency, so it means that the result will not contain this contingency. The other solution is to set a predefined result. What is preferable?
|
Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements (please use
'[x]'to check the checkboxes, or submit the PR and then click the checkboxes)Does this PR already have an issue describing the problem ?
Yes, first step to solve issue #289. This doesn't fix that issue, but detects the problematic contingency, gives a warning and does not add it to the propagated contingencies to avoid giving wrong results.