1

Voltage control in low voltage networks by

Photovoltaic Inverters PVNET.dk

Case-study Bornholm


Adrian Constantin, Radu Dan Lazar and Dr. Sren Bkhj Kjr
Danfoss Solar Inverters A/S, December 2012

This report can also be downloaded at http://www.danfoss.com/solar and at www.PVNET.dk
Research supported partly by Energinet.dk, under grant number ForskEL 10698














Danfoss can accept no responsibility for possible errors in catalogues, brochures and other printed
material. Danfoss reserves the right to alter its products without notice. This also applies to products
already on order provided that such alterations can be made without subsequential changes being
necessary in specifications already agreed. All trademarks in this material are property of the respective
companies. Danfoss and the Danfoss logotype are trademarks of Danfoss A/S. This work is licensed
under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License





2




3
Summary
This report provides an analysis on the main voltage regulation techniques that can be
applied in the low voltage (LV) network with standard photovoltaic (PV) inverter technology. The
main purpose of the research is to verify if reactive power can be used in LV networks to increase
the hosting capacity, by controlling the voltage and hereby increase the hosting capacity of the LV
networks.
The hosting capacity of a LV network is defined by the amount of PV power which can be
installed in the network before certain limits are reached. The evaluated limits in this report are:
overloading of LV cables, overloading of MV/LV transformers and overvoltage at the outermost
distribution box. Two types of Volt-VAR control schemes are presented: the power factor
depending on active power output of the PV inverters - PF(P) and reactive power depending on
the terminal voltage of the PV inverter - Q(U). A generic LV grid model with 71 users and a 100 kVA
feeding transformer is used in the simulations, being considered as representative for the
Bornholm network. All users are equipped with PV systems, each of equal power size and PV panel
orientation. Furthermore, a simple MV network is implemented in order to observe the voltage
variations in the 10 kV network as well. The energy consumption for each of the 71 users is based
on time-series of generic consumption. The PV generation is based on synthesized hourly
irradiance by the PVsyst software, taking both clear sky and covered sky into consideration.
The results indicate that without voltage control the overvoltage phenomena starts for a PV
capacity of 1.5 kW per residence (total 107 kW). By applying a standard PF(P) control scheme, the
overvoltage condition is avoided up to a PV penetration level of 1.8 kW per residence (total 124
kW) and still keeps the amount of exchanged reactive power low, PF > 0.95. By applying Q(U)
control, the overvoltage condition is mitigated up to 2.0 kW (total 144 kW) penetration and still
keeping the power factor above 0.90. The overvoltage issue is not solved by upgrading the feeding
transformer, on the contrary increasing the size of the transformer has a slight negative effect. The
total hosting capacity for the LV networks on Bornholm is estimated to 50 60 MW, which can
cover 15 20% of the yearly energy consumption.
Overall, it has been found that applying standard voltage control techniques in the LV
networks helps to increase the PV penetration by approximately 30% from 1.5 kW to 2.0 kW per
residence. For higher PV penetration levels, additional solutions must be applied: more complex
voltage control schemes, increased self-consumption, storage solutions or active power
curtailment. Both PF(P) and Q(U) control types are improving the maximum voltage profile at the
outermost distribution box. Based on these results, if overvoltage is observed at the end-customer
site the following order of actions are suggested:
Apply voltage control for the inverters, e.g. PF(P), Q(U) or more complex schemes
Lower the tap position in the LV/MV transformer and apply Q(U) round the clock
Increase self-consumption at peak production hours
Lower active output power of inverters (only in emergency cases for short periods)
Upgrade cables, upgrading the transformer does not help
Install storage, i.e. battery systems


4
Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION 7
1.1 Problem statement 7
2 METHODS 10
2.1 Definition of hosting capacity for the electrical network 10
2.2 Definition of PV penetration for the electrical network 13
2.3 Reactive power by grid voltage - Q(U) 14
2.4 Power Factor by Active Power PF(P) according to VDE AR N 4105 17
2.5 Generic LV network 18
2.6 Statistical Data Used for Consumption and Generation 20
2.6.1 Electrical energy consumption 20
2.6.2 PV generation 20
2.7 Simulation model 22
2.7.1 Dynamic inverter model description 22
2.7.2 Dynamic AC load modeling 23
2.8 Simulation study cases 23
3 RESULTS 26
3.1 Results of the base study case 26
3.2 Overview of comparisons between the simulated results 34
3.3 Varying the dead-band of the Q(U) controller 36
3.4 Varying the voltage sensitivity of the Q(U) controller 38
3.5 Comparison for varying the transformer power rating with and without Q(U) voltage control 42
3.6 Comparison for varying the transformer power rating with PF(P) voltage control 44
3.7 Comparison of Q(U) and PF(P) 46
3.8 Comparison of hosting capacity for the cases 48
4 CONCLUSION 50
4.1 Obtained results 50
4.2 Recommendations for voltage control in LV feeders 52


5
4.3 Future Work 52
5 WORKS CITED 54
6 APPENDIX A 56
7 APPENDIX B 58
7.1 Study case 2 58
7.2 Study case 3 62
7.3 Study case 4 67
7.4 Study case 5 71
7.5 Study case 6 76
7.6 Study case 7 80
7.7 Study case 8 84
7.8 Study case 9 89
7.9 Study case 10 93
7.10 Study case 11 97
7.11 Study case 12 102
7.12 Study case 13 106




6
Nomenclature

DNO Distribution Network Operator
EPIA European Photovoltaic Industry Association
HV High Voltage
LV Low Voltage
MV Medium Voltage
OLTC On load tap changer
PF Power factor (acc. To IEEE convention)
PV Photovoltaic
TSO Transmission System Operator



7
1 Introduction
This study is part of the project Application of smart grid in photovoltaic power systems
PVNET.dk, ForskEL Programme 2011 partly sponsored by Energinet.dk. This work package
provides one possible and economically viable solution of overcoming technical difficulties which
may appear due to the ever increasing amount of PV generation at the LV distribution network
level. Namely, it analyses the performance of reactive power control of the PV inverters connected
to the LV network. This solution is intended to be tested in the laboratory and afterwards
deployed on PV inverters on the island of Bornholm. Two types of Volt-VAr control are under
study: reactive power by voltage - Q(U) and power factor depending on the output power - PF(P)
of the PV inverters, both which are commonly used in Germany. The advantages and
disadvantages of using reactive power control in a LV feeder are exemplified based on a generic LV
network model for the Bornholm network. This network describes a typical residential topology on
the island.
1.1 Problem statement
In Denmark only, PV installations are expected to increase at a very high pace with an
estimated amount of installed power exceeding 1000 MW in 2020 [1]. As of February 2012, there
are a total of 11 MW installed PV capacity in Denmark providing approximately 0.03% of the total
energy consumption. This figure is comparable to approximately 3% in Germany [2]. Most of these
PV installations in Denmark are being built in the 0.4 kV feeders of the distribution network.
Reference [3] estimates a total of 140 MW by the end of September 2012 comprising more than
25 000 installations.
There are several technical issues which may appear when increasing the penetration level
of renewable energy in a LV distribution network:
Transformer overloading
Cable overloading
Overvoltage phenomena
Voltage unbalance
Reverse power feed-in
Protection System failure
The first three issues are the most urgent and the DNOs are trying to address them first. This
document will focus on these. Voltage unbalance has been studied within this project in parallel
and documented in reference [4]. Reverse power flow and protection system failure are not
covered by this report due to the limited influence that PV inverters can have in mitigating these
effects without corresponding communication channels or storage devices (which increase self
consumption).
The first three forementioned issues are present with different occurrence probabilities
depending on the type and layout of each LV distribution network and the PV penetration level.
Thus, from the point of view of categorizing the distribution networks upon the type of end
customers, the technical literature uses the following grid naming [5]: Urban, Sub-urban, Rural and
Farms. The current study has the objective of focusing on a sub-urban grid type due to the high
relevance in connection to the electrical network of Bornholm.


8
A comprehensive analysis has been done by Dansk Energi in a recently published report [6].
As in most theoretical analyses simplifying assumptions have been used (3 phased PV systems,
hourly load/generation data, grid data only from one DNO, even distribution of PV throughout the
network). In this report a total of 1110 0.4 kV feeders are evaluated for susceptibility of violating
the +/- 10% voltage design criterium when introducing PV generation from 0 to 50% penetration.
One of the results in their report is that while a PV penetration level of 13.5% in 2030 is expected,
only 0.7-0.8% of the total number of feeders (containing more than 5 consumers) will experience
overvoltage at that moment. For higher penetration levels the probability of having these types of
problems will eventually increase, therefore, the associated costs of reinforcing the network will
increase accordingly.
Several solutions have been suggested until now in order to cope with the overvoltage
phenomena at high PV penetration levels of distributed generation in LV:
1. Voltage control using reactive power generation from PV inverters
2. Voltage control at the LV side of the LV/MV transformer by on-load tap changers
3. Active power derating of the PV production in case of overvoltage conditions
4. Battery storage/Energy buffer at PV generator and MV distribution level
5. Network upgrade
6. (Seasonal) changes of the tap position of the LV/MV distribution transformer
Each solution is currently investigated by different stakeholders and their feasibility is
assessed.
Method 1, voltage control through reactive power generation from PV inverter, is one of the
easiest to implement because of the versatility of the inverter unit in providing a plethora of
voltage control techniques. A good overview of the available Volt-VAr methods is presented in [5].
These are constant power factor (PF), constant reactive power, local Q(U) and local PF(P). The
same reference provides two proposals for optimized local Volt-VAr control: local Q(U,P) and local
PF(U,P). The last two methods are claimed to increase the PV penetration levels while keeping the
reactive power flow to a minimum (thereby minimizing the reactive power exchange) and also
avoiding overvoltage situations. Regarding the local Q(U) regulation algorithm a recent study has
assessed its stability when applying it to PV inverters installed in LV networks [7]. In their report
the integration of Q(U) in the standard requirements for LV connected PV inverters in Germany is
recommended. Another author analyses and verifies the efficacy of several other different types
of voltage control methods based also on the local Q(U) principle [8]. Several claimed
disadvantages of the existent methods are: need for overrating the PV inverter, increasing the
losses in the grid due to reactive current circulation, compensation in the MV network of the
generated inductive reactive currents. All the previously mentioned control methods are intended
to function autonomously. Still, in the future, by leveraging the Smart Grid functionality,
communication means will be available to the inverters as well. Therefore, the voltage control
through reactive power generation can be optimized by coordinated/scheduled control.
Method 2, is proposed by several transformer manufacturers and DNOs [9] [10]. Pilot
projects are already under development in order to assess the efficacy of the on load tap
changer type transformers [6] [10] [11]. Still, the solution is not mature enough to be accepted as
being feasible. Moreover, the high investment costs and the additional service required make this
option less attractive.


9
Method 3, active power derating, has been investigated by researchers [12] [13] and DNOs
[14]. Usually, the PV plant owner cannot estimate the impact of this control scheme upon the
economical aspects of the investment. Furthermore, the PV owners which will be at the end of the
LV feeders will be the first to be affected. An interesting conclusion is that: At first glance it seems
that local or central regulation of reactive power comes first among the possible strategies. Active
curtailment would then be activated when reactive compensation is no longer sufficient to avoid
upper voltage constraints [14].
Method 4, battery storage/energy buffer at PV generator level, is promoted by several PV
inverter manufacturers with the scope of shifting the PV grid injection peaks, thus avoiding
overloading the network [15]. EPIAs report Connecting The Sun [16] describes as a valid solution
the combination between active power derating and storage which will result in peak shaving at
noon hours and feeding energy during the evening hours.The energy buffer system can be a
battery (bidirectional power flow) or a controllable AC load (unidirectional power flow e.g. heat
pumps). The main disadvantage of the storage solution is the high cost of an integrated battery +
inverter system even for small capacity batteries. The life-time of the battery is also difficult to
estimate considering the unpredictability of the full load hours to be applied. Regarding the use of
batteries at the MV distribution level, several pilot projects are being implemented by DNOs in
order to get more experience with the use and advantages of such a control method. Although
providing a very good technical solution, the storage technologies are not yet price competitive
enough for the lifetime and capacity required. Further investigations are necessary.
Method 5, comprises the standard approach of increasing the grid capacity by upgrading the
LV/MV transformer to a higher power rating or by reinforcing the LV feeders by addition of parallel
lines or replacement of old lines with higher ampacity ones.
Method 1 is the main focus in this work, the authors wishing to take advantage of the
versatility of the PV inverters in providing voltage control schemes. Thus, the subject of employing
reactive power control techniques in the LV distribution networks is discussed in this analysis. The
main outcome of this work is intended to be a generic design guideline for mitigating effects of
increased PV penetration, thus increasing the network integration of solar energy in the power
system.


10
2 Methods
This Chapter represents the main part of the study and contains an analysis method
description in order to draw guiding conclusions over the feasibility of the use of reactive power in
LV grids for increasing PV penetration.
2.1 Definition of hosting capacity for the electrical network
The reactive power supply from PV inverters is currently used in all types of networks in
Germany (e.g. in LV and MV [17] [18]), while many other european countries are in the process of
enforcing such requirements. On the other hand, in islanded systems it is common practice to use
droop control to maintain the grid operation. It is therefore interesting to find out to what extent
the reactive power control can be used in low voltage networks in terms of voltage control. This
analysis provides study case answers to questions such as:
What is the benefit of using the PV inverters in reactive power mode in LV networks?
How much can we increase the level of PV penetration in the distribution network if
reactive power support methods are used in the PV inverters?
What are the limiting factors when increasing the level of PV penetration (transformer
overloading, cable overloading or overvoltage situations) ?
What is the influence of different grid specific parameters to the overall results (MV grid
impedance, transformer size, cable length)?
Reference [6] discusses in great detail the overvoltage limitations that can be encountered
when increasing the PV generation in the LV network. Due to the high number of studied feeders
it provides a high confidence level of the results. The voltage allocation ranges are clearly specified
for each component in the 10 and 0.4 kV network in such a manner that the +/- 10% voltage range
criterium holds according to the EN50160 standard [19]. The analysis from [6] is based on
measuring the relative difference between the secondary side of the transformer and the
outermost distribution box in LV network. As a guiding rule, the relative voltage is allowed to vary
to maximum -5% in case of a load and maximum +2.5% in case of PV generation [6]. In the future
with more distributed generation in the network this might change to -2.5% to +5% voltage
variation.
A relatively different analysis approach is taken in this report in comparison with reference
[6]. An absolute voltage range allocation is performed based on Figure 1. While this case is
considered to be representative for the current analysis, other different designs may also be found
in real situations. The figure contains a one line diagram of a distribution system and the
corresponding voltage allocation ranges. It contains a 60/10 kV transformer with on load tap
changer controlling the voltage on the secondary side. A MV cable distribution system is shown
connecting the 60/10 kV transformer to a 10/0.4 kV transformer. The latter contains an off load
tap changer adjusting the voltage on the secondary side. A LV distribution network follows
towards the farthest located distribution box. A load and a PV system are depicted as being
connected to the network. It can be seen that at each location in this network certain minimum
and maximum voltage limits apply. The narrowest allocated range is at the secondary side of the
60/10 kV transformer where the voltage is allowed to vary within a 2% interval. The widest band is


11
allocated to the outermost distribution box for which the +/-10% voltage limits are applied. This
figure represents one of the main requirements for the voltage ranges in this report.
According to [6] the voltage ranges from Table 1 are reserved from the full +/-10% interval.
Based on the above relative values of Table 1, the absolute voltage ranges from Figure 1 have
been deduced.
Voltage range allocated for: Size [%] Size applied
in Figure 1
[%]
Tap changer at 60/10 kV transformer 2 2
Voltage fall in the 10 kV network 5 5
Non-optimal tap position of the 10/0.4
transformer
2.5 -
Voltage drop of the 10/0.4 kV transformer 1.5 1.5
Unsymmetrical loading 1 1
Voltage increase in the LV installation (after the
outermost distribution box)
0.5 -
Voltage increase in the LV lines - 2.5
Voltage increase in the MV lines - 2.5
Voltage increase in the 10/0.4 transformer - 0.5
Tap position 10/0.4 transformer (maximum load) - 2.5
Tap position 10/0.4 transformer (maximum PV) - 2.5
Total 12.5 20
Table 1: Voltage reserves allocated in the 10 and 0.4 kV network [6]



12

Figure 1: Allowed voltage ranges for different points in the 10 and 0.4 kV distribution network


13
2.2 Definition of PV penetration for the electrical network
The PV penetration levels are defined in this study in accordance to the definition used in
[6]. Therefore, under the present legislative framework it is expected that an economical
investment in a residential solar plant will result in an installed capacity of 5 kVA. Having all the
consumers in a residential feeder installing a 5 kVA/kWp solar system would therefore be
equivalent with 100% PV penetration in the respective network feeder [6]. This method to
estimate the amount of PV in the network has the advantage of creating a uniform distribution
across the entire feeder of PV power. Practical cases may differ from this situation. The PV
penetration level

is expressed in percent and in combination with the number of consumers

and the maximum rated power of one PV inverter S

r
(5 kVA) it determines the total
installed PV power in the respective feeder

as in Equation 1.

Equation 1
In Table 2 are shown the chosen values for which calculations have been done in Section 3.
PV penetration level
[%]
Power Rating of
inverter [kVA]
Total PV power for a LV
network with 71 customers
[kVA]
0 0.0 0
10 0.5 36
20 1.0 71
30 1.5 107
40 2.0 142
50 2.5 178
60 3.0 213
Table 2: Selected PV penetration levels in the simulation
Regarding the orientation of the PV panels in the PV plant it is assumed that all systems are
oriented south with a 45 degrees vertical inclination, see Figure 2. This case is considered to be the
worst case scenario since in the summer months the peak production will be higher for this
orientation than in any other situation (any orientation and any season). Figure 2 also shows that
by scattering the PV systems in orientation and inclination the PV penetration can be further
increased with more than 10% without negative impacts from overloading.


14

Figure 2: Typical output power from a 1 kWp PV system in clear sky conditions. The green curve shows the
power from aggregated systems pointing all south. The red curve shows the corresponding power for 10 systems
which are scattered from East to West with 30 and 45 inclination.
2.3 Reactive power by grid voltage - Q(U)
The main purpose when applying a Q(U) control algorithm is to use the reactive power of the
inverter in such a way that in case of overvoltage conditions the control will decrease to a certain
degree the mains voltage and in case of undervoltage situations the control will tend to increase
the voltage towards a prescribed value. This control needs to take also into account the standard
tap changer position of the MV/LV transformer.
The Q(U) control is normally implemented as in Figure 3. The voltage at the inverter bus
terminals can be used as an input value to the controller. This voltage is computed as the averaged
RMS value of the three phases and expressed in per unit system like suggested in IEC 61850-90-7
[20]. A reactive power versus voltage dependency is defined using a piecewise linear curve as
drawn with red and green in Figure 3. The red curve contains additionally a dead band
characteristic, commonly used in medium voltage applications. A low pass filter is added to the
controller in order to increase stability by making the controller slower (e.g. the inverter will not
interact with faster automatic voltage regulators).


15

Figure 3: PV inverter Q(U) control algorithm
The slope m of the Q(U) characteristic represents the sensitivity of the reactive power
controller versus voltage changes. In this report the term voltage sensitivity is used
interchangeably with the term slope m of the Q(U). It is defined as in Equation 2. In the case of a
multi segment curve as it is the case of the red curve in Figure 3, one voltage sensitivity value is
defined for each interval. Dead-band may also be programmed in the reference curve. Thus,
different voltage sensitivity values can be defined for under/over excited operation modes,
therefore the voltage sensitivity will be calculated using a different references in Equation 2.
max min
min max
U U
Q Q
U
Q
m

Equation 2
If analyzing a Q(U) curve there are several defining parameters (denoted by their name) and
intervals (marked by a capital letter) as shown in Figure 4.
Q*[pu]
U
inv
[pu]
U
min U
max
Q
max
Q
min
A B C
U
dmin
U
dmax U
ref

Figure 4: Generic Q(U) curve and defining parameters. The curve could also have another shape, with more points.
IEEE power factor convention, see Section 2.4.
The operation intervals defined in Figure 4 are:
Interval A: overexcited (capacitive) operation of the PV inverter; the main objective is
to increase the mains voltage.
Interval B: Dead-band in which the controller is not injecting reactive power for a
predefined voltage range.
Interval C: underexcited (inductive) operation of the PV inverter; the objective is to
decrease the mains voltage.


16
The relevant parameters shown in the figure above are:

: Minimum voltage value for which the controller should apply maximum
capacitive reactive power at the inverters terminals

: Minimum voltage of dead-band interval. For lower voltages overexcited

(capacitive) inverter operation is chosen while for higher values the PV inverter does
not inject any reactive power.

: Maximum voltage of dead-band interval. For lower values the PV inverter

does not inject reactive power while for higher values the underexcited (inductive)
inverter operation mode is chosen.

: Reference voltage for dead-band selection. This parameter is chosen according

to the selected output voltage of the LV/MV transformer at the secondary side (LV
side) and in accordance with the voltage tap-setting. This parameter has no other
purpose but to correctly determine suitable values for

and

: Maximum voltage value for which the controller should apply minimum
(inductive) reactive power at the inverters output terminals

: Minimum reactive power generated by inverter. This parameter refers to the

underexcited reactive power operation of the inverter. The value can reach up to the
maximum underexcited reactive power capability of the inverter.

: Maximum reactive power generated by inverter. This parameter refers to the

overexcited reactive power operation of the inverter. The value can reach up to the
maximum overexcited reactive power capability of the inverter.
Additionally to the fore-mentioned parameters, the controllers low pass filter is defined by
a time constant

. The German authority BDEW recommends in the MV networks the use of a

settling time between 10 and 40 seconds for Q(U) [17].
The parameter

is usually chosen depending on the applicable under-voltage limits of

the inverters. For EN50160 [19] standard the -10% limit is used in case of long-term voltage
variations with averaging periods for 10 minutes. Therefore, if the fore-mentioned standards
apply:

The same design criterion is employed for defining the

parameter: a value of maximum

+10% in voltage will correspond to:

Parameters

and

are defining the width of the voltage dead band in which the
Q(U) control should not generate any reactive power. This region should restrict the inverters
injecting unnecessary reactive power while small variations in voltage are present around the
nominal prescribed value at the LV side of the distribution transformer. A too broad dead band
will also have negative effects since inverters closer to transformer station will not participate at
all in regulating the voltage while inverters at the remote ends will provide maximum reactive
power.
Parameter

may be chosen based on the rated PCC voltage and the position of the tap-
changer on the LV/MV transformer.


17
2.4 Power Factor by Active Power PF(P) according to VDE AR N 4105
In this report only one typical PF(P) curve has been analyzed, identical with the one defined
in VDE AR N 4105 and shown in Figure 5. The IEEE power factor convention has been chosen
throughout this report, as shown in Figure 6. Throughout the report lagging power factor and
inductive reactive power are describing the same phenomena. It can be observed in Figure 5 that
the PV inverters are required to inject reactive power (inductive) starting at 50% power generation
and at 100% the power factor reaches 0.9 (lagging) for units with rated power above 13.8 kVA and
0.95 (lagging) for units below this level. For the Danish standard TF 3.2.1 the same requirement is
stated but with a rated power limit of 11 kVA for the 0.95/0.9 power factor. One property of this
type of control is that the inverters will inject reactive power independently of the location in the
feeder in comparison with Q(U) algorithm in which the farthest inverter would inject always more
reactive power than the ones closer to the transformer. Thus, overall better control of the voltage
is assumed, since all inverters in the network are taking part. The disadvantage is that the
inverters might inject reactive power into the network even though it may not be required (no
overvoltage situation).

Figure 5: Power factor by active power control as defined in VDE AR N 4105

Figure 6: IEEE power factor convention



18
2.5 Generic LV network
One representative LV network has been selected for the Bornholm distribution network for
the project PVNet.DK [21] and it is depicted in Figure 7. It contains two LV feeders supplied by one
MV/LV 100 kVA Transformer with parameters shown in Appendix A, a number of 71 consumers
and the corresponding cable interconnections (also detailed in Appendix A). The two feeders
contain 52 and 19 consumers respectively. This LV network supplies energy to a residential (sub-
urban) area on the island of Bornholm. The generic LV network described in this Section is
assumed as representative for a residential Danish LV distribution network in the island of
Bornholm and corresponding to a suburban network (shown in Figure 7).

Figure 7: Generic LV network analyzed in this study



19
For an average consumption case and no PV generation, the voltage profile in this network
would look as in Figure 8.

Figure 8: Voltage profile in the generic LV network for average consumption levels and no PV generation


20
2.6 Statistical Data Used for Consumption and Generation
In order to obtain realistic results, several sets of historical data have been used. Statistical
and historical energy consumption and generation data are presented in this section.
2.6.1 Electrical energy consumption
The electrical energy consumption in the residential sector in Denmark has been obtained
at an hourly rate for one typical year as can be seen in Figure 9. A total of 8760 sample points are
stored. The plotted values are normalized to the maximum hourly recorded consumption value
through the entire year. This data will be later normalized to the average yearly consumption level
of one Danish residence which in 2009 was 3.44 MWh [22].

Figure 9: Electrical energy consumption over one year for a typical Danish residence.
2.6.2 PV generation
For PV generation yearly profile data, synthesized values (using PVsyst) for one location in
Denmark have been used as shown in Figure 10 and Figure 11 at an hourly time sample. In order
to make use of these data a simple linear scaling to any other inverter with different power rating
has been done. Therefore, if considering a 2 kW PV system, all the production values have been
multiplied by 2 thus obtaining the equivalent production data for a 2 kW reference system size.


21

Figure 10: Yearly synthesized PV production data for Brdstrup, Denmark, of a 1 kWp PV plant

Figure 11: Power generation each hour of day for a 1 kWp PV unit for Brdstrup, Denmark, during one year
The data shown in Figure 10 and Figure 11 corresponds to a PV system oriented to south and
with an inclination of 45%. To have a better understanding of the difference between yearly
production levels and peak production for different types of PV systems, Table 3 is shown below.
In this report, in order to address the worst case scenario for PV panel orientation, all PV systems
installed are pointing south with an inclination of 45 degrees, marked with green in Table 3.



22

PV Orientation [] PV inclination [] Peak hourly
produced energy
[Wh]
Total produced energy
[kWh]
-90 (west) 30 870 895
-45 (west) 30 892 1021
0 30 850 1066
45 (east) 30 864 1013
90 (east) 30 809 884
-90 (west) 45 888 847
-45 (west) 45 918 1004
0 45 940 1059
45 (east) 45 876 995
90 (east) 45 798 833
0 20 825 1043
Table 3: Peak and yearly PV production for different orientations of a 1 kWp PV system in Brdstrup,
Denmark, (synthesized data from PVsyst)
2.7 Simulation model
2.7.1 Dynamic inverter model description
The dynamic model of the inverter is a three-phase RMS model. It supports several
operating modes:
o Normal mode: Q = 0
o Local Q(U) mode
o Local PF(P) mode
o Constant PF mode
o Constant Q mode
A functional diagram of the implemented model is shown in Figure 12. The AC active power
output data is used by the PF(P), constant power factor and by the apparent power rating
limitation block P,Q limit. The control mode switch is operated by a separate reference signal.
The measured RMS voltage of the connection point is used to compute the reactive power
contribution in case of Q(U) operation mode. The AC grid block is entirely describing the
components in the AC grid and modeled within Power Factory DIgSILENT grid diagrams. The


23
inverter model injects balanced, three phase currents. In steady state the inverter will act as a
constant power source.
PVpower
P
Q
P,Q
limit
Pout
Qout
AC
Grid
Urms
Q
U
Control
Mode
Cos()
P
ConstQ
Const
PF
Q=0

Figure 12: PV inverter RMS model
2.7.2 Dynamic AC load modeling
A simple AC load model has been developed in Power Factory to model the consumption of
a typical consumer connected to the LV network. A reference power factor has also been used.
Throughout the simulations, for simplicity, a constant power factor 0.95 inductive has been
selected.

P consumption
P
P,Q
calculation
Pout
Qout
AC
Grid
Cos()

Figure 13: AC load RMS model
2.8 Simulation study cases
To the base network of Figure 7, PV inverters have been added to each consumer and
different PV penetration levels have been chosen as in Table 2. Additionally, a very simple 10 kV
MV network has been included to model the voltage variations in the 10 kV network. The lengths
of the MV cables have been intentionally increased in order to simulate a high impedance MV
network. Also, to represent a cluster of 10/0.4 distribution networks a simple aggregated model of
the reference network of Figure 7 has been added. Details regarding the components are
documented in Appendix A. The resulting electrical network is shown in Figure 14.


24
Aggregated
distribution
networks
P,Q
4

Figure 14: Generic network with PV generation at each consumer. The indicated number of inverters in the
boxes means a lumped inverter model.
The main assumptions for all study cases are:
Hourly samples for both PV generation and AC loads consumption are used. This translates
as described in Section 2.7.1.
PV irradiation profile is the same for each connected inverter in the network. This
assumption can be considered valid if the simulation is done on hourly measurement samples.
Local loads follow a similar consumption curve, each load varying from the reference
measurement with a maximum of +/- 10%; All loads are three phase balanced.
The same control characteristic is set for each PV inverter in the network.
All PV inverters are balanced, three phased units. All PV inverters have the same power
rating as described in Section 2.2.
The relevant parameters used to select different study cases are documented in Section 2.3.
Additionally, two more sizes of the LV/MV transformer have been selected (160 and 200 kVA) in


25
order to observe the influence of the transformer rating to the overall Q(U) and PF(P) efficacy.
Considering a 60% PV penetration in the generic LV network, this will correspond to 213 kW PV
capacity. Hence, the biggest chosen value for the connecting transformer is 200 kVA. Since in the
cases of PV penetration higher than 30% the rating of the cables may also be exceeded an analysis
of the cables loading is also of interest. The simulated study cases are shown in Table 4 for Q(U)
and Table 5 for PF(P).
For Q
min
and Q
max
equal to 0.6 p.u. values in Table 4, this corresponds to a maximum active
power of 0.8 p.u. for the apparent power S = 1. Study cases 5 and 6 are using different maximum
intervals: for case 5 a Q
min
and Q
max
equal to 0.48 p.u., while for case 6 a Q
min
and Q
max
equal to
0.4 p.u. Thus, the minimum power factor is equal to 0.8 (lagging & leading) in the Q(U) cases
2,3,4,8 and 10. To make a better comparison of Q(U) against PF(P) control as defined in VDE AR-N
4105 [23] study cases 5 and 6 are performed. For these cases the equivalent minimum power
factor (when voltage is at overvoltage limit) is 0.89 and 0.92 respectively.
Study
case
no.
PV
penetration
[%]

[pu]

[pu]

[pu]

[pu]
Voltage
sensitivity
m

[pu]

[pu]
Trafo
[kVA]
1 0:10:60 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 100
2 0:10:60 0.9 1.1 -0.6 0.6 6 1 1 100
3 0:10:60 0.9 1.1 -0.6 0.6 7.5 0.98 1.02 100
4 0:10:60 0.9 1.1 -0.6 0.6 10 0.96 1.04 100
5 0:10:60 0.9 1.1 -0.48 0.48 4,8 1 1 100
6 0:10:60 0.9 1.1 -0.4 0.4 4 1 1 100
7 0:10:60 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 160
8 0:10:60 0.9 1.1 -0.6 -0.6 6 1 1 160
9 0:10:60 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 200
10 0:10:60 0.9 1.1 -0.6 -0.6 6 1 1 200
Table 4: Simulated study cases and chosen parameters for Q(U) control strategy
Study
case
no.
PV
penetration
[%]
Trafo
[kVA]
Maximum
PF (lagging)
11 0:10:60 100 0.95
12 0:10:60 160 0.95
13 0:10:60 200 0.95
Table 5: Simulated study cases and chosen parameters for PF(P) control strategy


26
3 Results
Each study case provides numerous results to be analysed. Due to the high number of
parameters that can be observed for each case, only the base case (no. 1) will be shown in Section
3.1, while the complete set of results can be viewed in Appendix B. Moreover, a comparison
between the study cases is of greater interest and will be discussed in Sections 3.2 and onwards.
3.1 Results of the base study case
Study case 1 represents the situation in which the PV inverters have no voltage control
algorithm implemented. It is also assumed that the low voltage side of the 60/10 kV transformer is
dispatched to a constant 0.995 per unit voltage level, as depicted in Figure 1. The 10/0.4 kV
transformer is using a constant tap position resulting in a +2.5% voltage increase at the secondary
side. Figure 15 and Figure 16 display the minimum and maximum year round voltage levels at each
busbar of feeder 1 and 2 respectively for variable PV penetration levels from 0 to 60% in steps of
10% as in Table 2.
The voltage level is represented by vertical bars of different width for each PV penetration
level. On the horizontal axis, the voltage of each busbar is ordered from left to right according to
the electrical distance to the transformer. The first set of vertical bars (left most) corresponds to
the voltage at the primary side of the 10/0.4 kV transformer, while the second set of bars
corresponds to the secondary side.
It is obvious that at the outermost busbar (vertical bars on the right) the highest voltage
variations will be observed (bus 360 in Figure 14). The minimum voltage value for a specific busbar
is the same for all PV penetration levels since at maximum load hours (during evening) no changes
are performed by the PV inverters. Increasing the PV penetration to 60% will result in a high
maximum voltage increase of approximately 1.17 per unit in feeder 1. A smaller variation is
observed in feeder 2 (app. 1.13 p.u. voltage for 60% PV penetration at the outermost distribution
box bus 9925 in Figure 14) since the cable distances are smaller, as well as the number of
customers being serviced.
In Figure 15 and Figure 16 there are also shown the +/-10% voltage limits. It can be seen that
for PV penetration levels higher than 30% (excluded) the allowed voltage variation is exceeded in
feeder 1. These 2 feeders will therefore be declared as being challenged for a PV penetration level
higher than 30%, corresponding to 107 kW. Thus, their hosting capacity is said to be 30%.


27

Figure 15: Study case 1 - Maximum/Minimum yearly voltage for each bus of feeder 1 for variable PV
penetration

Figure 16: Study case 1 - Maximum/Minimum yearly voltage for each bus of feeder 2 for variable PV
penetration



28
Figure 17 displays an overview of the simulated voltage levels at different relevant points in
the network and for different penetration levels. This locus plot is shown in connection with the
allowed voltage limits in each point. If analysing the locus of the voltage for the outermost
distribution box it can be seen that the maximum PV penetration level would be just below the
30% marker, which also is the case for most of the other locations in the network.

Figure 17: Study case 1 voltage locus at different points in the network and different PV penetration levels
Figure 18 shows the evolution of the transformer loading (in per cent) when an increasing
amount of PV penetration is installed in the LV network (as in Table 2). The graphic represents a
histogram plot viewed from above. Therefore, it can be observed that irrespectively of the PV
penetration, most of the hours in a year are spent by the transformer under a loading from 10 to
40%. Also, by increasing the PV penetration it is seen that the peak at 40% loading is shifting
towards the 20% loading. This could potentially increase the life-time of the transformer. The
uncoloured regions represent zero hours of operation at that specific loading level. For PV
penetration levels lower than 30% (and including) the peak transformer loading occurs during
hour 18:00 the 25
th
of December.
Furthermore, due to increasing PV power capacity for PV penetrations higher than 30%,
there appear a few hours per year with a very high transformer loading (at noon, mostly during
spring). For a 60% PV penetration the transformer is maximally loaded at approximately 150%.
This overloading coincides with high reverse power generation of the transformer and has a
duration of not more than 2 hours per occurrence (3 times per year) as shown in Table 6. It can be
seen that in this specific case of the Bornholm generic network, the limiting parameter for
increased PV generation is also the transformer rating. The hosting capacity of the transformer is
therefore around 40%, corresponding to 142 kW PV power, when all PV systems are pointing
south. When the PV systems are scattered, the hosting capacity could increase up to
approximately 160 kW, corresponding to a 45% penetration.


29

Figure 18: Study case 1 Histogram of the yearly transformer loading for variable PV penetration (legend
hours per year)
PV
penetration
[%]
Number of hours for a loading level at:
100% 110% 120% 130% 140% 150%
0 1 0 0 0 0 0
10 1 0 0 0 0 0
20 1 0 0 0 0 0
30 1 0 0 0 0 0
40 14 0 0 0 0 0
50 142 76 27 3 0 0
60 147 131 127 48 17 6
Table 6: Study case 1 - Number of overloading hours of the 10/0.4 transformer
Figure 19 displays the loading performance of the LV cable system in the network. A similar
histogram as in Figure 18 has been plotted for the loading of the cables. For each hour in the year
the maximum loading of any of the cables has been selected as the reference for the calculation.
Based on these 8760 result points, the histogram of Figure 19 is obtained while the PV penetration
level is varied as in Table 2. The uncoloured regions represent zero hours of operation at that


30
specific loading level. A PV penetration of maximum 50% is possible without overloading the LV
cables, corresponding to approximately 180 kW PV systems.


Figure 19: Study case 1 Histogram of the yearly cable loading (all maximum) for variable PV penetration
(legend hours per year)

As it is expected, the reactive power of the outermost located inverter is always zero for this
study case, as shown in Figure 20.

Figure 20: Study case 1 No volt-VAr control Q(U) locus plots farthest inverter


31

Figure 21: P(U) locus for Study case 1 farthest inverter
The active power losses of the distribution transformer, the LV cable system and the total
losses for this simulation case are plotted in Figure 22. Each point represents the sum of the yearly
losses of all LV cables in the distribution network for that specific PV penetration level. As in the
case of the transformer losses, a minimum is reached for the 20% PV penetration level.

Figure 22: Active power losses for Study case 1
The transformer losses are varying slower than the cable losses when installing more PV in
the network. The minimum power loss is achieved for a PV penetration level of 20%. This


32
minimum level is due to the fact that at 20% PV the power transfer in the network is minimized
both in the generation and the load hours. As it will be seen in the cases for applying Q(U) control
in the undervoltage region (practically this means the high load hours), the reactive power transfer
will increase the power losses both in the generation and consumption periods. To understand the
magnitude of potential energy savings in study case 1 for 20% PV installations one intuitive
calculation is given. Subtracting the total power losses at 20% PV from the value at 0% PV more
than 800 kWh can be saved per year. With 957 10/0.4 kV stations on Bornholm [24] with the same
rated power as here, a 20% PV penetration would save 766 MWh energy per year, which
corresponds to the average consumption of 220 households.
The active power transfer at the MV side of the distribution transformer is displayed in
Figure 23. Minimum, maximum and average values are shown. It can be observed that there are
high differences between the average and the minimum/maximum recorded values, especially in
cases of high PV penetration.

Figure 23: Active power transfer through 10/0.4 kV transformer Study case 1



33
The reactive power transfer at the MV side of the distribution transformer is displayed in
Figure 24. Since the load profile is not changing there are no visible modifications to the reactive
power consumption during a full day.

Figure 24: Reactive power transfer through 10/0.4 kV transformer Study case 1




34
3.2 Overview of comparisons between the simulated results
Starting from this base case, several comparisons have been performed on the obtained
results of all of the simulated study cases. A synthesis of the contents of this Section is shown in
Table 7.
Study
case
D
e
a
d

b
a
n
d

e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n

V
o
l
t
a
g
e

s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
i
t
y

w
&
w
/
o

Q
(
U
)

1
0
0
/
1
6
0
/
2
0
0

k
V
A

N
o

Q
(
U
)


1
0
0
/
1
6
0
/
2
0
0

k
V
A

Q
(
U
)

1
0
0
/
1
6
0
/
2
0
0

k
V
A

P
F
(
P
)

Q
(
U
)

v
s
.

P
F
(
P
)

1 X X X x
2 X X X x
3 X
4 X
5 X
6 X
7 X
8 X
9 X
10 X
11 X x
12 X
13 X
Table 7: Comparisons performed between different study cases
Figure 25 displays a comparison of all study cases regarding the active power losses of the
distribution transformer. It can be observed that no significant changes are present. For the NO
PV case the power losses are around 2.77 MWh for a 100 kVA unit, 3.8 MWh for a 160 kVA unit
and 4.5 MWh for a 200 kVA unit. It can be seen that by increasing the PV power penetration, a
minimum of the transformer losses is achieved at the 20% PV level, irrespective of the simulated
study case. Even for a 30% PV generation level, the transformer losses are kept below the NO PV
case, while at 40% a slight increase is observed.


35

Figure 25: Power losses in the LV/MV transformer All simulated cases
For the readers reference, Figure 26 plots the power losses of the LV cable system for all
simulated cases. The situation with no PV generation at all in the network would generate a total
power loss of almost 3 MWh. If the PV penetration level is from 10 to 20%, the Q(U) control
algorithm is slightly decreasing the total cable loss. This is due to the fact of supplying reactive
power to the AC loads, thus minimizing the reactive power transfer. For PV generation level higher
than 20%, it can be seen that the largest losses are present for the Q(U) control algorithm (above 3
MWh). In all cases, a minimum is reached for a 20% PV generation level (around 2.5 MWh).

Figure 26: Total power losses in the LV cable system All simulated case
200 kVA

160 kVA


100 kVA


36
3.3 Varying the dead-band of the Q(U) controller
By varying the dead band of the Q(U) controller, one may get a good impression of the
influence this dead band has upon the voltage regulation capability of the inverters. Figure 27
shows the Q(U) scatter plots for the two applied dead bands (+/-2% and +/-4%) and the case with
no dead band selected for the inverter at the outermost distribution box. It can be easily observed
that the bigger the dead-band the steeper the Q(U) curve will be in the active region. Additionally,
the plot shows also that by applying a dead band, the maximum voltage (during one year) will
increase at that specific inverter terminals. Still, even for an 8% dead band the maximum voltage
will still be lower than the maximum in the case of no Volt-VAr control.

Figure 27: Q(U) locus plots for variable Q(U) dead band farthest inverter
A good overview of the influence of different dead band selection is seen in Figure 28. It can
be observed that in the case of using a Q(U) control scheme with no dead band, the highest
voltage regulation capability is obtained at the outermost distribution box (case (b) shown in
figure). Therefore, if comparing the case of having no Volt-VAr control (a) with the case (b) the PV
penetration level can be increased from below 30% to more than 40%. If applying a dead band (as
in cases (c) and (d)) the efficacy of the reactive power control method decreases slightly but still
providing a higher PV penetration level than in the base case (a). Note that the minimum voltage
level in case of Q(U) is increased in Figure 28, since the inverters also exchange reactive power
with the network during the night (corresponding to the locus in the left half side of Figure 27).


37

Figure 28: Comparison of different deadband settings - voltage locus for specific points in the network (with
variable PV generation)
Figure 29 displays a comparison between the transformer yearly power losses when varying
the dead-band of the Q(U) controller. As it is expected, a larger dead-band would result in lower
losses in the transformer. For the case with no dead-band and a 40% PV penetration level there is
an increase in the transformer loss of only 7 % compared to Study case 1 No Volt VAr Control.

Figure 29: LV transformer power losses for variable Q(U) dead band study cases


38
The total cable losses are shown in Figure 30. As expected, by adding a dead-band to the
controller the total power losses are being decreased compared to Study case 2 Q(U) no dead-
band. At 40% PV penetration level an increase of around 35% is observed compared to Study
case 1 No Volt VAr Control

Figure 30: LV Cable system total power losses for variable Q(U) dead bands
3.4 Varying the voltage sensitivity of the Q(U) controller
By varying the voltage sensitivity of the Q(U) controller a less steeper reference curve is
programmed in the inverter, resulting in a lower reactive power injection for the same variation of
input voltage. The voltage sensitivity m (as defined in Equation 2) of the compared study cases is
shown in Table 8.
Study case number Voltage sensitivity m
1 0.0
2 6.0
5 4.8
6 4.0
Table 8: Chosen voltage sensitivities for compared cases
This can be easily observed in Figure 31. The consequence is that the PV inverter will be able
to control less the terminal voltage, reaching a maximum of 2% voltage decrease when comparing
study case 1 and 6.


39

Figure 31: Q(U) locus plots for variable voltage sensitivity farthest inverter
An overview of the influence of variable voltage sensitivity settings towards the maximum
and minimum simulated voltage levels is shown in Figure 32. It is observed that by lowering the
Q(U) slope of the Q(U) characteristic the maximum observed voltage at the outermost distribution
box increases.

Figure 32: Comparison of different voltage sensitivity settings - voltage locus for specific points in the
network (with variable PV generation)


40
Figure 33 describes the transformer losses for variable Q(U) voltage sensitivity. The results
are similar between each other, a decrease in total power losses being observed for decreasing
sensitivity levels and high PV generation levels. For smaller PV penetration levels there are no
significant differences, since the reactive power flow is also at minimum.

Figure 33: LV transformer power losses for variable voltage sensitivity study cases
The LV cable system power losses are shown in Figure 34. While for low PV penetration
levels the total losses are decreased by using Q(U) control, from the 30% generation level there
are increased losses in comparison to the No Volt VAr Control case. For a 60% PV penetration
the cable losses are doubling between Study case 1 and 2. By decreasing the voltage sensitivity
(Study cases 3 and 4) the power losses in the cables are also decreased.

Figure 34: LV cable system losses for variable voltage sensitivity


41
Several diagrams of the reactive power transfer for variable voltage sensitivity and different
PV penetration levels are displayed in Figure 35, Figure 36 and Figure 37. By analysing all these
figures, it is observed that a minimum of reactive power transfer (on average) is achieved for PV
penetration levels from 10 to 30%. If observing the curve for Study case 2 with PV generation
levels of 10% in Figure 35, it can be seen that it provides the minimum reactive power transfer
round the clock at the transformer site. If the PV generation increases, there will be an even
larger amount of inductive reactive power transfer at the MV side of the transformer during the
noon hours, and a capacitive reactive power transfer during the high load hours in the evening.

Figure 35: Reactive power at MV side of transformer for varying voltage sensitivity of Q(U) (0,10,20%PV)


Figure 36: Reactive power at MV side of transformer for varying voltage sensitivity of Q(U) (0,30,40%PV)


42

Figure 37: Reactive power at MV side of transformer for varying voltage sensitivity of Q(U) (0,50,60%PV)
3.5 Comparison for varying the transformer power rating with and without Q(U)
voltage control
The influence of upgrading the 10/0.4 kV transformer upon the maximum/minimum voltage
limits is shown in Figure 38. Comparing base case (a) 100 kVA unit with a higher rating
transformer it can be observed that the maximum simulated voltage at the outermost distribution
box is slightly increasing while the minimum value is slightly decreasing. The overall effect is that
although solving the overloading problem, the voltage at the feeder ends may slightly increase.

Figure 38: Comparison of normal operation (No Q control) with different LV/MV transformers - voltage locus
for specific points in the network (with variable PV generation)


43
An overview of the influence of upgrading the 10/0.4 kV transformer towards the maximum
and minimum simulated voltage levels is shown in Figure 39.

Figure 39: Comparison of Q(U) with different LV/MV transformers - voltage locus for specific points in the
network (with variable PV generation)
Figure 40 displays a comparison between the transformer yearly power losses when using
Q(U) and upgrading the transformer power rating.

Figure 40: LV transformer power losses for variable Q(U) dead band study cases
200 kVA
160 kVA


100 kVA


44
3.6 Comparison for varying the transformer power rating with PF(P) voltage
control
Using a power factor depending on the injected PV power level, PF(P), has the primary
objective to decrease the voltage level only at the moment the PV inverter is producing power.
This has the advantage that the inverter will not produce reactive power outside the production
times and also it will be independent of the location of the inverter in respect to the distribution
transformer. One disadvantage may be that it will inject reactive power even at times when it is
not necessary e.g. voltage is well within limits. Study cases 11, 12 and 13 use inverter models with
the PF(P) reactive power control.
The PF(P) scatter plot is shown in Figure 41. With small exceptions there is no significant
difference when using each of the three types of transformers.

Figure 41: PF(P) locus plot of farthest located inverter
The transformer power losses can be observed in Figure 42. It is obvious that by upgrading
the MV/LV transformer the overall power losses will increase due to higher no-load losses. By
upgrading to a 200 kVA from 100 kVA transformer, the transformer losses will increase by 50%.


45

Figure 42: Losses in the 10/0.4 transformer - Comparison for different power ratings of transformer and use of PF(P)
control
As it was expected, the power losses on the cables have no significant changes irrespective
of the PV generation level, as shown in Figure 43.

Figure 43: Losses in the LV cables - Comparison for different power ratings of transformer and use of PF(P) control

200 kVA

160 kVA


100 kVA


46
3.7 Comparison of Q(U) and PF(P)
A small comparison between the efficacy of Q(U) and PF(P) control algorithms is shown in
Figure 44. In all displayed cases the transformer used was fixed to a 100 kVA rating. Plot set (a)
corresponds to Study Case 1 and represents the voltage levels in different points of the network
without using any reactive power control strategies. Plot set (b) corresponds to Study Case 2 and
uses a higher maximum reactive power generation level than the PF(P) plot set (d). Finally plot set
(c) corresponds to Study Case 6 which has a similar maximum reactive power generation level
compared to PF(P). Both Q(U) control cases are contributing to lift the minimum voltage at the
outermost distribution box while PF(P) has no influence.

Figure 44: Comparison of Q(U) and PF(P) - voltage locus for specific points in the network (with variable PV
generation)
Figure 45 displays the transformer power losses in the power transformer. If comparing both
Q(U) methods (Study case 2 and 6) with the PF(P) case it is observed that minimum power loss is
achieved by using PF(P). This fact is normal since both Q(U) cases are injecting reactive power also
during night (round the clock operation). Also note that by using Q(U) at night time, the
minimum voltage at the outermost distribution box is increased. Thus Q(U) could be used at night
in combination with lowering the tap-position of the MV/LV transformer. Q(U) at night could also
be used to compensate for nightly heavy duty loads, e.g. heat pumps and electrical vehicles. For a
60% PV penetration level, the PF(P) algorithm increases losses by 3%, the Q(U) study case 6 by
13% and Q(U) study case 2 by 20%.


47

Figure 45: Losses in the 10/0.4 transformer - Comparison between the use of PF(P) and Q(U) control
The losses in the LV cables when using PF(P) and Q(U) control types is shown in Figure 46.
The same dependency as in the case of transformer power losses from Figure 45 is observed. In
the case of 60% PV generation, for PF(P) control the losses increase by 8%, for Q(U) study case 6
by 60% and for Q(U) study case 2 by 95%.

Figure 46: Losses in the LV cables - Comparison between the use of PF(P) and Q(U) control


48
3.8 Comparison of hosting capacity for the cases
The results from 13 study-cases are compiled in Table 9. The cases are rearranged in order of
hosting capacity. The first column shows the hosting capacity for the particular case seen from an
overvoltage and a transformer loading perspective; the second is the case-number and the third is
a short description of the case. The fourth column is the maximum amount of exchanged reactive
power for the inverters at the outermost distribution box and the fifth column is the
corresponding PF. The sixth column shows the yearly energy losses in the transformer and cables
and finally the seventh column shows the maximum exchanged reactive power through the
transformer into the MV network.
Hosting capacity
[%]
O.V. / Trafo
Study
Case
Note Maximum Q
outermost
PV inverter
[p.u.]
Minimum PF
outermost PV
inverter
(lagging)
Yearly
energy
loss
[MWh]
Maximum hourly
reactive power
exchange through
transformer [kVArh]
30% 40-50% 1 Base case 0.0 1.00 5.5 -30 (ind)
30% n.a. 7 160 kVA trafo 0.0 1.00 6.6 -30 (ind)
30% n.a. 9 200 kVA trafo 0.0 1.00 7.3 -30 (ind)
35% ~40% 11 PF(P) -0.25 0.97 6.0 -53 (ind)
35% n.a. 12 160 kVA trafo
PF(P)
-0.25 0.97 7.1 -52 (ind)
35% n.a. 13 200 kVA trafo
PF(P)
-0.25 0.97 8.6 -53 (ind)
40% 30-40% 6 Q(U)
low sens.
-0.4 0.92 7.0 -66 (ind)
40% ~40% 4 Q(U)
8% dead band
-0.6 0.8 6.8 -72 (ind)
40% 30-40% 5 Q(U)
mid sens.
-0.5 0.87 7.2 -74 (ind)
40% n.a. 10 200 kVA
Q(U)
-0.6 0.8 9.5 -91 (ind)
45% 30-40% 3 Q(U)
4% dead band
-0.6 0.8 8.2 -93 (ind)
45% n.a. 8 160 kVA
Q(U)
-0.6 0.8 10 -104 (ind)
47% 30-40% 2 Q(U) -0.6 0.8 10 -98 (ind)
Table 9: Comparisons of hosting capacity for the 13 cases, in increasing order. For the loading of the
transformer: a range is given when the sum of overloading hours is higher than 86 hours per year and an
approximate value is given when the sum is below 86 hours per year.
Case number 1 is the first entry with a hosting capacity of 30% (1.5 kWp per residence)
without taking any reactive power control measures into consideration. Increasing the capacity of
the transformer (cases 7 and 9) does not increase the hosting capacity when overvoltage is the
issue. Thus, case 1 is marked green as the optimum solution for the 30% penetration.
The usage of the standard PF(P) in case 11 increases the hosting capacity to 35% (1.8 kWp
per residence). The maximum hourly exchange of reactive power is increased from 30 to 53 kVArh
and the yearly losses in the transformer and cables are increased with 500 kWh. Again, using the
PF(P) with large transformers does not increase the hosting capacity. Therefore, case 11 is marked
green as the optimum solution for the 35% penetration.


49
The hosting capacity is increased further to 40% (2.0 kWp per residence) in case 6 by
applying Q(U) control with a low sensibility. This could also be achieved with the Q(U) scheme with
high sensibility and 8% dead-band, but this would increase the exchange of reactive power
through the transformer. The yearly energy loss is increased with 1.5 MWh compared with the
base case and using a large transformer does not have any impact on the hosting capacity.
Consequently, case 6 is marked green as the optimum solution for the 40% penetration.
A hosting capacity of 45% (2.3 kWp per residence) requires Q(U) control with high sensitivity
and 4% dead-band as in case 3 and can be further increased a few per cent by removing the dead-
bands as in case 2. However, the transformer is being overloaded to some extent.
The hosting capacity for the 100 kVA transformer is in section 3.1 found to minimum 40%
and maximum 50%, corresponding to a minimum of 140 kW PV systems, when the PV systems are
pointing south. If the PV systems are scattered, the hosting capacity is increased to 45%, which
corresponds to a total of 160 kW PV systems. In both cases, no voltage control is applied. The
PF(P) control scheme decreases the hosting capacity of the transformer to around 40% and using
the Q(U) with low sensitivity reduces it even further to minimum 30% and maximum 40%. The
scale 30% - 50% corresponds to 120 kWp 200 kWp when the systems are scattered.
A PV penetration of maximum 50% is possible without overloading the LV cables,
corresponding to 180 kW PV systems, when no voltage control is applied. Applying voltage control
will decrease the hosting capacity of the LV cables due to the additional reactive current.
According to [24], there are 957 MV/LV transformers on Bornholm with a total of 28 000
private and commercial customers. The peak demand is 55 MW and the yearly energy
consumption is 268 GWh. When each of the 28 000 customers have a PV system and by using the
results obtained in this research, the hosting capacity of the LV feeders on Bornholm is in the
range 42 56 MW, when all systems are pointing south. If the PV systems would be scattered, the
range is 48 64 MW. Assuming that each of the 957 transformers can host 140 160 kW PV, the
hosting capacity of the transformers is within the range 130 MW 150 MW. Summing up, the
hosting capacity of the LV networks and MV/LV transformers on the island of Bornholm is in the
range 50 60 MW, which could cover the peak demand (during noon hours) and 15-20% of the
yearly energy consumption.


50
4 Conclusion
This report provided an analysis on the main Volt-VAr regulation techniques that can be
applied in the low voltage (LV) network with standard photovoltaic (PV) inverter technology. The
main purpose of the presented research is to validate that reactive power can be used in LV
networks to increase the hosting capacity, by controlling the voltage.
The hosting capacity of a LV network is defined at the amount of PV power that can be
installed in the network before certain limits are reached. The evaluated limits in this report are:
overloading of LV cables, overloading of MV/LV transformers and overvoltage at the outermost
distribution box. In this report the PV penetration level is defined in such a way that, if all users
attached to the LV network had a 5 kW PV system this would correspond to 100%. This is the same
definition as in [6], thus the two results should be comparable.
Two types of Volt-VAr control were presented: the power factor (PF) depending on active
power output of the PV inverters - PF(P) and reactive power depending on the terminal voltage of
the PV inverter - Q(U). The Q(U) scheme works like a proportional controller which tries to actuate
the actual grid voltage close to the desired set-point. The PF(P) scheme operates as a feed forward
controller, without taking the actual grid voltage into consideration. Thus, for PF(P) overall better
control of the voltage is assumed when compared with the Q(U), since all inverters in the network
are participating, independent of the actual grid voltage. Both types are already available in
modern PV inverters.
A generic LV grid model with 71 users has been used in the simulations, being considered as
representative for the Bornholm network. Furthermore, a simple MV network has been
implemented in order to observe the voltage variations in the 10 kV network as well. Due to the
parameters of the MV network (high cable lengths, large network impedance) high voltage
variations will be observed at the outermost distribution box.
The energy consumption for each of the 71 users is based on time-series of generic
consumption, in total 8760 hours of consumption. The PV generation is based on synthesized
hourly irradiance by the PVsyst software, taking both clear sky and covered sky into consideration.
All PV systems are assumed pointing south, to give a worst case scenario.
A simulation model is made in the Power Factory DigSILENT software, based on the above-
mentioned points. Based on this framework a set of 13 simulation study-cases have been
performed. Observations on the influence of different Volt-VAr control strategies upon different
electrical parameters have been performed for variable PV penetration levels.
4.1 Obtained results
One general observation is that by increasing the PV penetration level to 20%, corresponds
to 1 kW PV per residence, an overall optimization of the power flow is reached in the LV network.
At this level, power losses are reduced from 6000 to 5200 kWh per year in the transformer and
cable system. Scaling this up to entire Bornholm with 957 10/0.4 kV stations, a 20% PV penetration
would save 766 MWh losses in transformers and cables per year, which corresponds to the
average consumption of 220 households.


51
Another interesting result is the advantage of using Q(U) feature of the PV inverters even for
low PV penetration levels. For example, at 20% PV generation, the PV inverters can supply reactive
power to AC loads (even at evening hours) and thus minimizing the reactive power flow in the
network. As a consequence, the power losses in the transformer and cable system are lowered
slightly.
The results indicate that without any Volt-VAr control the overvoltage phenomena starts for
PV generation levels at 30%, corresponding to 1.5 kW PV per residence.
By applying a PF(P) control scheme as in study case 11, the overvoltage condition is avoided
and the PV penetration can be increased to 35% and still keep the amount of exchanged reactive
power low. By applying a Q(U) control scheme with a low sensitivity as in study case 6, the
overvoltage condition is avoided up to 40% PV penetration and still keeping the power factor
above 0.92. Finally, by using Q(U) with high sensitivity and dead-band, study case 3, the
penetration can be increased further to 45% and perhaps also to 50% if the dead-band is removed
as in study case 2. However, the yearly losses in the transformer and cable system are almost
doubled compared with the base case with only 30% penetration.
One more conclusion that can be drawn is that the overvoltage phenomena is not overcome
by upgrading the transformer, on the contrary increasing the size of the transformer has a slight
negative effect. Transformer upgrading should be taken into consideration only with the purpose
of mitigating the transformer overloading issues.
If reactive power control is provided round the clock then the PV inverters can help
controlling the voltage during high load hours, e.g. during charging of electrical vehicles or when
the heat pumps are turned on in order to utilize free energy from the wind-turbines. For the
case of 40% PV penetration the minimum yearly simulated voltage has improved from 0.91 p.u. to
0.93 p.u. (an increase of 2%-point). This feature may allow the PV penetration level to be
increased even further by lowering the tap position in the 10/0.4 distribution transformer
provided that sufficient PV capacity is installed in order to provide reactive power during the load
peaks.
For PV generation levels lower than and including 30% the 100 kVA transformer will not be
subjected to overloading. The peak-load of the transformer is reduced for PV penetrations up to
20%. This could potentially increase the life-time of the transformer. For 40% PV penetration
levels, a limited amount of overloading hours are observed, thus having a limited impact over the
lifetime of the transformer. The hosting capacity of the transformer is therefore around 40%,
corresponding to 142 kW PV power, when all PV systems are pointing south. When the PV systems
are scattered, the hosting capacity could increase up to approximately 160 kW, corresponding to a
45% PV penetration. For higher PV penetration levels, additional solutions must be applied:
increased self-consumption, storage solutions, transformer upgrading or active power curtailment.



52
4.2 Recommendations for voltage control in LV feeders
As a guiding rule, if overvoltage is observed at the end-customer site the following order of
actions should be followed:
1. Apply PF(P) for all inverters on the feeder
2. Apply Q(U) for all inverters on the feeder
3. Lower the tap position in the LV/MV transformer and apply Q(U) round the clock
4. Increase self-consumption at peak production hours
5. Lower active output power of inverters (only in emergency cases for short periods)
6. Upgrade cables, upgrading the transformer does not help
7. Install storage
Overall, it has been found that applying reactive power control strategies in the LV networks
have a beneficial influence in respect to a limited increase of the PV penetration. Both PF(P) and
Q(U) control types are improving the maximum voltage profile at the outermost distribution box.
Only by using Q(U) round the clock, thus by providing capacitive reactive power during high AC
load hours, it is possible to provide an improvement of the minimum voltage profile.
4.3 Future Work
The work presented in this report provides a starting point for other more in depth analyses.
One example is redoing the simulations of Chapter 2.8 on a large number of grid types. Such
an exhaustive approach would offer a much better indication of the actual efficacy of the reactive
power control techniques for many types of LV networks. Moreover, one reactive power control
technique may be recommended for one network type while it would have negative impact on a
different type. Another possibility may come from the need of applying different control strategies
depending on seasonal, daily and hourly schedules.
Finding an optimum generic Q(U) curve could also be investigated. For this reason, one
suggestion is shown in Figure 47. The main objective of the curve is to provide higher voltage
sensitivities to the inverter connected closer to the transformer terminals.
U
Q
96,0
102.5,0
105,33
110,44

Figure 47: Proposed Q(U) curve for further analysis


53
Several more study cases could be performed on Q(U) and PF(P) where not only one PF(P)
reference is given but several. Each PF(P) curve could then be compared with its similar
counterpart in terms of maximum reactive power contribution. Additionally, several Q(U) curves
with dead band and fixed voltage sensitivity (varying end point) could be selected and analysed.
One more study case could be performed with a different set value for the fixed tap position of
the 10/0.4 kV transformer, e.g. neutral position, together with Q(U). Also Q(U) and PF(P) curves
which generates the same amount of reactive energy should be compared, as well as curves which
have the same limits for exchange of reactive power.
One additional future study direction is the analysis of more advanced reactive power
control algorithms such as Q(U,P) or PF(U,P) documented in [5]. An optimized control would
ensure minimum reactive power injection from the PV inverters to avoid overvoltage phenomena
and thus would minimize the power losses in the AC cables.
As another possible future analysis, the same subject can be studied with the inclusion of
new and modern types of consumers. Heat pumps and electrical vehicles (EV) are showing strong
momentum in mass deployment. The influence of these consumer types towards the PV inverter
performance can be thus analysed. A more detailed modelling of the EV units can be developed
and thus smart storage control algorithms may be included.
This report provides a starting point for additional economic analyses on the total cost of
using reactive power control methods in LV networks in order to increase the PV penetration level.
These cost analyses may include the cost of energy losses in the power network, the transformer
lifetime expense when temporarily overloading it, as well as the amount of power factor
correction capacity in the 60 kV station to cover peak generation hours. A comparison with the
cost of upgrading the network in order to accommodate more PV can also be performed. This also
includes the changes in transformer life-time as function of the PV penetration.



54
5 Works Cited

[1] Dansk Energi, Energinet, Dong Energy, Scenarier for solcelle udrulning i Danmark, 2012.
[2] S. F. Jensen, Solceller Nu og i fremtiden, 30 01 2012. [Online]. Available:
http://www.dansksolcelleforening.dk/FileArchive/Generel%20orientering%20fra%20Energinet
.dk.pdf. [Accessed 19 07 2012].
[3] EnergiNet, EnergiNet DK news, 29 10 2012. [Online]. Available:
http://energinet.dk/EN/El/Nyheder/Sider/Naesten-20000-familier-har-faaet-solceller-i-
2012.aspx. [Accessed 29 10 2012].
[4] R. D. Lazar and A. Constantin, Voltage Balancing in LV Residential Networks by Means of Three
Phase PV Inverters, Danfoss Solar Inverters A/S Denmark: EUPVSEC 2012, 2012.
[5] Erhan Demirok, Dezso Sera, Remus Teodorescu, Kenn H. B. Frederiksen, An optimized local
reactive power control for high penetration of distributed solar inverters in low voltage
networks, in EUPVSEC, 2011.
[6] Dansk Energi, Solceller og spaendingsvariationer i 0.4 kV net, Copenhagen, 2012.
[7] P. Esslinger, Studie Q(U), Technischen Universitt Mnchen, Mnchen, 2012.
[8] G. Kerber and R. S. H. Witzmann, Voltage Limitation by Autonomous Reactive Power Control of
Grid Connected Photovoltaic Inverters, IEEE Catalog Number: CFP09851; Conference on
Compatibility and Power Electronics, pp. 129-133, May 20 - 22, 2009.
[9] ABB, Case Study: Voltage regulation for utility grids with distributed generation, [Online].
Available:
http://www05.abb.com/global/scot/scot232.nsf/veritydisplay/8cb3000da66fdcaf4825792000
6e4efe/$file/2ucd301118_a%20pcs100%20avr%20case%20study%20-%20english%20vers.pdf.
[Accessed 19 07 2012].
[10] C. Krner, M. Hennig, R. Schmid and K. Handt, Gaining experience with a regulated
distribution transformer in a smart grid environment, in CIRED Workshop, 2012.
[11] A. Einfalt, F. Kupzog and H. Brunner, Control Strategies for Smart Low Voltage Grids The
Project DG DemoNet Smart LV Grid, in CIRED Workshop, 2012.
[12] R. Tonkoski, . L. Lopes and . T. El-Fouly, Coordinated Active Power Curtailment of Grid
Connected PV Inverters for Overvoltage Prevention, Sustainable Energy, IEEE Transactions on,
vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 139 - 147 , April 2011.


55
[13] L. Chia-Hung, . H. Wei-Lin, C. Chao-Shun and H. Cheng-Ting , Optimization of Photovoltaic
Penetration in Distribution Systems Considering Annual Duration Curve of Solar Irradiation,
Power Systems, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 1090 - 1097 , 2012.
[14] C. Gaudin, A. Ballanti and E. Lejay, Evaluation of PV curtailment option to optimize PV
integration in Distribution Network, in CIRED Workshop, 2012.
[15] SMA Energie AG, SMA SMART HOME, 01 06 2012. [Online]. Available:
http://files.sma.de/dl/2485/SMART_HOME-KEN123012.pdf. [Accessed 19 07 2012].
[16] European Photovoltaic Industry Association, Connecting the sun - Solar Photovoltaic on the
road to large scale grid integration, Brussels, 2012.
[17] BDEW, Technical guideline: Generating plants connected to the Medium Voltage Network,
2008.
[18] ENBW AG Deutschland, Vorgaben der ENBW Regional AG zur Blindleistungs-
/Spannungskennlinie Q(U) fur Erzeugungsanlagen am Mittelspannungnetz, 2011.
[19] EN, Standard EN 50160 - Voltage Characteristics in Public Distribution Systems, 2004.
[20] IEC, Draft IEC 61850-90-7 TR - Communication networks and systems for power utility
automation - Part 90-7: IEC 61850 object models for photovoltaic, storage, and other DER
inverters, 2012.
[21] S. Bkhj Kjr, R. Lazar, A. Constantin, U. Borup, H. P. Ballegaard, J. stergaard, G.-Y. Yang, C.
Stephansen, M. Rolsted Mattesen and J. Bergholdt, Application of smartgrid in photovoltaic
power systems on the island of Bornholm PVNET.DK, in EUPVSEC, Hamburg, 2011.
[22] Dansk Energi, Danish Electricity Supply - Statistical Survey '09, 2010.
[23] FNN, VDE-AR-N 4105:2011-08 Power generation systems connected to the low-voltage
distribution network - Technical minimum requirements for the connection to and parallel
operation with low-voltage distribution networks, August 2011.
[24] M. R. Mattesen, G. Y. Yang, S. B. Kjr, R. D. Lazar, A. Constantin, J. stergaard and C.
Stephansen, Analysis of Thevenin Equivalent Network of a Distribution System for Solar
Integration Studies, in ISGT EU, Berlin, 2012.
[25] PVsyst , PVsyst - Photovoltaic software, PVsyst - Photovoltaic software, [Online]. Available:
http://www.pvsyst.com/en/. [Accessed 11 2012].




56
6 Appendix A
Low voltage cable parameters:
Cable name Busbar1 Busbar2 Type Length in km
125LV_528 125LV 528 4X150 AL-M PEX 0,084
125LV_533 125LV 533 4X95 AL-M PVIKS 0,03
528_529 528 529 4X50 AL-M PEX 0,105
528_1046 528 1046 4X50 AL-M PEX 0,033
533_535 533 535 4X95 AL-M PVIKS 0,047
533_534 533 534 4X50 AL-M PVIKS 0,103
529_530 529 530 4X50 AL-M PEX 0,053
529_531 529 531 4X95 AL PVIKS 0,076
529_10150 529 10150 4X150 AL-M PEX 0,055
529_10157 529 10157 4X150 AL-M PEX 0,003
10146_10147 10146 10147 4X50 AL-M PEX 0,068
535_536 535 536 4X95 AL-M PVIKS 0,068
531_532 531 532 4X50 AL-M PEX 0,076
531_540 531 540 4X50 AL-M PEX 0,056
10150_10151 10150 10151 4X150 AL-M PEX 0,07
10147_10148 10147 10148 4X50 AL-M PEX 0,072
540_10149 540 10149 4X150 AL-M PEX 0,032
10151_10152 10151 10152 4X150 AL-M PEX 0,026
10151_10156 10151 10156 4X50 AL-M PEX 0,062
536_537 536 537 4X95 AL-M PVIKS 0,038
10152_10153 10152 10153 4X150 AL-M PEX 0,051
537_538 537 538 4X50 AL-M PVIKS 0,065
537_9922 537 9922 4X50 AL-M PVIKS 0,038
10153_10154 10153 10154 4X150 AL-M PEX 0,041


57
9922_9923 9922 9923 4X50 AL-M PVIKS 0,035
10154_389 10154 389 4X150 AL-M PEX 0,063
389_359 389 359 4X150 AL-M PVIKS 0,042
389_10155 389 10155 4X150 AL-M PEX 0,026
10155_359 10155 359 4X150 AL-M PEX 0,02
9923_9924 9923 9924 4X95 AL-M PEX 0,033
359_360 359 360 4X50 AL-M PVIKS 0,035
9924_9925 9924 9925 4X95 AL-M PEX 0,052

MV cable parameters:

Cable number Type Length [km]
1 NA2XS2Y 3x120SE 6/10kV 5
2 NA2XS2Y 3x120SE 6/10kV 5
3 NA2XS2Y 3x120SE 6/10kV 5
The aggregated distribution network model shown in Figure 14 is represented by a simple
constant power source generating active and reactive power identical with the output of the
generic LV network. This is done by measuring the power output of the LV/MV distribution
transformer at the primary side (MV). These values are multiplied by the number of network being
represented. For the particular case of the simulations performed this number has been set to 12.
MV/LV Transformer parameters:

Parameter 100 kVA Trafo 160 kVA Trafo 200kVA Trafo
Sr 0.1 MVA 0.16 MVA 0.2 MVA
UHV 10 kV 10 kV 10 kV
ULV 0.4 kV 0.4 kV 0.4 kV
Uk 3.2 % 3.2 % 3.2 %
X/R 7.93 7.93 7.93


58
7 Appendix B
Appendix B contains the complete set of results of the analysed study cases.
7.1 Study case 2

Figure 48: Study case 2 voltage locus at different points in the network and different PV penetration levels

Figure 49: Study case 2 - Maximum/Minimum yearly voltage for each bus of feeder 1 for variable PV
penetration


59

Figure 50: Study case 2 - Maximum/Minimum yearly voltage for each bus of feeder 2 for variable PV
penetration


Figure 51: Study case 2 Histogram of the yearly transformer loading for variable PV penetration


60

Figure 52: Study case 2 Histogram of the yearly cable loading (maximum) for variable PV penetration

Figure 53: Q(U) locus plots Study case 2 farthest inverter


61

Figure 54: P(U) locus plots Study case 2 farthest inverter


Figure 55: Power transfer at the MV side of transformer Study case 2


62

Figure 56: Reactive power transfer at MV side of transformer Study Case 2

7.2 Study case 3

Figure 57: Study case 3 voltage locus at different points in the network and different PV penetration levels


63

Figure 58: Study case 3 - Maximum/Minimum yearly voltage for each bus of feeder 1 for variable PV
penetration

Figure 59: Study case 3 - Maximum/Minimum yearly voltage for each bus of feeder 2 for variable PV
penetration


64

Figure 60: Study case 3 Histogram of the yearly transformer loading for variable PV penetration

Figure 61: Study case 3 Histogram of the yearly cable loading (maximum) for variable PV penetration


65

Figure 62: Q(U) locus plots Study case 3 outermost inverter

Figure 63: P(U) locus plots Study case 3 outermost inverter


66

Figure 64: Power transfer at the MV side of transformer Study case 3


Figure 65: : Reactive power transfer at MV side of transformer Study Case 3


67
7.3 Study case 4

Figure 66: Study case 4 voltage locus at different points in the network and different PV penetration levels

Figure 67: Study case 4 - Maximum/Minimum yearly voltage for each bus of feeder 1 for variable PV
penetration


68

Figure 68: Study case 4 - Maximum/Minimum yearly voltage for each bus of feeder 2 for variable PV
penetration

Figure 69: Study case 4 Histogram of the yearly transformer loading for variable PV penetration


69

Figure 70: Study case 4 Histogram of the yearly cable loading (all maximum) for variable PV penetration

Figure 71: Q(U) locus plots Study case 4 outermost inverter


70

Figure 72: P(U) locus plots Study case 4 outermost inverter

Figure 73: Power transfer at the MV side of transformer Study case 4



71

Figure 74: Reactive power transfer at MV side of transformer Study Case 4

7.4 Study case 5

Figure 75: Study case 5 voltage locus at different points in the network and different PV penetration levels


72

Figure 76: Study case 5 - Maximum/Minimum yearly voltage for each bus of feeder 1 for variable PV
penetration


Figure 77: Study case 5 Maximum/Minimum yearly voltage for each bus of feeder 2 for variable PV
penetration


73

Figure 78: Study case 5 Histogram of the yearly transformer loading for variable PV penetration

Figure 79: Study case 5 Histogram of the yearly cable loading (all maximum) for variable PV penetration


74

Figure 80: Q(U) locus plots Study case 5 outermost inverter

Figure 81: P(U) locus plots Study case 5 outermost inverter


75

Figure 82: Power transfer at the MV side of transformer Study case 5

Figure 83: Reactive power transfer at MV side of transformer Study Case 5




76
7.5 Study case 6

Figure 84: Study case 6 voltage locus at different points in the network and different PV penetration levels

Figure 85: Study case 6 - Maximum/Minimum yearly voltage for each bus of feeder 1 for variable PV
penetration


77

Figure 86: Study case 6 - Maximum/Minimum yearly voltage for each bus of feeder 2 for variable PV
penetration

Figure 87: Study case 6 Histogram of the yearly transformer loading for variable PV penetration


78

Figure 88: Study case 6 Histogram of the yearly cable loading (all maximum) for variable PV penetration

Figure 89: Q(U) locus plots Study case 6 outermost inverter


79

Figure 90: P(U) locus plots Study case 6 outermost inverter

Figure 91: Power transfer at the MV side of transformer Study case 6



80

Figure 92: Reactive power transfer at MV side of transformer Study Case 6
7.6 Study case 7

Figure 93: Study case 7 voltage locus at different points in the network and different PV penetration levels


81

Figure 94: Study case 7 - Maximum/Minimum yearly voltage for each bus of feeder 1 for variable PV
penetration

Figure 95: Study case 7 - Maximum/Minimum yearly voltage for each bus of feeder 2 for variable PV
penetration


82

Figure 96: Study case 7 Histogram of the yearly transformer loading for variable PV penetration

Figure 97: Study case 7 Histogram of the yearly cable loading (all maximum) for variable PV penetration


83

Figure 98: P(U) locus plots Study case 7 outermost inverter

Figure 99: Power transfer at the MV side of transformer Study case 7



84

Figure 100: Reactive power transfer at MV side of transformer Study Case 7
7.7 Study case 8

Figure 101: Study case 8 voltage locus at different points in the network and different PV penetration levels


85

Figure 102: Study case 8 - Maximum/Minimum yearly voltage for each bus of feeder 1 for variable PV
penetration


Figure 103: Study case 8 - Maximum/Minimum yearly voltage for each bus of feeder 2 for variable PV
penetration


86

Figure 104: Study case 8 Histogram of the yearly transformer loading for variable PV penetration

Figure 105: Study case 8 Histogram of the yearly cable loading (all maximum) for variable PV penetration


87

Figure 106: Q(U) locus plots Study case 8 outermost inverter

Figure 107: P(U) locus plots Study case 8 outermost inverter


88

Figure 108: Power transfer at the MV side of transformer Study case 8


Figure 109: Reactive power transfer at MV side of transformer Study Case 8



89
7.8 Study case 9

Figure 110: Study case 9 voltage locus at different points in the network and different PV penetration levels

Figure 111: Study case 9 - Maximum/Minimum yearly voltage for each bus of feeder 1 for variable PV
penetration


90

Figure 112: Study case 9 - Maximum/Minimum yearly voltage for each bus of feeder 2 for variable PV
penetration


Figure 113: Study case 9 Histogram of the yearly transformer loading for variable PV penetration


91

Figure 114: Study case 9 Histogram of the yearly cable loading (all maximum) for variable PV penetration

Figure 115: P(U) locus plots Study case 9 outermost inverter


92

Figure 116: Power transfer at the MV side of transformer Study case 9


Figure 117: Reactive power transfer at MV side of transformer Study Case 9


93
7.9 Study case 10

Figure 118: Study case 10 voltage locus at different points in the network and different PV penetration
levels

Figure 119: Study case 10 - Maximum/Minimum yearly voltage for each bus of feeder 1 for variable PV
penetration


94

Figure 120: Study case 10 - Maximum/Minimum yearly voltage for each bus of feeder 2 for variable PV
penetration

Figure 121: Study case 10 Histogram of the yearly transformer loading for variable PV penetration


95

Figure 122: Study case 10 Histogram of the yearly cable loading (all maximum) for variable PV penetration

Figure 123: Q(U) locus plots Study case 10 outermost inverter


96

Figure 124: P(U) locus plots Study case 10 outermost inverter

Figure 125: Power transfer at the MV side of transformer Study case 10



97

Figure 126: Reactive power transfer at MV side of transformer Study Case 10
7.10 Study case 11

Figure 127: Study case 11 voltage locus at different points in the network and different PV penetration levels


98

Figure 128: Study case 11 - Maximum/Minimum yearly voltage for each bus of feeder 1 for variable PV
penetration

Figure 129: Study case 11 - Maximum/Minimum yearly voltage for each bus of feeder 2 for variable PV
penetration


99

Figure 130: Study case 11 Histogram of the yearly transformer loading for variable PV penetration


Figure 131: Study case 11 Histogram of the yearly cable loading (all maximum) for variable PV penetration


100

Figure 132: Q(U) locus plots Study case 11 outermost inverter

Figure 133: P(U) locus plots Study case 11 outermost inverter


101

Figure 134: Power transfer at the MV side of transformer Study case 11


Figure 135: Reactive power transfer at MV side of transformer Study Case 11


102
7.11 Study case 12

Figure 136: Study case 12 voltage locus at different points in the network and different PV penetration levels

Figure 137: Study case 12 - Maximum/Minimum yearly voltage for each bus of feeder 1 for variable PV
penetration


103

Figure 138: Study case 12 - Maximum/Minimum yearly voltage for each bus of feeder 2 for variable PV
penetration

Figure 139: Study case 12 Histogram of the yearly transformer loading for variable PV penetration


104

Figure 140: Study case 12 Histogram of the yearly cable loading (all maximum) for variable PV penetration

Figure 141: Q(U) locus plots Study case 12 outermost inverter


105

Figure 142: P(U) locus plots Study case 12 outermost inverter

Figure 143: Power transfer at the MV side of transformer Study case 12



106

Figure 144: Reactive power transfer at MV side of transformer Study Case 12
7.12 Study case 13

Figure 145: Study case 13 voltage locus at different points in the network and different PV penetration levels


107

Figure 146: Study case 13 - Maximum/Minimum yearly voltage for each bus of feeder 1 for variable PV
penetration

Figure 147: Study case 13 - Maximum/Minimum yearly voltage for each bus of feeder 2 for variable PV
penetration



108

Figure 148: Study case 13 Histogram of the yearly transformer loading for variable PV penetration

Figure 149: Study case 13 Histogram of the yearly cable loading (all maximum) for variable PV penetration


109

Figure 150: Q(U) locus plots Study case 13 outermost inverter

Figure 151 P(U) locus plots Study case 13 outermost inverter


110

Figure 152: Power transfer at the MV side of transformer Study case 13

Figure 153: Reactive power transfer at MV side of transformer Study Case 13