Strings with a fork don't resolve correctly

[RHammond2]

When an array cable string splits into two diverging upstream paths, the upstream cable/turbine connections don't resolve correctly. Likely a customized graph model is required for this scenario instead of a sequentially defined, CSV-based model.

[AJP-47]

Hi,

My question seems related to this issue, but I could be wrong. I'm looking to model an array loop. In the picture attached, I need to connect the offshore substation with turbine 10 for redundancy. (In case T6 is offline, then T7 to T10 can still send power to the OSS)

Is this possible by tweaking the plant layout.csv file?

Thanks

[RHammond2]

Hi @AJP-47, unfortunately, neither redundancy, nor forking is enabled in WOMBAT, and there isn't really a great workaround for it other than having separate strings for each prong of the fork.

[AJP-47]

Hi @RHammond2

Thanks for the response. Can you tell me how I can create a separate fork between T10 and OSS1?

Adding an extra line in the plant layout.csv for T10 does not seem to be the way to go, as WOMBAT assumes its a new turbine and increases the wind farm capacity.

Thanks!

[RHammond2]

Unfortunately, there isn't a way to have a turbine on two strings without going into the code and directly modifying the graph layout setup within the wind farm model. The only way to currently model those three turbines is as a separate string from OSS1 -> T10 -> T9 -> T8 -> T7, and not include them on the string OSS1 -> T5 -> ... -> T1.

That said, this is certainly a use case that's worth exploring more, though is of low priority from a project planning perspective at the moment. We're working on finding more funds for the work to push some of these long standing feature ideas up the priority list, but unfortunately there isn't a lot of consideration for this kind of layout at the moment.

[AJP-47]

Hi Hammond,

I see what you mean. I tried the 2 fork method but I still don't get my redundancy.

Thanks a lot for the support! And apologies for crashing this thread, I don't think my redundancy issue is suited here. Would you like me to delete my comments this discussion?

[RHammond2]

The model wasn't at all designed around redundancy, so it won't be possible to have the redundancy as-is, though I'm already envisioning how it could be enabled for a case such as this. I would also keep your comments active because it helps provide some evidence for me that people are looking for this functionality, and some of the ancillary considerations.