Hi Fábio, Your Qloss includes both the series reactive losses returned by get_losses() in the imaginary part of the loss return value as well as the line charging capacitance returned in the chg (or fchg and tchg) return value. See help get_losses() for details about the line charging part.
Ray On Jul 16, 2022, at 5:37 PM, Fábio Donisete Silva <fabiodonisetesi...@gmail.com<mailto:fabiodonisetesi...@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi MATPOWER users, I'm comparing the results from the function get_losses() and the equations Ploss = Pkm+Pmk and Qloss = Qkm+Qmk. A difference in the reactive power losses is intriguing me. Taking the IEEE 14 Bus Test System, these are the results I obtained for branch 1-2: * get_losses(): Ploss = 4.29760033602037 p.u.; Qloss = 13.1212080434636 p.u. * Power flow equation*: Ploss = Pkm+Pmk = 4.29760033602037 p.u.; Qloss = Qkm+Qmk = 7.27195804346369 p.u. *The code I implemented to compute the losses are: Ploss(:,i) = resultado_fp.branch(:,14)+resultado_fp.branch(:,16) and Qloss(:,i) = resultado_fp.branch(:,15)+resultado_fp.branch(:,17). I'm not understanding why the reactive power losses are different in these approaches. Until now I'm assuming that the differences are related to computing the losses as functions of bus voltages in get_losses(). Could anyone help me with this? Best regards, Fábio Donisete Silva
