Professional Documents
Culture Documents
AbstractIt is expected that distribution networks will be real power to the distribution (and, ultimately, transmission)
required to accommodate large amounts of distributed genera- network can be considered as DG. This includes renewable
tion (DG). Keeping power flows and voltages within their limits sources, such as wind turbines or photovoltaics, and could also
will require either traditional infrastructure upgrades or active
compensation. The form of active compensation (e.g., series, include distributed energy resources (DERs), such as energy
shunt, back to back, multiterminal), quantity, and rating of the storage devices. The adoption of plug-in electrical vehicles will
compensator should be chosen to realize the best cost-benefit undoubtedly affect peak demand, but each vehicle could also be
ratio. Distributed-generator and compensator placement algo- considered as a DER if a vehicle-to-grid scheme is adopted [2].
rithms are used with a power-flow and constraint satisfaction DG integration has been much discussed (for instance, in [3])
algorithm to analyze a large number of case studies (using real
U.K. network data). From these cases, assessments of compen- and in some regions, high penetrations of DG (photovoltaics)
sator performance are made and summarized statistically. When are already present [4], [5].
considering incremental deployment across all networks, with In the U.K., DG developers or owners are generally separate
the site of greatest benefit chosen at each increment, it is found parties from the owners of the infrastructure. To avoid the afore-
that static synchronous compensators provide the most favorable mentioned issues with DG growth, distribution network oper-
cost-benefit ratio. In contrast, multiterminal voltage-source con-
verters tend to provide the greatest flexibility when considering ators (DNOs) often prefer to connect DGs at higher voltages
uniform deployment across all networks. It is also observed that (33 kV or 132 kV in the U.K.) to reduce impact on voltages. In
traditional reinforcement enhances the benefits provided by active contrast, developers favor connection at lower voltages where
compensation. associated connection and equipment costs are lower [6]. In the
Index TermsBack-to-back, D-FACTS, distributed generation U.K., this would be the 11-kV distribution level [7]. Here, the ef-
(DG), flexible ac transmission systems (FACTS), multiterminal, fects of DG installation on network voltages are significant [8].
soft open points (SOPs), SSSC, STATCOM, unified power-flow Traditional reinforcement with higher capacity lines and sub-
controller (UPFC).
station transformers or shorter feeders from substations placed
at higher density could resolve these problems but at great ex-
I. INTRODUCTION pense to the DNO. Active control of power flows and bus volt-
ages through medium-voltage (11-kV) distribution-level power
electronics (PE) is an alternative to infrastructure upgrades and
D ISTRIBUTION networks face a dual challenge as
progress is made toward de-carbonizing the energy
supply: the introduction of distributed generation (DG) as well
will be the focus of this paper.
A wealth of information exists on the use of PE for the support
of the transmission (high-voltage) grid. These devices are some-
as an increase in peak customer demand with the adoption
times referred to as flexible ac transmission systems (FACTS) or
of electric vehicles. Both changes lead to an increase in peak
custom power [9]. From these transmission network examples,
currents in feeders and transformers as well as undesirable
many analogies can be made with the application to distribution
voltage excursions [1]. Mitigating this with traditional methods
networks [10]. At the distribution level, it becomes more cost
becomes more difficult as DG and load are increased, especially
feasible to utilize voltage-source converters (VSCs) to realize
when large changes in loading and spikes in DG output occur
compensators due to less expensive components and larger pro-
in quick succession on the same feeder.
duction quantities of medium-voltage (MV) power-electronic
This paper will focus specifically on DG growth rather
units (e.g., motor drives and VSC-interfaced wind generation).
than increases in customer demand, though the operational
While most literature surrounding the application of back-to-
issues surrounding both intersect. Devices capable of sourcing
back or multiterminal VSCs involves their use in high-voltage
(HV) 200-kV) dc networks [11], an MV back-to-back instal-
Manuscript received April 30, 2012; revised September 27, 2012; accepted
lation utilized for power exchange between transmission grids
November 16, 2012. Date of publication January 24, 2013; date of current
version March 21, 2013. This work was supported by the Supergen FlexNet (via step-up transformer) was described in [12]. This installa-
consortium (www.supergennetworks.org.uk). Supergen is funded by the Re- tion serves as a good example of the application of an MV
search Councils Energy Programme, U.K. under Grant EP/E04011X/1. Paper
back-to-back conversion system supporting a transmission net-
no. TPWRD-00442-2012.
The authors are with the Electrical Engineering Department, Imperial work; however, its use is primarily for power exchange between
College London, London SW7 2AZ, U.K. (e-mail: j.bloemink@imperial.ac.uk; transmission systems rather than controlling voltages or opti-
t.green@imperial.ac.uk)).
mizing power flows in distribution networks. Of greater rele-
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org. vance is the use of voltage compensation in rural networks using
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRD.2012.2232313 active compensation to increase loading, which is discussed in
Fig. 1. Distribution-level power electronics devices under study for network compensation.
TABLE I
SUMMARY TABLE FOR COMPENSATORS UNDER STUDY
[13]. A similar look at control and coordination of active com- VSCs, and multiterminal (MT) VSCs, static series synchronous
pensators for optimal power flow with increasing DG is also compensators (SSSC), and unified power-flow controllers
discussed in [14]. (UPFC). Fig. 1 gives an overview of these topologies. Each is
This paper expands on existing literature by providing a com- made from an arrangement of VSCs. It is assumed that VSCs
parison of device types, quantities, and ratings. The capabili- are capable of providing a controlled current while meeting
ties of these power-electronic devices in relieving network con- grid interconnection standards. Literature on VSC topologies
straints and accommodating DG are assessed across several net- suitable for 11-kV applications is available in [15].
works. The level of additional DG they allow a network to Compensators are modeled by considering them as controlled
accommodate and the reduction in required infrastruc- current sources connected to network nodes with constraints
ture upgrades required for a given penetration of DG are specified on the current and voltage at that node to reflect the
the main performance metrics. For the studies performed, data unique behavior of each compensator. These constraints, to-
were provided by U.K. DNOs for 593 distribution networks gether with a summary of features and benefits, is given in
across the U.K., containing 11.6 GW of load and 5.3 million Table I (postfault restoration refers to the ability of the compen-
customer connections and including rural, urban, and mixed net- sator to supply isolated areas of a network). Compensators will
works with both underground and overhead lines. The goal of also be discussed in terms of their ability to exchange real (P)
this paper is to identify which compensation type, rating, and and reactive (Q) power, which defines a P-Q capability curve. It
quantity are the best under different conditions. The deployment is emphasized that these curves differ from those established in
strategy is also compared (i.e., considering optimal incremental the literature for FACTS devices used in transmission networks
placement across all networks versus applying the same scheme with stiff grid connections. In the case of distribution networks
uniformly to all networks). with compensators installed at feeder endpoints, the entire net-
work model needs to be accounted for in order to determine the
capability curve (especially for series-type compensators). The
II. COMPENSATOR MODELING AND TYPES
example curves shown in Table I are intended to compare ca-
The following compensator types are considered: static pability on an arbitrary network and consider device constraints
synchronous compensator (STATCOM), back-to-back (B2B) only.
BLOEMINK AND GREEN: BENEFITS OF DISTRIBUTION-LEVEL POWER ELECTRONICS 913
A STATCOM has the form of a VSC connected in shunt to a worst case in terms of both voltage control and feeder overcur-
feeder. Since each STATCOM is only associated with a single rents occurs when all DGs are exporting their maximum (peak)
network node, there is no necessity for an additional cable link power and network loading is at its minimum [16]. Evaluating
installed between nodes. This will lower costs and planning con- at this operating point is intended to give a lower bound on al-
straints associated with device installation compared with the lowable DG in a given network.
other options, but feeder load balancing and postfault resupply
are not possible. The STATCOM is constrained in that it cannot B. Network Operation Assumptions
exchange real power with the network.
U.K. distribution networks perform their automatic voltage
Back-to-back and multiterminal compensators are realized
control (AVC) functions at the main (33 kV/11 kV) substation
with two or more VSCs connected via a common dc link. These
(MSS) via an onload tap changer (OLTC), occasionally with ad-
devices allow for real power exchange between the ac front ends
ditional voltage control applied by switched banks of capacitors
as well as reactive power support. The device modeling con-
or reactors. While it is important to keep in mind operational
straints for back-to-back and multiterminal compensators limit
differences between the AVC schemes used in U.K. distribution
the current according to the device rating, ensure a real power
networks and those used elsewhere, most still rely on OLTCs
balance between all VSCs, and put an upper limit on the output
and therefore do not provide the relatively fast response asso-
voltage. The reactive power output is limited by this voltage
ciated with power-electronic compensation. In addition, AVC
constraint.
schemes in distribution networks have traditionally been de-
SSSCs utilize a transformer connected in series between two
signed under the assumption of unidirectional power flows. For
network nodes to apply a series voltage, thereby controlling the
this reason, present operating schemes may be less compatible
impedance between those two points and influencing network
with the introduction of DG. It is also important to note that
power flows. The UPFC adds to this an additional shunt con-
DGs can change their output between almost zero and full power
verter connected via a dc link. The SSSC is constrained such
rapidly, more so than fluctuations in aggregate customer de-
that it cannot exchange any real power. In contrast, the series
mand. Traditional OLTC voltage control may be inadequate for
element of the UPFC can exchange real and reactive power due
this reason and are therefore not considered to operate in con-
to the presence of the shunt converter (the shunt converter cur-
junction with active compensation.
rent rating is set to match the rating of the series converter). The
A voltage set-point must be chosen for the OLTC. It will
capability curve of the SSSC (and to a lesser degree, the UPFC)
be assumed in this study that the AVC scheme adjusts the
is determined not only by the device ratings themselves, but also
tap set-point according to the loading condition while as-
by the network topology, constraints, and operating point as well
suming zero DG output. This assumption represents a worst
as the device placement (note the asymmetric capability curve).
case regardless of whether the OLTC tap is set according to
The series voltages and currents of both devices are constrained
demand schedule or measurement feedback, as the rise in
according to the series transformer tap ratio (10:1). The poten-
generator output is not anticipated and the response from a
tial to induce power flows greater than the VSC rating (e.g.,
feedback-based control would be comparatively slow. For
10 MVA transferred using 1 MVA VSCs) is a primary advan-
most networks, there are several viable tap positions at each
tage but again the ability to do so is network and placement
loading condition which allow network voltage constraints
dependent.
to be met. Good practice suggests choosing a set-point that
minimizes the number of tap-change operations required to
III. ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY span all loading conditions [19]. To find this point, the set-point
range at minimum loading is compared with the set-point range
A. Limitations to the Introduction of DG at peak loading and the point closest to the intersection of these
two sets is chosen.
Limitations on the introduction to DG into a given distribu-
It is assumed that the compensation scheme will be centrally
tion network come in the form of voltage, thermal, and fault-cur-
controlled, and that the necessary communication links and
rent limits. Only the first two of these are considered in this
measurements are in place to achieve this.
paper. Taking the U.K. example, 11-kV networks have been de-
signed to regulate the voltage to within 3% of nominal [16]
C. Supporting Software and Routines
based on performance targets suggested by DNOs for similar
networks. This figure will be used in this study for determining A suite of software tools was developed in order to process
voltage limits. The EN50160 standards presently define slightly network data and perform the described studies. Sections IV and
looser limits [17]; however, there is discussion that they may be V briefly describe the most relevant software components and
tightened in the future [18]. The lowest of all seasonal thermal the routines used within.
limits for all distribution feeders was used. It should be consid- 1) Network Modeling and Load Flow: The method of repre-
ered that a larger voltage tolerance will often result in greater senting networks and obtaining the load-flow solution follows
feasible DG capacity on a given network, depending on whether from that presented in [20]. This is a direct-solution approach
voltage or thermal limits are the dominant limiting factor. in which the node voltages and branch currents are expressed as
It was assumed that DGs operate as constant power sources an explicit function of compensator currents and OLTC voltage
with unity power factor in an unconstricted, uncoordinated, and set point, with the shunt impedance at each node varied at each
unpredictable manner. When considering the impact of DG, the iteration until the apparent power absorbed at each bus meets
914 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 28, NO. 2, APRIL 2013
(1)
Fig. 8. Total and benefit-cost ratio for the incremental deployment of com-
pensators.
networks, with a difference of 2.4 GW and 1.6 GW across all the STATCOM offers the best performance up to a certain quan-
networks for the example cases shown in this figure. tity of installations, then it is overtaken by other options. Al-
Another measure of performance is the benefit-cost ratio though larger numbers of compensators with lower ratings offer
versus (shown in the lower plot of Fig. 8(a) better performance, higher ratings may be needed to allow post-
with a log-scale to show additional detail). It is assumed that fault resupply to adjacent feeders.
cost will scale with the quantity and rating of VSCs utilized. If considering the performance with compensation schemes
In contrast to the results observed for uniform deployment, the uniformly deployed across all networks, the 10-MVA multiter-
SSSC and STATCOM tend to perform better for wide deploy- minal compensator offers the greatest flexibility. The back-to-
ment up to a certain (approximately 100 to 200 VSCs). To back compensator offers only slightly better performance than
explain this, consider that in Fig. 5 that the greatest tends the UPFC at higher ratings, but has the additional advantage
be with the first device installation. STATCOMs and SSSCs of being able to isolate connected feeders from disturbances.
utilize a single VSC to provide compensation and, therefore, At 1 MVA, the UPFC and SSSC compensators offer the best
this initial large can be applied to a greater number of performance. SSSCs were particularly effective in urban net-
networks for a given . works where they achieve power exchanges between network
If considering 5-MVA VSCs, the STATCOM offers the best sections greater than the rating of the converters themselves.
performance initially, but is overtaken by other options past A low-capacity UPFC capable of fault-blocking, would repre-
100. Other studies have indicated that STATCOM bene- sent the greatest level of benefit to each network with a smaller
fits are reduced if working alongside existing OLTCs, since both cost and dimensions than multiterminal or back-to-back com-
have similar effects on the network. pensators.
This study shows that utilizing low-capacity VSCs offers a
better benefit-cost ratio regardless of the compensator type.
REFERENCES
[1] P. Barker, Overvoltage considerations in applying distributed re-
V. CONCLUSION sources on power systems, in Proc. IEEE Power Eng. Soc. Summer
Meeting, 2002, pp. 109114.
The studies presented consider the use of active compensa- [2] D. P. Tuttle and R. Baldick, The evolution of plug-in electric vehicle-
grid interactions, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 500505,
tion with power electronics to increase the level of DG that Mar. 2012.
can be accommodated in distribution networks. A constrained [3] D. Kirschen, N. Jenkins, R. Allan, P. Crossley, and G. Strbac, Em-
power-flow method was used to model devices and determine bedded Generation. London, U.K.: IET, 2000.
[4] W. A. Omran, M. Kazerani, and M. M. A. Salama, Investigation of
the capacity for DG on a particular network. A method was de- methods for reduction of power fluctuations generated from large grid-
vised for automatic placement of compensators and DG to en- connected photovoltaic systems, IEEE Trans. Energy Convers., vol.
able a large number of cases to be analyzed. The sample popu- 26, no. 1, pp. 318327, Mar. 2011.
[5] A. Canova, L. Giaccone, F. Spertino, and M. Tartaglia, Electrical im-
lation consisted of data from nearly 600 U.K. distribution net- pact of photovoltaic plant in distributed network, IEEE Trans. Ind.
works. Varying ratings and quantities of shunt, series, back-to- Appl,, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 341347, Jan./Feb. 2009.
back, and multiterminal compensators were considered. [6] G. Strbac, N. Jenkins, M. Hird, P. Djapic, and G. Nicholson, Integration
of operation of embedded gen. and dist. networks Tech. Rep. K/EL/
The network data contained an assortment of topologies and, 00262/REP, May 2002, Manchester Centre Elect. Energy .
hence, a metric was developed to aid with classification. The [7] S. N. Liew and G. Strbac, Maximising penetration of wind genera-
allowed DG capacities in uncompensated networks to correlate tion in existing distribution networks, Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng., Gen.,
Transm, Distrib., vol. 149, no. 3, pp. 256262, 2002.
well with this metric, while the marginal DG capacities afforded [8] C. M. Hird, H. Leite, N. Jenkins, and H. Li, Network voltage controller
by compensation are not as strongly correlated (series-only de- for distributed generation, Proc. Inst. Elect. Eng., Gen., Transm. Dis-
vices excluded). Since marginal benefits are less sensitive to trib., vol. 151, no. 2, pp. 150156, Apr. 2004.
[9] N. G. Hingorani, Introducing custom power, IEEE Spectrum, vol. 32,
the network type, a solution can be chosen to benefit a wider no. 6, pp. 4148, Jun. 1995.
range of networks. For compensation (type, quantity, and size) [10] A. Kechroud, J. M. A. Myrzik, and W. Kling, Taking the experience
applied uniformly across the population, results are expressed from flexible AC transmission systems to flexible AC distribution sys-
tems, in Proc. IEEE 42nd Int. Univ. Power Eng. Conf., Sep. 2007, pp.
as the mean and variance of this margin. For incremental de- 687692.
ployment across all networks, a total benefit is used. [11] E. I. Carroll, Power electronics for very high power applications,
Another measure of performance is the ability to defer tradi- Power Eng. J., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 8187, 1999.
[12] M. Noroozian, A. Edris, D. Kidd, and A. J. F. Keri, The potential use
tional reinforcement as DG levels increase. For small amounts of voltage-sourced converter-based back-to-back tie in load restora-
of DG, performance is not as varied as with larger amounts. tions, IEEE Trans. Power Del., , vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 14161416, Oct.
This suggests that it may make sense to install less costly STAT- 2003.
[13] S. M. Ramsay, P. E. Cronin, R. J. Nelson, J. Bian, and F. E. Menendez,
COMs and later interconnect them to form back-to-back com- Using distribution static compensators (D-STATCOMs) to extend the
pensators as DG levels rise. In addition, benefits of compensa- capability of voltage-limited distribution feeders, in Proc. 39th Annu.
tion are found to increase with further allowance of infrastruc- Rural Electric Power Conf., 1996, pp. A4/18A4/24.
[14] R. A. A. de Graaff, J. M. A. Myrzik, W. L. Kling, and J. H. R. Enslin,
ture upgrades, suggesting that reinforcement can complement Intelligent nodes in distribution systemsOperating concept, pre-
active compensation in accommodating DG. sented at the CIRED 19th Int. Conf. Elect. Distrib., Vienna, Austria,
With compensation applied incrementally to one network at a May 2007.
[15] D. Soto and T. C. Green, A comparison of high-power converter
time, the best cost-benefit ratio results from using low-capacity topologies for the implementation of FACTS controllers, IEEE Trans.
converters (with 1 MVA SSSCs and UPFCs leading). At 5 MVA, Ind. Electron., vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 10721080, Oct. 2002.
BLOEMINK AND GREEN: BENEFITS OF DISTRIBUTION-LEVEL POWER ELECTRONICS 919
[16] C. L. Masters, Voltage rise: The big issue when connecting embedded Timothy C. Green (M89SM02) received the
generation to long 11 kV overhead lines, Power Eng. J., vol. 16, no. B.Sc. (Hons.) degree in electrical engineering
1, pp. 512, 2002. from Imperial College, London, U.K., in 1986 and
[17] CENELEC, EN 50160: Voltage characteristics of electricity supplied the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from
by public distribution networks, BSI, London, U.K., Tech. Rep., BS Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, U.K., in 1990.
EN 50160:2010, 2010. He was a Lecturer at Heriot Watt University, Ed-
[18] S. Bhattacharyya, Z. Wang, J. F. G. Cobben, J. M. A. Myrzik, and W. inburgh, U.K., until 1994 and is currently a Professor
L. Kling, Analysis of power quality performance of the dutch medium of Electrical Power Engineering at Imperial College,
and low voltage grids, in Proc, IEEE 13th Int. Conf. Harmonics Qual. London, U.K., as well as Deputy Head of the Control
Power, Sep. 2008, pp. 16. and Power Group and Deputy Head of the Depart-
[19] J. Crabtree, Y. Dickson, L. Kerford, and A. Wright, Methods to ac- ment of Electrical and Electronic Engineering. His
commodate embedded generation without degrading network voltage research interests are power electronic and control to enhance power quality
regulation, Tech. Rep., ETSU K/EL/00230/REP. EA Tech., 2001. and power delivery. This covers interfaces and controllers for distributed gener-
[20] J. M. Bloemink and T. C. Green, Increasing distributed generation ation, microgrids, flexible ac transmission systems, autonomous active distribu-
penetration using soft normally-open points, in Proc. IEEE Power tion networks, and distribution network optimization. He has an additional line
Eng, Soc. Gen. Meeting, Jul. 2010, pp. 18. of research in power microelectromechanical systems and energy scavenging.
Professor Green is a Chartered Engineer in the U.K. and MIEE.
Jeffrey M. Bloemink (S05M12) received the
B.A.Sc. and M.A.Sc. degrees in electrical engi-
neering from the University of Toronto, Toronto,
ON, Canada, in 2005 and 2007, respectively, and the
Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from Imperial
College London, London, U.K.
Currently, he is an employee with Powertech
Labs, Inc., a subsidiary of BC Hydro, Surrey, BC,
Canada. His research interests include the integration
of power electronics in distribution systems as well
as distributed-generation coordination and control.