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
Examples Folder #136
Examples Folder #136
Conversation
antonplietzsch
commented
Nov 23, 2020
- I added an examples folder to the PowerDynamics repo as discussed in examples folder in PowerDynamics.jl #119.
- As a first example i added the IEEE 14-bus system with 4th order generators.
- I also added tests for this example to check that the fault simulations run through successfully.
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #136 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 89.59% 90.25% +0.66%
==========================================
Files 40 40
Lines 903 872 -31
==========================================
- Hits 809 787 -22
+ Misses 94 85 -9
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
||
solution3 = simulate(fault3, pg_build, operationpoint, timespan) | ||
@test solution3.dqsol.retcode == :Success | ||
end |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@antonplietzsch @luap-pik I think it would also be nice to check if the solution is reproduced
test/examples/ieee14bus.jl
Outdated
using PowerDynamics | ||
using OrderedCollections: OrderedDict | ||
|
||
buses=OrderedDict( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@antonplietzsch It would be handy to include the code from examples/ieee14bus/buildexample.jl here simply instead of defining the IEEE14 bus system two times in the repo?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, good point. I'll do that.
examples/ieee14bus/buildexample.jl
Outdated
"bus1"=> FourthOrderEq(T_d_dash=7.4, D=2, X_d=0.8979, X_q=0.646, Ω=50, X_d_dash=0.2995, T_q_dash=0.1, X_q_dash=0.646, P=2.32, H=5.148, E_f=1), | ||
"bus2"=> SlackAlgebraic(U=1), | ||
"bus3"=> FourthOrderEq(T_d_dash=6.1, D=2, X_d=1.05, X_q=0.98, Ω=50, X_d_dash=0.185, T_q_dash=0.4, X_q_dash=0.36, P=-0.942, H=6.54, E_f= 1), | ||
"bus4"=> VoltageDependentLoad(P=-0.478, Q=-0.0, U=1.0, A=0.0, B=0.0), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You are using VoltageDependentLoad
's here but the factors are all 0
. Is that for a reason?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not really. I thought it might be easier for users to play around with different load models by just changing parameters instead of replacing node models. But you're right, it is a bit confusing right now. I think I will either go back to the PQAlgebraic
or change the parameters in the VoltageDependentLoad
to make it actually voltage dependent.
@antonplietzsch : was there anything else you wanted to add here with Paul? @luap-pik? |
I changed the following things in the last commit:
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Review done together with @antonplietzsch during zoom call