Add LineCouplings extension#3730
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Coline Piloquet <coline.piloquet@rte-france.com>
a832209 to
12dcf47
Compare
Signed-off-by: Coline Piloquet <coline.piloquet@rte-france.com>
Signed-off-by: Coline Piloquet <coline.piloquet@rte-france.com>
|
|
As it is now the link to the other line is missing. This also raises the question, if the extension is on a Line: which line should hold the mutual coupling ? Maybe this should be a network extension holding a collection of lines mutual couplings instead. See also https://www.powerworld.com/WebHelp/Content/MainDocumentation_HTML/Mutual_Impedance_Records.htm and also CGMES ShortCircuit profile:
Note that these formats also account that portions of the lines may have different mutual couplings, e.g. two lines independent over 20 km, then one same tower over 15 km, then independent again. |
You are absolutely right. I am going to make the change to make this extension at network level. I will also add the portions of line. It is not in my use case but I thought of adding for each line two percentages indicating the beginning and the end of the mutual coupling. Thank you for checking. |
f363f26 to
2b7631c
Compare
Signed-off-by: Coline Piloquet <coline.piloquet@rte-france.com>
2b7631c to
d67a2a1
Compare
…extension Signed-off-by: Coline Piloquet <coline.piloquet@rte-france.com>
Signed-off-by: Coline Piloquet <coline.piloquet@rte-france.com>
eb9f7bd to
4be4f59
Compare
Signed-off-by: Coline Piloquet <coline.piloquet@rte-france.com>
I have one "problem" about having the extension at network level: what should be done if one of the line is removed from the network? I would say that it would be good to remove the associated mutual couplings, but I don't know if it is the best. |
Signed-off-by: Coline Piloquet <coline.piloquet@rte-france.com>
Signed-off-by: Coline Piloquet <coline.piloquet@rte-france.com>
Signed-off-by: Coline Piloquet <coline.piloquet@rte-france.com>
Signed-off-by: Coline Piloquet <coline.piloquet@rte-france.com>
Signed-off-by: Coline Piloquet <coline.piloquet@rte-france.com>
|
…idation in `LineSegment` constraints Signed-off-by: Coline Piloquet <coline.piloquet@rte-france.com>
Signed-off-by: Coline Piloquet <coline.piloquet@rte-france.com>
Signed-off-by: Coline Piloquet <coline.piloquet@rte-france.com>
Signed-off-by: Coline Piloquet <coline.piloquet@rte-france.com>
Co-authored-by: Olivier Perrin <olivier.perrin@rte-france.com> Signed-off-by: Coline P <coline.piloquet@rte-france.com>
|





Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements
Does this PR already have an issue describing the problem?
No
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
Feature
What is the current behavior?
The extension does not exist
What is the new behavior (if this is a feature change)?
A new extension of
Networkis created to store the mutual couplings existing on the network between two lines that are close.This can be used for short-circuit calculations.
Does this PR introduce a breaking change or deprecate an API?