Skip to content

PhasorDynamcics hierarchical system test for TwoArea - #644

Open
nkoukpaizan wants to merge 8 commits into
developfrom
nicholson/hierarchical-two-area
Open

nkoukpaizan wants to merge 8 commits into
developfrom
nicholson/hierarchical-two-area

Conversation

@nkoukpaizan

@nkoukpaizan nkoukpaizan commented Nov 4, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Description

This adds an integration test simulating the TwoArea case as two subsystems and verifying that the results match the

Proposed changes

  • Added TwoAreaHierarchical.case.json with a README describing how it relates to cases/PhasorDynamics/TwoArea/README.md.
  • Added the PhasorDynamicsIntegrationTwoAreaHierarchical integration test, comparing the flat and hierarchical systems at the initial (including residuals and Jacobians) and final (bus voltages and state vector) points. Both still use monolithic IDA to integrate, but differ in the model evaluation. Once we merge Add interface to partitioned DAE integrator #614, we can experiment with the partitioned integrator.
  • Minor variable renaming in the tests to improve readability.

Checklist

  • All tests pass.
  • Code compiles cleanly with flags -Wall -Wpedantic -Wconversion -Wextra.
  • The new code follows GridKit™ style guidelines.
  • There are unit tests for the new code.
  • The new code is documented.
  • The feature branch is rebased with respect to the target branch.
  • The CHANGELOG.md has been updated to reflect the changes. If this is a minor PR that is part of a larger fix already included in the file, state so.

Further comments

Writing the test showed that the TwoArea generators lose synchronism with no fault, so this PR also fixes the case data. @lukelowry, please check.

  • Set Kf = 0.1 and Tf = 1.0 on all four IEEET1 exciters.
  • Changed Vrmax from 0.0 to 3.0 on 3_1_ieeet1, to match the other three exciters.

@nkoukpaizan nkoukpaizan self-assigned this Nov 4, 2026
@nkoukpaizan nkoukpaizan added enhancement New feature or request help wanted Extra attention is needed testing labels Nov 4, 2026
@read-the-docs-community

read-the-docs-community Bot commented Nov 4, 2026 •

Copy link
Copy Markdown

@nkoukpaizan
nkoukpaizan marked this pull request as ready for review November 4, 2026 22:20
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

enhancement New feature or request help wanted Extra attention is needed testing

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant