The 2010 International Power Electronics Conference

Improving Power Quality and Distribution Efficiency in Micro-Grids by Cooperative Control of Switching Power Interfaces
Paolo Tenti, Alessandro Costabeber
Department of Information Engineering, University of Padova, Italy

Center for Power Electronics Systems, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg (VA), USA Abstract- Smart grids offer a wide application domain for power electronics. In fact, every distributed energy resource (DER) includes an electronic power processor (Switching Power Interface, SPI) which controls the currents drawn from the grid and can be driven to optimize the power flow, improve voltage stability and increase distribution efficiency. For these aims, such distributed SPIs must perform cooperatively. This is true also in low-voltage residential micro-grids, where the number of active DERs and the generated power may vary during daytime, thus requiring dynamic adaptation of SPI operation. To achieve this goal different approaches can be adopted, depending on the available communication capability. This paper discusses various control solutions applicable in absence of supervisory control, e.g., in residential micro-grids, where communication is possible between neighbor units only (surround control) or is not available at all (plug & play control). Index Terms Micro-grids, Power quality, Switching power interfaces, Distributed control.

Paolo Mattavelli

I. INTRODUCTION The smart grid represents a grand challenge at planetary level [1,2]. The infusion of information technology [3] throughout the electric grid will create new capabilities, with impact on environment, science and technology, economics and lifestyle. A change of paradigm in the electric market organization and management is expected. There are multiple drivers for such evolution: increasing demand for reliable energy supply and environmental quality; more pervasive use of small-scale renewable energy sources; modernization of the electricity sector by extensive ICT application; electrical industry reorganization and increasing competitiveness of power markets; active participation of customers to grid operation by new supply contracts and pricing schemes. Such dramatic innovation of electrical market and grid infrastructure will obviously open new problems, risks and opportunities. In particular, an increasing number of alternative energy sources will progressively improve distribution efficiency and supply flexibility, at the expense of an increasing complexity of control and

accountability. Distributed control and communication architectures [4-7] shall be developed to allow efficient utilization of distributed energy resources while ensuring power quality and network stability [8,9]. This will be possible by upgrading dispatchers capability in mediumvoltage distribution grids [10], while different solutions shall be devised for low-voltage residential micro-grids [11,12], where a proliferation of small energy sources with limited control and communication capability is expected. In this situation, energy efficiency and power quality [13,14] shall be pursued by taking advantage of local control capabilities implemented in distributed SPIs, i.e., in the switching converters interfacing each energy source with the distribution grid. In this paper, we discuss two control approaches which are applicable to the SPIs acting in a low-voltage residential smart micro-grid. The goal is to optimize exploitation of local energy sources, improve voltage stability, and reduce distribution loss in a situation where the communication capability is limited to neighbor units or is not available at all. II. PRELIMINARY CONTROL ASSUMPTIONS In residential smart micro-grids the loads are fed by the utility at low voltage, and a number of distributed energy resources contribute to power balance. This paper deals with the control techniques applicable to electronic power processors interfacing DERs with the grid. As a preliminary remark we observe that, in order to avoid network instability, SPIs should generally perform as controlled current sources. In this way, network dynamics are marginally affected even if the number of distributed energy resources and their generated power change during the time. Moreover, there is no risk of over-currents injected into the grid due to voltage transients. In practice, current-mode control of the SPIs is possible only for grid-connected operation, when the utility appears as a voltage source. Instead, in the islanded mode or during network transients some SPI shall switch to voltage-mode control with droop function [15-17]. In addition, we need to avoid control instabilities caused by the interaction of control systems acting in neighbor SPIs. In fact, neighbor units are coupled by lowimpedance paths and their control loops can interact, causing limit cycles, in case of simultaneous operation.

978-1-4244-5393-1/10/$26.00 2010 IEEE

472

The 2010 International Power Electronics Conference

These instabilities can be avoided by assuming that every SPI performs control in a timeslot TC which holds few line cycles (active phase, 40-60 ms) and repeats with period TR (repetition period, some seconds). In the time interval between two active phases the SPI performs like a current source with stable current references (hold phase). This avoids instabilities due to interaction of multiple units and stabilizes the impedance seen by each SPI during the active state. In order to minimize the possibility of simultaneous operation of SPIs, timeslot TC can be randomized along repetition period TR . Alternatively, if neighbor units can communicate, a token ring approach can be adopted [11]. In this case, the active phase begins when the SPI receives the token, i.e., a data packet which contains operative instructions (prioritized activation signals, to request intervention of specific DERs; extra power demand, to face network transients; etc) or emergency instructions (immediate turn-off in case of fault; islanded operation request, with activation of power-frequency droop function [15-17]; etc). When the active phase ends, the token is sent to the next SPI in line. III. PRINCIPLE OF OPTIMUM LOCAL CONTROL In this section we determine the optimum values of the current and voltage at a generic node of a smart microgrid, so as to minimize the power loss in the distribution lines connected to that node. This sets the basis for optimum local control. a) Optimum branch currents Consider the simplified single-phase representation of the distribution line path connecting two neighbor nodes A and B shown in Fig. 1. Assuming that node voltages are sinusoidal, we can refer to their voltage phasors U A and U B . Similarly, I AB and I BA are the phasors of the currents fed by nodes A and B into path A-B. Let I L k be the current absorbed by the k-th load connected along path A-B, k the distance between loads k and k + 1 , and I k the line current flowing in branch k , we have:
I k = I AB
k =1

The distribution loss in path A-B is expressed by:

Ploss =
K k =0 2 r k Ik = K k =0 * r k Ik Ik

where the asterisk means complex conjugate and r is the resistance per unit of length of the line. In [11] it was demonstrated that the distribution loss is minimized if I AB takes the optimum value:
opt I AB =

1 d AB

K k =1

I Lk dBk

(1.a)

where d AB is the path length and d B k is the distance between load k and node B. Similarly, the optimum value of I BA is:
opt I BA =

1 d AB

K k =1

I L k d Ak

(1.b)

Observe that:
opt opt I AB + I BA =

K k =1

tot I Lk = I L

(1.c)

tot where I L is the total current absorbed by the loads connected to the distribution line along path A-B. Note that optimum node currents depend only on the load currents and their distribution along the path. Instead, they are not affected by node voltages. Note also that (1) are valid separately for the real and imaginary current components. Thus, active and reactive currents can be optimized independently. This allows selection of active currents to suit energy needs, while reactive currents can be set to minimize power loss and perform voltage support. Note finally that (1) express also the actual currents absorbed by the loads from nodes A and B if they are equipotential. This reflects the fact that the line alone operates with minimum distribution loss.

b) Actual branch currents The voltage drop along the line can be expressed as:
U AB = U A U B =
K k =0 opt z k I k = z d AB I AB I AB

IL
dAk dBk dB1
1 k

dA1 A + . UA 0

IAB
.

I1 IL1
.

... IL2
.

Ik ILk ILk+1
.

B ... ILK
.

IBA

where z = r + j x is the impedance per unit of length of the distribution line in path A-B. We can rewrite the above equation in the form: U UB opt opt circ (2.a) I AB = I AB + A = I AB + I AB z d AB This means that the current fed by node A includes two opt terms: optimum current I AB , which balances the load
circ currents, and circulation current I AB , which depends on the voltage difference between nodes A and B. The minimum distribution loss occurs if the voltage drop circ along line A-B is zero and I AB vanishes. Similarly, for node B we have: U UA opt opt circ (2.b) I BA = I BA + B = I BA + I BA z d AB

+ UB .

LOADS

Fig. 1 Representation of distribution line between nodes A and B

473

The 2010 International Power Electronics Conference

UK NK . IKN

N2 U2 . . . . I2N IN2 IN1 INK N INk . UN LOADS

. . . .

I1N . N1 U1 Uk Nk
.

IkN

current in branches L1 LK vanish. However, due to distribution grid linearity, if all nodes in the grid progressively approach condition (5.a) they tend to become equipotential, which is the condition for minimum distribution loss. If we assume that the impedance per unit of length of the line is nearly the same for all paths, (5.a) can be rewritten in the simplified form:
opt UN =

Fig. 2 General representation of a grid section

Uk k =1 d k

1 k =1 d k

(5.b)

circ circ Not finally that I AB + I BA = 0 , thus:

opt opt tot I AB + I BA = I AB + I BA = I L (2.c) Equations (2) set the relations between node voltages and currents for a given load distribution and are the basis for optimum local control of the SPIs connected to the micro-grid. Finally, it is interesting to note that the power loss in path A-B can be expressed by:
opt opt circ circ Ploss = Ploss + Ploss = Ploss + r d AB I AB

where d k is the length of branch Lk . Finally, a rough estimation of optimum node voltage can be obtained by setting: 1 K opt opt UN U (5.c) K k =1 k which does not even require to know path impedances. Note that, owing to network linearity, impressing at node N optimum current (4.b) or optimum voltage (5.a) are equivalent provisions. IV. SURROUND CONTROL From the above results, an optimum control technique can be devised under the assumption that neighbor nodes can exchange data on their measured node voltages and path currents. Note first that application of (5.a) requires to know line impedances Z1 Z K , while (5.b) requires the distances between grid nodes. In some cases, these parameters (or at least the prevailing ones) are approximately known, given the distribution scheme of the micro-grid. If not, they can be roughly derived by estimation. Consider however that usual methods to estimate line impedances, e.g. the noise injection technique [18,19], are not applicable in our case. In fact, during the active phase of node N, the surrounding nodes are in the hold phase and perform as current sources. Thus the impedance seen by node N into generic path Lk depends also on the network beyond node k , and it is generally different from Z k . To estimate Z k , we refer to the representation of path Lk shown in Fig.3, where total load current is applied at the intermediate node N L k . Given voltage U k and currents I N k and I k N fed by nodes N and k, from (2.c) we compute the total load current in path Lk as
tot I L k = I N k + I k N . Impedances Z kL and Z NL can then be

( )

(3)

opt where Ploss is the power loss in the optimum condition.

c) Node currents Consider a generic portion of micro-grid, schematically represented in Fig.2, where node N connects to surrounding nodes N1 N K through line paths L1 LK . Let U N be the voltage of node N, and U1 U K those of surrounding nodes, from (2) we get the value of the current at node N by simply adding all terms corresponding to paths L1 LK . The result is:
IN =
K k =1 opt circ IN k = IN + IN

(4.a)

where:

opt IN = circ IN =

K k =1 K k =1

opt INk

(4.b) (4.c)

U N U k Zk

Z k being the impedance of path Lk . Optimum node

opt current I N depends on the loads fed by lines L1 LK ,

depends on the voltage while circulation current differences between node N and the surrounding nodes. d) Optimum node voltage Note from (4.c) that the node voltage which causes opt node N to feed only optimum current I N is:
opt UN =

circ IN

circ IN

If we apply this voltage to node N, circulation current zeroes. This does not mean that every circulation

Uk k =1 Z k

1 Zk k =1

determined by solving the circuit of Fig.3. For a rough estimation we can assume that they are nearly equal, thus: U Uk (6) Zk 2 N I N k Ik N Given impedances Z k the optimum node voltage is then computed according to (5.a). A different approach can be adopted if the node distances are known or can be estimated, e.g., by

(5.a)

474

The 2010 International Power Electronics Conference

Fig. 3 Equivalent Circuit for branch k

measuring the propagation delay of signals injected at the surrounding nodes [20]. In this case, solution (5.b) can be applied to compute the optimum node voltage. As already said, controlling directly the node voltages can cause high circulation currents and grid instability. We can however turn the above voltage control algorithm into a current control technique, so as to prevent such risk. For this purpose, consider that the optimum node voltage is achieved if total circulation current vanishes. Recalling that optimum path currents are related to total load current by (1), from the scheme of Fig.3 we get: Z k L tot opt I Lk (7) INk = Zk The collective optimum node current is then obtained by (4.b) and is applied as the current reference for SPI control. For grid-connected operation, these references are actually applied to determine SPI reactive currents. In case of weak grid connection, the SPI can perform a voltage support function too. For this purpose, if some surrounding voltages are outside the allowed voltage range, in computing (5.a) we set, in place of their actual voltage amplitude, the value corresponding to the closest limit condition (maximum or minimum voltage allowed). V. PLUG AND PLAY CONTROL The control techniques described in this section require only measurements done at the grid node where the SPI is connected, without communication with neighbor nodes. There are primarily two techniques: minimum loss control, which aims at a quasi-minimum condition for the distribution loss in the line paths entering the node, and voltage support, which aims at keeping the node voltage within the allowed range. a) Minimum loss control This control technique requires to measure all currents I N k flowing out of node N into paths L1 LK shown in Fig. 2. The goal is to minimize the total distribution loss by minimizing one of the cost functions:

load currents only. Thus, minimization of total rms currents results in minimization of circulation currents. Function r gives the most accurate estimation of the power loss, but requires knowledge of the path resistances; instead, function d assumes that the resistance per unit of length is the same for all paths, and requires to know only the path lengths; finally, function gives the less accurate estimation of the path losses and assumes that the path resistances are all equal. Whichever the cost function, the following approach allows to determine the optimum operation condition. Lets apply a small perturbation dI N to node current and measure the corresponding current variations dI N k in each branch Lk . We set the proportionality coefficients

N k as:

Nk =

dI N k dI N
Q

(9.a)

0 o where Q is the node status (voltage U N and current I N ) when the small perturbation is applied. Assuming that the network is linear, we can apply coefficients N k also to

determine current variations I N k in response to a large perturbation I N of the node current, i.e.:
I N k = N k I N

(9.b)

Assuming, for instance, cost function as an indicator of the power loss, we can write:

K k =1

2 IN k =

K k =1

(I

o Nk

o + I N k I N k + I N k

)(

The minimum of this function is achieved for:

K

I N =

k =1 K k =1

* o IN k N k * N k N k

(10.a)

r =

K k =1

2 Rk I N k , d =

K k =1

2 dk I N k , =

K k =1

2 INk

(8)

The node current which optimizes the cost function is therefore given by: o I N = I N + I N (10.b) Of course, application of optimum solution (10) is possible only within the current capability of the SPI connected to node N. In addition, it presumes independent control of the active and reactive current. If the active current is constrained to control the power flow from the energy source into the grid, as it normally happens for renewable energy sources, solution (10) can be applied to determine the reactive current only. In fact, active and reactive currents are orthogonal, and their contributions to the power loss are additive. b) Voltage support In case of weak grid, the SPI can perform also some voltage support, although this is not very common in grid-connected operation. In this case, within the current capability of the SPI, the control aims at minimizing the

In fact, recall from (3) that the power loss is minimized if the circulation currents vanish. Moreover, (2) show that only circulation currents are affected by the node voltages, while optimum current components depend on

475

The 2010 International Power Electronics Conference

difference between actual rms voltage U N at node N and a suitable reference value U ref . This requires to measure node voltage U N and current I N fed by the node into the grid, and to estimate the total equivalent impedance Z eq seen by node N [18,19].
o o If U N and I N are the node quantities at the beginning of

the active phase, let Z eq = R + j X and assuming for

o o o simplicity that U N is purely real ( U N = U N + j 0 ), the

node voltage after a current variation I N becomes:

' " o o U N = U N + Z eq I N = U N + Z eq I N + j I N

The real and imaginary components of the voltage are: ' ' " " ' " o U N = U N + R I N X I N , U N = X I N + R I N Thus the rms value of the node voltage becomes:
o '2 " 2 2 o ' " U N = U N 2 + Z eq I N + I N2 + 2 U N R I N X I N

(11) From (11) we can easily determine the current increments which cause voltage U N to approach U ref .
' If active current component I N is used to control the power flow, the voltage support can only be provided by " regulating reactive current I N . However, from (11) we observe that this solution works well if the line is inductive, but is less effective in case of cabled grids, which are mostly resistive. This sets the main limitation of this technique.

VI. APPLICATION EXAMPLE The optimal surround control and the two simplified plug and play approaches have been tested by simulation for the single-phase low-voltage residential micro-grid of Fig.4, which includes a set of loads absorbing variable active and reactive power (10-55 kW, cos =0.7-0.95, V=230Vrms, f=50Hz) and three distributed energy resources. DER1 is a 30 kW micro-turbine combined with an energy storage device, both controlled by SPI1, that is rated for 70 kVA. DER2 is the combination of a 5 kW residential wind turbine and a 5 kW flat-roof PV panel,

with SPI2 rated for 15 kVA. Finally, DER3 is a 15 kW micro-turbine, with SPI3 is rated for 25 kVA. The distribution line is made by a cable with an impedance per meter of 0.16m -1H. The distance between the grid connection and SPI1 is 100 m. The same distance occurs between SPIs and to the distance between the most peripheral loads and the nearest SPI. Initially, the line impedance at the utility terminals is 15m - 100H (stiff grid). Under these conditions, the voltage support technique was tested for theoretical verification only, since the line impedance is not high enough to justify the voltage support. A case with higher line impedance is reported later. Figs.5-8 show respectively the active and reactive currents taken from the utility and the active and reactive currents generated by each DER. Initially all loads (taking 80% of rated power at cos =0.9) are fed by the utility and the DERs are disconnected. At time t=2s DER1 is turned on and ramps up to rated active power. At t=5s the reactive current control of DER1 is switched on. At time t=8s DER2 is turned on and ramps up to 90% of rated active power. Its reactive current control is activated at t=11s. At time t=14s DER3 is turned on and reaches the rated active power. Its reactive current control is activated at t=17s. Finally, at time t=20s the utility is disconnected. The detection of the islanded condition activates the energy storage in SPI1, which is controlled as a voltage source to provide a voltage reference in absence of the main generator, ensuring the voltage stability of the micro-grid. Fig.9 shows the time behavior of the RMS voltages at the terminals T1, T2 and T3 of Fig. 4, which correspond respectively to the PCC and the most peripheral loads. The voltages stabilization obtained with the (Plug & Play) Voltage Support control technique is evident, because the node voltages are stable in spite of the weak grid. In all cases, the power demand is properly distributed among the various sources in every operating condition, and the grid performs steadily even in the islanded mode.
500

Grid currents

IactiveGRID (A)

400 300 200 100 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

SPI1 ON (Active) SPI1 ON (Reactive) SPI2 ON SPI2 ON SPI3 ON (Active) (Reactive) (Active) SPI3 ON (Reactive) ISLANDED MODE

IreactiveGRID (A)

150 100

SPI1 OFF SPI2 OFF SPI3 OFF

50 0

Fig. 4 - Example of residential micro-grid

Time (s) Fig. 5 Active and reactive current drawn from the grid: Surround Control (continuous red line), Energy Efficient Plug & Play (dashed blue line) and Voltage Support Plug & Play (dotted green line)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

476

The 2010 International Power Electronics Conference

400

SPI1 currents

SPI1 OFF SPI2 OFF SPI3 OFF

SPI1 ON (Active)

SPI1 ON (Reactive)

SPI2 ON (Active)

SPI2 ON SPI3 ON (Reactive) (Active)

SPI3 ON (Reactive)

ISLANDED MODE

IactiveSPI1 (A)

300 200 100 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

SPI1 ON (Active) SPI1 ON (Reactive) SPI2 ON SPI2 ON SPI3 ON (Active) (Reactive) (Active) SPI3 ON (Reactive) ISLANDED MODE

235 230 225 220 215 210 235 230 225 220 215 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

(V)

a)

150

SPI1 OFF SPI2 OFF SPI3 OFF

IreactiveSPI1 (A)

100 50 0

(V)

b)

Time (s) Fig. 6 SPI1 active and reactive current references: Surround Control (continuous red line), Energy Efficient Plug & Play (dashed blue line), Voltage Support Plug & Play (dotted green line), current drawn from SPI1 during the Islanded Mode (dasheddotted black line)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

210 235 230 225 220 215 210

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

(V)

c)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

60

SPI2 currents

Time (s)

IactiveSPI2 (A)

40 20 0

Fig. 9 RMS voltages at nodes T1 (a), T2 (b) and T3 (c): Surround Control (continuous red line), Energy Efficient Plug & Play (dashed blue line), Voltage Support Plug & Play (dotted green line)
SPI1 OFF SPI2 OFF SPI3 OFF SPI1 ON (Active) SPI1 ON (Reactive) SPI2 ON (Active)

60

SPI1 OFF SPI2 OFF SPI3 OFF

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
SPI1 ON (Active) SPI1 ON (Reactive) SPI2 ON SPI2 ON SPI3 ON (Active) (Reactive) (Active) SPI3 ON (Reactive) ISLANDED MODE

7000 6000 5000

Line losses

SPI2 ON SPI3 ON (Reactive) (Active)

SPI3 ON (Reactive)

ISLANDED MODE

IreactiveSPI2 (A)

40

losses (W)

20 0

4000 3000 2000 1000 0

Time (s) Fig. 7 Active and reactive current drawn from the SPI2: Surround Control (continuous red line), Energy Efficient Plug & Play (dashed blue line), Voltage Support Plug & Play (dotted green line)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Time (s)

80

SPI3 currents

IactiveSPI3 (A)

60 40 20 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
SPI1 ON (Active) SPI1 ON (Reactive) SPI2 ON SPI2 ON SPI3 ON (Active) (Reactive) (Active) SPI3 ON (Reactive) ISLANDED MODE

Fig. 10 Distribution losses: Surround Control (continuous red line), Energy Efficient Plug & Play (dashed blue line), Voltage Support Plug & Play (dotted green line)

80

SPI1 OFF SPI2 OFF SPI3 OFF

60 40 20 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Time (s) Fig. 8 Active and reactive current drawn from the SPI3: Surround Control (continuous red line), Energy Efficient Plug & Play (dashed blue line), Voltage Support Plug & Play (dotted green line)

The drawback is the increase of distribution loss due to non-optimum current injection. Finally, Fig. 10 shows the time behavior of the total distribution loss with the proposed control techniques. The voltage support has been tested also in the more realistic scenario where the inductive component of the line impedance is increased to 300H. The loads and the SPI active currents are the same as in the previous case, while the SPI control sequence is different: in t=2s SPI1 active power is turned on, followed by SPI2 and SPI3 at t=4s and t=6s, respectively. At t=10s a 15% grid voltage drop occurs, from 230Vrms to 195Vrms. The SPI node voltages fall out of the allowed variation range (10% of rated value) and the voltage support by reactive current control is turned on. The reactive currents are determined so as to push the voltages within the acceptable tolerance

IreactiveSPI3 (A)

477

The 2010 International Power Electronics Conference

band. Reactive current control is turned on in sequence, beginning with SPI1 at t=11s, then SPI2 at t=14s and finally SPI3 at t=17s. As can be seen in Figs. 11-14 , the proposed solution is able to drive the voltages close to their nominal values.
500

GRID VOLTAGE STEP SPI1 OFF SPI2 OFF SPI3 OFF SPI1 ON (Active) SPI2 ON (Active) SPI3 ON (Active) SPI1 ON (Reactive) SPI2 ON (Reactive) SPI3 ON (Reactive)

260 240

(V)

a)

220 200 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 260 240 220 200 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 260

Grid currents

IactiveGRID (A)

400 300 200 100 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

SPI1 ON (Active) SPI2 ON (Active) SPI3 ON (Active) SPI1 ON (Reactive) SPI2 ON (Reactive) SPI3 ON (Reactive)

(V)

b)

SPI1 OFF SPI2 OFF SPI3 OFF

500

IreactiveGRID (A)

400 300 200 100 0

GRID VOLTAGE STEP

240

(V)

220 200 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

c)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Time (s)

Time (s)

Fig. 11 Active and reactive current drawn from the grid

SPI currents

Fig. 14 RMS voltages at nodes T1 a), T2 b) and T3 c)

Active Currents (A)

200 150 100 50 0

VII. CONCLUSIONS An optimum control approach has been presented, which can be implemented in electronic power processors interfacing distributed energy resources with residential micro-grids. It allows reduction of distribution losses, full utilization of renewable energy sources and local support to voltage stabilization without requiring overrating of power converters or central control units. Implementation can be done according to two different algorithms, depending on available communication capability: surround control, which requires local communication between neighbor units, and plug & play control, which does not require communication at all. In both cases, the network performance is significantly improved, both in grid-connected and islanded operation. REFERENCES
[1] J. Driesen, R. Belmans, "Distributed generation: challenges and possible solutions", IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting, 2006. [2] M Momoh, J.A., Smart grid design for efficient and flexible power networks operation and control Power Systems, IEEE/PES Conference and Exposition, 2009. (PSCE '09), pp: 1-8. [3] Sood, V.K.; Fischer, D.; Eklund, J.M.; Brown, T.; Developing a communication infrastructure for the Smart Grid, Electrical Power & Energy Conference (EPEC), 2009 , pp: 1-7. [4] P.Tenti, E.Tedeschi, D.Trombetti, P.Mattavelli Compensation of load unbalance, reactive power and harmonic distortion by cooperative operation of distributed compensators, European Conference on Power Electronics & Applications (EPE09), Barcelona, 2009. [5] P.Jintakosonwit, H.Fujita, H.Akagi, S.Ogasawara: Implementation and Performance of Cooperative Control of Shunt Active Filters for Harmonic Damping Throughout a Power Distribution System IEEE Trans on Industry Applications, pp. 556563, 2003. [6] P. T. Cheng, T. L. Lee, Distributed active filter systems (DAFSs): A new approach to power system harmonics, IEEE Trans on Industry Applications, pp. 13011309, 2006.

SPI1 OFF SPI2 OFF SPI3 OFF

SPI1 ON (Active)

SPI2 ON (Active)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
SPI3 ON (Active) SPI1 ON (Reactive) SPI2 ON (Reactive) SPI3 ON (Reactive)

Reactive Currents (A)

150
GRID VOLTAGE STEP

100

50

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Time (s)

Fig. 12 SPI1 (continuous red line), SPI2 (dotted blue line), SPI3 (dashed-dotted black line) active and reactive current references
GRID VOLTAGE STEP SPI1 OFF SPI2 OFF SPI3 OFF SPI1 ON (Active) SPI2 ON (Active) SPI3 ON (Active) (Reactive) (Reactive) Line losses SPI1 ON SPI2 ON SPI3 ON (Reactive)

7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000

losses (W)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Time (s) Fig. 13 Distribution losses

478

The 2010 International Power Electronics Conference

[7] Tzung-Lin Lee, Chia-Tse Lee, Po-Tai Cheng, An Autonomous Harmonic Filtering Strategy for Distributed Energy Resources Converters in Microgrid, Brazilian Power Electronics Conference, Bonito (Brazil), 2009. [8] J. H. R. Enslin and P. J. M. Heskes, Harmonic interaction between a large number of distributed power inverters and the distribution network, IEEE Trans. Power Electronics, pp. 15861593, 2004. [9] Lian, S.; Morii, S.; Ishii, T.; Kawamoto, S.; Voltage stability and sensitivity analysis considering dynamic load for smart grid , International Conference on Innovative Smart Grid Technologies (ISGT), 2010 , pp: 1-6. [10] Mohd, E. Ortjohann, W. Sinsukthavorn, M. Lingemann, N. Hamsic, D. Morton, Supervisory Control and Energy Management of an Inverter-based Modular Smart Grid, IEEE Power Systems Conference and Exposition, 2009, pp.1-6. [11] P.Tenti, D.Trombetti, P.Mattavelli, A. Costabeber: Distribution Loss Minimization by Token Ring Control of Power Electronic Interfaces in Residential Micro-Grids, IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Electronics (ISIE 2010), Bari, July 2010. [12] P.Tenti, A. Costabeber, D.Trombetti, P.Mattavelli: Plug & Play Operation of Distributed Energy Resources in Micro-Grids, IEEE International Telecommunications Energy Conference (INTELEC 2010), Orlando, June 2010. [13] Chiradeja, P.; Benefit of Distributed Generation: A Line Loss Reduction Analysis , IEEE/PES Transmission and Distribution Conference and Exhibition, 2005, pp. 1-5. [14] Xu Wei; Zhou Yu-hui; Zhu Jie-lin; Energy-efficient distribution in smart grid, International Conference on Sustainable Power Generation and Supply (SUPERGEN), 2009, pp: 1-6. [15] K. De Brabandere, B. Bolsens, J. Van den Keybus, A. Woyte, J. Driesen, R. BelmansK.U.Leuven, A Voltage and Frequency Droop Control Method for Parallel Inverters, IEEE Trans. on Power Electr., Vol. 22, Issue 4, pp. 1107-1115, Jul. 2007 [16] J. M. Guerrero, L. G. de Vicua, J. Matas, M. Castilla, J. Miret, Output Impedance Design for Parallel-Connected UPS Inverters with Wireless Load-Sharing Control, IEEE Trans. On Ind. Electr., Vol. 52, Issue 4, pp. 1126-1135, Aug. 2005 [17] L. Xinchun, F. Feng, D. Shanxu, K. Yong; C. Jian, Modeling and Stability Analysis for two Paralleled UPS with no Control Interconnection, IEEE International Electric Machines and Drives Conference (IEMDC 2003), Vol. 3, 1-4 June 2003, pp 1772 1776. [18] L. Asiminoei, R. Teodorescu, F. Blaabjerg, and U. Borup, A Digital Controlled PV-Inverter With Grid Impedance Estimation for ENS Detection, IEEE Trans. on Power Electronics, pp. 14801490, 2005. [19] C. Mihai, R. Teodorescu and F. Blaabjerg, On-line grid impedance estimation based on harmonic injection for gridconnected PV inverter, IEEE International Symposium on Industrial Electronics (ISIE), 2007, pp. 2437-2442. [20] J.Kim, J.Lee,E.Serpedin, K.Qaraqe, A robust estimation scheme for clock phase offsets in wireless sensor networks in the presence of non-Gaussian random delays, Journal on Signal Processing, pp. 11551161, 2009.

479