Dynamic Modelling of an Aggregated Solar-PV System for Power

System Transient Stability Studies

A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Engineering

ARATRIKA GHOSH

Masters of Science, University of Nottingham, UK.

Bachelors of Technology, Sikkim Manipal Institute of Technology, India

School of Engineering

College of Science, Engineering and Health

RMIT University

March, 2018.
 ORIGINAL LITERARY WORK DECLARATION

I certify that except where due acknowledgement has been made, the work is that of the

author alone; the work has not been submitted previously, in whole or in part, to qualify for

any other academic award; the content of the thesis is the result of work which has been

carried out since the official commencement date of the approved research program; any

editorial work, paid or unpaid, carried out by a third party is acknowledged; and ethical

procedures and guidelines have been followed.

Aratrika Ghosh, M.Sc.

06/03/2018

1|P age
 ABSTRACT

With the increased penetration of renewable-based distributed generation, such as the wind

and solar-photovoltaic (solar-PV) power generation, the power grid is going through a rapid

structural change inflicting stability issues in the power network. In particular, with the

increased solar-PV penetration level, it is imperative to analyse the impact of distributed

solar-PV power generation on power system stability. Typically, stability issues are studied

and analysed by developing an aggregated model of the solar-PV system, since the

aggregated model is an time efficient method to examine the system stability.

At the beginning of this research, a dynamic simulation model of a single-phase solar-PV

system was designed by employing a solar-PV array model, maximum power point tracking

(MPPT) system, inverter model, power and current controllers. This model was tested with

perturb & observe (P&O) MPPT algorithm and different current control schemes to

characterise its dynamic behaviour.

Then, an aggregated solar-PV dynamic simulation model was developed in DIgSILENT

Power Factory with same architecture to represent the aggregated response of large-scale

solar-PV power generation. This large-scale solar-PV model was developed with necessary

modifications to the existing solar-PV model in the DIgSILENT Power Factory. This

aggregated model was then used for transient stability analysis. Results of the transient

stability analysis have enabled to identify the limitations of the aggregated model.

The solar-PV power generation is spread across a large geographic area, hence an

aggregated solar-PV model is not a realistic representation of the solar-PV power generation.

Therefore, a detailed distribution network model is developed with solar-PV power

generation in the next stage of this research. This detailed distribution network model is then

used to compare the dynamic response of the aggregated solar-PV model under various

scenarios, and finally, necessary improvements are identified to enhance the aggregated

model.

2|P age
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I wish to sincerely thank my supervisors Dr. Manoj Datta and Dr. Lasantha Meegahapola

from School of Engineering, RMIT University, for their continued guidance and support

during my research.

I would also like to thank Mrs. Ragini Patel, for collaborating in my research and helping me

in writing the conference paper for ISGT 2017.

I would also like to thank my family for their support and understanding during this period.

3|P age
 Table of Contents
DECLARATION ..................................................................................................................... 01
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................. 02
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ....................................................................................................... 03
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................... 04
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................. 07
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................... 09
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................ 10
LIST OF SYMBOLS ............................................................................................................... 11
CHAPTER 1 ............................................................................................................................ 14
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 14
Background ............................................................................................................... 14
Problem Statement: Major Issues with High Penetration of Solar-PV Power
Generation ............................................................................................................................ 15
Rationale.................................................................................................................... 16
Objectives of the Research ........................................................................................ 17
Research Questions ................................................................................................... 18
Structure of the Thesis............................................................................................... 20
CHAPTER 2 ............................................................................................................................ 22
LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................ 22
Overview ................................................................................................................... 22
MPPT Techniques ..................................................................................................... 22
Power and Current Control Strategies of the Solar-PV Inverter ............................... 24
Dynamic Modelling of a Solar-PV System ............................................................... 26
Stability Studies with solar-PV power generation .................................................... 27
Chapter Summary...................................................................................................... 30
CHAPTER 3 ............................................................................................................................ 31
GENERIC ARCHITECTURE OF A SOLAR-PV SYSTEM FOR AGGREGATED
MODELLING .......................................................................................................................... 31
Overview ................................................................................................................... 31
General Architecture of a Grid Connected Solar-PV systems .................................. 31
Numerical method to model of Solar-PV module ..................................................... 32

4|P age
 DC-DC Boost converter with MPPT controller ........................................................ 34
Design of MPPT Algorithm ...................................................................................... 34
Current Control strategies of single-phase inverter................................................... 38
Simple PI and PR controller .............................................................................. 38
Implementing synchronous D-Q frame for PI controller ................................... 41
Chapter Summary...................................................................................................... 43
CHAPTER 4 ............................................................................................................................ 44
TRANSIENT STABILITY ANALYSIS USING AGGREGATED SOLAR-PV MODEL.... 44
Overview ................................................................................................................... 44
Test System Description and Simulation Scenarios .................................................. 44
4.3 Comparison between Conventional Synchronous and Solar-PV power generation ...... 49
4.4 Impact of Different Solar-PV Penetration Levels .......................................................... 52
4.5 Impact of Control Strategy of the Solar-PV System ...................................................... 56
Chapter Summary...................................................................................................... 59
CHAPTER 5 ............................................................................................................................ 60
COMPARISON OF AGGREGATED SOLAR-PV MODEL WITH DISTRIBUTION
FEEDER BASED MODEL ..................................................................................................... 60
Overview ................................................................................................................... 60
Development of Distribution Network with Solar-PV power generation ................. 60
Steady-State Comparison between the Aggregated solar-PV Model and the
Distribution Feeder Model ................................................................................................... 65
Scenario-1: Unity Power Factor Control Mode ................................................. 65
Scenario-2: Voltage Control Mode .................................................................... 67
Dynamic Comparison of Aggregated solar-PV Model and the Distribution Feeder
Model with solar-PV power generation ............................................................................... 70
Performance comparison with unity power factor mode under different fault
durations ........................................................................................................................... 70
Voltage Control mode with 50ms, 100ms and 150ms duration of short circuit
faults…………………………………………………………………………………….75
Comparison of aggregated solar-PV and distributed solar-PV power generation with
fault at different loading levels ............................................................................................ 79
Scenario1: Unity Power Factor Mode for a 50 ms SC Fault at 70% Loading ... 79
Scenario-2: Voltage Control Mode for a 50 ms SC fault at 70% Loading ........ 80
Scenario-1: Unity power factor control for a 50 ms SC fault at 50% Loading . 81
Scenario-2: Voltage control mode for a 50 ms SC fault at 50% loading ........... 82

5|P age
 Scenario-1: Unity Power factor control mode for a 50 ms SC fault at 30%
(45kW) loading ................................................................................................................ 83
Scenario-2: Voltage control mode for a 50 ms SC fault at 30 % (45kW) loading
…………………………………………………………………………………84
Chapter Summary...................................................................................................... 85
CHAPTER 6 ............................................................................................................................ 86
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK ............................ 86
Thesis Conclusions.................................................................................................... 86
Recommendations for Future work ........................................................................... 87
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 89
APPENDIX- A SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF THE SOLAR-PV SYSTEM DEVELOPED
IN PSIM ................................................................................................................................. 96
APPENDIX B- A SCHEMATIC OF THE P&O MPPT ALGORITHM IN THE PSIM ...... 97
APPENDIX C- A SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF THE SOLAR-PV SYSTEM WITH PI
CONTROLLER IN PSIM ..................................................................................................... 98
APPENDIX D- A SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF THE IEEE-9 BUS SYSTEM IN
DIgSILENT POWER FACTORY ......................................................................................... 99
APPENDIX E- A SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF THE DISTRIBUTION FEEDER MODEL
IN DIgSILENT POWER FACTORY.................................................................................. 100
APPENDIX F- A SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF THE AGGREGATED SOLAR-PV
MODEL IN DIgSILENT POWER FACTORY .................................................................. 101
APPENDIX G- A SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF THE ACTIVE POWER REDUCTION
DSL BLOCK ......................................................................................................................... 102
APPENDIX H- A SCHEMATIC OF THE DC BUSBAR AND CAPACITOR DSL BLOCK
................................................................................................................................................ 103

6|P age
 LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 1.1: Different types of renewable energy sources. ........................................................... 14

Fig. 2.1: Jenkins Model for solar-PV system. .......................................................................... 26
Fig. 2.2: Definition of Rotor Angle stability............................................................................ 30
Fig. 3.1: General structure of a single-phase Solar-PV model. ............................................... 31
Fig. 3.2: Current-Voltage Characteristics of PV cell. .............................................................. 33
Fig. 3.3: Power-Voltage characteristics of PV cell. ................................................................. 33
Fig. 3.4: Solar-PV array with P & O MPPT controller. ........................................................... 34
Fig. 3.5: Flowchart P&O MPPT algorithm. ............................................................................. 35
Fig. 3.6 (a)-(g): Simulation result of electrical characteristics due to changes in irradiance .. 38
Fig. 3.7: A single-phase PV system with simple PI current controller. ................................... 39
Fig. 3.8: A single-phase PV system with the Simple PR current controller. ........................... 40
Fig. 3.9: PI controller -AC voltage response. .......................................................................... 40
Fig. 3.10: PR controller -AC voltage response. ....................................................................... 41
Fig. 3.11: General structure of a single-phase PLL. ................................................................ 41
Fig. 3.12: Synchronous frame PI current regulation for single phase Solar-PV system. ........ 42
Fig. 4.1: A schematic of the IEEE-9 bus system. .................................................................... 45
Fig. 4.2: The dynamic model of the solar-PV system.............................................................. 47
Fig. 4.3: Power control loop of Solar-PV. ............................................................................... 48
Fig. 4.4: DIgSILENT Power Factory Solar-PV system representation. ................................ 49
Fig. 4.5: Rotor Angle Variation at G3 for a fault at bus 4 ....................................................... 51
Fig. 4.6: Active and Reactive Power Variation at G2 for a fault at Bus 7. .............................. 54
Fig. 4.7: Active and Reactive Power Variation at G3 for a fault at Bus 9. .............................. 55
Fig. 4.8: Solar-PV system capability curve. ............................................................................ 56
Fig. 4.9: Comparison of voltage and power factor control strategies for a fault at bus 4; (a)
Rotor angle-G3, (b) bus-3 voltage. .......................................................................................... 58
Fig. 5.1: Dynamic model of the solar-PV system. ................................................................... 61
Fig. 5.2: Distribution feeder model with solar-PV systems. .................................................... 61
Fig. 5.3: Aggregated solar-PV model. ..................................................................................... 63
Fig. 5.4: Representation of current flow in the distribution feeder with solar-PV systems. .... 63
Fig. 5.5: Active power at transformer HV side at full loading (150 kW). ............................... 66
Fig. 5.6: Reactive power at transformer HV side at full loading (150 kW). ........................... 66

7|P age
Fig. 5.7: Active Power at transformer LV side at full loading (150 kW). ............................... 66
Fig. 5.8: Reactive power at transformer LV side at full loading (150 kW). ............................ 67
Fig. 5.9: Voltage at the 22 kV busbar at full loading (150 kW). ............................................. 67
Fig. 5.10: Active power at transformer HV side at full-loading during voltage control mode.
.................................................................................................................................................. 68
Fig. 5.11: Reactive power at transformer HV side at full-loading during voltage control mode.
.................................................................................................................................................. 68
Fig. 5.12: Active power at power at transformer LV side at full-loading during voltage
control mode. ........................................................................................................................... 69
Fig. 5.13: Reactive power at transformer LV side at full-loading during voltage control mode.
.................................................................................................................................................. 69
Fig. 5.14: Voltage at the 22 kV busbar during voltage control mode. ..................................... 69
Fig. 5.15: Active power at transformer LV-side for full loading under a 50 ms fault. ............ 71
Fig. 5.16: Active power at transformer LV-side for full loading under a 100 ms fault. .......... 71
Fig. 5.17: Active power at transformer LV-side for full loading under a 150 ms fault. .......... 72
Fig. 5.18: Reactive power at transformer LV-side for full loading under a 50 ms fault. ........ 72
Fig. 5.19: Reactive power at transformer LV-side for full loading under a 100 ms fault. ...... 73
Fig. 5.20: Reactive power at transformer LV-side for full loading under a 150 ms fault. ...... 73
Fig. 5.21(a)-(c): Voltage at 22 kV under 50 ms,100 ms and 150ms short circuit faults. ........ 74
Fig. 5.22: Active power at transformer LV side at voltage control mode under a 50 ms fault.
.................................................................................................................................................. 75
Fig. 5.23: Active power at transformer LV side at voltage control mode under a 100 ms fault.
.................................................................................................................................................. 75
Fig. 5.24: Active power at transformer LV side at voltage control mode under a 150 ms fault.
.................................................................................................................................................. 76
Fig. 5.25: Reactive power at transformer LV side at voltage control mode under a 50 ms
fault. ......................................................................................................................................... 77
Fig. 5.26: Reactive power at transformer LV side at voltage control mode under a 100 ms
fault. ......................................................................................................................................... 77
Fig. 5.27: Reactive power at transformer LV side at voltage control mode under a 100 ms
fault. ......................................................................................................................................... 77
Fig. 5.28(a)-(c): Voltage at 22 kV busbar at voltage control mode for a fault duration of 50
ms, 100 ms and 150 ms. ........................................................................................................... 78

8|P age
Fig. 5.29: Active power at transformer LV side at 70% loading under power factor control
mode......................................................................................................................................... 79
Fig. 5.30: Reactive power at transformer LV side at 70% loading under power factor control
mode......................................................................................................................................... 80
Fig. 5.31: Active power at transformer LV side at 70% loading under voltage control mode.
.................................................................................................................................................. 80
Fig. 5.32: Reactive power at transformer LV side at 70% loading under voltage control mode.
.................................................................................................................................................. 81
Fig. 5.33: Active power at transformer LV side at 50% loading under unity power factor
mode......................................................................................................................................... 81
Fig. 5.34: Reactive power at transformer LV side at 50% loading under unity power factor
mode......................................................................................................................................... 82
Fig. 5.35: Active Power at transformer LV side at 50% loading. ............................................ 82
Fig. 5.36: Reactive Power at transformer LV side at 50% loading under voltage control mode.
.................................................................................................................................................. 83
Fig. 5.37: Active Power at the transformer LV side at 30% loading under unity power factor
mode......................................................................................................................................... 83
Fig. 5.38: Reactive Power at transformer LV side at 30% loading under unity power factor
mode......................................................................................................................................... 84
Fig. 5.39: Active Power at the transformer LV side at 30% loading under voltage control
mode......................................................................................................................................... 84
Fig. 5.40: Reactive Power at the transformer LV side at 30% loading under voltage control
mode......................................................................................................................................... 85

9|P age
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1: 60 W Solar-PV system parameters ......................................................................... 32

Table 4.1: Nine-bus system generation & load demand .......................................................... 45
Table 4.2: 500 kVA Solar-PV system parameters ................................................................... 46
Table 4.3: Transient Stability Comparison between Conventional Synchronous and Solar-PV
power generation ...................................................................................................................... 50
Table 4.4: Transient Stability Comparison between full loaded and partially loaded Solar-PV
power generation. ..................................................................................................................... 53
Table 4.5: Transient Stability Comparison between Voltage Controlled and Power Factor
Controlled Solar-PV power generation .................................................................................... 57
Table 5.1. Total Generation and Load Demand ....................................................................... 62

10 | P a g e
 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

CCT Critical Clearing Time

CSI Current Source Inverter

DG Distributed generation

DQ Direct-Quadrature

FACTS Flexible Alternating Current Transmission System

MPPT Maximum Power Point Tracking

PI Proportional Integral

PLL Phase Locked Loop

P& O Perturb and Observe

PR Proportional Resonant

PV Photovoltaic

PWM Pulse Width Modulation

RCC Ripple Correlation Control

SG Synchronous Generator

SOGI Second Order Generalized Integrator

STATCOM Static Compensator

SPWM Sinusoidal Pulse Width Modulation

VSI Voltage Source Inverter

11 | P a g e
 LIST OF SYMBOLS

IPV PV current

VPV PV voltage

Kp Proportional gain

Ki Integral gain

ω Resonant frequency

IPH Photo current

Io Diode saturation current

Rs Series resistance

Rsh Shunt Resistance

Vt Thermal voltage

δrot Local voltage angle

δv_rot Reference bus voltage angle

L Inductance in DC-DC Converter

fs Switching frequency

Cin Input Capacitor

Cout Decoupling capacitor

Vripple Ripple voltage

12 | P a g e
Lf Filter inductance

Cf Filter capacitance

Rload Load resistance

IInv Inverter current

Iref Reference current

Uac Terminal voltage

Uac0 Reference voltage

Id Measured d-axis current

Idref Reference d-axis current

Iq Measured q-axis current

Iqref Reference q-axis current

Vd Measured d-axis voltage

Vdref Reference d-axis voltage

Vq Measured q-axis voltage

Vqref Reference q-axis voltage

Pdist Total active power of the distributed PV system

Pagg Total active power of the aggregated PV system

13 | P a g e
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
Background

Renewable energy sources received immense attention from the power industry and

academic researchers all around the world due to environmental concerns (e.g. global

warming and emission of harmful gases from burning of fossil fuel energy resources),

depletion of fossil fuel resources and the increasing electricity demand. As the renewable

energy sources are abundant, an ample amount of energy can be produced through these

sources. Renewable energy sources are the energy resources that are continuously renewed

directly or indirectly by natural processes. Different types of renewable energy sources are

illustrated in Fig. 1.1 [1].

Fig. 1.1: Different types of renewable energy sources.

Among these renewable energy sources, the solar energy is the main source of energy on

earth, which can be used to produce electricity directly with the help of photovoltaic cells.

Solar-photovoltaic (PV) based power generation received enormous attention due to

advantages, such as the abundance of solar resource, low maintenance and operation cost, and

decreasing production cost. Integration of solar-PV systems as distributed generation (DG)

units have many advantages, such as reduced cost of electricity and improved reliability.

14 | P a g e
 Problem Statement: Major Issues with High Penetration of Solar-PV Power

Generation

Although solar-PV power generation offers many advantages, it also causes various issues

in power networks at high penetration levels. Some of the issues faced by the power network

operators are described below:

▪ One of the biggest challenges of integrating solar-PV systems to the power grid is the

output power variations. Solar-PV power output depends on the solar irradiance and

temperature. As these factors vary with the weather conditions, the output power of

the solar-PV system also varies while creating voltage and frequency fluctuations in

the power grid.

▪ Voltage swells and sags in the distribution feeder is another impact of increased solar-

PV penetration. This is mainly caused by the solar-PV power output intermittency

which can lead to system transients. This situation is more pronounced when multiple

solar-PVs are integrated to power distribution grids. Hence, various loading levels and

conditions should be investigated under a various degree of solar-PV penetration in

power distribution networks.

▪ With the high solar-PV penetration, the power system stability could be affected, as

the solar-PV units are grid-connected via static converters, such as power electronic

converters that have no physical inertia. Therefore, the impact of distributed solar-PV

systems on overall system stability should be accurately analysed. Typically, stability

issues are studied and analysed by developing an aggregated solar-PV model.

▪ Distributed solar-PV power generation result in power quality issues (e.g. harmonics,

flicker) in power networks. As the solar-PV systems are equipped with inverters,

15 | P a g e
 harmonics are produced by the solar-PV systems which ultimately affect the power

quality in power networks.

Rationale

Due to the high penetration of solar-PV systems in power distribution networks, the stability

of the power system is substantially affected. One of the factors which cause power system

instability is the slow or rapid changes in the cell temperature and solar irradiance, which

could lead to voltage and frequency fluctuations. Thus, a detailed dynamic model of a solar-

PV system should be developed to accurately characterise the power network dynamics and

stability under high solar-PV penetration. A detailed dynamic solar-PV model consists of a

solar-PV array, a dc-dc boost converter, and a voltage source inverter with a current

controller, and LC filter. The inverter current control scheme could also impact on the

dynamic behaviour of the solar-PV system. Hence, the inverter current control strategies are

compared in this research (i.e. synchronous frame PI controller and stationary frame PR

controller).

This research will also investigate transient stability of the power system with solar-PV

power generation . A similar dynamic solar-PV model is used for the study, however spatially

distributed solar-PV power generation is represented as an aggregated solar-PV model, and

then it is connected to the IEEE-9 bus test system [2] at different locations to analyse the

transient stability under full and partial loading conditions and for different control strategies

of the solar-PV system. The transient stability is analysed for two scenarios. First, traditional

SGs are connected to the grid and the variation of rotor angles and bus voltages are observed

for various grid faults with an emphasis on the critical clearing time (CCT) of faults. Second,

the traditional synchrnous generator (SG) based DGs are replaced by the aggregated solar-PV

systems of similar capacities and sizes to justify their accuracy to pinpoint the transients and

16 | P a g e
to quantify the impacts of the static (i.e. solar-PV) generator based DGs compared to the

traditional generator based DGs.

Generally, the solar-PV systems are spread across a large geographic area. Therefore, a

detailed distribution network model comprised of a single-phase solar-PV systems is also

developed, and subsequently, it is used to compare the dynamic response of the aggregated

solar-PV model. The active and reactive power along with the voltage stability is also

compared for these two models at various loading levels. This comparison would enable to

identify the key factors influencing the difference in both models. Ultimately, these factors

could be used to improve the aggregated model, however, these improvements are not within

the scope of this research.

Objectives of the Research

The main objective of this research is to develop an aggregated solar-PV model and

critically analyse its performance under various operating conditions and faults. Following

individual objectives are formulated to achieve the overall objective of this research:

• To conduct an extensive literature review to identify the gaps in the existing literature on

the aggregated modelling of solar-PV power generation.

• To develop a detail dynamic simulation model of the solar-PV system and compare the

characteristics under different current regulation strategies.

• To develop an aggregated solar-PV model and perform a transient stability analysis using

the IEEE-9 bus test system under different operating conditions and faults.

• To develop a realistic distribution feeder with solar-PV systems to compare the dynamic

characteristics with an aggregated solar-PV model.

• To identify the key influencing factors for the difference in dynamic response between

the aggregated model and the detailed distribution feeder model with solar-PV systems.

17 | P a g e
 Research Questions

Based on the problem statement and objectives of this research, following research questions

are addressed in this thesis:

Research Question 1

How to characterise the dynamic response of a solar-PV model comprised of MPPT model,

the dc-dc converter and the single-phase inverter with different current regulation methods,

such as synchronous frame proportional-integral (PI) and stationary frame proportional-

resonant (PR)?

Significance:

To develop a dynamic model of a grid-connected solar-PV system, the key parameters that

should be considered are solar irradiance variations, grid voltage fluctuations, grid frequency

deviations, and temperature variations. An important component of the solar-PV model is the

MPPT algorithm. Another important aspect of the dynamic solar-PV model is the current

controller. The dynamic performance of different current controllers could be investigated

under rapid changes in solar irradiance, and it will enable to determine which controller

provides the fastest response under given conditions.

Key Findings:

From the simulation results of the developed solar-PV dynamic model, it has been found

that both synchronous frame PI and stationary frame PR current control strategies provide the

same system response when tuned accurately. Therefore, any of these control strategies can

be used based on the required system dynamics.

18 | P a g e
Research Question 2:

How to quantify and technically analyse the impacts of high solar-PV penetration on the

distribution network and power system transient stability by using an aggregated solar-PV

model?

Significance:

With the increased penetration of solar-PV power generation, their aggregated response

could affect the stability of the power system. Due to the distinct characteristics of solar-PV

power generation, it differs from conventional synchronous generators. Therefore, the impact

of distributed solar-PV power generation on the overall system stability should be accurately

studied.

Key Findings:

An aggregated solar-PV model is developed and connected to the IEEE-9 bus test system to

investigate the transient stability of the entire power network. It is found that due to the

integration of aggregated solar-PV system in the power grid, the transient stability has

improved, especially when the solar-PV systems are partially loaded and operated in voltage

control mode1.

Research Question 3:

What are the key differences between the aggregated solar-PV model and the detailed

distribution feeder based solar-PV model, and what factors cause the difference between both

models?

1
Publication: A. Ghosh, R. Patel, M. Datta, L. Meegahapola, “Investigation of Transient Stability of a Power

Network with Solar-PV power generation : Impact of Loading Level & Control Strategy”, ISGT Asia, 2017.

19 | P a g e
Significance:

Since the aggregated modelling is more suitable for a transmission level representation, it is

not a realistic representation of the distributed solar-PV power generation. Therefore, it is

imperative to investigate the differences between the aggregated representation and

distribution feeder-based representation of a solar-PV power generation. Therefore, by

identifying the key factors causing this difference would enable to improve the aggregated

model.

Key Findings:

Both models are in good agreement under steady-state, however, under dynamic conditions

(i.e. under faults), there exist some differences between both models. These differences

become exacerbated when the fault duration increases, loading level reduces and operated at

voltage control mode.

Structure of the Thesis

The research work presented in this thesis is divided into six chapters, namely introduction,

literature review, dynamic modelling of solar-PV system, transient stability analysis with the

aggregated solar-PV model, and finally, comparison of the aggregated solar-PV model with

the detailed distribution feeder-based model.

Research background, problem statement, motivation and scope of the research have been

discussed in the Chapter 1.

Chapter 2 provides a complete literature review and helps to identify the gaps in the existing

literature. It gives an extensive and in-depth discussion of the literature, specifically in the

areas of solar-PV systems and MPPT techniques, dynamic solar-PV modelling with current

control strategies, and transient stability studies with solar-PV power generation.

20 | P a g e
Chapter 3 outlines the methodology for aggregated solar-PV modelling with thorough details

on working principle of each section of the solar-PV model. It also provides an explanation of

key components, such as P&O MPPT technique, PI and PR current control strategies that are

used for modelling the solar-PV system. This chapter analyses the results of each section of

the entire solar-PV system. All the simulations have been conducted using the PSIM and the

MATLAB/SIMULINK software tools.

Chapter 4 characterises the transient stability of the power system with the aggregated solar-

PV model integrated to the power network. All simulations are conducted in the IEEE-9 bus

system developed in DIgSILENT Power Factory simulation tool. Transient stability was

analysed first with the traditional synchronous generation, and then with an aggregated solar-

PV model under different loading levels and control modes.

Chapter 5 provides a comparison between the aggregated solar-PV model and the detailed

distribution feeder-based model. The detailed distribution feeder based solar-PV power

generation is more realistic representation for a spatially distributed solar-PV power

generation, hence it is imperative to make a direct static and dynamic comparison to identify

the factors which cause the difference between both models. All results are analysed under

different loading levels, two different types of control strategies (e.g. unity power factor and

voltage control modes) and various fault durations for short-circuit faults.

Finally, in Chapter 6 overall conclusions on aggregated modelling of solar-PV systems for

stability analysis are summarised with recommendations for future research studies.

21 | P a g e
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW
Overview

This chapter reflects on the existing literature of dynamic modelling for aggregated solar-

PV systems for transient stability analysis of the power system. Firstly, the chapter presents a

review on different components and control techniques of a grid-connected solar-PV system,

such as MPPT algorithms, DC-DC converters, inverters with current control strategies. Then,

it reviews dynamic modelling of the solar-PV system suitable for transient stability analysis.

Transient stability studies conducted with solar-PV systems are also reviewed in this chapter.

Finally, conclusions are drawn based on the research gaps and key findings.

MPPT Techniques

When developing a dynamic model of the grid-connected solar-PV system, key parameters

such as solar irradiance and temperature variations, grid voltage fluctuations, and grid

frequency deviations should be considered. One of the important components of this model is

MPPT algorithm associated with the DC-DC converter. With the disadvantage of low

efficiency of solar-PV cell, it is important that the solar-PV array works at its maximum

potential to generate maximum power [3]. As the solar-PV output power varies based on the

weather condition, the operating point of the solar-PV system needs to follow the maximum

power point (MPP). Usually, a DC-DC converter with MPPT algorithm is used as the MPPT

controller. This acts as an interface between the solar-PV array and the load.

Over the years, many MPPT techniques have been developed and implemented. Selection

of MPPT algorithm depends on several factors, such as efficiency, computational time, speed,

convenience, and cost. Among the many MPPT techniques [3], some of the most commonly

used are:

22 | P a g e
 • Perturb and Observe (P&O)

• Incremental Conductance (Inc. Con)

• Ripple Correlation Control (RCC)

• Fuzzy logic and neural networks

There are generally three kinds of perturbations; reference voltage, reference current and

duty-cycle ratio in PV electrical characteristics. In these techniques, the most common is

voltage perturbation method which is also called the P&O method, as it is very simple

technique to implement [4]- [9]. In the power-voltage (P-V) curve of a solar array, the MPPT

controller continuously searches for the maximum power point. If there is an increase in the

power, the reference voltage is perturbed in the same direction. Otherwise, the perturbation is

reversed accordingly. In [10], the paper mainly investigates the operation of the solar-PV

system in non-ideal conditions, specifically on the solar-PV and converter topological

structures. But, it does not take the charge and discharge interface of the storage and

concentrates on the DC-DC MPPT structure, and do not take the inverter control into

consideration. The disadvantage of the P&O method is it cannot operate in a high variation of

solar irradiance, and therefore, in [11], they provide a three-point weight comparison for

P&O method to address this issue. Another common method of MPPT is hill climbing

method which focuses on the perturbation of the duty-cycle [12] - [16]. It is based on the

duty-cycle of the power converter, which indirectly depends on the solar-PV array voltage

and current.

When there is a rapid change in irradiance, P&O and hill climbing methods can fail.

Therefore, another technique of evaluating the slope of the power with respect to voltage or

current can be used to obtain the MPP, which is known as Inc. Con. [17] - [21]. It can track

the MPP under very rapid increase and decrease in the irradiance level.

23 | P a g e
The equation for variable step-size Inc. Con. MPPT [22] is given as follows in Eq. 2.1,

 dP 
D(k ) = D(k − 1)  N *   (2.1)
 dV 

Where D(k) is the duty-cycle ratio and N is the scaling factor.

In [22], a comparison between both instantaneous and incremental conductance method

has been conducted by using both simulation and experimental setups. Even though, the

proposed Inc. Con. technique has better operating range, due to small step size, it becomes a

slow process.

Hence, other non-linear techniques such as fuzzy logic control [23] - [24] and neural

network [25] - [26] are also quite popular as they use modern microcontrollers and do not

need an accurate modelling. Patcharaprakiti et al. [27] have developed a fuzzy logic

controller that tracks the maximum power point and achieves the optimum performance for

the controller. But selection of sensible fuzzy parameters depends highly on the control

designer. Therefore, if the operating condition change or the expert knowledge is not

available for the choice of the parameters, then this method can fail.

Power and Current Control Strategies of the Solar-PV Inverter

Another important aspect of designing a dynamic model of the solar-PV array is the

inverter control. The solar panel uses power electronic converters as an interface with the

utility grid. Due to variable nature of the inputs of the solar array which are solar irradiance

and cell temperature, controllability is one the challenges that are needed to be considered

when the Solar-PV array is connected to the utility grid [28]. The main purpose of the current

regulators is to track the reference components. The standard current regulator that is mostly

used is synchronous frame proportional-integral (PI) controller. As this is considered to be

24 | P a g e
only linear control, where it can achieve almost zero steady-state error [29]. The classical PI

controller transfer function is given by:

Ki
GPI ( s) = K P + (2.2)
s

Where Kp is proportional gain and Ki is the integral gain. Here, decoupling terms are used. All

fluctuations can be seen in the D and Q axes component respectively [29].

The drawback of PI controller is, it fails to achieve zero steady-state error for sinusoidal

control variable [29]. Here, the control variables are sinusoidal in nature, therefore, that leads

to stationary frame proportional reference (PR) controller. Its transfer function is given by,

Ki s
GPR ( s) = K P + ; (2.3)
s +2
2

Where 𝜔 = resonant frequency.

In hysteresis controller, this control strategy works on the stationary frame. It compares the

current values with feedback values, switches high and low in VSI according to its error [30].

Deadbeat controller tries to nullify the error with one sample delay. It operates on current

regulation. When it reaches the end of the switching period, controller introduces the sample

time delay. It is suitable for microprocessor-based control [30].

In addition to the current controller, for DQ control, a phase locked loop (PLL) is developed

for synchronisation with the grid and the orthogonal voltage system is created by SOGI. The

other ways of generating orthogonal phase shifts are by time delay and all-pass filter as given

in [31].

25 | P a g e
 Dynamic Modelling of a Solar-PV System

There is also number of literatures [32] - [35] for the development of the dynamic

modelling. First, the model on which this research is based on the “Jenkins” model [32]. The

PV characteristic equation can be given as,

  V − I PV Rs   VPV + I PV Rs
I PV = I PH − I O  exp PV  − 1 −

(2.4)
  Vt   Rsh

This model is based on experimental results and emphasises on the design of MPPT

controller for maximum efficiency of the system. This model [32] is represented in Fig. 2.1.

Fig. 2.1: Jenkins Model for solar-PV system.

Another research paper [33], suggests mathematical modelling of the solar-PV array by

adding a power electronic conditioning unit. This paper describes that during power injection,

PV system becomes prone to instability in practical terms. Hence, better control strategies

and operating limits are to be considered for this model for dynamic stability. The authors in

[34] have based their work on the simulation model in PSCAD/EMTDC. Here, all the

26 | P a g e
components of single-phase solar-PV system are modelled theoretically based on existing

work and are simulated with same calculated components.

Another dynamic solar-PV model in [35] is designed based CSI under various faults and

loading conditions. But, CSI based solar-PV models are in very early stages of research and

therefore, it is seen in this dynamic solar-PV model, when compared to commonly used VSI,

the range of DC current is quite limited and the amplitude of the AC current is constricted

mainly due to the use of two inner and outer current loops.

Stability Studies with solar-PV power generation

The next part of this research is the transient stability analysis of power network with solar-

PV power generation. With the increased penetration of renewable-based generation, the

power grid is going through a change in its structure inflicting stability issues in the network

[36] - [37]. Although a single-phase solar-PV system size is considerably small to affect the

power system dynamics and stability, with the increased penetration of solar-PV power

generation, their aggregated response could substantially affect power system stability [38].

Therefore, the impact of distributed solar-PV power generation on the overall system stability

should be accurately analysed. Usually, these impacts are studied and investigated by

developing an aggregated model of the solar-PV system.

Several steady-state and transient analyses of power grid under distribution level solar-PV

penetration have been reported in [39] - [42]. In [39], the impact of the high PV penetration

on the power system and the technique where these distributed PVs are replaced by the same

capacity aggregated PV models, are described. The analysis is done on the basis of the

voltage and rotor angle stability under different solar-PV penetration levels; however, it does

not include control strategies. The study concluded that solar-PV could have both beneficial

and adverse impact on stability. The study presented in [40] discussed the impact of an

27 | P a g e
increase in penetration of PV generation on small signal stability in western Northern

American Power System, USA. In this study, two base cases with different penetration levels

are used. It states that mode frequency increases as a function of the total generation of

renewable energy, although the damping ratio is unaltered.

In [41], the Ontario power system, Canada is tested in real time for different PV penetration

levels and the voltage stability and small signal stability is documented. In [42], various

renewable generators are incorporated to form a hybrid system. By increasing the number of

generators and their penetration, the impacts and effects of these generators on the CCT of

the power system faults is quantified. Though all of these research studies contributed to the

transient stability investigation of the power system under large penetration of solar-PVs,

only a few studies have considered the variation of solar irradiance and solar-PVs’

connection at the different busbars of the distribution system. It is assumed that the location

of the solar-PV based DGs in distribution systems with variations of solar irradiance will

affect the CCT of the power system under different grid faults. Stability investigation of a

sustainable energy system presented in [43] reviews the major challenges when large solar-

PV power generation is integrated with the power system. It also investigated dynamic

modelling and grid codes for stability studies. It is reported that one of the biggest reasons for

the power fluctuation is due to the change in solar irradiance. The absence of reactive power

compensation in the presence of high solar-PV penetration leads to the problems in voltage

regulation and instability.

Transient and small-signal stability study presented in [44] shows that depending on the

solar-PV penetration level, the effect on small-signal stability can be either favourable or

undesirable. It used the modal analysis for determining the frequency, mode shape of the

frequency oscillations and damping ratio. It shows that when the small-signal stability is

28 | P a g e
adversely affected, the synchronous generator needs to be kept on-line to maintain the

sufficient damping of frequency oscillations.

Being a quite recent topic, there is a few literatures on the transient analysis of PV based DG

considering different locations in a distribution grid and different solar irradiance level.

Therefore, in this research, the impact of high solar-PV penetration on the distribution

network is investigated by positioning the aggregated solar-PV models at different locations

of the IEEE-9 bus test system. Transient stability has been evaluated under full and partial

loading conditions and control strategies for the solar-PV system.

Power system stability is also of a paramount importance to maintain a secure and reliable

power network. Power system stability is mainly classified into three types; 1) Transient

Stability; 2) Voltage stability; 3) Frequency stability [45]. Transient stability is the ability of

the power system to maintain synchronism after being subjected to a large disturbance. These

disturbances are generally short-circuit faults and switch events leading to substantial active &

reactive power variations in the network (e.g. generator and load trip-off events). Transient

stability is defined based on the rotor angle of the synchronous machine. Hence, the after

going through a number of stability studies, this research investigates transient stability by

adding the aggregated PV model to a standard IEEE-9 bus system by replacing the traditional

synchronous generation with PV generation.

For transient stability analysis, when the fault occurs, generator’s electromechanical torque

decreases dramatically resulting generator to accelerate, ultimately generator rotor angle will

increase from its steady-state value [46]. If the generator rotor angle exceeds its critical angle

then the generator becomes unstable and it is commonly known as the “loss of synchronism”.

Therefore, the fault must be cleared before the generator reaches the critical clearing angle.

29 | P a g e
The maximum time the fault could persist in the network before losing synchronism is known

as the CCT. Fig. 2.2 illustrates the definition of the rotor angle of a synchronous machine.

Generator Stable
d- axis

δrot Generator
a- axis
Unstable
δv_rot
α
Reference bus
voltage
V = 1 pu

Fig. 2.2: Definition of Rotor Angle stability

As illustrated in Fig. 2.2 the rotor angle could be specified against the local voltage angle

(δrot) or w.r.t. to the reference bus voltage angle (δv_rot). When generator becomes unstable,

rotor angle will go out-of-step and varies between -180° to 180. Typically, CCT is calculated

by conducting series of time-domain simulations while incrementing the fault duration until

the synchronous machine becomes unstable. Hence, CCT is the key component in this

research for transient stability analysis with aggregated solar-PV generation.

Chapter Summary

This chapter presents an extensive literature survey on various topics related to dynamic

modelling of solar-PV systems and stability studies with solar-PV power generation. After

reviewing various MPPT techniques, P&O method is chosen for this research, since it is the

simplest among the MPPT algorithms and provides fairly good tracking performance. Two

current control strategies are reported in the literature, and it is imperative to check the

performance of the two current control strategies under dynamic conditions. Finally, chapter

presented a summary of stability studies conducted with solar-PV power generation.

30 | P a g e
 CHAPTER 3

GENERIC ARCHITECTURE OF A SOLAR-PV

SYSTEM FOR AGGREGATED MODELLING

Overview

In this chapter, general architecture and dynamic modelling of the solar-PV system are

described. The key components that are considered are the numerical modelling of a solar-PV

cell using the Newton-Raphson method, design of the DC-DC converter, P&O MPPT

method, and common current controllers for a single-phase solar-PV system. All the system

components are explained and simulated in MATLAB/SIMULINK, PSIM and

DIgSILENT software respectively.

General Architecture of a Grid Connected Solar-PV systems

Fig. 3.1 illustrates the overall structure of a grid-connected solar-PV systems which consists

of a PV array, a DC-DC converter with the P&O algorithm, and a single-phase inverter

connected to the grid.

Fig. 3.1: General structure of a single-phase Solar-PV model.

31 | P a g e
 Numerical model of a Solar-PV module

The Newton-Raphson numerical method is used to solve the non-linear eq. 3.1 which is

used to represent a 60 W solar-PV module. Table 3.1 shows the simulation parameters of a

60 W module.

Table 3.1: 60 W Solar-PV system parameters

Parameter Value

Open-circuit voltage of module at STC (VO_STC) 21.1 V

Short-circuit current of module at STC (IS_STC) 3.8 A

MPP voltage of module at STC (VMPP_STC) 17.1 V

MPP current of module at STC (IS_STC) 3.5 A

Temperature correction factor (voltage) KV -0.0038

Temperature correction factor (current) KI 0.00065

Rated power of a module at STC (W) 60

No. Series Connected Cells 36

The PV module can be described by the following equation and it is solved in the

MATLAB/SIMULINK by using Newton-Raphson numerical method.

VPV + I PV * Rs
f ( I PV ) = I Ph − I D −
Rsh

V + I PV * Rs V + I PV * Rs
= I ph − I o (exp( PV ) − 1) − PV (3.1)
Vt Rsh

Differentiating f(Ipv) with respect to Ipv,

Rs R V + I PV * Rs
f ' ( I PV ) = (1 + ) − s * I o (exp( PV )) (3.2)
Rsh Vt Vt

32 | P a g e
Applying Newton-Raphson technique,

f ( I PV (n))
I PV (n + 1) = I PV (n) − (3.3)
f ' ( I PV (n))

The simulated Ipv-Vpv and Ppv-Vpv characteristics of the solar-PV module are presented in Figs.

3.2 and 3.3 respectively.

Fig. 3.2: Current-Voltage Characteristics of PV cell.

Fig. 3.3: Power-Voltage characteristics of PV cell.

33 | P a g e
 DC-DC Boost converter with MPPT controller

The DC-DC converter that is used here is a boost converter. The boost converter can step

the voltage and is used to provide a stable DC voltage for the single-phase inverter. P&O

MPPT technique is used to track the MPP for the PV array output. The circuit is shown in Fig

3.4,

Fig. 3.4: Solar-PV array with P&O MPPT controller.

The inductance (L) and capacitance (Cout) of the boost converter are chosen by Eq. (3.4) and

(3.5);

VPV
L (3.4)
2 * f s * I PV

I PV
Cout = (3.5)
f s * Vripple

Design of MPPT Algorithm

The maximum power point can be calculated at the intersection of IPV and VPV, for a given

irradiance and temperature. The P&O method is very easy to install and very simple to

34 | P a g e
implement as it only considers the measurement of IPV and VPV. Therefore, it can operate

quickly, however, it suffers from instability at the MPP.

The flow chart of P&O MPPT algorithm is given as follows,

Fig. 3.5: Flowchart P&O MPPT algorithm.

35 | P a g e
 Simulation results for a solar irradiance change from 1000 W/m2 to 800 W/m2 are given in

Figs. 3.6 (a)-(g). A resistive load is used as shown in Fig. 3.4. Fig. 3.6 (a) illustrates the

irradiance change from 1000 W/m2 to 800 W/m2. Fig.3.6 (b) and (c) describes the change in

Vpv and DC-DC converter output voltage with respect to change in irradiance. Both the

voltages have the same amplitude. Therefore, it can be concluded that P & O MPPT has a fast

and dynamic response for this simulation results. For current response in Fig. 3.6 (d) and (e),

the variation is due to the presence of inductor and capacitor in the boost converter. And

finally, solar-PV power and DC-DC power responses also have the same amplitude as

described in Fig. 3.6 (f) and (g).

(a) Change in Irradiance from 1000 W/m2 to 800W/m2

(b) Solar-PV output voltage

36 | P a g e
(c) DC-DC Converter output voltage

(d) Solar-PV output current

(e) DC-DC Converter output current

37 | P a g e
 (f) Solar-PV output Power

(g) DC-DC Converter Output Power

Fig. 3.6 (a)-(g): Simulation result of electrical characteristics due to changes in irradiance

Current Control strategies of single-phase inverter

Three current control strategies are implemented and simulated: simple PI and PR

controllers and synchronous frame PI controller. Unipolar sinusoidal pulse width modulation

(SPWM) is used with all three controllers.

Simple PI and PR controller

The simplest current control strategy that can be used for solar-PV modelling is using a PI

controller. Here, the inverter current is measured and fed to the comparator with the reference

command current. This helps to maintain the grid voltage. Hence, the error is passed through

the PI controller to generate PWM signals for the inverter. The transfer function of a simple

PI controller is given by;

38 | P a g e
 Ki
G PI ( s ) = K p + (3.6)
s

Where Kp and Ki denote proportional gain and integral gain respectively.

The PV system model is shown in Fig. 3.7,

Fig. 3.7: A single-phase PV system with simple PI current controller.

Similarly, the PR controller, the error is passed through the transfer function represented as,

Ki s
GPR ( s) = K P + (3.7)
s +2
2

Where 𝜔 = resonant frequency.

39 | P a g e
The simulation system is given in Fig. 3.8 by,

Fig. 3.8: A single-phase PV system with the Simple PR current controller.

Output voltage waveforms are shown in Figs. 3.9 and 3.10 for both controllers. It can be seen

that both controllers indicate almost same response, although the PR controller only operates

near the resonating frequency.

Fig. 3.9: PI controller -AC voltage response.

40 | P a g e
 Fig. 3.10: PR controller -AC voltage response.

Implementing synchronous D-Q frame for PI controller

The classical PI controller is designed in the synchronous reference axes (D-Q axes). As

two phases are required for axis transformations and the PV system being a single-phase

system, an additional orthogonal phase is created through orthogonal phase transformation. A

single phase-locked loop (PLL) is also designed for the synchronisation with the grid. The D-

Q transformation is implemented by the Park transform.

The general structure of the PLL is given by the Fig.3.11;

Vq_ref wref
Valpha
Vq - + + Theta
Orthogonal Alpha-
PI Integrator
phase shift Beta/DQ
Vac Vd
Vbeta

Frequency
1/(2*pi)

Fig. 3.11: General structure of a single-phase PLL.

41 | P a g e
 The control strategy is to regulate the inverter current with a simple inner voltage control

loop. The inner voltage is the inverter’s output AC voltage. The D-Q components of the

inverter current are generated by using the orthogonal phase transformation, and then the

error is computed. These errors are passed through two PI controllers. For compensating the

coupling between D and Q components, decoupling terms are also included. Then the D-Q

components of the inverter current are transformed back to the stationary frame components

to generate the reference AC voltage for the inner voltage loop. This difference is passed

through a PI controller to generate the sinusoidal pulse width modulation (SPWM) for the

single-phase inverter. The simulation model is given in Fig. 3.12.

Fig. 3.12: Synchronous frame PI current regulation for single phase Solar-PV system.

42 | P a g e
 Chapter Summary

In this chapter, solar-PV system components are designed and simulated. The solar-PV

system is constructed with a 2.5 kW solar-PV array, P&O MPPT technique, and a DC-DC

boost converter. Various characteristics of the solar-PV system are analysed with a change in

the solar irradiance from 800 W/m2 to 1000 W/m2. It has been found that both PI and PR

current controllers give the same response, however, PR controller is limited to the range of

resonant frequency, although it can handle sinusoidal reference input better than the PI

controller.

43 | P a g e
 CHAPTER 4

TRANSIENT STABILITY ANALYSIS USING

AGGREGATED SOLAR-PV MODEL
Overview

This chapter presents a transient stability investigation with solar-PV power generation .

solar-PV power generation was represented by an aggregated solar-PV model, which is an

efficient and quick way to analyse the transient stability of a power system. The study was

conducted using the IEEE 3-machine 9-bus test system in DIgSILENT Power Factory. In

this study, two solar-photovoltaic (PV) integration scenarios are considered. First, traditional

synchronous generators (SGs) are connected to the grid and then the critical clearing time

(CCT) are determined after creating faults at various locations in the network. Second, the

traditional SGs are replaced by the aggregated solar-PV system with similar capacity, and

then CCT is calculated in order to accurately investigate and quantify the impact of the solar-

PV power generation .

Test System Description and Simulation Scenarios

The IEEE-9 bus system [2] available in DIgSILENT Power Factory tool has been used for

this study. A schematic of the nine-bus system is shown in Fig. 4.1.

44 | P a g e
 18 kV 230 kV 230 kV 13.8 kV

Load C
G2 G3

163 MW 8 85 MW
2 3 -10.9 MVAR
6.7 MVAR
7 9

5 6

Load A Load B
4
230 kV
1
16.5 kV

71.6 MW
G1 27 MVAR

Fig. 4.1: A schematic of the IEEE-9 bus system.

The nine-bus system consists of three synchronous generators, three loads, three

transformers, and six transmission lines. The nine-bus system parameters are given in [47].

The total system load and generation are shown in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1: Nine-bus system generation & load demand

Active Power (MW) Reactive Power (MVAr)

Generation 319.64 140.56

Load 315 115

45 | P a g e
 The solar-PV power generation is represented by the dynamic solar-PV model in table 4.2

provided by the DIgSILENT Power Factory.

Table 4.2: 500 kVA Solar-PV system parameters

Parameter Value

Open-circuit voltage of module at STC (VO_STC) 43.8 V

Short-circuit current of module at STC (IS_STC) 4.58A

MPP voltage of module at STC (VMPP_STC) 35 V

MPP current of module at STC (IS_STC) 5A

Temperature correction factor (voltage) KV -0.0039

Temperature correction factor (current) KI 0.0004

Rated power of a module at STC (W) 175

No. Parallel Connected Modules 20

No. Series Connected Modules 140

Rated Power (kW) 450

46 | P a g e
 A schematic of the DIgSILENT Power Factory dynamic solar-PV model [1] is shown in

Fig. 4.2.

Uarray
Solar
Radiation
Iarray DC Busbar and
Capacitor
Model
PhotoVoltaic
Model

Vdcref Id_ref
Temperature

PQ
Controller
Iq_ref
Static
AC Voltage uac Generator
Power Measurement PV System
Measurement
PQ Measurement 3PH

Slow Fmeas
Active Power Pred
Frequency Reduction
Measurement
Measurement
Solar Radiation

Measurement Phase (PLL) sinref;cosref

Temperature Measurement

Fig. 4.2: The dynamic model of the solar-PV system.

The dynamic simulation model of the solar-PV system is developed with four main blocks;

the photovoltaic block (i.e. solar-PV array), the DC busbar and capacitor model, PQ

controller and the solar-PV system. In addition, some measurement blocks were used for

voltage, frequency, phase and power measurements. The solar-PV array is designed by an

appropriate number of series and parallel solar-PV modules, and solar-PV array parameters

are given in Table 4.2. The solar-PV system is operated at the maximum power point (MPP).

The solar-PV system also has the capability to respond to varying solar and ambient

temperature conditions. A schematic of the active/ reactive power controllers of the solar-PV

model is shown in Fig. 4.3.

47 | P a g e
 Vdcref_mpp Active Power Control Scheme
(1/(1+sT))

maxIq
Active power reduction during Over
max frequency (Pred)
U_min
id_max
Vdc_ref0
Vdcin - dp dpd id Id_ref
(1/(1+sT)) K(1+1/sT)

id_min

Current
Voltage Control Scheme iq_max
Limiter
Iq_ref
uac Reactive Power iq
(1/(1+sT)) Support
duac
- Deadband
uac0 iq_min

Fig. 4.3: Power control loop of Solar-PV.

The solar-PV controller is capable of operating in the voltage control mode, and hence it

controls the reactive power capability of the solar-PV inverter to maintain the terminal

voltage at a predefined value. The solar-PV system activates the voltage control scheme

when the terminal voltage (Uac) of the solar-PV system decreases below the dead-band (0.9

p.u). By comparing the voltage reference (Uac0) with the voltage measurements (Uac), voltage

error is processed through a droop controller, then q-axis current reference (Iq_ref) is generated

after feeding through a current limiter, and subsequently fed into the static generator model.

The static generator model is represented as a current source model, and its inbuilt current

controller is used in this study. In addition, the solar-PV system could be operated at unity

power factor mode by disabling the voltage control scheme.

The aggregated solar-PV system is represented by an appropriate number of parallel

connected 500 kVA solar-PV systems. A schematic of the aggregated solar-PV representative

model in DIgSILENT Power Factory is shown in Fig. 4.4.

48 | P a g e
 500 kW × n

~
Fig. 4.4: DIgSILENT Power Factory Solar-PV system representation.

This investigation was conducted by considering two solar-PV integration scenarios:

▪ Replacement of G2 (bus-2) by an aggregated solar-PV model to serve the same

MW/MVAr demand. This scenario would create 51% solar-PV penetration in the

system.

▪ Replacement of G3 (bus-3) by an aggregated solar-PV model to serve the same MW/

MVAr demand. This scenario would create 27% solar-PV penetration in the system.

In each scenario, a number of parallel connected solar-PV units have been varied to achieve

the same MW load served by the synchronous generation units. For example, when G2 is

replaced with the aggregated solar-PV model, 363 units of 500 kVA solar-PV systems are

connected in parallel at Bus-2, and each solar-PV system produces its maximum active power

output (i.e. 450 kW).

Results presented in this section analyses three different cases for each solar-PV integration

scenario listed above, and results are presented in following subsections.

4.3 Comparison between Conventional Synchronous and Solar-PV power generation

Table 4.3 presents the critical clearing time (CCT) calculated for both solar-PV integration

scenarios when a fault occurs at different locations in the network. It must be noted that solar-

PV system used here is operating at its full active power rating (i.e. 450 kW) and voltage

control mode.

49 | P a g e
Table 4.3: Transient Stability Comparison between Conventional Synchronous and Solar-PV

power generation

CCT (ms)

Fault Location Without Solar-PV Aggregated Solar-PV Aggregated Solar-

power generation at Bus-2 PV at Bus-3

Bus4 250 440 280

Bus5 310 1750 300

Bus6 340 480 450

Bus7 180 420 170

Bus8 250 320 240

Bus9 210 290 320

According to Table 4.3, CCT has improved substantially with the solar-PV integration to

the network. For example, when a fault occurs at bus 5, it indicates a CCT of 310 ms with

conventional synchronous generation, and subsequently, it has improved to 1750 ms when

the G2 is replaced by the aggregated solar-PV system. Fig.4.5 illustrates the G3 rotor angle

for a 260 ms three-phase short-circuit fault at bus 4.

50 | P a g e
 Fig. 4.5: Rotor Angle Variation at G3 for a fault at bus 4

According to Fig.4.5, synchronous generator-G3 has gone out-of-step when only

synchronous generators are operating in the system. However, when generator G2 is replaced

by equal-sized solar-PV system rotor angle recovers to steady-state value after perturbing

only 6° following a 260 ms fault.

This is due to the reason that, solar-PV system voltage control scheme acts fast in

comparison to the conventional voltage control scheme (i.e. automatic voltage regulator

(AVR)) of the synchronous generator. This has subsequently supported the synchronising

torque coefficient of the existing synchronous machines while improving the terminal voltage

of the existing synchronous machines. Due to the fast current control loops of the solar-PV

system, it also helps dampen the power and rotor-angle oscillations of the synchronous

machines.

Moreover, when Bus-2 generator (G2) is replaced with the solar-PV system, it indicates

much better transient stability performance than the replacement of Bus-3 Generator (G3)

with solar-PV systems. This is due to the fact that by replacing G2 with solar-PV, it has

resulted in much higher solar-PV penetration in the network than G3; hence the system

51 | P a g e
receives much better voltage support from the solar-PV system while improving transient

stability of the network.

In this scenario, the solar-PV model is operated at its maximum active power rating, and

hence it is important to analyse transient stability when solar-PV systems are operating at

partially loaded conditions.

4.4 Impact of Different Solar-PV Penetration Levels

Solar-PV systems operate at its full capacity only during very short-period of the day, hence

it is more sensible to consider the partly loaded scenario. Therefore, in this scenario, the

solar-PV system is operated at 45% loading (i.e. 200 kW), and hence a large aggregated

solar-PV model has been used here to achieve the same MW output as the replaced

synchronous generators. Therefore, a number of parallels connected 500 kVA solar-PV

systems have been increased to achieve the same MW capacities replaced conventional

generators. Table 4.4 presents the transient stability comparison between the fully-loaded and

partially-loaded solar-PV power generation.

52 | P a g e
Table 4.4: Transient Stability Comparison between full loaded and partially loaded Solar-PV

power generation.

CCT (ms)

Fault Solar-PV at Bus- Solar-PV at Solar-PV at Solar-PV at

Location 2 Bus-2 Bus-3 Bus-3

(100% Loading) (45% (100% (45%

Loading) Loading) Loading)

Bus4 440 560 260 310

Bus5 1750 1830 300 330

Bus6 480 510 450 570

Bus7 420 420 170 180

Bus8 320 360 240 260

Bus9 190 190 320 340

According to Table 4.4, partially loaded scenarios indicate improvement in transient

stability. For example, for a fault at Bus 4, full-loaded scenario indicates a CCT of 260 ms for

solar-PV at bus 3, and that has been improved to 310 ms for the partially loaded scenario.

This could be easily understood by comparing the active and reactive power of generator-G3.

Fig. 4.6 illustrates the active and reactive power for three generation scenarios for Bus 2 (i.e.

synchronous, fully loaded-PV, partially loaded-PV) during critical clearing faults at bus 7.

53 | P a g e
 (a)

(b)

Fig. 4.6: Active and Reactive Power Variation at G2 for a fault at Bus 7.

As illustrated in Fig. 4.6, partially loaded solar-PV scenario provides much better reactive

power support during the fault, hence assist in improving transient stability of the network.

This could be further confirmed by considering G3 active and reactive power variation due to

a fault at bus 9 is given at Fig. 4.7.

54 | P a g e
 (a)

(b)

Fig. 4.7: Active and Reactive Power Variation at G3 for a fault at Bus 9.

When the solar-PV system is partially loaded, a significant amount of reactive power

capability is available within the solar-PV system for voltage control. This could be better

understood from the solar-PV system capability curve shown in Fig.4.8. It must be noted that

all the per-unit values in Fig. 4.8 are defined based on the apparent power.

55 | P a g e
 Fig. 4.8: Solar-PV system capability curve.

When the solar-PV system is operating at the full active power output, the solar-PV

system has a reactive power capability of ±0.44 pu. The reactive power capability has more

than doubled (e.g. 0.92 pu) when the solar-PV system is operating at 0.4 pu active power

output (partially-loaded condition). Thus, improved reactive power capability has assisted

network voltage during faults and ultimately assisted in improving transient stability of the

system.

4.5 Impact of Control Strategy of the Solar-PV System

Typically, the majority of the single-phase solar-PV systems are operated at unity power

factor and do not offer voltage control support to the network. However, modern inverters

can operate at voltage control mode, and in future voltage control is likely to be mandated for

solar-PV inverters [48]. In previous scenarios, the solar-PV system is operating in voltage

control mode, and hence it has contributed positively to transient stability improvement.

Therefore, the intention of this section is to compare the voltage control strategy with the

power factor (PF) control strategy for the solar-PV system. Table 4.5 presents the transient

stability comparison between the voltage and power factor (operating at unity power factor)

56 | P a g e
control strategies for the aggregated solar-PV system. It must be noted that the aggregated

solar-PV system is operating at the partially loaded condition at the investigated scenarios in

Table 4.5.

Table 4.5: Transient Stability Comparison between Voltage Controlled and Power Factor

Controlled Solar-PV power generation

CCT (ms)

Fault Voltage PF Control Voltage PF Control

Location Control Strategy-Bus Control Strategy- Bus
Strategy-Bus 2 Strategy- Bus- 3
2 3

Bus4 560 60 310 170

Bus5 1830 80 330 200

Bus6 510 80 570 250

Bus7 420 140 180 160

Bus8 360 100 260 240

Bus9 190 70 340 310

According to Table 4.5, when the aggregated solar-PV system is operated at the power

factor control strategy it has detrimentally affected the transient stability. For example, when

a fault occurs at Bus-4, voltage control strategy has indicated a CCT of 560 ms for the solar-

PV system at Bus 2, and that has decreased to 60 ms when operated at the power factor

control mode. Fig. 4.9 illustrates the voltage and rotor angle comparison for both voltage and

power factor control strategies during 100 ms three-phase short-circuit fault at bus 4.

57 | P a g e
 (a)

(b)

Fig. 4.9: Comparison of voltage and power factor control strategies for a fault at bus 4; (a)

Rotor angle-G3, (b) bus-3 voltage.

In Fig 4.9, it is clearly seen that both the rotor angle of G3 and bus 3 voltage, are stable with

the voltage control strategy, whereas, when operating at the PF control strategy the

synchronous generator-G3 becomes unstable for a 100 ms three-phase short-circuit fault at

58 | P a g e
bus 4. Therefore, it can be confirmed that voltage control strategy improves CCT, and hence

the transient stability in comparison to the PF control strategy.

Chapter Summary

In this chapter, transient stability of the power system was investigated using an

aggregated solar-PV model under different loading levels, penetration levels and control

strategies. Simulation results confirmed that the solar-PV integration could improve the

transient stability of the power grid. In particular, when the solar-PV systems are partially

loaded and operated at voltage control mode, transient stability has substantially improved

due to the increased reactive power capability of solar-PV systems and fast response of solar-

PV inverters. However, the aggregated representation may have produced optimistic results

for transient stability simulation, since all solar-PV systems are now acting on a single busbar

once represented as an aggregated model. Therefore, the aggregated model is compared

against the detailed model in the next chapter.

59 | P a g e
 CHAPTER 5

COMPARISON OF AGGREGATED SOLAR-PV

MODEL WITH DISTRIBUTION FEEDER BASED
MODEL
Overview

This chapter presents the comparison of the steady-state and dynamic performance

between the aggregated solar-PV model and the detailed distribution feeder model with solar-

PV systems. The distribution feeder with solar-PV power generation is developed in

DIgSILENT Power Factory, and then the steady-state and dynamic performances have been

compared with an aggregated solar-PV model having the same capacity as the total installed

solar-PV capacity in the distribution feeder model. Firstly, a comparison of the steady-state

performance between the aggregated solar-PV model and the detailed distribution feeder

model is performed. Subsequently, the dynamic comparison of the aggregated solar-PV and

distribution feeder model is performed after subjecting both models to various fault scenarios.

In addition, various scenarios are also considered in this study, such as different loading

levels and operating modes for the solar-PV systems (i.e. unity power-factor mode and

voltage control mode). Finally, the aggregated model is further improved considering the

dynamic response of the detailed model.

Development of Distribution Network with Solar-PV power generation

The solar-PV power generation is represented by the single-phase dynamic solar-PV model

(5.5 kVA solar-PV model, maximum active power – 5 kW). A schematic of the dynamic

solar-PV model is shown in Fig. 5.1. The modelling description of this dynamic model is

already explained in Chapter 4.

60 | P a g e
 Fig. 5.1: Dynamic model of the solar-PV system.

The detailed distribution feeder model with solar-PV power generation is shown in Fig. 5.2.

Solar PV
EXTERNAL Active power:5 kW*30
GRID Power Factor:1
Load
22kV Active power:81.5 kW
22kV/400V Power factor:0.95
TRANSFORMER Transmission Line
Length:500m
400V
Resistance:0.28ohm/km
Reactance:0.07ohm/km

Fig. 5.2: Distribution feeder model with solar-PV systems.

61 | P a g e
The distribution network consists of thirty 5 kW single-phase solar-PV systems, thirty

transmission lines and an MV/LV transformer. Here, 10 units of 1-phase solar-PV panels are

considered in each phase. The total system load and generation are given in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1. Total Generation and Load Demand

Active Power (kW) Power Factor

Loading Levels

Generation 100% 70% 50% 30% 1

150 105 75 45

Load 81.5 0.95 lagging

The aggregated solar-PV system is developed in DIgSILENT power factory with the

rating equivalent to the summation of ratings of all solar-PV systems installed in the

distribution feeder. For example, the distribution feeder consists of thirty 5.5 kVA rated

single-phase solar-PV systems, hence the aggregated system rating was taken as 165 kVA (30

x 5.5 kVA). Similar, approach was taken to represent the total parallel connected solar-PV

modules in the solar-PV array of the aggregated model. Therefore, the aggregated model can

produce a total of 150 kW at its 100% loading level, which is equivalent to the capacity of

thirty 5 kW single-phase units.

62 | P a g e
 EXTERNAL
GRID Solar PV
Active power:5kW*30
22kV Power Factor:1
22kV/400V Load
TRANSFORMER Active power:81.5 kW
Power factor:0.95

Fig. 5.3: Aggregated solar-PV model.

To replicate the same steady-state behaviour for the aggregated solar-PV model as the

distribution feeder model, the losses in the distribution feeder are now considered at the load.

Consider the simple representation of the current flow in the distribution feeder with solar-PV

systems in Fig. 5.4.

Fig. 5.4: Representation of current flow in the distribution feeder with solar-PV systems.

The losses in the distribution feeder can be determined by Eq. (5.1) & (5.2);

Losses = ( I12 + I 22 + ... + I n2 ) R + ( I 22 + ... + I n2 ) R + .... + ( I n2 ) R (5.1)

= ( I12 ) R + 2 ( I 22 ) R + 3 ( I 32 ) + ... + n ( I n2 ) R
 n 
=   i ( I i2 )  R
 i =1 

63 | P a g e
Where I i is the current output from each node in the feeder, and R is the resistance of each

distribution feeder segment, and it is assumed that all distribution feeder segments have the

same resistance.

The aggregated losses are then accounted at the load as follows:

 n 
PL _ agg =  Pi +   i ( I i 2 )  R
n

(5.2)
i =1  n=1 

 n 
Where   i ( I i 2 )  R is the total copper loss in the lines.
 n=1 

 P is the total active power of the distribution feeder loads.

i =1
i

PL_agg is the total active power of the aggregated solar-PV model.

To investigate whether the aggregated solar-PV model replicates the same dynamic

performance as the distribution feeder model with solar-PV power generation, the following

scenarios are considered for simulation studies:

• Comparison of steady-state performance between the aggregated solar-PV model and

the detailed model (distribution network with solar-PV power generation) considering

the total active and reactive power at the transformer and p.u. voltage at the 22 kV

busbar.

• Comparison of dynamic performance between the aggregated solar-PV model and the

detailed distribution feeder model with solar-PV under different short-circuit fault

durations of 50 ms, 100 ms and 150 ms at the 22 kV busbar. The total active and

reactive power at the transformer and p.u. voltage at the 22 kV busbar are used for the

comparison.

64 | P a g e
 • Comparison of dynamic performance between the aggregated solar-PV model and the

detailed distribution feeder model with solar-PV under different loading levels (100%,

70%, 50% and 30%). The total active and reactive power at the transformer and p.u.

voltage at the 22 kV busbar are used for the comparison.

Steady-State Comparison between the Aggregated solar-PV Model and the

Distribution Feeder Model

To analyse the steady-state performance of the aggregated solar-PV model and the detailed

distribution feeder-based model two operating scenarios are considered for the solar-PV

systems; 1) Unity Power factor operation, and 2) Voltage control mode. Active power (P),

reactive power (Q) and voltage (V) are considered for the comparison, and the comparison is

made at the 22 kV/400 V transformer LV busbar for both models.

Scenario-1: Unity Power Factor Control Mode

Generally, solar-PV arrays are operated at unity power factor with no reactive power

capability. Therefore, as illustrated in the Figs. 5.5 - 5.9, the active power, reactive power and

voltages at transformer LV and HV terminals are compared for both models. It could be seen

that both models indicate almost similar steady-state response, hence both models are in good

agreement at the steady-state. Therefore, the aggregated model can replace the distribution

feeder with solar-PV power generation for steady-state stability studies, which will reduce the

complexity of the solar-PV representation for steady-state analysis.

65 | P a g e
 Fig. 5.5: Active power at transformer HV side at full loading (150 kW).

Fig. 5.6: Reactive power at transformer HV side at full loading (150 kW).

Fig. 5.7: Active Power at transformer LV side at full loading (150 kW).

66 | P a g e
 Fig. 5.8: Reactive power at transformer LV side at full loading (150 kW).

Fig. 5.9: Voltage at the 22 kV busbar at full loading (150 kW).

Scenario-2: Voltage Control Mode

In this scenario, voltage control mode is used at the solar-PV systems, and same

parameters are compared (e.g. active power, reactive power and voltage at the transformer

HV and LV sides) for both models. Also, the solar-PV systems are operated at full loading

(150 kW). The active power and voltage are almost same for both models as shown in Fig.

5.10, Fig. 5.12, and Fig. 5.14, however the reactive power in the detailed model varies

slightly with time as illustrated in Fig. 5.11 and Fig. 5.13. This is due to the fact that when the

solar-PV systems are operated at the voltage control mode, the solar-PV systems at each node

67 | P a g e
attempt to control the voltage by injecting/absorbing reactive power to each node in the

distribution feeder, and hence overall reactive power demand will increase with time until all

nodes stabilise at a steady-state voltage value. However, the aggregated solar-PV model has

only a single node, hence reactive power demand is stable at steady-state.

Fig. 5.10: Active power at transformer HV side at full-loading during voltage control
mode.

Fig. 5.11: Reactive power at transformer HV side at full-loading during voltage control mode.

68 | P a g e
 Fig. 5.12: Active power at power at transformer LV side at full-loading during voltage
control mode.

Fig. 5.13: Reactive power at transformer LV side at full-loading during voltage control
mode.

Fig. 5.14: Voltage at the 22 kV busbar during voltage control mode.

Therefore, according to this steady-state comparison, it can be concluded that better steady-

state performance can be achieved when the solar-PV is operated at unity power factor mode.

69 | P a g e
 Dynamic Comparison of Aggregated solar-PV Model and the Distribution

Feeder Model with solar-PV power generation

To investigate the dynamic transient performance of the aggregated solar-PV model and the

detailed distribution feeder model, three-phase short circuit faults having fault durations of

50 ms, 100 ms and 150 ms are simulated at the 22 kV busbar for both the aggregated solar-

PV model and distributed solar-PV model. The solar-PV systems are operated at full loading.

Also, two operating scenarios are considered for solar-PV systems for dynamic performance

analysis; 1) Unity power factor mode, and 2) Voltage control mode. Same parameters are

measured as previous scenarios. The measuring point is the transformer LV side.

Performance comparison with unity power factor mode under different fault

durations

With unity power factor control mode, it can be seen from the Figs. 5.15 to 5.17 that active

power for the aggregated solar-PV model is much smoother than the detailed distribution

network based solar-PV systems. This is due to the fact that after the short-circuit fault,

different nodes in the distribution feeder experience different voltage levels, hence the

dynamic response from solar-PV systems will be different from each other. Therefore, some

nodes experience a large voltage drop than the other nodes, hence the solar-PV systems

installed at those nodes can’t recover their active power dispatch level to pre-fault value until

voltage recovers to the nominal value. However, the aggregated solar-PV system only acts on

a single node, hence do not experience this effect. Therefore, total active power measured at

the transformer is different during the post-fault period for both models.

70 | P a g e
 Fig. 5.15: Active power at transformer LV-side for full loading under a 50 ms fault.

Fig. 5.16: Active power at transformer LV-side for full loading under a 100 ms fault.

Also, it can be observed that as the duration of the short-circuit fault increases, the

disturbance for both the PV models increases.

71 | P a g e
 Fig. 5.17: Active power at transformer LV-side for full loading under a 150 ms fault.

From Figs. 5.18 - 5.20 illustrate the reactive power measured at the transformer under

different fault durations. According to Figs. 5.18 - 5.20 both the aggregated solar-PV and

detailed distribution feeder based solar-PV models indicate almost the same reactive power

behaviour, except for few hundred milliseconds after fault clearance.

Fig. 5.18: Reactive power at transformer LV-side for full loading under a 50 ms fault.

72 | P a g e
 Fig. 5.19: Reactive power at transformer LV-side for full loading under a 100 ms
fault.

Fig. 5.20: Reactive power at transformer LV-side for full loading under a 150 ms fault.

73 | P a g e
 (a)

(b)

(c)

Fig. 5.21(a)-(c): Voltage at 22 kV under 50 ms,100 ms and 150ms short circuit faults.

74 | P a g e
The voltage responses remain the same for both the models at 50 ms,100 ms and 150 ms fault

durations.

Voltage Control mode with 50ms, 100ms and 150ms duration of short circuit

faults.

The active power responses for both models when they operate at voltage control mode under

different fault durations are illustrated in Figs. 5.22 - 5.24.

Fig. 5.22: Active power at transformer LV side at voltage control mode under a 50 ms fault.

Fig. 5.23: Active power at transformer LV side at voltage control mode under a 100 ms fault.

75 | P a g e
Fig. 5.24: Active power at transformer LV side at voltage control mode under a 150 ms fault.

According to Figs. 5.22 - 5.24, active power response has further deteriorated for the

detailed distribution feeder-based model when the solar-PV systems are operated at voltage

control mode in comparison to the unity power factor operation. This is due to the fact that,

solar-PV systems in the distribution feeder now prioritise reactive power over active power,

as they operate in the voltage control. Therefore, active power injection is curtailed at the

current limit of the solar-PV inverter. This impact becomes more severe when the fault

duration increases. However, as the previous scenario, the aggregated model has less impact

when operated at voltage control mode.

It can be seen from Figs. 5.25 - 5.27, that solar-PV systems now inject reactive power to

recover voltage back to the nominal value. However, as explained before, the solar-PV

systems in the distribution feeder model response based on their terminal voltage, hence the

reactive power dispatch levels are different from each solar-PV system in the distribution

feeder. Ultimately, it creates a significant discrepancy between the aggregated solar-PV

model and distribution feeder-based model.

76 | P a g e
Fig. 5.25: Reactive power at transformer LV side at voltage control mode under a 50 ms
fault.

Fig. 5.26: Reactive power at transformer LV side at voltage control mode under a 100 ms
fault.

Fig. 5.27: Reactive power at transformer LV side at voltage control mode under a 100 ms
fault.

77 | P a g e
However, both models indicate same voltage responses at voltage control mode for the fault

duration of 50 ms,100 ms and 150 ms as shown in Fig. 5.28 (a)-(c).

(a)

(b)

(c)
Fig. 5.28(a)-(c): Voltage at 22 kV busbar at voltage control mode for a fault duration of 50
ms, 100 ms and 150 ms.

78 | P a g e
 Comparison of aggregated solar-PV and distributed solar-PV power generation

with fault at different loading levels

As the solar-PV systems operate at full loading for a short duration (i.e. during 12 – 1 pm

on a sunny day), different loading levels (e.g. 70%, 50% and 30% respectively) are also

investigated. However, the total load remains at 81.5 kW. Two operating scenarios are again

considered for solar-PV systems for dynamic performance analysis under different loading

levels for solar-PV; 1) Unity power factor mode, and 2) Voltage control mode.

Scenario1: Unity Power Factor Mode for a 50 ms SC Fault at 70% Loading

At 70 % loading (i.e. 70% x 150 kW = 105 kW) of solar-PV, the active and reactive power

responses indicate similar characteristics for both the aggregated solar-PV model and the

distribution feeder-based model as shown in Fig 5.29 and 5.30 respectively. Hence, the

aggregated solar-PV model can replace the much more complicated distribution feeder-based

model to investigate the stability under low loading scenarios.

Fig. 5.29: Active power at transformer LV side at 70% loading under power factor control
mode.
.

79 | P a g e
Fig. 5.30: Reactive power at transformer LV side at 70% loading under power factor control
mode.

Scenario-2: Voltage Control Mode for a 50 ms SC fault at 70% Loading

For voltage control mode, the active power indicates almost similar response when a short-

circuit fault of 50 ms duration occurs at the 22 kV busbar as shown in Fig. 5.31. However,

initial 1 s post-fault period indicate slightly different active power characteristics in

comparison to the aggregated model. This difference occurred due to the terminal voltage

difference between the distribution feeder nodes and the aggregated solar-PV node.

Fig. 5.31: Active power at transformer LV side at 70% loading under voltage control mode.

80 | P a g e
Fig. 5.32: Reactive power at transformer LV side at 70% loading under voltage control mode.

Scenario-1: Unity power factor control for a 50 ms SC fault at 50% Loading

At 50% loading level, the active power output of each solar-PV system in the distribution

feeder becomes 2.5 kW (0.5*5 kW), whereas, for the aggregated solar-PV model it becomes

75 kW (0.5*150 kW). Here also, the active and reactive power indicates same response for

both models for unity power factor mode as shown in Figs. 5.33 and 5.34. The minor

differences in active and reactive power are due to the difference in node voltages of the

distribution feeder.

Fig. 5.33: Active power at transformer LV side at 50% loading under unity power factor
mode.

81 | P a g e
Fig. 5.34: Reactive power at transformer LV side at 50% loading under unity power factor
mode.

Scenario-2: Voltage control mode for a 50 ms SC fault at 50% loading

As illustrated in Fig. 5.35, when the solar-PV systems are operated at voltage control mode, it

would take few hundred milliseconds for the distribution feeder-based model to recover to

the same active power response as the aggregated solar-PV model. Also, there is a substantial

difference between the two models in their active power response during the post fault

period.

Fig. 5.35: Active Power at transformer LV side at 50% loading.

According to Fig.5.36, the reactive power response is quite similar for both PV models under

voltage control mode.

82 | P a g e
Fig. 5.36: Reactive Power at transformer LV side at 50% loading under voltage control mode.

Scenario-1: Unity Power factor control mode for a 50 ms SC fault at 30% (45

kW) loading

When the solar-PV loading level is 30%, the solar-PV systems generate 45 kW. According to

Figs. 5.37 and Fig. 5.38, the active power and reactive power indicate almost same response

(except at the initial few hundred milliseconds) for aggregated solar-PV model and

distribution feeder-based model, hence in this case also, the aggregated solar-PV model can

replace the complex distributed solar-PV model.

Fig. 5.37: Active Power at the transformer LV side at 30% loading under unity power factor
mode.

83 | P a g e
Fig. 5.38: Reactive Power at transformer LV side at 30% loading under unity power factor
mode.

Scenario-2: Voltage control mode for a 50 ms SC fault at 30 % (45 kW) loading

For this scenario, where the solar-PV models operate at 30% loading under voltage control

mode, both active and reactive power has shown some significant difference during the post

fault period as shown in Fig. 5.39 and Fig. 5.40 respectively.

Fig. 5.39: Active Power at the transformer LV side at 30% loading under voltage control
mode.

84 | P a g e
Fig. 5.40: Reactive Power at the transformer LV side at 30% loading under voltage control
mode.

Chapter Summary

As spatially diversified solar-PV systems are not realistically represented by the

aggregated solar-PV model, therefore a detailed distribution feeder with solar-PV power

generation is modelled in this Chapter. Then both models are compared with each other under

steady-state and dynamic conditions. Steady-state comparisons between two models are in

good agreement with each other, in particular when operated at unity power factor mode.

However, when they are operated at voltage control mode, some differences could be seen in

reactive power at the transformer. In terms of the dynamic analysis, different fault durations

and solar-PV loading levels are investigated. According to the results of the dynamic

comparison, active power indicates some differences following fault clearance as the solar-

PV systems installed in the distribution feeder perceive different voltages at their respective

nodes, hence their individual dynamic response is different from each other. The difference

becomes larger when the fault duration increases, loading level reduces and when the solar-

PV systems are operated in voltage control mode.

85 | P a g e
 CHAPTER 6

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

FUTURE WORK
Thesis Conclusions

Due to environmental concerns over greenhouse gas emissions and global warming,

generating power from renewable energy sources has received enormous attention during the

last two decades. As a result, many power networks across the globe have integrated various

renewable power generators in their power networks. Among these renewable energy

sources, the solar-PV generation has a number of advantages, such as abundant nature of the

solar resource, low maintenance and operation cost etc. However, a solar-PV power

generation has some issues, such as intermittency of the source, naturally non-responsive

nature for system frequency events etc., hence, the stability of the power network could be

affected. Therefore, to accurately analyse the stability of the power network under high solar-

PV penetration levels, an aggregated solar-PV model was developed in this research.

At the initial stage of the research, a detailed dynamic model of the solar-PV system was

developed and two well-known current controllers; namely synchronous frame PI and

stationary frame PR controllers are analysed. It was concluded that both controllers provide

the same response depending on the system dynamics. Thus, synchronous frame PI current

controller was used for the solar-PV model developed in DIgSILENT Power Factory.

Then, a three-phase aggregated model was developed in DIgSILENT Power Factory and

conducted transient stability investigation using the IEEE-9 bus test system. The synchronous

generators in the IEEE-9 bus test system were methodically replaced with a similar capacity

(i.e. same MVA and MW ratings), aggregated solar-PV system. It was concluded that by

replacing the traditional synchronous generators with the aggregated solar-PV model, the

86 | P a g e
transient stability could be improved, especially when the solar-PV system was partially

loaded and operated at voltage control mode.

However, aggregated solar-PV modelling is a not a realistic approach as it does not

consider losses in transmission lines, and spatial distribution of solar-PV systems in a large

geographic area. Thus, a distribution feeder comprising of single-phase solar-PV systems was

developed and compared its dynamic response with an aggregated model as the last part of

the research. According to the investigation, both the aggregated solar-PV model and the

detailed distribution feeder-based model are in good agreement in steady-state. However,

dynamic comparison indicates some differences in active and reactive power responses at the

distribution transformer. This difference occurs mainly due to the different voltage values at

individual solar-PV units in the distribution feeder, hence active and reactive power response

from each solar-PV system is different from each other, and ultimately contributed to the

discrepancy between the aggregated model and the detailed distribution feeder model.

Furthermore, increased fault duration, reduced solar-PV loading level and voltage control

mode further increase the discrepancy between both models.

Recommendations for Future work

The following recommendations are made for future research studies:

• It is recommended to further improve the aggregated model dynamic response to

replicate the same behaviour as the distribution feeder-based model considering the

spatial distribution of solar-PV systems. In particular, as illustrated in Chapter-5 the

spatial distribution of single-phase solar-PV systems significantly affect the overall

response of the solar-PV systems under fault conditions due to different voltage levels

perceived at individual solar-PV nodes. Therefore, improved aggregated model should

87 | P a g e
 consider the spatial distribution effect to obtain more realistic aggregated solar-PV

model for stability studies.

• As this research is based on a low voltage distribution feeder (e.g. 400 V), the

aggregated solar-PV model developed in this research may not be suitable for

representing solar-PV systems connected to medium voltage (e.g. 33 kV, 66 kV) and

high voltage (e.g. 110 kV, 220 kV) networks. Therefore, further research studies are

required to improve the aggregated solar-PV model suitable for medium and high

voltage networks.

• The hybrid PV-wind based microgrids are increasingly being connected to power

networks. Hence further research studies are recommended to develop an aggregated

model for hybrid PV-wind microgrid systems.

88 | P a g e
REFERENCES
[1] O. Ellabban, H. Abu-Rub and F. Blaabjerg, "Renewable energy resources: Current status,

future prospects and their enabling technology", Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,

vol. 39, pp. 748-764, 2014.

[2] P. Anderson and A. Fouad, Power system control and stability. Piscataway (N.J.): IEEE

Press, 2003.

[3] P. Mohanty, G. Bhuvaneswari, R. Balasubramanian and N. Dhaliwal, "MATLAB based

modelling to study the performance of different MPPT techniques used for solar PV system

under various operating conditions", Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 38, pp.

581-593, 2014.

[4] O. Wasynczuk, "Dynamic Behaviour of a Class of Photovoltaic Power Systems", IEEE

Power Engineering Review, vol. 3, no. 9, pp. 36-37, 1983.

[5] N. Kasa, T. Iida and L. Chen, "Flyback Inverter Controlled by Sensorless Current MPPT

for Photovoltaic Power System", IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 52, no. 4,

pp. 1145-1152, 2005.

[6] N. Femia, G. Petrone, G. Spagnuolo and M. Vitelli, "Optimization of Perturb and Observe

Maximum Power Point Tracking Method", IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 20,

no. 4, pp. 963-973, 2005.

[7] C. Hua and J.R. Lin, "DSP-based controller application in battery storage of photovoltaic

system," Proceedings of the 1996 IEEE IECON. 22nd International Conference on Industrial

Electronics, Control, and Instrumentation, Taipei, pp. 1705-1710, vol.3, 1996.

89 | P a g e
[8] P. J. Wolfs and L. Tang, "A Single Cell Maximum Power Point Tracking Converter

without a Current Sensor for High Performance Vehicle Solar Arrays," 2005 IEEE 36th

Power Electronics Specialists Conference, pp. 165-171, 2005.

[9] M. de Brito, L. Galotto, L. Sampaio, G. e Melo and C. Canesin, "Evaluation of the Main

MPPT Techniques for Photovoltaic Applications", IEEE Transactions on Industrial

Electronics, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 1156-1167, 2013.

[10] W. Xiao, N. Ozog and W. Dunford, "Topology Study of Photovoltaic Interface for

Maximum Power Point Tracking", IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 54, no.

3, pp. 1696-1704, 2007.

[11] Y.T. Hsiao and C.H. Chen, "Maximum power tracking for photovoltaic power

system," Conference Record of the 2002 IEEE Industry Applications Conference. 37th IAS

Annual Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, pp. 1035-1040, vol.2, 2002.

[12] W. Xiao, and W.G. Dunford. "A modified adaptive hill climbing MPPT method for

photovoltaic power systems." Power Electronics Specialists Conference, 2004. PESC 04.

2004 IEEE 35th Annual. vol. 3. IEEE, 2004.

[13] S. B. Kjær, "Evaluation of the “Hill Climbing” and the “Incremental Conductance”

Maximum Power Point Trackers for Photovoltaic Power Systems," in IEEE Transactions on

Energy Conversion, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 922-929, Dec. 2012.

[14] D. Peftitsis, G. Adamidis and A. Balouktsis, "A new MPPT method for Photovoltaic

generation systems based on Hill Climbing algorithm," 2008 18th International Conference

on Electrical Machines, Vilamoura, pp. 1-5,2008.

90 | P a g e
[15] W. J. A. Teulings, J. C. Marpinard, A. Capel and D. O'Sullivan, "A new maximum

power point tracking system," Power Electronics Specialists Conference, 1993. PESC '93

Record., 24th Annual IEEE, Seattle, WA, USA, pp. 833-838,1983.

[16] T. Shimizu, O. Hashimoto and G. Kimura, "A novel high-performance utility-interactive

photovoltaic inverter system", IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 18, no. 2, pp.

704-711, 2003.

[17] A. Safari and S. Mekhilef, "Simulation and Hardware Implementation of Incremental

Conductance MPPT With Direct Control Method Using Cuk Converter", IEEE Transactions

on Industrial Electronics, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 1154-1161, 2011.

[18] K. Tey and S. Mekhilef, "Modified incremental conductance MPPT algorithm to

mitigate inaccurate responses under fast-changing solar irradiation level", Solar Energy, vol.

101, pp. 333-342, 2014.

[19] M. Lokanadham, M. and K. V. Bhaskar, K.V., “Incremental conductance based

maximum power point tracking (MPPT) for photovoltaic system.” International Journal of

Engineering Research and Applications (IJERA), vol. 2, pp. 1420-1424, 2012.

[20] N. S. D'Souza, L. A. C. Lopes and X. J. Liu, "An Intelligent Maximum Power Point

Tracker Using Peak Current Control," 2005 IEEE 36th Power Electronics Specialists

Conference, Recife, pp. 172, 2005.

[21] T. Y. Kim, H. G. Ahn, S. K. Park and Y. K. Lee, "A novel maximum power point

tracking control for photovoltaic power system under rapidly changing solar radiation," 2001

IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Electronics Proceedings, Pusan, South Korea,

pp. 1011-1014, vol.2, 2001.

91 | P a g e
[22] Q. Mei, M. Shan, L. Liu and J. Guerrero, "A Novel Improved Variable Step-Size

Incremental-Resistance MPPT Method for PV Systems", IEEE Transactions on Industrial

Electronics, vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 2427-2434, 2011.

[23] C. Larbes, S. Aït Cheikh, T. Obeidi and A. Zerguerras, "Genetic algorithms optimized

fuzzy logic control for the maximum power point tracking in photovoltaic

system", Renewable Energy, vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 2093-2100, 2009.

[24] B. Alajmi, K. Ahmed, S. Finney and B. Williams, "Fuzzy-Logic-Control Approach of a

Modified Hill-Climbing Method for Maximum Power Point in Microgrid Standalone

Photovoltaic System", IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 1022-

1030, 2011.

[25] W. Lin, C. Hong and C. Chen, "Neural-Network-Based MPPT Control of a Stand-Alone

Hybrid Power Generation System", IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics, vol. 26, no. 12,

pp. 3571-3581, 2011.

[26] H. Boumaaraf, A. Talha and O. Bouhali, “A three-phase NPC grid-connected inverter

for photovoltaic applications using neural network MPP T”, Renewable and Sustainable

Energy Reviews, vol. 49, pp. 1171-1179,2015.

[27] N. Patcharaprakiti, S. Premrudeepreechacharn, Y. Sriuthaisiriwong,"Maximum power

point tracking using adaptive fuzzy logic control for grid-connected photovoltaic system",

Renewable Energy, vol. 30, pp. 1771-1788,2005.

[28] F. Blaabjerg, R. Teodorescu, M. Liserre and A. V. Timbus, "Overview of Control and

Grid Synchronization for Distributed Power Generation Systems," IEEE Transactions on

Industrial Electronics, vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 1398-1409, Oct. 2006.

92 | P a g e
[29] A. Timbus, M. Liserre, R. Teodorescu, P. Rodriguez and F. Blaabjerg, "Evaluation of

Current Controllers for Distributed Power Generation Systems," IEEE Transactions on

Power Electronics, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 654-664, March 2009.

[30] D. G. Holmes, B. P. McGrath and S. G. Parker, "Current Regulation Strategies for

Vector-Controlled Induction Motor Drives," IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics,

vol. 59, no. 10, pp. 3680-3689, Oct. 2012.

[31] M. Ciobotaru, R. Teodorescu and F. Blaabjerg, "A new single-phase PLL structure

based on second order generalized integrator," 2006 37th IEEE Power Electronics Specialists

Conference, Jeju, pp. 1-6, 2006.

[32] Y. T. Tan, D. S. Kirschen and N. Jenkins, "A model of PV generation suitable for

stability analysis," IEEE Transactions on Energy Conversion, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 748-755,

Dec. 2004.

[33] C. Rodriguez and G. A. J. Amaratunga, "Dynamic stability of grid-connected

photovoltaic systems," IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting, 2004., Denver,

CO, pp. 2193-2199 Vol.2, 2004.

[34] B. K. Perera, S. R. Pulikanti, P. Ciufo and S. Perera, "Simulation model of a grid-

connected single-phase photovoltaic system in PSCAD/EMTDC," 2012 IEEE International

Conference on Power System Technology (POWERCON), Auckland, pp. 1-6, 2012.

[35] P. P. Dash and M. Kazerani, "Dynamic Modeling and Performance Analysis of a Grid-

Connected Current-Source Inverter-Based Photovoltaic System," IEEE Transactions on

Sustainable Energy, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 443-450, Oct. 2011.

[36] L. Xie et al., "Wind Integration in Power Systems: Operational Challenges and Possible

Solutions," in Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 99, no. 1, pp. 214-232, Jan. 2011.

93 | P a g e
[37] L. Meegahapola, and T. Littler. "Characterisation of large disturbance rotor angle and

voltage stability in interconnected power networks with distributed wind generation." IET

Renewable Power Generation, vol.9, no. 3, pp. 272-283, 2014.

[38] M. Morjaria, D. Anichkov, V. Chadliev and S. Soni, "A Grid-Friendly Plant: The Role

of Utility-Scale Photovoltaic Plants in Grid Stability and Reliability," IEEE Power and

Energy Magazine, vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 87-95, May-June 2014.

[39] S. Eftekharnejad, V. Vittal, G. T. Heydt, B. Keel and J. Loehr, "Impact of increased

penetration of photovoltaic generation on power systems," IEEE Transactions on Power

Systems, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 893-901, May 2013.

[40] R. Elliott, R. Byrne, A. Ellis and L. Grant, "Impact of increased photovoltaic generation

on inter-area oscillations in the Western North American power system," 2014 IEEE PES

General Meeting | Conference & Exposition, National Harbor, MD, pp. 1-5,2014.

[41] B. Tamimi, C. Cañizares and K. Bhattacharya, "System Stability Impact of Large-Scale

and Distributed Solar Photovoltaic Generation: The Case of Ontario, Canada," IEEE

Transactions on Sustainable Energy, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 680-688, July 2013.

[42] P. K. Olulope, K. A. Folly and G. K. Venayagamoorthy, "Modeling and simulation of

hybrid distributed generation and its impact on transient stability of power system," 2013

IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology (ICIT), Cape Town, pp. 1757-

1762,2013.

[43] R. Shah, N. Mithulananthan, R.C. Bansal and V.K. Ramachandaramurthy,"A review of

key power system stability challenges for large-scale PV integration", Renewable and

Sustainable Energy Reviews,Vol. 41,pp. 1423-1436, 2015.

94 | P a g e
[44] H. Liu, L. Jin, D. Le and A. A. Chowdhury, "Impact of high penetration of solar

photovoltaic generation on power system small signal stability," 2010 International

Conference on Power System Technology, Hangzhou, pp. 1-7, 2010.

[45] P. Kundur et al., "Definition and classification of power system stability IEEE/CIGRE

joint task force on stability terms and definitions," IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol.

19, no. 3, pp. 1387-1401, Aug. 2004.

[46] E. Munkhchuluun, L. Meegahapola and A. Vahidnia, "Impact on rotor angle stability

with high Solar-PV power generation in power networks," 2017 IEEE PES Innovative Smart

Grid Technologies Conference Europe (ISGT-Europe), Torino, pp. 1-6, 2017.

[47] P. Anderson and A. Fouad, Power system control and stability. Piscataway (N.J.): IEEE

Press, 2003.

[48] Grid connection of energy systems via inverters. Sydney, N.S.W.: Standards Australia

Limited, 2016.

95 | P a g e
APPENDIX- A SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF THE SOLAR-PV SYSTEM

DEVELOPED IN PSIM

96 | P a g e
APPENDIX B- A SCHEMATIC OF THE P&O MPPT ALGORITHM IN

THE PSIM

97 | P a g e
APPENDIX C- A SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF THE SOLAR-PV
SYSTEM WITH PI CONTROLLER IN PSIM

98 | P a g e
APPENDIX D- A SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF THE IEEE-9 BUS
SYSTEM IN DIgSILENT POWER FACTORY

99 | P a g e
APPENDIX E- A SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF THE DISTRIBUTION
FEEDER MODEL IN DIgSILENT POWER FACTORY

100 | P a g e
APPENDIX F- A SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF THE AGGREGATED
SOLAR-PV MODEL IN DIgSILENT POWER FACTORY

101 | P a g e
APPENDIX G- A SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF THE ACTIVE POWER

REDUCTION DSL BLOCK

102 | P a g e
APPENDIX H- A SCHEMATIC OF THE DC BUSBAR AND

CAPACITOR DSL BLOCK

103 | P a g e