Enable AC polar formulation for OPF #122
Conversation
|
Two years after it is finally time to merge this! 🥳 @hhijazi and/or @JaromilNajman can you double check it and convince @simonbowly it is a must have please? |
simonbowly
force-pushed
the
opf-acpolar
branch
from
3bbbfd1 to
5e55b58
Compare
simonbowly
force-pushed
the
opf-acpolar
branch
from
5e55b58 to
5748962
Compare
|
Woohoo, it's time!? We should also take a look at the parameter settings for the other model types. I'm guessing for |
|
Yes good point. We should probably revise all possibilities in view of v13. Pinging the ACOPF gurus @hhijazi and @JaromilNajman |
| useef = True | ||
| usejabr = False | ||
| polar = False | ||
| default_solver_params = { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would change the settings to
"OptimalityTarget": 1
"SolutionLimit": 1
We have to set a solution limit for the case when we have branch switching, because then we have binaries in the model.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
wouldn't OptimalityTarget 1 throw an error for a MIP?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yes, it would. We would need to do something else when we have branch switching on.
|
|
||
| # use aclocal to run Gurobi as a local solver (stops at the first feasible solution) | ||
| if opftype.lower() == "aclocal": | ||
| opftype = "ac" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would remove aclocal and introduce acreclocal and acpolarlocal which are the same, but with the difference that for rec we use
useef = True
usejabr = False
polar = False
and for polar we use
useef = False
usejabr = False
polar = True
|
We need to adjust the polar formulation to use nlconstrs. Right now it still manually disaggregates the model and uses |
, solver parameters, and unit tests
|
Can we close this one and transition to #176? |
I can do that. What exactly is left to be done? EDIT: I think I know now what has to be done. |
4 participants
Todo: