Review conditions of RegulatingControl creation at CGMES export #3279
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
Signed-off-by: Romain Courtier <romain.courtier@rte-france.com>
olperr1
requested changes
Jan 21, 2025
...cgmes-conversion/src/test/java/com/powsybl/cgmes/conversion/test/export/CgmesExportTest.java
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...cgmes-conversion/src/test/java/com/powsybl/cgmes/conversion/test/export/CgmesExportTest.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...cgmes-conversion/src/test/java/com/powsybl/cgmes/conversion/test/export/CgmesExportTest.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...cgmes-conversion/src/test/java/com/powsybl/cgmes/conversion/test/export/CgmesExportTest.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
...s-conversion/src/test/java/com/powsybl/cgmes/conversion/test/export/EquipmentExportTest.java
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Signed-off-by: Romain Courtier <romain.courtier@rte-france.com>
Signed-off-by: Romain Courtier <romain.courtier@rte-france.com>
…ltagecontrolcapability
zamarrenolm
approved these changes
Jan 22, 2025
...s/cgmes-conversion/src/main/java/com/powsybl/cgmes/conversion/export/CgmesExportContext.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Signed-off-by: Romain Courtier <romain.courtier@rte-france.com>
|
olperr1
approved these changes
Jan 22, 2025
olperr1
deleted the
cgmes_export_regulatingcontrol_only_if_hasvoltagecontrolcapability
branch
olperr1
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 22, 2025
* Update conditions of generator's voltage control capability * Create a constant for the CGMES.RegulatingControl property Signed-off-by: Romain Courtier <romain.courtier@rte-france.com> (cherry picked from commit 4887064)
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
Does this PR already have an issue describing the problem?
No.
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
Bug fix.
What is the current behavior?
It is allowed in CGMES to define a SynchronousMachine with a ReactiveCapabilityCurve (or just the minQ and maxQ) but no RegulatingControl. It is imported flawlessly in iidm.
For instance, if a SynchronousMachine has no RegulatingControl, and a minQ < maxQ, it is imported with:
But when exporting the network back to CGMES, a RegulatingControl is exported for that SynchronousMachine. The reason is primarily that the SynchronousMachine is considered in PowSyBl with regulating control capability since minQ < maxQ.
This generates issues in the CGM building process where an updated SSH is exported for the IGM, with a
<cim:RegulatingControl rdf:about="#xxx">whereas the<cim:RegulatingControl rdf:id="xxx">isn't present in the original IGM EQ (and there is no export of the updated IGM EQ in the CGM building process).What is the new behavior (if this is a feature change)?
The conditions of RegulatingControl creation at CGMES export have been reviewed. A RegulatingControl is created if one of the following condition is met:
RemoteReactivePowerControlextension is presentDouble.NaNAND minQ < maxQDoes this PR introduce a breaking change or deprecate an API?
Other information: