Impact of Reactive Power Injection Outside Feed-In

Hours on the Reliability of Photovoltaic Inverters

Anup Anurag1 , Yongheng Yang2 , and Frede Blaabjerg2
1
Department of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology
(ETH), Zurich 8092, Switzerland.
2
Department of Energy Technology, Aalborg University, Aalborg 9220, Denmark.
anuraga@student.ethz.ch, yoy@et.aau.dk, and fbl@et.aau.dk

Abstract—Current energy paradigm of mixed renewables
seems to urgently require reactive power provision at various
feed-in points of the utility grid. Photovoltaic (PV) inverters are
able to provide reactive power in a decentralized manner at the
grid-connection point even outside active power feed-in operation,
especially at night. This serves as a motivation for utilizing the
PV inverters at night for reactive power compensation. Thus, a
detailed analysis on the impact of reactive power injection by PV
inverters outside feed-in operation on the thermal performance
and also the reliability is performed in this paper. A thermal
analysis based on the mission profile (i.e. solar irradiance and
ambient temperature) has been incorporated, so as to determine
the additional temperature rise in the components (IGBTs
and diodes) outside feed-in operation for different values of
reactive power injection. Consequently, the analysis enables the
translation from long-term mission profiles to device thermal
loading, considering the operation at night. An analytical lifetime
model is then used for lifetime quantization based on the Palgrem
Miner rule. Thereafter, considering the lifetime reduction of the
PV inverter for different values of reactive power injection an
assessment of the economic impacts is made. This analysis can be
useful in choosing between conventional reactive power devices
or PV inverters for injecting reactive power to the grid.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Penetration of grid connected PV systems has been on a
continuously increasing trend due to maturity of PV technol-
ogy, favourable government policies and still declining PV
module prices [1]. However, the increase in PV penetration
has made the grid more decentralized and vulnerable. Further,
in order to meet the grid code requirements, the future PV
systems are expected to provide a functionality similar to that
of conventional power plants including ancillary services such
as reactive power support, load leveling, peak power shaving,
frequency control through active power control, Low Voltage
Ride Through (LVRT) during grid faults etc. [2]–[5] The
power electronics interface of the PV systems enable them to
exchange reactive power with the utility grid, thus providing
reactive power support and keeping the bus voltages within
operating limits [6].
Since the output of the PV inverters is weather-dependent,
active power is injected into the grid only during the day, when
the renewable energy source is available. However, during
nights, there is no active power feed-in from the PV systems
and the inverters remain idle, as there is no solar irradiance.
978-1-4799-8586-9/15/$31.00 (c)2015 IEEE
This serves as a motivation for utilizing the PV inverters, even
at night, for reactive power compensation. The potential may
help the utility grid operators in avoiding cost-intensive VAR
compensation plants, which can generate reactive power to
be fed into the utility grid [7]. However, reliability issues can
occur with this additional utilization of the PV inverters. Since
the PV inverter has been a critical part within the failures
of a PV system [8], the utilization of PV inverters at night
for reactive power compensation, decreases its lifetime and
may lead to premature failure of the entire system. Hence, in
order to provide reliable operation, it becomes imperative to
conduct a reliability based analysis and consequently predict
the decreased lifetime of the PV inverter and its components,
if such an additional utilization is enabled for the same system
at night [9].
Power switching devices (e.g. Insulated Gate Bipolar Tran-
sistors (IGBTs) or Metal-Oxide Semicondutor Field-Effect
Transistors (MOSFETs) and diodes) and DC-link capacitors
are the major components of a PV system. Numerous fac-
tors like thermal stress, electrical stress, mechanical stress,
deviation in production process etc. can cause a failure in
the power switching devices. From these factors, the most
frequently observed failure mechanisms are related to thermal
stresses which depends on the temperature swings and mean
junction temperature of the power devices [1], [10]. Operating
the inverter during nights causes additional thermal stresses,
which affects the reliability of the PV system decreasing its
lifetime.
In this paper, a reliability analysis has been done according
to the analysis procedure shown in Fig. 1 for a single-phase PV
inverter system considering various levels of reactive power
injection outside feed-in operation. Rainflow analysis has been
employed to identify the mean and amplitude of the tempera-
ture swings of each thermal cycle. An analytical lifetime model
has been then used and the damage produced on the power
switching devices was quantified using the rainflow results
and the Palmgren Miner rule [11]. In addition, it should be
mentioned that the lifetime estimation and reliability analysis
of the whole PV system requires an in-depth knowledge of
multiple subjects, since the components (cables, capacitors
etc.) have cross effects on the reliability of one another. This
is out of the scope of this paper.
 1.4

Solar Irradiation [kW/m2]

100 16
16 T
tpp=
= 80μs Tjj== 125
125ooCC 1.2
Tj= 125oC V
VCECE==600V
600V 1
80 17V
17V 12
12 V
VGEGE==±15V
±15V 0.8
15V
15V
E
EON
ON
13V
13V R
RGG== 27Ω
27ȍ 0.6

[mW]
60 11V

EE[mW]
11V
9V
9V 0.4
[A]
IICC [A] 8
7V
7V E
EOFF
OFF 0.2
40
0
40
V
VCE0 44
RCE

Temperature [oC]
CE0
30
V
20
0 00
0 1 2 3 4 5 00 20
20 40
40 60
60 80
80 10
VCE [V] ICC [A]
0

Thermal Model í

í
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

Mission Profile

Boost Converter 80
PV Arrays Inverter
(NOT in Single-Stage) LCL Filter 70
Utility Grid 60

Temperature [oC]
L D L1 L2
50
o
C S
Cdc C1 Zg 40
30
PWMa
vdc PWMb ig
20
ipv ∗ 10
MPPT P
∗ vdc Inverter
vpv Q ∗ Control vg 0
í
Single-Phase PV inverter System Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

Junction Temperature Profile

1000
Without
Without QQ injection
injection
Accumulated Damage With Q injection 2.5
with Q injection : 1.4903e-5
With Q injection +DOIíF\FOHGRZQ
10-5 2
Accumulated Damage
without Q injection : 1.1091e-5 1.5 +DOIíF\FOHGRZQ Signal Peaks
Damage

1 3. Cycle, down +DOIíF\FOHGRZQ

Value

Lifetime
10-10
0.5
0
10-15
0.5 1. Cycle, down +DOIíF\FOHXS
í
4. Cycle, up
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
60 70
70 80
80 -1.5 +DOIíF\FOHXS
Tjm[oC] 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Peaks counted

Damage Quantification Rainflow Analysis

Fig. 1. Flowchart for the reliability analysis of power devices caused by long-term thermal cycles.

The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section II current in the stray capacitances which might be present due
provides the description of a single-phase grid connected PV to the transformerless topology [14].
inverter and the control strategy implemented to regulate the
PV Arrays Boost Converter
active and reactive power flow. A thermal model of an IGBT (NOT in Single-Stage) Inverter LCL Filter
Utility Grid
module has been provided in Section III. In Section IV, a L D L1 L2
mission profile based approach is provided so as to determine o
C S Cdc C1
the additional temperature rise of the components outside feed-
PWMa PWMb
in operation at different values of reactive power injection. ipv
vdc
∗
ig
∗ vdc Inverter
Section V gives a reliability analysis and lifetime estimation MPPT P Control
vpv Q ∗ vg
of the PV inverter system and Section VI gives an overall
energy loss based on the mission profile before the conclusion Fig. 2. Hardware schematic and general control structure of a single-phase
of this paper. grid-connected PV system. (MPPT: Maximum Power Point Tracking).

II. R EACTIVE P OWER I NJECTION AT N IGHTS B. Control Strategy for the Single-Phase PV Inverter
A. Single-Phase Grid-Connected PV Inverter Fig. 3 shows the control strategy used for single-phase
A schematic of a single-phase grid-connected system has grid-connected PV systems. Generally, the control strategy
been shown in Fig. 2. The boost stage makes the system flex- includes two cascaded loops: an outer control loop for the
ibly track the Maximum Power Point (MPP) of the PV panels generation of current reference, where the DC link voltage
and also helps in handling the power variation across the DC- or power is controlled and an inner control loop for shaping
link capacitor at twice the fundamental grid frequency [12]. An the inverter current [15]. The system conditions are fed into
inductor-capacitor-inductor (LCL) filter has been used so as to the outer control loop after being transformed into quadrature
reduce the grid current harmonics [13]. Furthermore, a bipolar components (vgα , vgβ and igα , igβ ) corresponding to the real
modulation technique should be used to avoid the leakage grid voltage (vg ) and real grid current (ig ) via a Second
 2 P
vgα Inverter Unity Power
vgα
2 + v2
gβ Limitation Factor Operation
ig PR
P∗ Controller Smax
+
i∗g ∗
vinv (s) ig
÷ + Gc (s) ++ Gp (s) Ppv,MPP = Sn Vg Irated
Q∗ S 2
+ Plant
Ghc (s) (filter+grid)
vgβ Smax φ
Harmonic
Compensators
−Q −Qmax 0 Q Qmax Q
Fig. 3. Dual-loop control structure for single phase systems including an
outer control Loop (active and reactive power control) and inner control loop Fig. 4. PQ diagram for a single phase PV inverter.
(inverter current control).

power that can be delivered by the PV inverter is given by

Order Generalized Integrator (SOGI) based Phase Locked
Loop (PLL) [16]. The current reference is then calculated in
the αβ reference frame [17].
∗     ∗
igα 2 vgα vgβ P is the maximum active power with MPPT control. However,
= (1)
i∗gβ 2 + v2
vgα gβ
v gβ −v gα Q ∗
where P ∗ and Q∗ denote the reference signals for the active
power, P and the reactive power, Q respectively. It can be seen
that there is no need for Park or inverse-Park transform, unlike
other controllers [6]. The current controller is responsible for
maintaining the power quality. A Proportional Resonant (PR)
+ Multi-Resonant Control (MRC) has been used [18] since
it is capable of tracking sinusoidal signals without steady
state errors, which is preferable for maintaining the power
quality [19]. Moreover, the MRC controller provides a fast
response and good harmonics rejection capability at resonant
frequencies of interest. However, the computation complexity
is on the higher side especially when high-order harmonics
are required to be compensated. Nevertheless, when adopting
the aforementioned current controller, the control structure
presented in Fig. 3 offers much flexibility for the PV inverters
to regulate the active power and reactive power by setting
the power references and also a good power quality can be
ensured. The transfer function of the PR + MRC controller is
given by
Current Controller
   be found from the datasheets. The relationship between the
ki s  kih s
Gc (s) + Ghc (s) = kp + 2 + instantaneous power losses and the instantaneous junction
s + ω02 s2 + (hω0 )2
   h=3,5,7,...
  
PR
MRC
(2)
where kp is the proportional gain, ki and kih are the resonant
and harmonic compensator gains, h is the harmonic order and
ω0 is the fundamental grid frequency.
C. Q Capability of a PV Inverter
PV systems are usually designed with reasonable margins
and operate under partial loading conditions for daily opera-
tion. As a consequence, it can be exploited to inject reactive
power, especially during nights when there is no sunshine.
However, the amount of reactive power that a PV inverter can
deliver to the grid depends on the inverter apparent power as
shown in Fig. 4. In normal operation mode with Maximum
Power Point Tracking (MPPT), the maximum output reactive
Qmax = Smax 2 − P2 (3)
MPP
where Smax is the inverter maximum apparent power and PMPP
during nights, when there is no feed-in of active power, the PV
inverter can inject a reactive power equivalent to the maximum
apparent power.
III. T HERMAL M ODEL OF AN IGBT P OWER M ODULE
The electrical performance of a device is directly linked
with its thermal behavior through the power losses on the
device [10]. Power losses, which mainly include conduction
and switching losses, are the main source of temperature rise
in the device. A proper estimation of junction temperature is
imperative for predicting the lifetime of a power switching
device. Thus, an accurate model of thermal impedances in the
power devices is important to estimate the junction tempera-
ture. Fig. 5 gives the schematic of the thermal model of the
IGBT-diode module that has been used in this paper.
The power losses in IGBTs and diodes are dissipated
through their junction to case thermal resistances (Rth(j−c)S
for IGBT and Rth(j−c)D for diode). This causes the junction
temperature (TjS for IGBT and TjD for diode) to rise above
the ambient temperature (Ta ). A Foster model [20], [21]
has been used here, as the thermal parameters can easily
temperature for both the IGBT and the diode can be expressed
as
Tj (t) = Ptot (t)Zth(j-c) (t) + Tc (t) (4)
Tc (t) = Ta (t) + [PtotS (t) + PtotD (t)]
× [Zth(c-h) (t) + Zth(h-a) (t)] (5)
where Ptot (t) gives the IGBT or diode power losses. PtotS (t)
and PtotD (t) are the power losses in the IGBT and the
diode respectively. Zth(j-c) , Zth(c-h) and Zth(h-a) give the thermal
impedance from junction to case, case to heatsink and heatsink
to ambient respectively. Tc is the case temperature. The steady-
state of the junction temperature is dependent mainly on the
thermal resistance Rth , while its dynamic behavior is affected
mainly by the thermal capacitance, Cth . The case temperature
has a much larger time constant of the thermal impedance
leading to a slower dynamic response [22], [23].
 (OHFWULFDO0RGHO TABLE II
PARAMETERS OF THE S INGLE -P HASE G RID -C ONNECTED S YSTEM .

Parameter Label Value

Nominal grid voltage amplitude Vg 325.2 V
vGF
Tj Tc Th Ta 7KHUPDO0RGHO Nominal grid frequency ω0 2π× 50 rad/s
ZWK6MíF ZWKFíK ZWKKíD Rated power Pmax 3 kW
PWRW6 DC-link voltage Vdc 400 V
ZWK'MíF
L1 3.6 mH
LCL filter L2 708 μH
PWRW' RWK RWK RWK RWK )RVWHU0RGHO C1 2.35 μF
Tj Tc Lg 4 mH
Grid impedance
C1 C2 C3 C4 Rg 0.2 Ω
τi = RWKL Ci Switching frequency fsw 10 kHz

Fig. 5. Thermal model for a single device in the IGBT module

can be a series of multitime scales, for example, a minute
TABLE I mission profile or a yearly mission profile, and it is usually
F OSTER T HERMAL PARAMETERS FOR AN IGBT M ODULE FROM A
L EADING M ANUFACTURER .
taken as the input for the reliability analysis in the field of
power electronics converters [10], [27], which is also focused
Impedance Zth(j-c) on in this paper. With cumulative real-field experience and
Zth(c-h)
i 1 2 3 4 introduction of more and more real time monitoring systems,
Rthi (K/W) 0.0740 0.173 0.526 0.527 0.7 accurate mission profile data is available for various kinds of
IGBT
τi (s) 0.0005 0.005 0.050 0.200 0 power electronics systems [28]. In order to accurately analyze
Rthi (K/W) 0.1230 0.264 0.594 0.468 0.7 the lifetime of a system, it is essential to take the mission
Diode
τi (s) 0.0005 0.005 0.050 0.200 0 profile into consideration. Fig. 6 shows the solar irradiation
and ambient temperature in the first week of July 2012 of the
mission profile used in this paper.
IV. O PERATIONAL E XAMPLES
1.2
A 600V/50A IGBT module from a leading manufacturer
Solar Irradiance (kW/m2)

1
has been selected as the power devices in the PV inverter.
0.8
Instead of the PV panel, a DC source has been used with
0.6
an assumption that the MPPT control is robust. The junction
0.4
temperatures on the power devices of a 3 kW single phase grid
connected system, under P = 0 W and P = 300 W (10% of 0.2

0
rated power) were found for different values of reactive power 30
(0 till 150% of the rated power). Simulations from P = 300 W
Ambient Temperature (oC)

25
till P = 4.5 kW (150% of the rated power) were also performed
(operation during feed-in time), without any Q injection. A 20

look-up table was constructed. Since the active power is 15

directly related to the solar irradiance, from the mission profile, 10

the solar irradiance and the ambient temperature was fed into 5
the lookup table and the temperature rise for various values Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

of reactive power was observed. The control method has been

Fig. 6. Weekly mission profiles from recorded data (5 mins/sampling) for the
done in MATLAB/Simulink and the thermal analysis is done first week of July 2012 (top: solar irradiation; bottom: ambient temperature
by a co-simulation between MATLAB/Simulink and PLECS
[24]. The thermal parameters of the selected power devices
are shown in Table I and the parameters for the inverter along B. Thermal Loading Profile
with the filter has been given in Table II.
The thermal loading profile of the IGBT in the PV inverter
under a weekly mission profile (Fig. 6) is shown in Fig. 7.
A. Mission Profile With the additional utilization of the PV inverters at night, it
A mission profile is normally referred to a simplified can be seen in Fig. 7 that the device temperature remains high
representation of relevant conditions under which the system even outside feed-in hours. Qualitatively, it can be seen that
is operating [25]. As a result, for the grid-connected PV the average temperature for the device during the day as well
systems, the mission profile (i.e., solar irradiance and ambient as the night is almost the same.
temperature) is actually a reflection of the intermittent nature Notably, there are additional losses in the module due to
of the solar PV energy [26], and consequently it has an its increased operating hours. Fig. 8(a) shows the conduction
inherent relationship with the entire system performance, in- losses for one IGBT and one diode at an ambient temperature
cluding the thermal loading performance. The mission profile of 25o C. With the increase in reactive power injection, there is
an increase in the injected current through the devices leading
to increasing conduction losses. Switching losses are found
to be negligible from simulation results. Fig. 8(b) shows the
maximum junction temperature for the IGBT and the diode
when the active power injection is disabled at an ambient
temperature of 25o C. It can be seen that there is a near-
linear relation between the injected reactive power and the
junction temperature of the devices for a constant active power


injection.
It is assumed that the converter is operated at rated apparent
power during the night. For an active power production below
10% of the rated power, the PV inverter provides a reactive
power equivalent to the difference between the reactive power
to be injected (Q = 0, 10%, 20%,...,140%, 150% of nominal
power) and the active power provided by the converter during
that time. This thus ensures a stable operation according to
the P Q capability of a PV inverter shown in Fig. 4.


70

60 Maximum junction temp.

with max. Q injection
50
Temperature (oC)

40

30

20


10
Maximum juction temp
Ambient Temperature
w/o Q injection
0
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

Fig. 7. Junction temperature of an IGBT in a single-phase grid-connected

PV inverter system under a weekly mission profile shown in Fig. 6.


8
Conduction Loss (W)

Fig. 9. Experimental results for a single-phase grid-connected system (grid

6 voltage vg [250 V/div]; grid current ig [10 A/div]; reactive power Q [400
IGBT
var/div]; active power P [400 W/div]; time [10 ms/div]; experiments were
4 conducted on March 1st , 2015): (a) steady state (Q at night) with P = 0 and
Q = 100%, (b) steady state with P = 100% and Q = 0, (c) step change P =
2 Diode 0, Q = 100% to P = 20%, Q = 0, and (d) step change P = 20%, Q = 0 to
P = 0, Q = 100%.
0
0 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3 3.6 4.2
Reactive Power (Q) Injected (kvar) C. Simulation and Experimental Results (Q Injection)
(a) In the experimental test, the control strategy has been
70 verified on a single-phase inverter system with reactive power
injection. A scaled down version of the actual inverter has
60
Temperature (oC)

IGBT been built where the nominal power was taken to be 1 kW.
50 A PR+MRC current controller (kp = 22 and ki = 2000,
40
ki3 = 1500, ki5 = 1500 and ki7 = 1500) has been
adopted. The system parameters are the same as those in the
30 Diode simulations. Fig. 9 shows the performance of the PV inverter
0 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3 3.6 4.2 under four different conditions.
Reactive power (Q) injected (kvar) Simulation results are also shown in Fig. 10 for the two
(b) cases. The nominal power was taken to be 3 kW for the
simulations. A step change from 0 to 20% in the active power
Fig. 8. (a) Conduction Losses of IGBT and Diode at P = 0 W at an ambient
temperature of 25o C (b) Maximum junction temperature of IGBT and Diode and 100% to 0 in the reactive power is applied at 0.9 s as
at P = 0 W at an ambient temperature of 25o C shown in Fig. 10(a). The active and the reactive power follow
the references. As shown in Fig. 10(b), a step change from


20% to 0 in the active power and 0 to 100% in the reactive

   


power is applied at 0.9 s. Both the experimental and simulation

results shown in Figs. 9 and 10 respectively have demonstrated 

that the PV inverter can flexibly inject reactive power when 
the active power is below a certain level (e.g., in the evening 

P =20% and during nights P =0). 



  


  





 !"
  


   



! "# $ %  & '   ' ( % % )


 
Fig. 11. Yearly mission profiles from recorded data (5 mins per sampling
data) for October 2011 to September 2012 (solar irradiance and ambient

  temperature).

'#$%
 
"#$%&

!
$ 
%$ &$  '$(
$&$
  " %$ &$  ')
$&$

#



 

 

 

    
  
 !! !

           

 

Fig. 12. Junction temperature of the IGBT in a single-phase grid-connected




 !"

 
PV inverter system under a yearly mission profile with a reactive power
injection (Q=100%) and without reactive power injection (Q=0) during nights.
 

 
A. Rainflow Counting

  After a long term thermal loading of a given IGBT is
generated, a rainflow counting method [11] has to be applied
'#$%

 
"#$%&

in order to convert the randomly changed thermal loading to

  the regulated thermal cycles which are suitable to be utilized
by the lifetime models. It is proved that not only the amplitude
 
(ΔTj ) and the mean value (Tjm ) of the thermal cycles, but also
 
the cycling period (tcycle ) have strong impacts on the lifetime
of the devices [29]. A rainflow counting method which extracts
 

    
  ΔTj , Tjm and tcycle has been used here.
(

Fig. 10. Simulation Results for a single-phase grid-connected system: (a) step B. Lifetime Model
change P = 0, Q = 100% to P = 20%, Q = 0 and (b) step change P = 20%,
Q = 0 to P = 0, Q = 100%. After the rainflow analysis, a lifetime model of power de-
vices can be used. Many different methods have been provided
in the literature [30], [31] like the Coffin-Manson-Arrhenius
model, Norris-Landzberg model [32], Bayerers model [33] etc.
V. R ELIABILITY A NALYSIS
Lifetime models provided by the device manufacturers, which
The reliability analysis is based on a long term thermal are based on enormous test data, are also generally used. A
loading of the PV inverter according to Fig. 1. A long term lifetime model by Semikron (SKiM 63) [34] has been used
thermal loading is generated from a yearly mission profile (see in this analysis owing to its simplicity, relative accuracy and
Fig. 11) for all the cases: with different values of Q injection for convenience. The mathematical formulation of the model
at night (0, 10%, 20%,...,140%, 150% of nominal power) and is given by
also without Q injection at night (Q=0). The thermal loading  
α β1 ΔTj +β0 C + (tON )γ
of the power switching devices under a yearly mission profile Nf = A × (ΔTj ) × (ar) ×
C +1
for a case where the PV inverter provides nominal power

Ea
outside feed-in operation (Q=100%) has been shown in Fig. × exp × fdiode (6)
12. kb × Tjm
where A, α, β0 , β1 , γ and C are the model parameters as 1.7
x 10-5

listed in Table III. kb is the Boltzmann constant and Ea is the 1.6 (Nominal Q injection)
activation energy. ar is the bond wire aspect ratio, fdiode is the 1.4903×10-5
1.5
diode impact factor and tON is the cycling period. (150 % of Nominal

Damage
Q injection)
1.4 1.6810×10-5
(No Q injection)
TABLE III 1.3
PARAMETERS OF THE L IFETIME M ODEL OF THE IGBT M ODULE [35]. 1.1091×10-5
1.2

Parameter Value Unit Experimental Condition 1.1

0 0.3 0.9 1.5 2.1 2.7 3.3 3.9 4.5
A 3.4368 × 1014 - Reactive Power (Q) Injected (kvar)
α −4.923 - 64 K ≤ ΔTj ≤ 113 K
β1 −9.012 × 10−3 - 0.19 ≤ ar ≤ 0.42 Fig. 13. Total Accumulated Damage with different values of Q injection at
β0 −1.942 - 0.19 ≤ ar ≤ 0.42 nights.
C 1.434 - 0.07 s ≤ tON ≤ 63 s
γ −1.208 -
fdiode 0.6204 - D. Energy Loss Based on Annual Mission Profile
ar 0.31 -
Ea 0.06606 eV 32.5 ◦ C ≤ Tjm ≤ 122 ◦ C Based on the power loss model with different amounts of
kb 8.61733 × 10−5 eV/K reactive power injection as described in Section IV, this section
estimates the energy loss and cost of reactive power according
to an annual mission profile. The annual energy loss of the PV
inverter system at different operation modes is obtained, as
C. Damage Modeling and Reliability Analysis shown in Fig. 14. An energy loss of more than 500% is seen
between the cases of no reactive power power injection and
The damage modeling was done using the well known
when a higher than nominal (150% of nominal power) reactive
Palgrem-Miner’s rule [11]. According to the rule, the ac-
power is injected. If a nominal amount of reactive power is
cumulated life consumption (LC) is linearly dependent on
injected, an energy loss of more than 300% is observed. It is
the contributions from different thermal cycles, and can be
expressed as  ni 70
LC = (7)
Energy loss per year (kWh)

i
Nf i 60
(Nominal Q injection)
in which ni is the number of cycles at stress ΔTji and Nf i 50 44.21 kWh
(150 % of Nominal
is the corresponding number of cycles to fail according to the 40
Q injection)
lifetime model as shown in (12). Here, the particular value of 30
(No Q injection) 61.05 kWh
10.52 kWh
LC for each cycle or each half-cycle is given by
20
ni
LCi = (8) 10
Nf i 0 0.3 0.9 1.5 2.1 2.7 3.3 3.9 4.5
Reactive Power (Q) Injected (kvar)
where i is the cycle number.
(a)
The expected lifetime can be calculated from the damage
caused by the identified cycles in tM P which is the mission 30

profile period. (Nominal Q injection)

Annual Loss of Energy (%)

25
tM P 19.95%
LF = (9) 20
LC (150 % of Nominal
(No Q injection) Q injection)
15
The total accumulated damage was calculated for all the 4.86% 27.49%
cases and the results are shown in Fig. 13. It can be seen 10

that with the gradual increase in reactive power injection at 5

night, there is a gradual increase in the damage and therefore, a
0
decreasing trend in the lifetime. Whereas the total accumulated 0 0.3 0.9 1.5 2.1 2.7 3.3 3.9 4.5
Reactive Power (Q) Injected (kvar)
damage of the IGBT for the case there is no reactive power
injection comes out to be 1.1091 × 10−5 , a full (100% of (b)
nominal power) reactive power injection gives an accumulated Fig. 14. (a) Energy loss per year and (b) Annual loss of energy with different
damage of 1.4903×10−5 , which leads to a decrease in lifetime values of Q injection at nights.
of 46.23%. In case of a higher than nominal (150% of nominal
power) reactive power injection, an accumulated damage of also worthwhile to express the annual energy loss in terms of
1.6810 × 10−5 is seen. It is envisaged that this can cause the percentage over the yearly produced energy. As shown in
serious economic impacts if a proper analysis is not carried out Fig. 14, operation without reactive power injection incurs a
comparing the cost benefits between installing a conventional loss of 4.86% of the total energy yield whereas operating the
reactive power bank or by providing reactive power from PV PV inverter at nights with a nominal reactive power injection
inverters. incur additional losses which is 19.95% of the total energy
yield. In case, where a higher than nominal (150% of nominal
power) is injected, a loss of 27.49% of the total energy yield is
observed. This verifies that operating the PV inverters at nights
for reactive power support causes additional energy losses,
which can lead to premature failure of the entire system.
VI. C ONCLUSIONS
The impact of reactive power injections by PV inverters
outside feed-in operation on the thermal performance of their
components has been presented in this paper. An analysis
based on the mission profile has been done to accurately
determine the additional rise in temperature of the device both
during active feed-in operation and also during the time where
only reactive power is fed to the utility grid. A comparison
has been made in regard to the quantified damage for different
values of reactive power injection outside feed in operating
hours. Since the lifetime of the components is inversely related
to the electrical and thermal stress of the devices, the additional
utilization of the device decreases the lifetime which can cause
serious economic and reliability. Strict regulations should be
taken seriously regarding limiting the reactive power injection
by the PV inverter to the utility grid, such that it does not
affect the owner economically and does not create reliability
issues. A cost-benefit analysis has also been done. It can be
seen that the injection of reactive power by a PV inverter is
not free-of-charge.
R EFERENCES
[1] S.M. Sreechithra, P. Jirutitijaroen, and A.K. Rathore, “Impacts of reac-
tive power injections on thermal performances of PV inverters,” in Proc.
of IECON, pp. 7175-7180, Nov. 2013.
[2] N.P. Papanikolaou, “Low-voltage ride-through concept in flyback invert-
erbased alternating current-photovoltaic modules,” IET Power Electron.,
vol. 6, no. 7, pp. 1436–1448, Aug. 2013.
[3] Y. Xue, K.C. Divya, G. Griepentrog, M. Liviu, S. Suresh, and M. Man-
jrekar, “Towards next generation photovoltaic inverters,” in Proc. of
ECCE, pp. 2467-2474, Sept. 2011.
[4] K. Turitsyn, P. Sulc, S. Backhaus, and M. Chertkov, “Options for control
of reactive power by distributed photovoltaic generators,” Proceedings
of the IEEE, vol. 99, no. 6, pp. 1063–1073, Jun. 2011.
[5] E. Dall’Anese, S.V. Dhople, and G.B. Giannakis, “Optimal dispatch of
photovoltaic inverters in residential distribution systems,” IEEE Trans.
Sustain. Energy, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 487–497, Apr. 2014.
[6] Y. Yang, H. Wang, and F. Blaabjerg, “Reactive power injection strategies
for single-phase photovoltaic systems considering grid requirements,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 4065–4076, Nov. 2014.
[7] K. Turitsyn, P. Sulc, S. Backhaus, and M. Chertkov, “Local control
of reactive power by distributed photovoltaic generators,” in Proc. of
SmartGridComm, pp. 79-84, Oct. 2010.
[8] A. Ristow, M. Begovic, A. Pregelj, and A. Rohatgi, “Development of
a methodology for improving photovoltaic inverter reliability,” IEEE
Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 55, no. 7, pp. 2581–2592, July 2008.
[9] A. Anurag, Y. Yang, and F. Blaabjerg, “Thermal performance and
reliability analysis of single-phase PV inverters with reactive power
injection outside feed-in operating hours,” IEEE J. Emerg. Sel. Top.
Power Electron., vol. PP, no. 99, pp. 1–1, 2015.
[10] Y. Yang, H. Wang, F. Blaabjerg, and T. Kerekes, “A hybrid power control
concept for PV inverters with reduced thermal loading,” IEEE Trans.
Power Electron., vol. 29, no. 12, pp. 6271–6275, Dec. 2014.
[11] A. Nieslony, “Determination of fragments of multiaxial service loading
strongly influencing the fatigue of machine components,” Mech. Systems
and Signal Processing, vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 2712 – 2721, 2009.
[12] S. Kjaer, J. Pedersen, and F. Blaabjerg, “A review of single-phase grid-
connected inverters for photovoltaic modules,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl.,
vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 1292–1306, Sept 2005.
[13] W. Wu, Y. He, and F. Blaabjerg, “An LLCL power filter for single-
phase grid-tied inverter,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 27, no. 2,
pp. 782–789, Feb. 2012.
[14] Y. Gu, W. Li, Y. Zhao, B. Yang, C. Li, and X. He, “Transformerless
inverter with virtual DC bus concept for cost-effective grid-connected
PV power systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 28, no. 2, pp.
793–805, Feb. 2013.
[15] F. Blaabjerg, R. Teodorescu, M. Liserre, and A.V. Timbus, “Overview
of control and grid synchronization for distributed power generation
systems,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 1398–1409,
Oct. 2006.
[16] M. Ciobotaru, R. Teodorescu, and F. Blaabjerg, “Control of single-stage
single-phase PV inverter,” in Proc. of EPE, pp. P.1-P.10, 2005.
[17] Y. Yang, K. Zhou, H. Wang, F. Blaabjerg, D. Wang, and B. Zhang,
“Frequency adaptive selective harmonic control for grid-connected in-
verters,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 3912–3924,
Feb. 2015.
[18] R. Teodorescu, F. Blaabjerg, M. Liserre, and P. Loh, “Proportional-
resonant controllers and filters for grid-connected voltage-source con-
verters,” Electric Power Apps., IEE Proc., vol. 153, no. 5, pp. 750–762,
September 2006.
[19] Y. Yang, “Advanced control strategies to enable a more wide-scale adop-
tion of single-phase photovoltaic systems,” Ph.D. dissertation, Aalborg
Univeristy, Aalborg, Denmark, Aug. 2014.
[20] F. Sargos, “Application note: IGBT power electronics teaching sys-
tem principle for sizing power converters,” [Online]. Available:
http://www.semikron.com/service-support/downloads.html/, Oct. 2008.
[21] N. Sintamarean, F. Blaabjerg, H. Wang, F. Iannuzzo, and P. de Place
Rimmen, “Reliability oriented design tool for the new generation of grid
connected PV-inverters,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 30, no. 5,
pp. 2635–2644, May 2015.
[22] ABB, “Application note: Thermal design and temper-
ature ratings of IGBT modules,” [Online]. Available:
http://www.abb.com/semiconductors, Oct. 2011.
[23] A. Bryant, N.-A. Parker-Allotey, D. Hamilton, I. Swan, P.A. Mawby,
T. Ueta, T. Nishijima, and K. Hamada, “A fast loss and temperature
simulation method for power converters, Part I: Electrothermal modeling
and validation,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 248–
257, Jan. 2012.
[24] Plexim, “PLECS 3.6.3 User Manual,” http://www.plexim.com/, Nov.
2014.
[25] M. Ciappa, “Lifetime prediction on the base of mission profiles,”
Microelectronics Reliability, vol. 45, no. 911, pp. 1293 – 1298, 2005,
proceedings of the 16th European Symposium on Reliability of Electron
Devices, Failure Physics and Analysis.
[26] M. Musallam, C. Yin, C. Bailey, and M. Johnson, “Mission profile-
based reliability design and real-time life consumption estimation in
power electronics,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 30, no. 5, pp.
2601–2613, May 2015.
[27] M. Musallam and C.M. Johnson, “An efficient implementation of the
rainflow counting algorithm for life consumption estimation,” IEEE
Trans. Reliability, vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 978–986, Dec. 2012.
[28] H. Wang, K. Ma, and F. Blaabjerg, “Design for reliability of power
electronic systems,” in Proc. of IECON, pp. 33-34, Oct. 2012.
[29] U. Scheuermann, “Reliability challenges of automotive power electron-
ics,” Microelectronics Reliability, vol. 49, no. 911, pp. 1319 – 1325,
2009.
[30] C. Busca, R. Teodorescu, F. Blaabjerg, S. Munk-Nielsen, L. Helle,
T. Abeyasekera, and P. Rodriguez, “An overview of the reliability predic-
tion related aspects of high power IGBTs in wind power applications,”
Microelectronics Reliability, vol. 51, no. 911, pp. 1903 – 1907, 2011.
[31] I.F. Kovacevic, U. Drofenik, and J.W. Kolar, “New physical model for
lifetime estimation of power modules,” in Proc. of IPEC, pp. 2106-2114,
Jun. 2010.
[32] K.C. Norris and A.H. Landzberg, “Reliability of controlled collapse
interconnections,” IBM J. Res. Dev., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 266–271, May
1969.
[33] R. Bayerer, T. Herrmann, T. Licht, J. Lutz, and M. Feller, “Model for
power cycling lifetime of IGBT modules and various factors influencing
lifetime,” in Proc. of CIPS, pp. 1-6, Mar. 2008.
[34] “Lifetime modelling and simulation,” Presented at the ECPE Workshop,
Dusseldorf, Germany, Jul. 3-4, 2013.
[35] U. Scheuermann and U. Hecht, “Power cycling lifetime of advanced
power modules for different temperature swings,” in PCIM Nuremberg,
pp. 59-64, 2002.