Open So-Fras opened 1 year ago
I disagree with this issue, it does not make any sense to try to display a bus/breaker model as a node/breaker model. If one needs this kind of display it has to use a node/breaker model. In a bus/breaker model, switches are bus coupler only, nothing related to feeder switch, there is a terminal status for that.
Should the sld svg generator be updated to always display equipments with bus="null" but connectableBus="XXX" with an open breaker to the XXX bar ? Or we do we want explicit data in the network (extension ?) to model this ?
The following network (written by hand by me, may have mistakes) (load1 and gen1 are connected, but load2 and gen2 are disconnected)
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<iidm:network xmlns:iidm="http://www.powsybl.org/schema/iidm/1_9" xmlns:slt="http://www.powsybl.org/schema/iidm/ext/slack_terminal/1_5" id="ieee9cdf" caseDate="2009-04-26T00:00:00.000Z" forecastDistance="0" sourceFormat="IEEE-CDF" minimumValidationLevel="STEADY_STATE_HYPOTHESIS">
<iidm:substation id="S">
<iidm:voltageLevel id="VL1" nominalV="100.0" topologyKind="BUS_BREAKER">
<iidm:busBreakerTopology>
<iidm:bus id="B1" name="B1"/>
</iidm:busBreakerTopology>
<iidm:load id="L1" p0="100.0" q0="35.0" connectableBus="B1" bus="B1"/>
<iidm:generator id="G1" energySource="OTHER" minP="10.0" maxP="110.0" targetP="100.0" targetV="100.0" targetQ="35.0" voltageRegulatorOn="true" connectableBus="B1" bus="B1"/>
</iidm:voltageLevel>
<iidm:voltageLevel id="VL2" nominalV="100.0" topologyKind="BUS_BREAKER">
<iidm:busBreakerTopology>
<iidm:bus id="B2" name="B2"/>
</iidm:busBreakerTopology>
<iidm:load id="L2" p0="100.0" q0="35.0" connectableBus="B2"/>
<iidm:generator id="G2" energySource="OTHER" minP="10.0" maxP="110.0" targetP="100.0" targetV="100.0" targetQ="35.0" voltageRegulatorOn="true" connectableBus="B2"/>
</iidm:voltageLevel>
<iidm:twoWindingsTransformer id="T" r="0.0" x="5.76" g="0.0" b="0.0" ratedU1="100.0" ratedU2="100.0" bus1="B1" connectableBus1="B1" voltageLevelId1="VL1" bus2="B2" connectableBus2="B2" voltageLevelId2="VL2">
<iidm:ratioTapChanger lowTapPosition="0" tapPosition="0" loadTapChangingCapabilities="true" regulating="false">
<iidm:step r="0.0" x="0.0" g="0.0" b="0.0" rho="1.0"/>
</iidm:ratioTapChanger>
</iidm:twoWindingsTransformer>
</iidm:substation>
</iidm:network>
produces (after running openloadflow) Is this expected ? the only way to see that the equipement is not connect to the bus is that the active and reactive power is "-" ? Not sure maybe I did something wrong ?
Or is the bus/breaker topology not supposed to be used for this usecase ?
In powsybl-diagram latest version (v5.3.2), a fix was introduced to display disconnected components. A disconnected load or a disconnected line terminal now appear with a dashed line:
ok I see it with 4.0.0-SNAPSHOT with the "highlight" checkbox in the dev tools viewer. Is it enough ?
Yes and now you can visualize that G2 and L2 are both disconnected.
At least we need to add documentation on the expected semantics of buses and switches in the busbreaker definition.
And what if your objective is to display a diagram that looks like the busbreaker one in this image https://www.powsybl.org/pages/documentation/grid/model/img/index/voltage-level.svg (from our docs https://www.powsybl.org/pages/documentation/grid/model/#voltage-level ). that's what I meant with "is it enough?"
Describe the current behavior
When we create a simple voltage level in Bus/Breaker view, with the code below:
We get the following svg output:
Describe the expected behavior
Instead, one may want to get the following output (looking more like a Node/Breaker view):
The switches would be displayed on feeders instead of being displayed as bridges between bus bars.
Describe the motivation
This would enhances the diagram readability.