Looks like you are working on the same assignment as the previous poster? ;-)
If I understand your problem correctly, it makes perfect sense. If you ignore violations, you have a lot more freedom to reduce losses. If you restrict your solutions to those that have only small violations, you have restricted yourself to a smaller search space so the losses will increase. For the pf.enforce_q_lims option (or ENFORCE_Q_LIMS for older versions) the procedure is described in the last paragraph of section 4.1 of the User’s Manual A value of 1 means that, at each iteration of the outer loop, all buses with generators violating Q limits will be converted to PQ buses at once. With a value of 2, only one will be converted before solving the power flow again. The second method is slower, but more robust. -- Ray Zimmerman Senior Research Associate B30 Warren Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853 USA phone: (607) 255-9645 On Oct 17, 2014, at 3:40 AM, ambi ka <rambi_2...@yahoo.co.in> wrote: > Sir, > I am working with reactive power optimization. If I run GSA algorithm without > adding penalty terms, my power loss is less compared to the original system. > But if I add penalty terms for voltage violation(PQ buses), line flow > violation, reactive power violation(PV & Slack) and slack bus real power > violation, my power losses are high compared to without penalty. (Without > using Enforce Qlimits). What is the reason and how to correct it? > To correct this, I tried the following. > With Enforce Q limits set to 1, error occurs in setting ref bus. > With Enforce q limits set to 2, no error occurs but with very low value of > power loss compared to without penalty? > My program is correct or not? > What is the difference between Enforce Q limit set to 1 or 2? > from > ambika >
