4.7 Article

Pandapower-An Open-Source Python Tool for Convenient Modeling, Analysis, and Optimization of Electric Power Systems

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER SYSTEMS
卷 33, 期 6, 页码 6510-6521

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TPWRS.2018.2829021

关键词

Python; open source; power flow; optimal power flow; short circuit; IEC60909; automated network analysis; power system analysis; graph search

资金

  1. German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy
  2. Projekttrager Julich GmbH [FKZ: 0325616, FKZ: 0325782A]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pandapower is a Python-based BSD-licensed power system analysis tool aimed at automation of static and quasi-static analysis and optimization of balanced power systems. It provides power flow, optimal power flow, state estimation, topological graph searches, and short-circuit calculations according to IEC 60909. pandapower includes a Newton-Raphson power flow solver formerly based on PYPOWER, which has been accelerated with just-in-time compilation. Additional enhancements to the solver include the capability to model constant current loads, grids with multiple reference nodes, and a connectivity check. The pandapower network model is based on electric elements, such as lines, two- and three-winding transformers, or ideal switches. All elements can be defined with nameplate parameters and are internally processed with equivalent circuit models, which have been validated against industry standard software tools. The tabular data structure used to define networks is based on the Python library pandas, which allows comfortable handling of input and output parameters. The implementation in Python makes pandapower easy to use and allows comfortable extension with third-party libraries. pandapower has been successfully applied in several grid studies as well as for educational purposes. A comprehensive publicly available case study demonstrates a possible application of pandapower in an automated time-series calculation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据