Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
org
Published in IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution
Received on 5th September 2010
Revised on 27th February 2011
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0574
ISSN 1751-8687
Abstract: New smart load management (SLM) approach for the coordination of multiple plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) chargers
in distribution feeders is proposed. PEVs are growing in popularity as a low emission and efficient mode of transport against
petroleum-based vehicles. PEV chargers represent sizeable and unpredictable loads, which can detrimentally impact the
performance of distribution grids. Utilities are concerned about the potential overloads, stresses, voltage deviations and power
losses that may occur in distribution systems from domestic PEV charging activity as well as from newly emerging charging
stations. Therefore this study proposes a new SLM control strategy for coordinating PEV charging based on peak demand
shaving, improving voltage profile and minimising power losses. Furthermore, the developed SLM approach takes into
consideration the PEV owner preferred charging time zones based on a priority selection scheme. The impact of PEV
charging stations and typical daily residential loading patterns are also considered. Simulation results are presented to
demonstrate the significant performance improvement offered by SLM for a 1200 node test system topology consisting of
several low-voltage residential networks populated with PEVs.
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 8, pp. 877– 888 877
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0574 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011
www.ietdl.org
SLM is proposed to coordinate PEV charger scheduling to on cable and transformer losses. Peak shaving is achieved by
perform peak demand shaving, improve voltage profile and minimising system demand using the following objective
minimise power losses. The SLM also takes into function
consideration the PEV owner’s preferred charging time zones
based on a priority selection scheme. To demonstrate the
hend
hend
n
improvement in distribution system performance with SLM, min Demandh = min h
Pk,load (3a)
a detailed test system topology (with 1200 nodes) is h=hstart h=hstart k=1
simulated, which consists of a high-voltage 23 kV feeder (the
IEEE 31 bus test system) with several integrated low-voltage where hstart and hend correspond to the starting and ending
53 node 415 V residential networks populated with PEVs. charging hours within the selected charging time zone,
Simulation results including total power consumption, system h
respectively. Pk,load is the load demand of node k at hour h.
losses and voltage profiles over a 24 h period are presented The loss minimisation objective is defined as the
for (un)coordinated charging with PEV penetrations of 17, minimisation of incremental system losses within the 24 h
31, 46 and 62% considering three tiered charging time
zones: red, 1800–2200 h; blue, 1800–0100 h and green,
24
1800–0800 h. min Wloss = h
Ploss (3b)
h=1
2 Problem formulation: coordination of PEV
charging The power losses of the distribution system are computed
from the Newton-based power flow outputs. The power loss
The coordination problem of PEVs is to define the scheduling in each line section between nodes k and k + 1 is
of individual PEV chargers in a distribution system such that
total system power losses are minimised, peak demand
shaving is achieved and voltages at all nodes are regulated Ploss(k,k+1) = Rk,k+1 (|Vk,k+1 − Vk ||yk,k+1 |)2 (4)
within allowable tolerances. Existing residential load
variations over a 24 h period, grid topology, the effects of and the total power loss is
charging stations and PEV owner selected charging priorities
will also be considered in the PEV coordination approach.
n−1
This section describes how the charging coordination Ploss = Ploss(k,k+1) (5)
problem can be formulated into two objective functions k=0
taking into account the necessary constraints to improve the
distribution system performance. 2.3 Objective power flow method and load model
2.1 Distribution system constraints A modified Newton-based load flow routine is implemented
to assess the state of the distribution system subject to PEV
The voltage constraints of the distribution system will be charging considering voltage profile and power losses,
considered by setting the upper and lower limits to which is necessary for the computation of the objective
correspond with voltage regulation limits typically set by function and checking of constraints. All loads are modeled
utilities. In this paper, the voltage limits are set to +10% as constant power loads with their real and reactive powers
(V min ¼ 0.9 pu and V max ¼ 1.1 pu), which is typical of updated through a load curve for each hourly time interval
many distribution systems the load flow is computed.
V min ≤ Vk ≤ V max , for k = 1, . . . , n (1) 3 SLM for the PEV coordination problem
where k is the node number and n is the total number of nodes. A new SLM approach for the coordination of PEV charging is
The second constraint is for limiting the total maximum system proposed. SLM is designed to operate as part of the DMS for
demand of the distribution system to prevent the occurrence of a distribution feeder to perform intelligent scheduling of PEV
an overload condition from PEV charging. Therefore the total battery chargers considering distribution system performance.
power consumption at each hour ( Demandh) is limited to the This approach also considers human inputs by allowing the
peak demand level (Dmax) that would normally occur without priority of PEV charging to be selected by the PEV owner.
any PEVs connected in the residential networks This section describes the development of the overall SLM
methodology based on the objective function and system
n constraints defined in Section 2.
Demandh = h
Pk,load ≤ Dmax , for h = 1, . . . , 24 As an alternative to PEV chargers randomly and
k=1 immediately operating when first plugged in, or after some
(2) fixed time delay, the proposed SLM will decide which
PEVs will commence charging and at what time. PEV
2.2 Objective function for peak shaving and loss charger control can be achieved through the forthcoming
minimisation smart grid communications infrastructure by sending and
receiving signals to individual PEV chargers. This means
The selected objective functions for the PEV-charging that PEV charging control would be taken out of the hands
coordination problem is based on the minimisation of system of the owner and scheduled automatically. The proposed
demand and total system power losses over the charging SLM will perform peak shaving (3a), loss minimisation
hours. The justification for using losses as part of the (3b) and voltage regulation based on the system constraints
objective function is that a distribution systems economy will ([see (1) and (2)]. Furthermore, SLM also takes into
largely depend on the cost of energy that would be expended consideration existing load variations over a 24 h cycle,
878 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 8, pp. 877 –888
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011 doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0574
www.ietdl.org
The search process is started by running the load flow loop
systematically for individual PEV chargers temporarily
activated one at a time to find the PEV within that priority
group that will result in minimum system losses. For each
Fig. 1 Subscription options of charging time zones for PEV temporarily activated PEV charger in the search phase, the
owners sum of the losses throughout the entire charge duration is
considered and compared for all temporary PEV node
while factoring PEV owner preferences for charging time placements. If at any time the load flow indicates a
zone and priority. constraint violation (e.g. voltage out of limits) at any node
[see (1) and (2)], the algorithm will attempt to reschedule
3.1 Charging time zone and priority scheme the PEV and perform another scanning of the system load
curve until the constraints are satisfied. Therefore it may not
The developed SLM allows PEV owners to indicate their be possible for all PEV owners to be accommodated in
preferred charging time zone. The SLM will try to their preferred charging zones and must be deferred to the
accommodate these preferences in the charger scheduling, next possible hour.
while considering the peak shaving and loss minimisation Once it has been determined which PEV node in that
objective functions as well as system constraints (1 – 5). priority can begin charging at the selected time with
Three charging zones (Fig. 1) have been defined for this minimum system losses, the selected PEVs scheduling is
study: permanently assigned and the system load curve updated
ready for the next iteration. This process is repeated for all
1. Red charging zone (1800– 2200 h) is for (high priority) nodes in that priority group before advancing to the next
PEV owners wanting to charge their PEVs as soon as time zone (e.g. blue zone). At the end of this process, the
possible upon return from work to have their vehicles ready SLM algorithm arrives at individual schedules assigned to
for use later in the evening. Red charging zone coincides all PEV chargers. The programme then exits the main loop
with most of the on-peak period. Therefore PEV owners and computes the 24 h load flow to print new system
desiring to charge during this period of high demand will performances (e.g. all node voltage profiles and power
be charged a higher tariff rate. losses).
2. Blue charging zone (1800 – 0100 h) is for (medium
priority) consumers that prefer to charge their vehicles at
partially off-peak periods and pay a lower tariff rate.
3. Green charging zone (1800– 0800 h) is the period that
most PEV charging is expected to take place because most
(low priority) consumers will require their vehicles fully
charged for use throughout the next day. Charging off-peak
will be highly encouraged by setting the cheapest tariff rates.
Note that all charging zone periods begin at 1800 h and are
allowed to overlap for some duration. This makes it possible
for SLM to accommodate fortunate medium and low priority
subscribers the opportunity to charge their vehicles earlier
if possible. That is, after scheduling higher priority
subscribers, lower priority customers can be served if there
is enough capacity without violating system constraints.
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 8, pp. 877– 888 879
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0574 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011
www.ietdl.org
4 Distribution system with PEVs and reasonable charging profiles necessary for the study. PEV
charging stations battery capacities typically range from a few kWhs to over
50 kWh [1 – 4, 14]. For this study, most of the simulations
A detailed smart grid system test topology is developed and assume a 10 kWh battery capacity per PEV. Selected
studied to compare the impacts and benefits of the proposed simulation cases are also performed with battery sizes
PEV charging approach (SLM) against random uncoordinated ranging from 5 kWh to 15 kWh. It is expected that the
charging. This section describes the system configuration and lower end of battery sizes are more affordable and more
load assumptions necessary for the analysis. likely to initially dominate the market.
In order to maximise PEV battery life and performance to
4.1 System topology achieve maximum number of charging cycles, deep cycle
batteries have a rated depth of discharge (DOD) which
The selected system is a hybrid of the IEEE 31 bus 23 kV should not be exceeded. In lithium-ion batteries currently
distribution test system [13] and several densely populated used in some PEVs, optimum DOD typically ranges from
residential LV 53 node 415 V feeders based on real system 50 to 80%, which is a tradeoff between battery life and
data of a neighbourhood (in Western Australia). The HV driving range. Therefore this study assumes a typical DOD
feeder has six branches extending into different districts with of 70% of the rated battery size resulting in an available
PEV charging stations also placed at selected HV nodes. LV capacity of 7 kWh that the charger must deliver in order to
sections each consist of 53 nodes representing customer charge a 10 kWh PEV battery. Battery chargers have some
households with selected nodes assigned PEVs, priority and losses and therefore the energy requirement from the grid is
charging zone (Fig. 3). A total of 22 LV 53 node residential actually greater than the stated battery capacity. A typical
feeders are implemented and are supplied from the HV main battery charger efficiency of 88% is assumed [15] thereby
buses via 23 kV/415 V 300 kVA distribution transformers. requiring a total of 8 kWh of energy from the grid in order
The total number of nodes of this system is 1200. The to charge a single PEV with a 10 kWh battery.
system impedances are listed in the Appendix.
4.3 Residential PEV battery chargers
4.2 PEV energy requirements
In practice, PEV battery chargers will have large power ratings in
For realistic modeling of PEV charging loads, the battery comparison to normal residential loads in order to charge the
capacities must be considered in order to determine large PEV battery banks within reasonable time periods.
Fig. 3 Designated PEV penetration levels and assigned priorities for charging time zones (red ¼ high priority, blue ¼ medium priority,
green ¼ low priority)
Boxes with no colour indicates nodes with no PEVs present
880 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 8, pp. 877 –888
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011 doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0574
www.ietdl.org
stations, will need to be deployed in various locations
around the network. PEV requirements from charging
stations are such that it would be necessary to draw
sufficient amount of power to charge PEV batteries in a
similar time duration to that of filling the tank of a
conventional fuel based vehicle. That is, PEVs pulling into
a charging station would need a large amount of energy
delivered in a short period of time for rapid recharging of
batteries which serve as their ‘fuel tank’ [7]. Therefore
large power rectification conversion equipment capable of
transforming high-power ac to high-power dc will be
necessary to deliver this amount of power.
In this analysis, the impact of rapid PEV charging stations
is considered at four specific sites near residential areas
populated with PEVs. The charging stations are connected
to HV main buses 2, 4, 7 and 9. These charging stations
follow a load curve as shown in Fig. 4. There are two
charging station load peaks; morning and evening which
Fig. 4 Daily load curves for residential loads and charging stations correspond to PEV owners charging their vehicles before
they go to work in the morning, and, after returning from
However, limitations of household wiring must also be work in the evening. The maximum peak demand of PEV
considered. A standard single-phase 240 V outlet (Australia) charging stations corresponds to the maximum number of
can typically supply a maximum of 2.4 kW. There are also 15 PEVs that can pull into a charging station during its busiest
and 20 A outlets (single-phase and three-phase) that can supply time, which is assumed to be on average six PEVs. The
approximately 4 and 14.4 kW, respectively. For this analysis, a PEV charging station power requirement for the rapid
maximum charging power level of 4 kW at unity power factor charging of one PEV is assumed to be approximately
is selected because this is commonly available in most single- 14.4 kW at unity power factor. Therefore the peak demand
phase residential households without having to reinforce wiring. of one charging station is approximately 86.4 kW.
Fig. 5 1200 node smart grid distribution system topology consisting of the IEEE 31 bus 23 kV system with several 415 V residential feeders
Each low-voltage residential network has 53 nodes representing customer households with varying penetrations of PEVs (Fig. 3)
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 8, pp. 877– 888 881
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0574 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011
www.ietdl.org
constructed to model the domestic load variations (without
PEV charging) at each house over a 24 h period (Fig. 4).
The peak power consumption of a house is assumed to be
on average 1.5 kW with a power factor of 0.95 and occurs
in the evening at around 1800 h.
882 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 8, pp. 877 –888
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011 doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0574
www.ietdl.org
Fig. 7 Random uncoordinated PEV charging within the blue Fig. 8 Random uncoordinated PEV charging within the red
charging zone (1800–0100 h) charging zone (1800–2200 h)
a Total system power demand for 46% PEV penetration a Total system power demand for 46% PEV penetration
b Voltage profiles (shown for worst affected nodes) for different PEV b Voltage profiles (shown for worst affected nodes) for different PEV
penetrations. Note that the high penetrations (e.g. .31%) cause moderate penetrations. Note that the high penetrations (e.g. .31%) cause moderate
voltages deviations voltages deviations
c Total system power losses for different PEV penetrations c Total system power losses for different PEV penetrations
impact on generation dispatching with limited spinning excessive power losses as well as significant increase
reserve to service this new load peak because of PEVs. in transformer loading (Table 1, Figs. 7b and c and 8b
Severe voltage deviations up to 20% are observed with and c).
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 8, pp. 877– 888 883
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0574 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011
www.ietdl.org
884 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 8, pp. 877 –888
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011 doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0574
www.ietdl.org
The SLM coordinated PEV charging also has positive
impacts on peak transformer load currents. This is an
important consideration as distribution transformers will be
the weakest link in residential networks and newly developing
smart grids populated with PEVs. For many of the
uncoordinated random charging scenarios (Table 1),
distribution transformers are experiencing significant increases
(e.g. over 200%) in peak loading which can affect reliability
and expected service life. With SLM coordination,
transformer currents are significantly reduced by at least 40%
when compared with the worst case uncoordinated charging.
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 8, pp. 877– 888 885
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0574 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011
www.ietdl.org
Table 1 Impact of uncoordinated and coordinated PEV charging on the power quality of the 1200 node distribution system (Fig. 5)
PEV penetration, % Uncoordinated charging (random charging) Coordinated charging based on peak shaving
without priority [see (1) –(3)]
D lossa, % D V b, % I MAX
c
, pu D lossa, % D V b, % I MAX c, pu
a
Ratio of system losses over 24 h compared with total power consumption over 24 h
b
Voltage deviation at the worst node
c
Maximum of all distribution transformer load currents
Table 2 Impact of coordinated PEV charging based on SLM on residential networks that can telemeter data to the utility via a
the power quality of the 1200 node distribution system (Fig. 5) bidirectional communications network. This will significantly
enhance the ability of the DMS to monitor and control
PEV penetration, % Coordinated charging based on distribution system assets and consumer loads. Integral to
peak shaving with priority ((1)–(3), the processing of metered real-time network data will be the
Figs. 9–13) use of state estimation (SE) techniques.
Transmission systems already employ some level of SE
D lossa, % D V b, % I cMAX, pu with SCADA systems to gather information. However, the
5 kWh PEV battery size (2 h charging) operational philosophies and network topologies of
17 2.2151 8.7799 0.29488 distribution feeders vary considerably compared to
31 2.2506 8.2493 0.29488 transmission system operations. This is even more of an
46 2.2689 7.9479 0.30216 issue with the rollout of smart grids which represent a
62 2.3174 8.0024 0.30933 fundamental change to distribution system design. For
7.5 kWh PEV battery size (2 h charging) example, smart grids DMS must also contend with
17 2.2564 9.9369 0.29946 dynamic operation from increased renewable energy
31 2.3351 9.8199 0.29823 penetration, distributed generation activity as well as PEV
46 2.3680 9.2452 0.33045 charging at residential premises and large-scale charging
62 2.4493 9.9954 0.32905 stations. Therefore new distribution system state estimation
10 kWh PEV battery size (2 h charging) (Figs. 9–13) (DSSE) methods, which will be the heart of the DMS, are
17 2.3005 9.9943 0.30725 currently being explored [8, 10] as well as smart meters
31 2.4216 9.7064 0.30883 and sensors to enhance the observability and monitoring
46 2.4725 9.8929 0.33404 of the distribution system. For the SLM coordination
62 2.5967 9.9926 0.40727 problem, this means that the DSSE would serve in
12.5 kWh PEV battery size (3 h chargingd) place of the load flow step in the algorithm of Fig. 2 in
17 2.3132 9.9848 0.30200 order to supply the necessary data and feedbacks to
31 2.4295 9.9673 0.30155 coordinate PEVs and maximise feeder performance.
46 2.4947 9.5322 0.33606 Specifically, DSSE will be required to provide up-to-
62 2.6388 9.8761 0.33859 date voltage magnitudes at all nodes (e.g. for checking
15 kWh PEV battery size (3 h chargingd) voltage regulation), estimate total load consumption (e.g.
17 2.3560 9.9943 0.30725 to check demand limitations), sense and process individual
31 2.5205 9.9655 0.30883 PEV charger power profiles, and project system losses
46 2.6046 9.9972 0.33404 necessary for the SLM loss minimisation objective
62 2.7904 9.9546 0.36402 function. The above-mentioned complicated issues related
to PEV load modelling and DSSE are beyond the scope of
a
Ratio of system losses over 24 h compared with total power this paper and should be tackled in future publications.
consumption over 24 h
b
c
Voltage deviation at the worst node 6 Conclusions
Maximum of all distribution transformer load currents
d
Charging duration is increased in order to charge the larger This paper studies the impacts of various random
batteries uncoordinated charging scenarios as well as coordinated
886 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 8, pp. 877 –888
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011 doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0574
www.ietdl.org
PEV charging for a distribution system with charging stations 3 Chevrolet: ‘2011 volt electric car’. 2010. Available at: http://www.
and residential PEV charging activity. A novel SLM algorithm chevrolet.com/electriccar/
4 Mitsubishi: ‘i MiEV Mitsubishi innovative electric vehicle’. 2010.
is developed in Matlab environment for coordinating the Available at: http://www.mitsubishi-motors.com/special/ev/
scheduling of multiple PEVs while considering distribution 5 Gönen, T.: ‘Electric power distribution system engineering’ (Taylor &
and residential grid performances (e.g. voltage profile, Francis, Boca Raton, 2007)
system losses and peak demand shaving). Three charging 6 Clement-Nyns, K., Haesen, E., Driesen, J.: ‘The impact of charging
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles on a residential distribution grid’,
time zones (red, 1800– 2200 h; blue, 1800–0100 h and IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2010, 25, (1), pp. 371– 380
green, 1800–0800 h), four PEV penetration levels (17, 31, 7 Etezadi-Amoli, M., Choma, K., Stefani, J.: ‘Rapid-charge electric-
46 and 62%), five PEV battery sizes and three PEV owner’s vehicle stations’, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., 2010, 25, (3),
priorities (high, medium and low) are considered. SLM also pp. 1883– 1887
takes into consideration the existing load variations over a 8 Singh, R., Pal, B.C., Jabr, R.A.: ‘Distribution system state
estimation through Gaussian mixture model of the load as pseudo-
24 h cycle while factoring PEV owner preferences for measurement’, IET Proc. Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2010, 4, (1),
charging time zone and priority. Based on this and the load pp. 50–59
flow computed outputs (e.g. voltage profiles and losses), 9 Singh, R., Pal, B.C., Jabr, R.A.: ‘Statistical representation of distribution
SLM schedules when individual PEV chargers should begin system loads using Gaussian mixture model’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
charging such that grid performance is maximised. The 2010, 25, (1), pp. 29–37
10 Singh, R., Pal, B.C., Jabr, R.A.: ‘Choice of estimator for distribution
improvements and benefits of SLM are compared and system state estimation’, IET Proc., Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2009, 3,
demonstrated by performing extensive simulations for a (7), pp. 666– 678
highly detailed 1200 node distribution system topology with 11 Singh, R., Manitsas, E., Pal, B.C.E., Strbac, G.: ‘A recursive Bayesian
several low-voltage residential networks populated with approach for identification of network configuration changes in
distribution system state estimation’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2010,
PEVs. The main conclusions are as follows: 25, (3), pp. 1329–1336
12 Moslehi, K., Kumar, R.: ‘A reliability perspective of the smart grid’,
† The proposed method offers a new and viable integrated IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, 2010, 1, (1), pp. 57–64
means of exercising (semi)automated customer DSM in 13 Civanlar, S., Grainger, J.J.: ‘Volt/var control on distribution systems
smart grids by enhancing DMS capability with SLM, with lateral branches using shunt capacitors and voltage regulators.
Part III: the numerical results’, IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst., 1985,
jointly achieving reduced peak demand, improved PAS-104, (11), pp. 3291– 3297
distribution system efficiency and voltage regulation. 14 Denholm, P., Short, W.: ‘An evaluation of utility system
† SLM is shown to successfully maintain voltages within impacts and benefits of optimally dispatched plug-in hybrid electric
tolerances and significantly reduce system losses even under vehicles’. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL/TP-
620– 40293, 2006
high penetration of PEV charging activity. 15 Duvall, M., Knipping, E., Alexander, M.: ‘Environmental assessment of
† A feasible pricing and time zone priority scheme is shown plug-in hybrid electric vehicles’, in ‘Nationwide Greenhouse Gas
to work effectively with SLM PEV charging coordination. Emissions’ (Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Palo Alto, CA,
PEV owners can designate preferred charging zones, while 2007, vol. 1)
SLM performs performance improvement functions such as
loss minimisation and peak demand shaving.
† SLM will endeavour to respect PEV owner designated 8 Appendix
charging time zones as long as system constraints (e.g.
voltage regulation and limiting system peak) are not violated. The load and line parameters of the low-voltage 53 node
† SLM is shown to be beneficial in reducing excessive 415 V residential systems (Fig. 5) are listed in Tables 3 and
system loading by controlling peak shaving while also 4, respectively. The parameters of the IEEE 31 bus
reducing the risk of overloads in local circuits including distribution system are adapted from [13].
distribution transformers and cables.
† The impact of PEV was the focus of this study; however, the
proposed SLM approach is applicable to coordinating a wider Table 3 Linear and non-linear (PEV) loads of the typical
range of loads (e.g. PEV charging stations and smart appliances). low-voltage residential system (Fig. 5)
† In our future work, the proposed SLM could be extended with
the integration of new SE algorithms currently being developed Linear and PEV loads Power
to process real-time network data in distribution systems.
Node (Fig. 5) Name kW kVAR
7 References R2 –R53 linear loads 1.5 0.49
selected residential PEV charger 4.0 0
1 Tesla Motors: ‘Tesla motors – high performance electric vehicles’.
2010. Available at: http://www.teslamotors.com/ nodes
2 Nissan: ‘Nissan LEAF electric car’. 2010. Available at: http://www. 2, 4, 7, 9 PEV charging stations 86.4 0
nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 8, pp. 877– 888 887
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0574 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011
www.ietdl.org
Table 4 Line parameters of the typical low-voltage residential system (Fig. 5)
888 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2011, Vol. 5, Iss. 8, pp. 877 –888
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2011 doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2010.0574