Revision history [back]

Hi everyone,

I came across a very weird bug in my contingency analysis, where I created several two-branch contingencies in the .con file to feed into "ACCC_with_dsp_2”. I got message as below:

 Processing contingency "BRANCH 201-204(1)" (#1 of 1):
 OPEN BRANCH FROM BUS 201 [HYDRO       500.00] TO BUS 205 [SUB230      230.00] CKT &1
 *** Successful solution not achieved: Iteration limit exceeded ***
 Largest mismatch is     172.19 MW or Mvar at bus 205 [SUB230      230.00]
 Total mismatch is       749.22 MVA

While, the actual content (written by one of my function in order to exclude those radial lines) of my .con file is as follows.

/PSS(R)E 33
COM
COM CONTINGENCY description file entry created by PSS(R)E Config File Builder 
COM

CONTINGENCY 'BRANCH 201-204(1)'
OPEN BRANCH FROM BUS 201 TO BUS 204 CKT 1 
END 

END

Note that this test is based on "savnw.sav" case.

So the ACCC modifies the second toBusId from 204 to 205 and change CKT number from to "&1". I am confused because, in my defined subsystem (area1 and area2 with bus base kv>=10), branch 201 - 205 (1) doesn't exist and 201-204 does exist. My confusion are: 1) why does ACCC change 204 to 205? 2) why change ckt (circuit id for parallel branches) from '1' to '&1'

I didn't know ACCC actually can recognize '&1' as a valid circuit id. And I tried to replace the original command with "OPEN BRANCH FROM BUS 201 TO BUS 205 CKT 1 " and ACCC complained that " branch not found", which makes sense since there is no such branch in the subsystem. While when I experiment changing the command to "OPEN BRANCH FROM BUS 201 TO BUS 205 CKT &1 " and ACCC recognize it and process successfully.

Could any one see what is going on here?

Appreciate it.