Is manually switching between powerflowmode and dynamics mode necessary when simulating contingencies?

asked 2020-12-23 20:14:55 -0500

boat14
51 ●7 ●8 ●12

updated 2020-12-23 20:15:47 -0500

Is it necessary to sandwich "powerflow" commands between powerflowmode() and dynamicsmode() commands when simulating dynamics contingencies?

For example, say I have a bus fault and want to disconnect the bus after the fault:

psspy.run(0, 1)

# Apply fault
psspy.dist_bus_fault(111111, _i, _f, [0.0, -0.2E+10])

# Run 6 cycles
psspy.run(0, 1.1)

# Clear fault
psspy.dist_clear_fault(1)

psspy.powerflowmode()    # Switch to powerflow mode Is this necessary?

# Disconnect bus
psspy.dscn(111111)

psspy.dynamicsmode(1)    # Switch back to dynamics mode, with factorizing. Is this necessary?

edit retag flag offensive close merge delete

add a comment

1 answer

Sort by » oldest newest most voted

answered 2020-12-30 16:08:28 -0500

likethevegetable
52 ●12 ●16 ●18

updated 2020-12-30 16:09:17 -0500

That's a good question, I haven't seen or used those API calls before and have not had issues... My initial hunch tells me that psspy.powerflowmode() is necessary if you are affecting the network in a way that changes the admittance matrix values, for example, changing a converted load's power. I will investigate that when I have time and update my answer.

You can use this command to disconnect the bus instead, and confidently not use those comands: ierr = psspy.dist_bus_trip(ibus)

edit flag offensive delete link

add a comment

Question Tools

1 follower

Stats

Asked: 2020-12-23 20:14:55 -0500

Seen: 330 times

Last updated: Dec 30 '20

Is manually switching between powerflowmode and dynamics mode necessary when simulating contingencies?

1 answer

Your Answer

Question Tools

Stats

Related questions