1
Optimal Smart Functions of Large-scale PV Inverters
in Distribution Systems
Van Tu DAO
Advanced Collaborative Research Organization for Smart
Society (ACROSS), WASEDA University
Tokyo, Japan
Abstract—This research considers some smart inverter
functions of photovoltaic (PV) generations as options for power
utilities to improve system performance. The potential impacts of
these functions on voltage, energy loss, and power curtailment
are investigated first. Then, parameters of volt-var and volt-watt
control are coordinated with a step voltage regulator to minimize
the social cost. After that, simulations of a tested system
containing a 6.6kV-feeder, which includes large-scale PVs, and
low-voltage networks, which contain a large number of rooftop
solar panels, are performed in the OPENDSS software with real
data collected in Japan. Results show that appropriate smart
inverter functions can be remedies for an overvoltage issue
caused by high PV generation. Although the energy loss may be
higher than that of the no-control case, parameters of smart
functions and utility devices could be set optimally to balance the
capital conflicts between utilities and PV owners on a daily basis.
Index Terms— Active power curtailment, OPENDSS,
photovoltaics, smart inverter functions, voltage control.
I. INTRODUCTION
Voltage management in distribution systems is one of the
most essential tasks for power utilities. It is not surprising that
there have been a lot of relevant research and some schemes
have been well-established in the industrial practice. However,
the increasing integration amount of renewable energy-based
distributed generations such as wind turbines and photovoltaic
(PV) inverters is a challenge for system operators. Such new
generations bring the operators difficulty to deal with the
uncontrollable power output on one side, but opportunities to
employ inverter’s controlling capability on the other side.
Apart from costly solutions such as grid reinforcement and
energy storage installation, many proposed methods in the
literature consider a volt-var control of distributed generations
[1]-[4]. For example, a piecewise linear droop characteristic
was employed in [2] by implementing a voltage control loop
within the PV inverter’s control system to adjust reactive
power for maintaining voltage inside a designated band.
Although the simulation results indicated that the system was
stable and voltages could be successfully controlled,
interactions between such control and the conventional volt/var
scheme were not revealed. A coordination of load ratio
transformers (LRTs), step voltage regulators (SVRs) and
distributed generations was proposed in [3] based on the
forecasted solar irradiance and load demand for the day ahead.
The authors took reactive power support of each DG into
account via a simple droop curve whose voltage reference for
978-1-5386-4950-3/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE
Hideo ISHII and Yasuhiro HAYASHI
Advanced Collaborative Research Organization for Smart
Society (ACROSS), WASEDA University
Tokyo, Japan
the next day was determined by a genetic algorithm-based
optimization. Authors of [4] added a factor in the inverter’s
controller to predict the current tap position of a utility load tap
changer, so smart functions could be locally controlled in a
weak coordination scheme.
Depressing active power is interesting when Var control is
insufficient to fulfill the controlling task due to a high R/X
ratio in distribution systems and a high PV penetration level
[5]-[6]. Authors of [5] defined a droop coefficient based on the
installed capacity (kWp) and the presumably critical voltages
for a PV to curtail active power output autonomously. A
coordination between PVs was proposed in [6] which updated
each PV curtailment at every time step based on the measured
voltage and information from neighboring generations.
A combination of both reactive and active power control is
another option. For instance, the study in [7] tested a
distributed controller, consisting of some different modes,
installed at each PV inverter to control its output and the
controller needed communication channels to all other PVs in
the same feeder. A more advanced implementation can be
found in [8] where all PV inverters and utility regulating
devices were coordinated in an energy management system
that used historical data and short-time forecast. A recent
investigation in [9] shows that smart inverter settings for PVs
can improve distribution feeder performance though it just
contained a simple analysis based on some sequential-time
simulations.
Hence, an optimization for coordinating utility regulating
devices with PV power control should be carried out to exploit
solar energy and make use of the inverter’s capability. The
optimization is expected to take low-voltage networks at a high
penetration level of rooftop solar panels into account. Another
point that should be involved is related to the functions
installed in PV inverters. These functions are usually preferred
to be standardized and user-friendly for using widely and
flexibly in real power systems. Additionally, the resulted
scheme is desired to be implementable and practical, e.g.
reducing the communication investment and operating cost.
Our work considers the above inquiries when working with
smart inverter functions. Other research is centered only on the
medium-voltage system while aggregating low-voltage
networks after a pole transformer as a spot load. Such an
approach neglects the potential impacts of rooftop PVs and
poses inaccurate results once these small generators are grid-
connected from many houses. To improve the accuracy, a

power system of both medium- and low-voltage networks
should be examined simultaneously. This research considers
two basic functions out of a common set summarized by the
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) [10] for
demonstration, namely volt-var and volt-watt. The main idea is
to use the forecast data of solar irradiance and load demand of
the next day to determine appropriate parameters for each
function. Moreover, the participation of rooftop PV panels to
the secondary side of the distribution transformer is involved in
the optimization that partly contributes to advance the research
because the clustered impact of those small generations might
be significant at a high penetration level.
In the following parts, smart inverter functions are first
introduced, then an optimization problem is formulated. In the
case study section, an investigation of impacts of these
functions on system performance is presented through
simulations. After recognizing conflicts among some
objectives, the optimization problem is solved and results are
provided before going to some concluding remarks.
II. OPTIMAL SETTINGS OF LARGE-SCALE PVS
A distribution system contains both medium- and low-
voltage levels in general. Each level accommodates different
kinds of PV inverters: large-scale three-phase PVs (LSPVs) in
the medium-voltage and single-phase rooftop solar panels
(RTPVs) in the low-voltage networks.
A. Smart Functions of PV Inverters
Two basic functions are volt-var, which manages the var
output, and volt-watt, which determines the maximum kW
output in response to the local service voltage. These functions
can be defined as configurable curves. A curve is restricted in a
“searching area” as graphically illustrated in Fig. 1. A volt-var
curve inside such an area can be characterized by a voltage V0vv,
allowing the inverter to generate zero reactive power, and a
droopvv to define how large the reactive power is outputted
following a change in voltage from V0vv. For a given V0vv, if we
assume that a point to start injecting 100% of the available Var
ranges from Vlbvv to V0vv–ε, the minimum droop will be defined
by (1) and the maximum one is droopvv,max=1/ε where ε is a
small value, e.g. 0.005 pu. Similarly, the minimum droop for a
volt-watt curve can be given by (2) and the maximum one is
droopvw,max=1/ε.
Fig. 1. Graphical illustration of searching areas for optimization
droopvv,min = 1 (V0vv − Vlbvv )
droopvw,min = 1 (Vubvw − Vlbvw )
2
In a combination mode, which activates volt-var and volt-
watt functions simultaneously, active power output is assumed
to take precedence over Var production. So, the Var power
output possibly may not achieve the desired level as defined by
the curve because the available headroom is not enough. We
will employ an advanced power system simulator (OPENDSS)
to manage this interaction as detailed later.
Currently, smart functions are being considered mostly for
LSPVs. At this level, settings of inverters can be easily
adjusted daily, or even real-time via a communication channel.
Although RTPVs might be equipped with such functions, it is
hard to change their settings frequently due to a lack of
communication capability. Thus, the optimization in this paper
is only for LSPVs with a consideration of the clustered impacts
of RTPVs.
B. Potential Impacts on System Performance
Generally, a volt-var curve with appropriate settings helps
improve the low-voltage system performance [11].
Nevertheless, each low-voltage system itself is connected to a
medium-voltage feeder via a pole transformer (single-phase
center-tapped type in Japan and North America) and smart
functions of RTPVs may have adverse impacts on that feeder.
1) Voltage Impact: A voltage violation index (VVI) of one
day, which concerns how much and how long the voltage is
out of the specified limits, will be used like in [12] for
investigation. Its definition is given by (3) where T is the
number of sampled values (number of simulation time steps),
Δtstep is the length in seconds of each time step, i is the bus
index number, VU and VL are the upper and lower bounds of
the allowable voltage range, respectively. Certainly, voltage
violation is not allowed across the system over time, leading
to a zero VVI.
(
VVI i = Tt=1 ΔVt ,i × Δt step ) (3)
where the amount of voltage violation at time step t at bus i is
measured in volts and given by (4) for a three-phase bus but it
is still applicable for a one-phase three-wire low-voltage node.
The VVI can be interpreted as the area of the rectangular
bounded by the violated voltage and the corresponding limit. In
(4), VLL,t,i is the highest or lowest voltage out of three phases,
depending on which case of the violation (breaking upper or
lower limits); and Vab, Vbc, Vac are line-to-line voltages.
Because VVIi is always non-negative, their summation can be
used for investigation instead of each separate VVIi in the case
study section.
ΔVt ,i =
( )
V LL,t ,i − VU , if V LL,t ,i > VU , V LL,t ,i = max Vline 2line,t ,i (4)
V − V
 L ( )
LL,t ,i , if V LL,t ,i < V L , V LL,t ,i = min Vline 2line,t ,i
2) Active Power Curtailment: A volt-watt function, if
implemented, means active power limitation in accordance
(1) with the PV terminal voltage. Such a limitation may lead to
kW generation curtailment and the resulted curtailed energy
(2)
should be minimized from a social viewpoint. The curtailment
 3

Day-ahead data of solar and demand

Optimization solver (Genetic Algorithm - GA)

Optimal point:
Fig. 2. Estimation of energy curtailment Vreg,opt, V0vv,opt, droopvv,opt, V1vw,opt, droopvw,opt
can be estimated by subtracting the forecasted power by the
actual generation as demonstrated in Fig. 2 and the curtailed LSPVs curtailment needed?
Yes
energy is given by (5). No
(
Ecurt = Tt=1 ΔPcurt × Δt step ) (5) Initializing:
Vreg,opt, V0vv,opt, droopvv,opt, droopvw,opt, V1vw=V1vw,opt
3) System Energy Loss: It indicates the amount of electric
energy is lost due to the resistance of system components that Tuning: V1vw=V1vw-0.005pu Optimal
the electricity passes through. They include wires and point
transformers but the substation is excluded. The main reason OPENDSS simulation
is that loss on the substation transformer, which is generally V1vw=V1vw+0.005pu
rated at a relatively high rating, is almost constant when & Releasing droopvw
varying parameters of one outgoing feeder. No
LSPVs curtailment needed?
Yes
C. Problem Formulation
This research minimizes an objective function given by (6) Fig. 3. Searching algorithm for optimizing smart inverter functions
to balance the conflicts when minimizing active power
curtailment and energy loss. Equation (6) is evaluated on a This research creates a supplemental search after the solver
daily basis to convert an energy term to a monetary term. stops at such a point. By this way, the minimum V1vw could be
found and a range of droopvw is open to the optimal point.
F24 h = min{Ccurt Ecurt + Closs Eloss } (6) III. CASE STUDY

where Ecurt is the curtailed energy of PVs, simply calculated by A. Tested System
subtracting the forecast value by the actual generation in the The tested system consists of: 43 houses, each with an
case of requiring curtailment; Eloss is the system kWh loss RTPV; 3 single-phase center-tapped transformers XFM1,3,5;
excluding the substation transformer; Ccurt and Closs are prices two 3-phase LSPVs, two small service loads LM2&4; three
for curtailed and energy loss, respectively. A common industrial loads M3,5,6; and a SVR at bus M4, targeted to
constraint is a bus voltage condition as given by (7). And maintain voltage at bus M6. Low-voltage networks after
another one that should be considered is the allowable number XFM1,3,5 are attached to the system as in Fig. 4a and a
of tap changing times per day for utility devices such as a SVR. summary of system metrics is in Table I. Time-series data in
If a maximum number of moving taps (Nmmax) is applied, the this research are picked up from our real measurement database,
Eq. 8 will come into play. including load demand and PV power output. Each daily
pattern had been sampled at Δtstep=10 seconds, leading to the
Vlow,i ≤ Vi ≤ Vup,i i = 1,..., N (7)
total time steps T=8640. Example patterns of PV output and
load demand on a cloudy day of the year 2007 are provided in
NTap 24 h ≤ N m max (8) Fig. 4b. Solar irradiance was converted from PV output data
with an assumption that temperature was constant at 250C
The above problem is solved by a searching algorithm as throughout the simulation.
diagrammatized in Fig. 3. Obviously, voltage and power are
generated from a balance state of the system that could be
solved by a simulator - the Open Distribution System
Simulator (OPENDSS) software [13] in our work. A Matlab
program is then scripted to collect all results and process for
optimizations which utilize the Optimization Toolbox [14].
We observed that once the V1vw of LSPVs is set to
completely prevent curtailment (EcurtLSPV=0), the droopvw can
range freely from min to max values. Hence, there exists a
group of candidates with the same objective function values.
An optimization solver (e.g. genetic algorithm – GA) will
accept anyone of them as the optimal point and stop searching.
a) Tested system
 4

0.955 ≤ V j ≤ 1.046 j = buses (6.6kV ) (11)

NTap 24 h ≤ 4 (12)

B. Voltage and Energy Loss Assessment in Daily Operation

When assessing impacts of RTPVs, settings of LSPVs are
fixed and vice versa.
1) Impacts of RTPVs
b) Example of load and PV output (May 15, 2007) RTPVs in no-control mode (pf=1): Some load buses after
Fig. 4. Tested system and daily pattern example (May 15, 2007) the XFM1 violated the 1.070 pu upper limit. Voltages of load
points in the low-voltage networks are plotted in Fig. 5. Other
TABLE I. SYSTEM METRICS results are: Eloss/Eload=0.87%, VVI100V=12864.830 Volt.s,
Components Parameters VVI6.6kV=0 Volt.s, and NTap24h=1 change.
Dis. Trans. XFM1,3,5: 6.6 kV/105V/105 V; XFM2,4: 6.6 kV/200 V RTPVs in volt-var mode: This mode exhibited a significant
6.6 kV cable AL-240mm2: R=0.124 Ω/km, X=0.311 Ω/km effect on mitigating the voltage violation and energy loss. In
Vreg=1.0 pu (110V), Rset+jXset=0.16 + j0.40 V, 8 tap
SVR settings
positions (0.955 pu - 1.046 pu), monitored bus: M6 Fig. 6a, the sum of VVIs at low-voltage load points is far lower
100V networks: ΣLoadmax = 288.86 kW, pf=0.98; ΣPV
than that in the no-control case and overvoltage was
capacity/ ratings = 180.25 kWp/ 189 kVA completely avoided if V0vv ≤ 1.03 pu regardless of the droopvv.
Summary
6.6kV network: ΣLoadmax = 600 kW, pf=0.9; ΣPV Greater than this value, a lower droop yielded a slower Var
capacity/ ratings = 200 kWp/ 220 kVA response and thus, resulted in a higher VVI. Besides, a good
Voltage VL=0.950 pu, VU =1.070 pu in 100V networks loss reduction would be achieved if settings were selected
limits VL=0.955 pu, VU =1.046 pu in 6.6 kV network wisely though it was not enough for compensating the increase
due to Var absorption. Fig. 6b suggests a low droop might
TABLE II. ENERGY PRICES FOR OPTIMIZATION (JPY/KWH)
present a loss reduction effect if V0vv ≈ 1.05 pu, which is also
PV curtailment the XFM ratio, but Eloss was still higher than 0.87% of the no-
Customer types Energy loss (Eloss) (Ecurt)
Commercial and Summer (Jul. – control case. This complies with what we found in our previous
Industrial
Eloss1 Sept.): 17.06 40 research [11].
6.6 kV Eloss2 Other months: 15.51
Residential Eloss3 1am – 6 am: 17.46
42
PVs < 10 kW Eloss4 Other time: 25.33

An optimization problem is formulated and solved with the

time-based prices provided in Table II. PV curtailment includes
EcurtLSPV for LSPVs (commercial and industrial) and EcurtRTPV
for residential rooftop solar. Energy loss is divided into two
parts: loss allocated in 6.6 kV side (Eloss1+ Eloss2) costs the
utility at the purchasing price for commercial and industrial Fig. 5. Load voltages after XFM1,3,5 - all PVs at pf=1
loads, and loss allocated in 100V side (Eloss3+Eloss4 and
including loss on pole transformers XFM1,3,5) costs the utility
at the purchasing price for Japanese residential households.
The mission of a daily optimization is to find a set of [V0vv,
droopvv, V1vw, droopvw] of LSPVs (PVM2, PVM4) along with
the regulated voltage [Vreg] of the SVR to minimize the
objective function (9), which is a detailed version of (6), and to
satisfy constraints (10) - (12). Components (9) are defined in
(9a) and (9b) based on Table II. Certainly, there is an amount
in (Eloss1+Eloss2) that is caused by supplying electricity to low-
a) Summation of VVI
voltage networks. So, this amount should be converted to a
monetary number at the same prices as for Eloss3 and Eloss4.
However, simulation results (introduced later) show that it is
small and can be neglected.
F24 h = min{Fcurt + Floss } JPY (9)

Fcurt = 40 EcurtLSPV + 42 EcurtRTPV (9a)

Floss = 17.06 Eloss1 + 15.51Eloss 2 + 17.46 Eloss 3 + 25.33Eloss 4 (9b)

b) System energy loss
0.950 ≤ Vi ≤ 1.070 i = load buses (100V ) (10) Fig. 6. VVI and energy loss– RTPVs in volt-var mode

a) VVI and Ecurt
b) System energy loss
Fig. 7. VVI, Ecurt, and energy loss - RTPVs in volt-watt mode
RTPVs in volt-watt mode: A major drawback of this mode is a
possible reduction in electricity sold to utility. Fig. 7a shows
that the required cut off energy can be decreased by selecting a
higher V1vw and a lower droopvw. Whereas, increasing V1vw
may result in overvoltage. From V1vw=1.01 pu, droop. In the
meantime, volt-watt curve had insignificant voltage violation
started to occur and this can be mitigated by setting a higher
impact on energy loss. The resulted losses in Fig. 7b when
changing volt-watt settings are so close to the loss in the no-
control case that the difference is negligible.
RTPVs in Volt-var-watt Combination: The VVI, Ecurt, and
Eloss seem to be avoidable by using an appropriate combination
of volt-var and volt-watt control. Such a combination is
referred to as volt-var-watt mode, or CombiMode in the
OPENDSS software. An example of its effect is illustrated in
Fig. 8. Not only keeping voltages within the desired bands, the
selected settings also reduced energy loss to 0.95%, which is
near the loss 0.87% in the no-control case, and required a very
small curtailment, about 1.102 kWh.
To sum up, installing smart functions in RTPVs could
avoid voltage violation and reduce energy loss. But a volt-watt
function might drag households RTPVs in a case of losing
benefits from exploiting solar energy on sunny days.
2) Potential Benefits of Smart Functions in LSPVs: Smart
functions of these PVs might be helpful to balance the benefit
of utility and PV owners. Although the volt-watt function has
an insignificant impact on energy loss, the volt-var function
plays an important role in term of reducing the sending
voltage (on the primary side of XFM) under a high PV – low
load condition, so power curtailment of RTPVs would become
unnecessary. In contrast, the sending voltage can be boosted
up in low PV – high load time to prevent RTPVs from
injecting reactive power.
5
Fig. 8. Voltage reduction effect of RTPVs’ combination mode
a) VVI after XFM1,3,5
b) System energy loss
Fig. 9. System performance – LSPVs in volt-var.
a) Improvement in VVI and Eloss reduction: Although
voltage violation was not observed in the 6.6 kV feeder
regardless of how the two LSPVs were set to volt-var curves,
the low-voltage networks may face this problem. Compared to
the uncontrolled case with pf=1, VVI could be reduced by
selecting appropriate settings of LSPVs as shown in Fig. 9a.
For example, a volt-var mode with V0vv from 0.99 pu to 0.9965
pu could result in less voltage violation regardless of droopvv.
With V0vv > 0.997 pu, the lower the droopvv, the better the VVI
although voltage violation tended to be more serious than the
case without control. Contrarily, at V0vv < 0.990 pu, a high
droopvv seemed better but as declining more V0vv, the
necessary droop was also expected to be lower to ensure that
the effect on VVI would be positive.
The volt-var mode of LSPVs has a positive effect on loss
reduction. And, energy loss is better reduced by assigning volt-
var functionality for LSPVs rather than RTPVs. Fig. 9b
suggests that the lower droop, the better is loss reduction.
Especially, if V0vv ranges from 0.99 pu to 1 pu, the system
 6

TABLE III. CONFLICTS RECOGNITION BETWEEN SMART FUNCTIONS

Targets VVI Eloss Ecurt
Functions
V0vv Low Around RXFM Low
RTPV Volt-var
droopvv High Low High
V1vw Low - High
RTPV Volt-watt
droopvw High - Low
V0vv Low Around Rsubstation Low
LSPV Volt-var
droopvv Up on V0vv Low Up on V0vv
V1vw Low - High
LSPV Volt-watt
droopvw High - Low

energy loss is insensitive to droopvv. Out of this range,

increasing the droop will harm the loss reduction effect.
Besides, Var support from LSPVs took effect on how the SVR
operates. Results show that these functions might cause the
SVR to work more. For example, when V0vv < 0.99 pu,
Fig. 10. Demonstration of the F24h surface and its contours
increasing droopvv could result in one or two more tap changes
for the SVR compared to just one time in the no-control case. TABLE IV. OPTIMIZATION RESULTS
b) Conflicts Recognition: The above investigation Optimal Case I Case II
suggests conflicts between efforts to reduce voltage violation, Points (RTPVs in CombiMode) (RTPVs in Volt-watt mode)
energy loss, and energy curtailment as shown in Table III. Vreg(SVR), pu 0.973 0.975
V0vvLSPV, pu 1.000 0.990
C. Daily Optimal Settings DroopvvLSPV 20 200
V1vwLSPV, pu ≥ 1.000 ≥ 0.990
When RTPVs operated at pf=1 and without control, there
DroopvwLSPV From 11 to 200 From 11 to 200
would be no feasible points found in the searching space SVR operation 3 1
because the low-voltage network of the XFM1, which rooted Eloss2, kWh 73.970 77.368
from bus M1 near the substation, was hardly affected by Eloss3, kWh 3.837 2.354
controlling LSPVs and SVR. Load voltages in this network Eloss4, kWh 25.547 13.092
violated VU=1.070 pu sometimes of the day. Therefore, an EcurtLSPV, kWh 0 0
EcurtRTPV, kWh 0 59.502
appropriate power control was applied to all RTPVs although F24h, JPY 1861.376 4071.758
the selected curve settings may be not the best choice:
V1vwRTPV=1.065 pu, droopvwRTPV=200 for the volt-watt mode and Loss variation over the simulated day with the optimal
V0vvRTPV=1.03 pu, droopvvRTPV=40 for the volt-var control in a settings of Case I is illustrated in Fig. 11 where the area under a
combination mode. curve is known as energy loss. Because the simulated day was
A graphical view of F24h surface, specified by (9), is in May, the loss component Eloss1 was zero as defined in Table
demonstrated in Fig. 10 where Vreg, V1vw, and droopvw are fixed, II. The daytime part of Eloss4 (100V loss from 6am to midnight)
RTPVs is in a combination control, while V0vv and droopvv of fluctuated widely following the changes in solar irradiance and
the LSPVs are variant. Some of F24h slices are plotted as Var absorption. Such fluctuation, however, led to almost
contours and each of them is interpreted as a constant value of insignificant impact on Eloss2 of the 6.6kV side. This explains
F24h with respect to changes in V0vv and droopvv. for the negligibility of the loss portion caused by low-voltage
The final optimization result is provided in Table IV. The consumption on the 6.6kV side as the assumption at the end of
optimal volt-watt curve of LSPVs was found by the GA solver: Subsection A of this case study section.
V1vw,opt=1.03 pu and droopvw,opt=200 but Ecurt6.6kV=0 kWh.
Because of the zero curtailment, the supplemental tuning
algorithm was activated to find the lowest point (V1vw=1.0 pu in
this case), at which LSPVs were still not required to be
curtailed, and the droopvw could range freely from
droopvwmin=11 to droopvwmax=200. A similar utilization was
adopted in Case II where RTPVs had been fixed to a volt-watt
mode. The two LSPVs would not depress active power if their
V1vw were set to a value greater than or equal to 0.990 pu.
Table IV shows that the volt-var function played an
important role in reducing F24h. It can be seen that under the
effect of the volt-var control: Ecurt(Case I) = 0, although
Eloss(Case I) > Eloss(Case II). Whereas, Ecurt100V(Case II)=59.506
kWh, that increased the cost for utility about twofold from Fig. 11. System performance at the optimal settings in Case I - Time-
F24h(Case I) = 1861.376 JPY to F24h(Case II) = 4071.758 JPY. variant losses

Fig. 12. System performance at the optimal settings in Case I - Bus voltages
Voltages were recorded in Fig. 12 where all of them satisfied
the required ranges. This figure shows that phase voltages of
bus M6 were around Vreg=0.973 ±0.01 pu because they had
been monitored by the SVR (bandwidth=0.02 pu). Also,
voltages at buses M5 and M6 jumped down and up
corresponding to the operation of the SVR over the day (the
first tap change was for initializing the simulation).
IV. CONCLUSION
This research shows that employing smart functions of PV
inverters poses both positive and negative impacts on voltage
profile, energy loss, and energy curtailment. A volt-var mode
might fulfil the voltage controlling task. In the meantime,
curtailing active power in the volt-watt control might prevent
overvoltage, but it leads to undesirable waste of solar energy.
It is possible to optimize inverter functions to improve
system performance of the day ahead. An optimization of loss
reduction and exploitation of solar energy, with constraints of
voltage limits and operation of utility regulating devices, was
formulated and solved successfully. Although the obtained
optimal results are dependent on forecasted load and solar
irradiance, the work of selecting parameters for smart inverter
functions could be roughly generalized as per the given target.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This paper is based on results obtained from a project
commissioned by the New Energy and Industrial Technology
Development Organization (NEDO).
REFERENCES
[1] M. J. E. Alam, K. M. Muttaqi, D. Sutanto, “A multi-mode
control strategy for VAr support by solar PV inverters in
distribution networks”, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 30, no. 3,
pp. 1316 – 1326, 2015.
[2] P. Jahangiri, D. C. Aliprantis, “Distributed Volt/VAr control by
PV inverters”, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 3429
- 3439, 2013.
[3] Z. Ziadi, et. al., “Optimal voltage control using inverters
interfaced with PV systems considering forecast error in a
distribution system” IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 5, no. 2,
pp. 682 – 690, 2014.
7
[4] A. R. Malekpour, A. Pahwa, “A dynamic operational scheme for
residential PV smart inverters,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, Early
Access Article 2016.
[5] R. Tonkoski, L. A. C. Lopes, T. H. M. El-Fouly, “Coordinated
active power curtailment of grid connected PV inverters for
overvoltage prevention,” IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, vol. 2,
no. 2, pp. 139 – 147, 2011.
[6] S. Alyami, Y. Wang, C. Wang, J. Zhao, B. Zhao, “Adaptive real
power capping method for fair overvoltage regulation of
distribution networks with high penetration of PV systems”,
IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 2729 – 2738, 2014.
[7] F. Olivier, P. Aristidou, D. Ernst, T. Van Cutsem, “Active
management of low-Voltage networks for mitigating
overvoltages due to photovoltaic units” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid,
vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 926 – 936, 2016.
[8] Yu Fujimoto, et. al., “Distributed energy management for
comprehensive utilization of residential photovoltaic outputs,”
IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, Early Access Article 2016.
[9] S. R. Abate, T. E. McDermott, M. Rylander, J. Smith, “Smart
inverter settings for improving distribution feeder performance,”
in Proc. 2015 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting,
pp. 1 – 5, 2015.
[10] Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Common functions
for smart inverters, 4th Edition, Technical Report, December
2016.
[11] V. T. Dao, H. Ishii, and Y. Hayashi, “Voltage and energy loss
assessment for systems with smart inverter functions of rooftop
solar,” in Proc. The 14th Inter Conf. on Elect. Eng./ Electronics,
Computer, Tele. and Infor. Tech. (ECTI-CON 2017), Phuket,
Thailand, Presented.
[12] S. Akagi, et. al., “Upgrading the voltage control method based
on the photovoltaic penetration rate,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid,
Early Access Article 2016.
[13] Distribution System Simulator (OPENDSS), Version 7.6.5.39
(64-bit build), Electric Power Research Institute, Inc.
[14] Matlab R2016b, The MathWorks, Inc., Natick, MA 01760-2098
U.S.