Skip to content

Combined Heat and Power (CHP)#2218

Draft
Flix6x wants to merge 20 commits into
dev/split-flexcontext-by-commodityfrom
feat/chp
Draft

Combined Heat and Power (CHP)#2218
Flix6x wants to merge 20 commits into
dev/split-flexcontext-by-commodityfrom
feat/chp

Conversation

@Flix6x

@Flix6x Flix6x commented Jun 2, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Description

  • Support coupling constraints in the device_scheduler to model devices such as CHP
  • Added changelog item in documentation/changelog.rst

Look & Feel

...

How to test

New tests:

pytest -k test_chp_coupling
pytest -k test_factory_chp_dispatch

Further Improvements

...

Related Items

...

Flix6x added 2 commits May 29, 2026 13:34
Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <claessen@seita.nl>
Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <claessen@seita.nl>
@Flix6x Flix6x self-assigned this Jun 2, 2026
Flix6x and others added 18 commits June 3, 2026 10:31
Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <claessen@seita.nl>
Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <claessen@seita.nl>
Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <claessen@seita.nl>
Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <claessen@seita.nl>
Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <claessen@seita.nl>
…nd electrical efficiencies

Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <claessen@seita.nl>
Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <claessen@seita.nl>
Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <claessen@seita.nl>
…ent validation

Context:\n- test_storage_scheduler_chp_coupling failed because positive coefficients summed to 1.5 while current scheduler validation requires 1.0\n\nChange:\n- adjusted the storage CHP test coefficients and expectations to satisfy current validation semantics\n- kept the test focused on verifying coupled gas/heat/power behavior
Context:\n- Coupling coefficients in flex-models were user-facing signed values, which was error-prone and not user-friendly\n\nChange:\n- treat flex-model coupling-coefficient as a positive magnitude\n- infer internal sign from capacities (consumption-capacity=0 -> output/negative, production-capacity=0 -> input/positive)\n- remove strict positive-sum validation in scheduler coupling-group construction\n- update storage CHP coupling test and schema/openapi documentation to reflect positive-only coefficient input
…ocstring

Context:\n- The storage CHP test docstring should distinguish user-facing positive flex-model coefficients from the signed internal coefficients\n\nChange:\n- documented that the flex-model uses positive magnitudes\n- explicitly stated the intended internal coefficients: 1.0, -0.5, -0.3
Signed-off-by: F.N. Claessen <claessen@seita.nl>
* fix: keep ems-constraints and fix the test cases

Signed-off-by: Ahmad-Wahid <ahmedwahid16101@gmail.com>

* Update flexmeasures/data/models/planning/storage.py

Co-authored-by: Felix Claessen <30658763+Flix6x@users.noreply.github.com>
Signed-off-by: Ahmad Wahid <59763365+Ahmad-Wahid@users.noreply.github.com>

* fix: update the comment and raise value error if ems_constraints_group is not passed

Signed-off-by: Ahmad-Wahid <ahmedwahid16101@gmail.com>

---------

Signed-off-by: Ahmad-Wahid <ahmedwahid16101@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Ahmad Wahid <59763365+Ahmad-Wahid@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Felix Claessen <30658763+Flix6x@users.noreply.github.com>
…ty' into feat/chp

# Conflicts:
#	flexmeasures/data/models/planning/linear_optimization.py
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants