-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 450
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
Transformer model: Off-nominal Turn ratio (e.g. 22kV/0.45kV) #158
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
…gainst NEPLAN Signed-off-by: Tobias Dess <[email protected]>
…o and tested it against NEPLAN Signed-off-by: Tobias Dess <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Tobias Dess <[email protected]>
Thanks Tobias! It's a bit difficult for me to judge the code since it's a while since I looked at this. It seems the transformer implementations differ from software to software. I'd like it to be compatible with pandapower. Any changes we make, we should be absolutely sure about because we don't want to change the behaviour later.
|
Hello Tom, thank you for the reply. We needed it compatible with Neplan in a current Project and had good pre-defined test cases for that. I can totally understand your point to keep it in line with pandapower. I will further look into it, when I finished the current deadlines (in around 3-4 weeks).
See above
I defined the "off_nominal_ratio" from the high voltage side. Since you use the tab ratio in tau is determined by the "tab_side", it would be incorrect. Maybe I will find a more clean way to implement it.
Thanks
I will check it
Valid point So thank you for your work in PyPSA until now. |
…gainst NEPLAN Signed-off-by: Tobias Dess <[email protected]>
…o and tested it against NEPLAN Signed-off-by: Tobias Dess <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Tobias Dess <[email protected]>
…transformer_model
Hi Tom (or other maintainer), sorry for taken so long. I rebased my fork on the current master to ensure maximum compatibility and avoid submitting a new Pull request. Hope this procedure was ok? Or would it be better to start a new PR? I took on your feedback and changed the tests in order to demonstrate synchronicity with Pandapower. I only included the tests in the final PR which cover the most areas. all small tests leading up to this were not interesting for the project? I thought that will be better to save pytest time and CI time. To answer your questions before:
-> Checked the implementation, but the software architecture was to different to copy it somehow. Espechially the design decision to seperate between tau_hv and tau_lv was kind of incompatible. To synchronice the implementation on a code level would be way more invasive. I included a test case for both sides of the tab, to demonstrate the same end results
--> Th definition of the off_nominal_tab_ratio is independent of the tab side and independent o a tab present. Since the calculation of the tab ratio doest take the side into account in apply_transformer_types(network) and the value has also effects on electrical parameter, this way seemed to me the least invasive way to include this. But if you have a better idea, feel free :)
Hope I could help with this PR Best regards |
Thanks Tobias! Sorry for the slow response, all the potential reviewers of the code are busy with deadlines at the moment, but we hope to review and merge this very soon! |
Hi Tom, that's understandable. Happy to hear from you :) Best Regard |
Signed-off-by: Tobias Dess [email protected]
Changes proposed in this Pull Request
Question: Are under author all contributer listet or just the main maintainer? I just wrote myself there, since I don#t know better. If this is not OK, feel free to change it...
Checklist