Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

rate B and rate C not included in OPF #24

Open
kknez opened this issue Sep 12, 2017 · 4 comments
Open

rate B and rate C not included in OPF #24

kknez opened this issue Sep 12, 2017 · 4 comments

Comments

@kknez
Copy link

kknez commented Sep 12, 2017

Current MatPower version includes only branch rate A for OPF, and there is no automated way to include rate B or rate C even though they are defined in the MatPower case.

@rdzman
Copy link
Member

rdzman commented Sep 12, 2017

This should be quite simple and straightforward to implement. A good starting place for someone who would like to begin to contribute.

I propose adding an opf.branch_rating option with default value 'A', and alternate values 'B' and 'C'. If someone wants to tackle this, please indicate your intentions here to avoid duplication of effort.

@mcsosa121
Copy link

If nobody has begun working on this, I would be interested in helping out.

@rdzman
Copy link
Member

rdzman commented Sep 25, 2017

👍 Go for it.

And may I suggest for the implementation that, rather than temporarily copying the values from the RATE_B or RATE_C columns into the RATE_A column of the branch matrix, you find all of the places in the code where RATE_A is used directly for the limit and select the appropriate column based on the opf.branch_rating option instead. Since this approach will not be possible for some of the OPF solvers (e.g. MINOPF, TSPOPF), for those cases you will have to go with the first approach.

Ideally, I'd also like to see new test cases added to the t_opf_* tests that verify the new option is working fine.

Feel free to ask here for input or feedback along the way. And thanks again for volunteering to help with this.

@rdzman rdzman assigned rdzman and unassigned rdzman Sep 25, 2017
@rdzman
Copy link
Member

rdzman commented Jan 26, 2018

@mcsosa121 Are you working on this?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants