4.7 Article

A Fast Scalable Quasi-Static Time Series Analysis Method for PV Impact Studies Using Linear Sensitivity Model

Journal

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE ENERGY
Volume 10, Issue 1, Pages 301-310

Publisher

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TSTE.2018.2833748

Keywords

Quasi-static time series; PV impact studies; multiple linear regression; voltage sensitivity analysis

Funding

  1. DOE SunShot Initiative [30691]
  2. U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration [DE-NA0003525]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Understanding the impact of distributed photovoltaic (PV) resources on various elements of the distribution feeder is imperative for their cost effective integration. A year-long quasi-static time series (QSTS) simulation at 1-second granularity is often necessary to fully study these impacts. However, the significant computational burden associated with running QSTS simulations is a major challenge to their adoption. In this paper, we propose a fast scalable QSTS simulation algorithm that is based on a linear sensitivity model for estimating voltage-related PV impact metrics of a three-phase unbalanced, nonradial distribution system with various discrete step control elements including tap changing transformers and capacitor banks. The algorithm relies on computing voltage sensitivities while taking into account all the effects of discrete controllable elements in the circuit. Consequently, the proposed sensitivity model can accurately estimate the state of controllers at each time step and the number of control actions throughout the year. For the test case of a real distribution feeder with 2969 buses (5469 nodes), 6 load/PV time series power profiles, and 9 voltage regulating elements including controller delays, the proposed algorithm demonstrates a dramatic time reduction, more than 180 times faster than traditional QSTS techniques.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available