Network_05O_10

2 posts / 0 new
Last post
Dr. Olga Anna Kuchar
Network_05O_10

In the Network_05O_10 files there are some generators with lower and upper generation bounds equal to zero, but their STATUS is 1. (Their participation factor is not zero.)

For example: in Scenario 1, I see the following line in the .raw file in the generator section:

7033,'1',0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,1.027801,0,0.0,0.0,1.0,0.0,0.0,1.0,1,1.0,0.0,0.0,1,1.0,0,1.0,0,1.0,0,1.0,0,1.0

This means that this generator has STATUS=1, but the generator's lower and upper bound on active power generations are both zero.

Is it correct to assume that this generator should be treated as inactive (STATUS=0) in that case?

 There are a number of generators with no output (p_min=p_max=q_min=q_max=0).  I started treating them as inactive (STATUS=0).  However, then the issue that arises is that these generators might appear in contingencies.

For the example, there are the following lines in the case.con file:

 CONTINGENCY G_007033PORTLAVACA4U1

REMOVE UNIT 1 FROM BUS   7033

END

Total votes: 68
Dr. Olga Anna Kuchar
From GO Competition Team

This is totally consistent with the formulation, and might represent, for example, a wind generator where currently the wind is blowing below the cut-in speed. The unit is connected, but it cannot currently produce any power. During the contingency in which it is outaged, all the constraints are feasible if the base case is feasible. The fact that they have a non-zero participation factor doesn't matter, because with the complementarity constraints they are automatically at their limit and won't contribute to make-up power. Hence, I don't think this should present any difficulty for solvers.

Furthermore, setting status=0 would change the feasible set if the generator in question has nonzero q bounds, although that is not the case in this example.