energies

Article
Online Coordination of Plug-In Electric Vehicles
Considering Grid Congestion and Smart Grid
Power Quality
Sara Deilami
School of Electrical Engineering, Computing and Mathematical Sciences, Curtin University,
Perth 6000, WA, Australia; S.deilami@curtin.edu.au; Tel.: +618-9266-5113




Received: 17 July 2018; Accepted: 15 August 2018; Published: 21 August 2018


Abstract: This paper first introduces the impacts of battery charger and nonlinear load harmonics
on smart grids considering random plug-in of electric vehicles (PEVs) without any coordination.
Then, a new centralized nonlinear online maximum sensitivity selection-based charging algorithm
(NOL-MSSCA) is proposed for coordinating PEVs that minimizes the costs associated with generation
and losses considering network and bus total harmonic distortion (THD). The aim is to first attend
the high priority customers and charge their vehicles as quickly as possible while postponing the
service to medium and low priority consumers to the off-peak hours, considering network, battery
and power quality constraints and harmonics. The vehicles were randomly plugged at different
locations during a period of 24 h. The proposed PEV coordination is based on the maximum
sensitivity selection (MSS), which is the sensitivity of losses (including fundamental and harmonic
losses) with respect to the PEV location (PEV bus). The proposed algorithm uses the decoupled
harmonic power flow (DHPF) to model the nonlinear loads (including the PEV chargers) as current
harmonic sources and computes the harmonic power losses, harmonic voltages and THD of the smart
grid. The MSS vectors are easily determined using the entries of the Jacobian matrix of the DHPF
program, which includes the spectrums of all injected harmonics by nonlinear electric vehicle (EV)
chargers and nonlinear industrial loads. The sensitivity of the objective function (fundamental and
harmonic power losses) to the PEVs were then used to schedule PEVs accordingly. The algorithm
successfully controls the network THDv level within the standard limit of 5% for low and moderate
PEV penetrations by delaying PEV charging activities. For high PEV penetrations, the installation of
passive power filters (PPFs) is suggested to reduce the THDv and manage to fully charge the PEVs.
Detailed simulations considering random and coordinated charging were performed on the modified
IEEE 23 kV distribution system with 22 low voltage residential networks populated with PEVs that
have nonlinear battery chargers. Simulation results are provided without/with filters for different
penetration levels of PEVs.

Keywords: PEV; online coordinated charging; THD; battery charger harmonics

1. Introduction

1.1. Motivation
It is well-known that the current harmonic injection of nonlinear loads such as variable speed
drives (VSDs), variable frequency drives (VFDs), energy-efficient lights, switching converters,
smart appliances and plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) can have damaging impacts on the power
grid and cause premature ageing of its components, such as power transformers and distributed
generation (DG) units. Harmonic distortion can contribute to existing grid issues such as network
losses, poor voltage regulation, imbalanced operation and reactive power flows. They may also create

Energies 2018, 11, 2187; doi:10.3390/en11092187 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies

Energies 2018, 11, 2187 2 of 17

new grid problems such as mal-operation of control devices, harmonic losses, harmonic reactive power
flows and harmonic resonances [1–4]. These important issues are enough to motivate researchers,
investigators and more importantly, the utilities to seek and come up with new, simple and practical
strategies to resolve the power quality issues in the developing smart grids.

1.2. Literature Survey

Common practices for improving power quality and resolving voltage and current harmonic
issues include de-rating of components and the installation of passive, active and hybrid filters, as well
as utilization of custom power devices which tend to be expensive options [3]. An alternative and
practical approach to mitigate harmonic distortion without filters has recently been implemented
that is based on optimal scheduling of transformer load tap changers (LTCs) and rescheduling of the
existing switched shunt capacitors (SSCs) with consideration of total harmonic distortion (THD) [2].
The number of residential, commercial and industrial customers with PEVs and electric vehicle
(EV) charging stations is increasing immensely in many distribution networks. For example, the DC
Fast Charging (DCFC) network in the USA has over 18,000 stations for AC, DC and wireless charging
with over 40,000 connections across the country [5]. It is well-known that uncoordinated PEV charging,
particularly during peak-load hours, can cause transformer and line overloading as well as voltage
magnitude and voltage unbalance issues [5–8]. Besides, EV charger inverters also act like nonlinear
loads and inject current harmonics that can initiate or contribute to poor power quality issues for
utilities. Recent studies have started to investigate the impact of EV battery chargers on the power
quality of distribution networks, and in particular, transformer life expectancy [9]. Some research
works have introduced new control scheme for battery chargers or even included the power factor
correction [10,11]. The negative impact of nonlinear EV chargers on the power quality of grid cannot
be neglected especially under high penetration during off-peak hours.
There are two main approaches to resolving the issue: (i) motivate consumers to charge their
vehicles during off-peak hours by offering dynamic energy prices, and (ii) coordinate PEV charging
activities [6,7,12,13]. The second method can be implemented by an online and/or offline scheme using
PEV charging/discharging coordination algorithms that are classified as decentralized (distributed)
and centralized strategies [6,7,12,13]. Further, some recent researchers have presented optimal
strategies for the allocation of EV parking lots and distributed renewable resources considering
economic objectives [14]. In [15,16] an online approach for demand response and a control charging
strategy for PEVs in smart grids are presented. Reference [17] has implemented and tested a maximum
sensitivity selection-based charging coordination algorithm (OL-MSSCA) for PEVs with random arrival
times, locations and penetrations. This coordination algorithm reduces the total cost, which includes
the cost of generating energy and the associated grid losses while also regulating node voltages.
In this paper, the algorithm used in [17] is modified and improved to include harmonic current
injections by nonlinear EV battery chargers and nonlinear industrial loads to control the individual
bus voltage profiles as well as the THD of the entire smart grid. The proposed nonlinear online
maximum sensitivity selection-based charging algorithm (NOL-MSSCA) is tested for different PEV
penetrations and operating scenarios. For the cases with very high PEV penetration levels, some of the
low priority vehicles may not be fully charged before 0800h; therefore, installations of passive power
filters (PPFs) is suggested along with the proposed PEV coordination and demonstrated to ensure
full service to all consumers. Figure 1 shows a schematic picture of the proposed approach and the
implemented OL-MSSCA.
Energies 2018, 11, 2187 3 of 17
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 17

Nissan Leaf EV battery Distorted smart Variable energy

chargers, Industrial loads grid network market price

Step 1: Uncontrolled PEV charging Random PEV charging without

considering nonlinear EV charger priority zones: PEVs are DHPF programming
and industrial loads harmonics charged as soon as they arrive

Maximum sensitivity selection based

Step 2: Nonlinear online PEV programming considering harmonic
coordination considering nonlinear losses for permanent online PEV
EV charger and nonlinear scheduling to improve power quality
industrial loads and performance of grid

Step 3: Installation of PPFs

Figure 1.
Figure Schematic overview
1. Schematic overview of
of the
the proposed
proposed nonlinear
nonlinear online
online plug-in
plug-in electric
electric vehicle
vehicle (PEV)
(PEV)
coordination approach
coordination approach considering
considering harmonics.
harmonics.

1.3. Contributions
1.3. Contributions
The main contributions of this paper are summarized below.
The main contributions of this paper are summarized below.
• A New Nonlinear PEV Coordination Approach. The proposed online coordination approach
• A New Nonlinear PEV Coordination Approach. The proposed online coordination approach
(OL-MSSCA) considers the nonlinearities of the EV battery chargers and industrial loads. This is
(OL-MSSCA) considers the nonlinearities of the EV battery chargers and industrial loads. This
due to the importance of power quality standards in the field of smart grids and online scheduling
is due to the importance of power quality standards in the field of smart grids and online
approaches. The online PEV coordination approaches available in the literature ignore the impacts
scheduling approaches. The online PEV coordination approaches available in the literature
of harmonics and poor power quality in the reported online scheduling programs. To consider
ignore the impacts of harmonics and poor power quality in the reported online scheduling
this gap, this paper uses the application of the DHPF algorithm to model the nonlinear loads
programs. To consider this gap, this paper uses the application of the DHPF algorithm to model
and the nonlinear EV chargers in the formulation of the objective function to minimize the total
the nonlinear loads and the nonlinear EV chargers in the formulation of the objective function
cost, improve the power quality and performance of the smart grid. Accordingly, the nonlinear
to minimize the total cost, improve the power quality and performance of the smart grid.
OL-MSSCA will control the THDv level (considering utilities’ concerns) by including the THDv in
Accordingly, the nonlinear OL-MSSCA will control the THDv level (considering utilities’
the objective cost, while also satisfying the PEV owners’ preferences (considering priority zones).
concerns) by including the THDv in the objective cost, while also satisfying the PEV owners’
The new proposed objective function is formulated based on the harmonic power losses extracted
preferences (considering priority zones). The new proposed objective function is formulated
from the MSS vector, which is easily extracted from the existing Jacobian matrix of the DHPF
based on the harmonic power losses extracted from the MSS vector, which is easily extracted
algorithm. Therefore, the proposed approach is relatively simple, fast and practical.
from the existing Jacobian matrix of the DHPF algorithm. Therefore, the proposed approach is
• A Simple and Practical Strategy to Relieve Grid Congestion. The new online algorithm can
relatively simple, fast and practical.
successfully keep the THDv level within the permissible standard of limit of 5% and fully charge
• A Simple and Practical Strategy to Relieve Grid Congestion. The new online algorithm can
PEVs for medium and moderate PEV penetrations. This is done by shifting some of the PEV
successfully keep the THDv level within the permissible standard of limit of 5% and fully charge
charging activities to off-peak hours. However, the algorithm may not be able to simultaneously
PEVs for medium and moderate PEV penetrations. This is done by shifting some of the PEV
manage to control the THDv and customer satisfaction with high PEV penetration. This is due
charging activities to off-peak hours. However, the algorithm may not be able to simultaneously
to the inclusion of a THDv operating condition in the objective cost function and constraints in
manage to control the THDv and customer satisfaction with high PEV penetration. This is due
order to avoid any THDv violations. Therefore, a simple solution consisting of PPF installation is
to the inclusion of a THDv operating condition in the objective cost function and constraints in
proposed for further improvement of power quality and satisfying the demands of PEV owners.
order to avoid any THDv violations. Therefore, a simple solution consisting of PPF installation
is proposed for further improvement of power quality and satisfying the demands of PEV
Energies 2018, 11, 2187 4 of 17

The PPFs are designed and tuned on dominant harmonic spectrums. The new control strategy is
now capable of fully charging the PEV by the next morning and controlling the THDv.
• Solution Validation and Assessment. The proposed OL-MSSCA algorithm was tested on
a distorted and modified smart grid system and the results are assessed through 3 case studies.
Comparison of the 3 case studies indicates that uncontrolled PEV activities (case 1) may lead to
severe power quality issues (for example, for 47% PEV penetration, THDv is above 11% with
high voltage deviations and losses) whereas the new proposed algorithm (case 3) can successfully
keep the THDv level within the designated permissible limit, even with high PEV penetrations of
47% and 64%. Also, all PEVs are fully charged and ready for their next trip.

1.4. Organization of Manuscript

This paper is structured as follows: Section 2 includes the problem formulation/calculation and
definition of the proposed solution approach. Section 3 introduces the system under study, the required
load parameters and pricing lists. Section 4 explains the specifications of the PEV battery chargers
and nonlinear load specifications, including their harmonic spectrums. Sections 5 and 6 present the
simulation results and discussion. Finally, the conclusions are provided in Section 7.

2. Formulation of PEV Coordination Problem Considering Battery Charger and Nonlinear

Load Harmonics

2.1. Decoupled Harmonic Power Flow Calculation

The formulation and solution approaches for the PEV coordination problem considering nonlinear
batteries require harmonic modeling of the network. The paper uses the Newton-Raphson based
decoupled harmonic power flow (DHPF) algorithm [1]. This is a common approach for modelling
actual distribution networks with a large number of industrial nonlinear loads that needs a practical
power-flow algorithm with fast convergence and a low memory storage requirement [1]. The nonlinear
loads are modelled as a combination of passive elements and harmonic current sources at fundamental
and harmonic frequencies, and the relevant admittance matrix is modified according to the harmonic
frequency [1]. The linear loads consist of a resistance in parallel with a reactance while the nonlinear
loads (PEVs) are modelled as current sources that inject harmonic currents into the network:
 (1) (1) ∗
 Ii = [( Pi + jQi )/Vi ]

(h) (1) (1)
I = C (h) Ii
 i (h) (h)

Y V = I (h)

where C(h) is the ratio of the hth harmonic current to its fundamental value, while P and Q are real
power and reactive power, respectively. Also, V(h) and Y(h) are the voltage vector and the admittance
matrix at the hth harmonic frequency, respectively [1].
The admittance matrix Y(h) is calculated by the following equations:
  
 Y (h) = 1/ R + jhX
l,l i,i + 1 l i,i +1
(2)
 Y (h) = 1/jhXc
l,s i,i +1

where Yl,l and Yl,s are the diagonal and the off-diagonal entries of the admittance matrix. Also,
Ri,i+1 , Xli,i+1 , XCi,i+1 are the resistance, reactance and capacitance of the line between buses i and
i + 1, respectively.
The voltage and THDv at bus i are calculated by:
Energies 2018, 11, 2187 5 of 17

 s
 H  (h) 2
| V | = ∑

 i

 Vi 
h= 1
s (3)
 H  (h) 2  (1) 
 THDv,k = ∑ Vk  /Vk 



h =2

The harmonic power losses (including fundamental and harmonic losses) in the line between
buses i and i + 1 are calculated by [2]:

(h)   (h)  2
  
(h)  (h)
Ploss(i,i+1) = Ri,i+1 Vi+1 − Vi  yi,i+1  (4)

The total power losses of the system include the system losses at the fundamental and harmonic
frequency and can be extracted from [2]:
!
H n
∑ ∑
(h)
Ploss = Ploss(i,i+1) (5)
h =1 i =1

2.2. Proposed Nonlinear Online Maximum Sensitivity Selection Based Charging Algorithm (NOL-MSSCA) for
Coordination of PEVs in a Smart Grid
A new online PEV coordination algorithm has been developed that considers the current harmonic
injections of the EV battery chargers and nonlinear loads. The recently implemented OL-MSSCA of [17]
uses a Newton-Raphson based fundamental power flow in order to solve the objective functions of
PEV coordination without considering current and voltage harmonics. In other words, [17] ignores the
nonlinearities of the EV chargers and industrial loads. This paper modifies this approach by including
the harmonic currents injected by EV battery chargers and nonlinear loads in the main program and
proposes a nonlinear online maximum sensitivity selection-based charging algorithm (NOL-MSSCA)
for the coordination of PEVs, which also considers battery charger and industry load nonlinearities.
The NOL-MSSCA is an online program and performs PEV coordination at a 5-min interval over a 24-h
period (Figure 2). To implement this approach, a DHPF program was performed to calculate the
harmonic bus voltages, harmonic losses and THDv of the system. The sensitivity of the total system
power losses to the power consumption of each PEV at each bus were calculated using the Jacobin
matrix of the DHPF algorithm to form the MSS vector. As such, the created MSS vector was used for
permanent scheduling of PEVs considering the maximum total demand of the system. The proposed
algorithm in Figure 2 is based on the following ideas:

1. PEV coordination is performed to reduce the costs associated with generation and losses
considering the network, EVs and power quality constraints.
2. The DHPF algorithm is included in the PEV coordination approach to add the harmonic injections
of nonlinear EV battery chargers and nonlinear industry loads.
3. Consumers with PEVs are classified as high, medium and low priority customers. These priorities
are defined based on three different charging zones: (i) Red/high priority (1800–2200h) customers
tend to charge their vehicles as soon as they return from work and pay very high tariffs.
(ii) Blue/medium priority (2200–0100h) PEV owners prefer to charge their vehicles at partially
off-peak periods with lower tariff rates. (iii) Green/low priority (0100–0800h) customers charge
their vehicles during off-peak hours and is highly recommended because low tariffs are set
for customers.
4. Most EVs users are charged based on their priorities as they are randomly plugged-in to increase
consumer satisfaction.
5. Charging of the remaining EVs are postponed and shifted to off-peak hours during early-morning
hours to decrease the cost and keep the power quality constraints within the permissible limits as
recommended by the IEEE-519 standard [18].
 Energies 2018, 11, 2187 6 of 17

6. 2018,
Energies For the
11, xscenarios with moderate
FOR PEER REVIEW and high levels of PEV penetrations, the OL-MSSCA algorithm 6 of 17
may not be able to fully charge the EVs, especially during peak hours due to THDv violations.
mayAccording to IEEE
not be able standard
to fully charge519, the THDv
the EVs, level during
especially needs to be kept
peak hourswithin
due tothe permissible
THDv level
violations.
of 5%. Note
According thatstandard
to IEEE OL-MSSCA strictly
519, the THDv prevents any THD
level needs and/or
to be kept voltage
within quality violations.
the permissible level
of Therefore,
5%. Note no costOL-MSSCA
that or penaltiesstrictly
for THDv increases
prevents anyand violations
THD and/orare considered
voltage in the
quality proposed
violations.
PEV coordination
Therefore, no cost orapproach. Instead,
penalties for THDvTHD issuesand
increases at high PEV penetration
violations levels
are considered are proposed
in the resolved by
PEVthecoordination
installations approach.
of inexpensive PPFs.
Instead, THD issues at high PEV penetration levels are resolved by
7. theToinstallations
fully chargeofthe
inexpensive PPFs.approach using PPF installation is considered.
PEVs, a simple
7. To fully charge the PEVs, a simple approach using PPF installation is considered.

Input data and system information: Daily load curves,

priority zones, random arrival of PEVs; EV charger and
nonlinear load harmonics spectrum

Create and update PEV queue table according to the

random PEV arrival
Check PEV priority zones, connect PEVs accordingly

DHPF program
Model harmonic currents sources for EV
chargers and nonlinear loads and run DHPF

Nonlinear MSS based scheduling

Create MSS vector from Jacobian matrix
based on the objective function of the
fundamental and harmonic power losses and
total power demand
Update the PEV queue table accordingly
Check for constraint violations
Permanent PEV scheduling
Run DHPF to calculate total cost, losses, THD,
voltage deviations
PPF solution
Install PPFs at worst bus No Check if THDv < 5% and
Tune PPFs for harmonic all PEVs are fully charged
orders of 5th ,7th, 11th
and 13th
Yes

Stop

Figure 2. 2.
Figure Proposed
Proposedapproach
approachforfor
nonlinear online
nonlinear PEV
online coordination
PEV with
coordination EVEV
with battery chargers
battery and
chargers and
nonlinear industry loads’ harmonics.
nonlinear industry loads’ harmonics.

2.3. Formulation of Proposed NOL-MSSCA for PEV Coordination

2.3. Formulation of Proposed NOL-MSSCA for PEV Coordination
PEV charging coordination is formulated as a nonlinear minimization problem, including the cost
PEV charging coordination is formulated as a nonlinear minimization problem, including the
of losses and cost of purchasing or generating energy (total demand) [19] considering current harmonic
cost of losses and cost of purchasing or generating energy (total demand) [19] considering current
injections by PEVs and nonlinear loads. The total power system losses of the objective function include
harmonic injections by PEVs and nonlinear loads. The total power system losses of the objective
both fundamental and harmonic voltages, which are calculated by the DHPF algorithm. The objective
function include both fundamental and harmonic voltages, which are calculated by the DHPF
function is defined as:
algorithm. The objective function is defined as:

min minF
= min= minFcost (loss+demand == mincost(( Pt,loss ++Dtcore,total ) =) =
( ) ) min  , ,
H m −1 
 (h) (h)   (h)  (6)
∑ ∑ KT Ri,i+1 (V − V yi, i+1  + ∑ KG P load
tcor,total (6)
) i,i +1 ( ) i ( )
h =1 i =0
, , − , + k ,

Fcost (loss + demand) is the cost corresponding to total system losses and total system demand. Pt,loss is
the total power losses at hour t and Dtcore,total is the total demand. Also, KT is the cost per MWh of
Energies 2018, 11, 2187 7 of 17

Fcost (loss + demand) is the cost corresponding to total system losses and total system demand. Pt,loss is
the total power losses at hour t and Dtcore,total is the total demand. Also, KT is the cost per MWh of
losses (for example, 50 $/MWh [20] and KG is the cost per MWh of generation [19]. H, m and i refer to
the highest harmonic order considered, total number of nodes and node number, respectively.
The objective function of the proposed nonlinear approach is formulated based on the sensitivity
of the fundamental and harmonic power losses of the smart grid to the EV power consumption at
fundamental frequency and the EV harmonic injections at harmonic frequencies. The MSS vectors are
simply extracted from the Jacobean matrix of the DHPF algorithm. According to the mismatch power
equations [21]:
S = ∆ (V ) Y ∗ V ∗ (7)

This equation includes fundamental and harmonics components. The complex power S and bus
voltages V are calculated by DHPF. The equation can be expressed by the partial derivatives of S with
respect to the voltage magnitudes |V | and angles σ to form the Jacobian matrix [21].
The entries of the Jacobean matrix include the harmonic values of total harmonic spectrums for
both nonlinear loads and the nonlinear EV battery chargers.

∂S ∂S
dS = d |V | + dσ (8)
∂ |V | ∂σ

The following constraints are considered in the newly developed algorithm:

∆Vm = |V m − Vrated | ≤ 0.1pu,



 f or m = 1, . . . , n
load
D = ∑ P ≤ D

t t


 cor,total tcor,total cor,max

 m
   21
H


h 2
Vi min ≤ Vi rms = ∑ |Vi | ≤ Vi max (9)

 h =1

  !1 

 H 2
 ∑ |V h |2 / V 1  × 100% ≤ THDvmax
  
 THDvi =

i i


h 6 =1

where ∆Vm is the per unit (pu) voltage deviation of bus m, which is limited to ∆Vmax = 0.1 pu in this
paper. Dt,cor,max is the maximum demand level (without any PEVs) at time interval t (time interval is
5 min); Vi min and Vi max are the respective minimum and maximum limits of the harmonic rms voltage
at bus i (Virms ); THDvi and THDvmax are the distortion at bus i and the maximum distortion allowed
while H and i are the highest harmonic order considered and node number, respectively.

3. The Modified Smart Grid Test System with PEVs

The modified 449 node smart grid system, including PEVs is considered to demonstrate the
proposed NOL-MSSCA of Section 2.2 for different PEV penetrations. Figure 3 shows the system
under study, including the PEVs and their EV charger harmonics. The main branch is the IEEE 31 bus
23 kV system [22], which includes 22 low voltage 19 bus 415 V residential feeders with different PEV
penetration levels. System and load parameters are available in [17] and [22]. The daily residential
load curves of [17] and the market energy price of [19] for summer weekdays have been used for
the simulations in this paper (Figure 4). Figure 4 shows the new tariff for producing and generating
energy in Australia in 2018 [19]. This tariff is chosen since the LV residential feeders’ data is obtained
from a suburb in West Australia (WA). As indicated in this reference, the energy price changes may
lead users to consume energy more efficiently. For example, the price of energy is more expensive
during rush hours in summer (approximately 55 cents/kWh). Therefore, the aim is to push the PEV
charging activities to a later time, so they are charged during off-peak hours. The proposed online
approach (NOL-MSSCA) aims at considering both customer preference (based on priority zones) and
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 17

concerns of the utilities. In the objective function, the cost per MWh of generation (KG) is computed
based on the latest market energy price of [19].
Energies 2018, 11, 2187 8 of 17
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 17

concerns of the utilities. In the objective function, the cost per MWh of generation (KG) is computed Residential
the concerns q of thePEVutilities. In the objective per MWh of28
function, the costResidential generation (KG ) is computed 15
based on the
PEV latest market energy price of PEV [19]. 21 14
based on the p r
latest n
market l
energy hprice of [19]. Residential 27 Residential
PEV PEV PEV
a b c d g Residential 26 Residential ASD
e f i
DT
qs o PEV m
Residential
25 28 20 Residential 1315
PEV
PEV PEV k j
PEVPEV Residential 21 14
p r n l h Residential 27 Residential
Residential 12 Residential
PEV PEV PEV Residential 24
26 Residential ASD
One residential aFeederb (with
c 47%
d Nonlinear
e f g PEV ipenetration) Residential VFD 19 11 Residential
DT Residential 2325 20 Residential 13 ASD
s o PEV m PEV k j PEV Residential 10
245 6 7 Residential 12 Residential
1 2 3 Residential4 8 9 Residential
One residential Feeder (with 47% Nonlinear PEV penetration) VFD 19 11 Residential
29 23 Residential
Residential Residential ASD 16

VFD
Substation 22 ASD 10
1 2
Residential 30
3 4 5 6 7 8 9Residential Residential
17
Residential Residential
29 31 16 18
VFD

SubstationResidential 22 ASD Residential

23 kV Distribution Residential
System 17
30
Residential Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential 31 Residential 18
Residential
23 kV Distribution System Residential
Figure 3. The 449-node smart grid system consisting of the IEEE 31 node 23 kV system with 22 low
voltage 415 V residential feeders populated with 47% PEVs including nonlinear battery chargers and
Figure 3. The 449-node smart grid system consisting of the IEEE 31 node 23 kV system with 22 low
Figure
five 3. The 449-node
nonlinear industrysmart
loads.grid system consisting of the IEEE 31 node 23 kV system with 22 low
voltage 415
voltage 415 VV residential
residential feeders
feeders populated
populated withPEVs
with 47% 47%including
PEVs including
nonlinearnonlinear batteryand
battery chargers chargers and
five nonlinear industry loads.
five nonlinear industry loads.

Figure
Figure 4. 4. 4. Variable
Variable short-term
short-term market
market energy energy pricing [19].
pricingpricing
[19].
Figure Variable short-term market energy [19].

4. PEV Battery Charger as Nonlinear Load

4. PEV Battery Charger as Nonlinear Load
4. PEVPEVs
Battery
areCharger as Nonlinear
a low emission mode Load
of transport, and therefore, they are becoming very popular in
PEVs are a low emission mode of transport, and therefore, they are becoming very popular in
distribution
PEVs are systems. It is important
a low emission mode ofthat smart grids
transport, and provide
therefore, solutions
they aretobecoming
manage the energy
very storage
popular in
distribution systems. It is important that smart grids provide solutions to manage the energy storage
options, assystems.
distribution well as power
It is quality impacts
important that smartassociated
grids with solutions
provide nonlinearto charging
manage circuitry
the energyinstalled
storage in
options, as well as power quality impacts associated with nonlinear charging circuitry installed in
PEVs.
options, Many
as well studies
as powerhave already
quality started
impacts to investigate
associated with the harmonic
nonlinear distortion
charging
PEVs. Many studies have already started to investigate the harmonic distortion created by AC-DC created
circuitry by AC-DC
installed in
charging
PEVs. Many
charging circuitry
studies
circuitry [10,23,24].
have already
[10,23,24]. However,
However, started the impact
of EV of
to investigate
the impact EV
the charger
charger harmonic
harmonics harmonics
on grids on
distortion grids
created
has has not been
by AC-DC
not been
considered
charging
considered and
circuitry
and included
[10,23,24].
included inHowever,
online
in online PEVPEV coordination
the impactproblems.
coordination of EVproblems.
charger In thisthe
harmonics
In this paper, paper, on the
grids
typical typical harmonic
has not
harmonic been
current
current spectrum
spectrum of of
a a Nissan
Nissan LeafLeaf
modelmodel
is is
used used considering
considering a level a2 level 2
charging
considered and included in online PEV coordination problems. In this paper, the typical harmonic charging
(208/16A) (208/16A)
with the with the
efficiency
efficiency of 88%
of 88% andandrated battery
rated capacity
battery of
capacity 24 kWh
of 24 [25].
kWh In practice,
[25]. In the new
practice,
current spectrum of a Nissan Leaf model is used considering a level 2 charging (208/16A) with the EV
the chargers
new EV have
chargers have
less
lessharmonic
harmonic
efficiency of 88%current
andcontents.
current rated In theIn
contents.
battery DHPF algorithm,
the DHPF
capacity the PEV
algorithm,
of 24 kWh chargers
the
[25]. InPEV with a the
chargers
practice, rating of 3.3
with
new a kW
EV are of 3.3
rating
chargers kW
have
molded as nonlinear EV charge loads with decoupled harmonic current
are molded as nonlinear EV charge loads with decoupled harmonic current sources based on the sources based on the
less harmonic current contents. In the DHPF algorithm, the PEV chargers with a rating of 3.3 kW are
frequency
molded spectrumsEV
as nonlinear of Table 1. To
charge investigate
loads the impact
with decoupled of harmonics
harmonic on the
current power
sources quality
based on ofthe
the
grid, nonlinear EV chargers as well as nonlinear industry loads were both modeled and included.
Energies 2018, 11, 2187 9 of 17

5. Simulation Results and Discussions

The new algorithm was used on the modified smart grid system of Figure 3 considering
uncoordinated (random) and coordinated (NOL-MSSCA) PEV charging strategies without and with
harmonics. Case studies 1–3 were simulated and the results are shown in Figures 5–7 and Table 2.

Table 1. Typical low order harmonic current spectrum of EV chargers and industry nonlinear loads [2,25].

Harmonic PEV Six-Pulse VFD PWM-ASD

Order Mag. (%) Phase (deg) Mag. (%) Phase (deg) Mag. (%) Phase (deg)
1 100 0 100 0 100 0
5 2 −67 23.52 111 23.52 111
7 2 −67 6.08 109 6.08 109
9 1.5 −46 4.57 −158 4.57 −158
11 1.8 −46 4.20 −178 4.20 −178
THDi 18.9% 25.2% 7.1%

6. Discussions
The developed NOL-MSSCA was used to investigate the impacts of battery chargers and nonlinear
load harmonics on uncoordinated and coordinated PEV charging. The aim is to fully charge all vehicles
by 0800h for the next day’s trip without exceeding the distribution transformer loading and the network
power quality limits (Equation (9)). The algorithm was tested for the modified IEEE 449 bus system of
Figure 3 that includes a 23 kV distribution network and 415 V residential feeders. The coordination
algorithm is designed to control the node and network THDv levels within the permissible limits of
5% as recommended by the IEEE 519 Standard [18].
Further, Table 3 shows a comparison between the recent research and the practical coordination
approach of this paper. As indicated, this paper not only addresses the need for integration of
harmonics caused by nonlinear loads and EV battery chargers, but also provides solutions for further
power quality improvement and customer satisfaction.

Table 2. Simulated case studies of uncoordinated and coordinated PEV charging (based on a nonlinear
online maximum sensitivity selection-based charging algorithm (NOL-MSSCA) considering harmonics
without/with passive power filters (PPFs).

Simulation Results
Case PEVs Charging PEV Max THDv at Voltage System Energy Number of PEVs
Approach Penetration (%) Worst Bus (%) Deviations (%) Losses (MW) Not Fully Charged
16 5.12 7.64 0.33 0
Uncoordinated PEV
1 32 6.11 8.50 0.37 0
Charging without PPFs
47 11.60 13.50 0.44 0
16 5.14 0.97 0.027 0
Coordinated PEV
2 32 5.22 0.97 0.029 0
Charging without PPFs
47 5.36 0.98 0.032 20
Coordinated PEV
3 47 5.02 0.97 0.028 0
Charging with PPFs
63 5.02 0.98 0.029 0
Energies 2018, 11, 2187 10 of 17
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 17

6.1. Case 1—Uncoordinated PEV Charging

First, the uncoordinated PEV charging was tested to calculate and examine the corresponding corresponding
THDv with different levels of PEV penetration. Case 1 shows the simulation
with different levels of PEV penetration. Case 1 shows the simulation results for uncoordinated
results for
charging considering
uncoordinated chargingvoltage harmonics
considering withharmonics
voltage 16% (includes
with6616%PEVs), 32% (includes
(includes 66 PEVs),133 32%PEVs) and
(includes
47%PEVs)
133 (includes
and 198
47%PEVs) PEV198
(includes penetrations. In this case study,
PEVs) PEV penetrations. In thisthe
caserandomly
study, thearriving
randomlyPEVs were
arriving
selected
PEVs andselected
were they wereandcharged as soon
they were as they
charged as plugged-in
soon as they without considering
plugged-in without theconsidering
priority zones.
the
As indicated
priority zones.byAsthe results by
indicated (Figure 5 and(Figure
the results Table 2), the Table
5 and THDv2),level is verylevel
the THDv highisand
verythe impact
high of
and the
chargers’
impact of harmonics cannot be neglected,
chargers’ harmonics cannot be especially
neglected, at medium at
especially and high PEV
medium andpenetration of 32% and
high PEV penetration
47%,
of 32%respectively.
and 47%, respectively.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 5. Cont.
Energies 2018, 11, 2187 11 of 17
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 17
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 17

(e) (f)
(e) (f)
Figure 5. Simulation
Figure results
5. Simulation for Case
results for 1—Uncoordinated
Case 1—UncoordinatedPEV charging considering
PEV charging harmonics
considering including
harmonics
Figure 5. Simulation results for Case 1—Uncoordinated PEV charging considering harmonics
power consumption
including and THDv and
power consumption of (a,b)
THDv 16% PEV 16%
of (a,b) charging penetration;
PEV charging (c,d) 32%
penetration; PEV
(c,d) 32%charging
PEV
including power consumption and THDv of (a,b) 16% PEV charging penetration; (c,d) 32% PEV
charging penetration;
penetration; (e,f)charging
(e,f) 47% PEV 47% PEVpenetration.
charging penetration.
charging penetration; (e,f) 47% PEV charging penetration.

6.2. Case 2—PEV Coordination with NOL-MSSCA

6.2.
6.2.Case
Case2—PEV
2—PEVCoordination
Coordinationwith with NOL-MSSCA
NOL-MSSCA
In Case 2, the developed NOL-MSSCA was used to coordinate PEV charging and investigate
In Case
In Case 2, the developed
2, the developed NOL-MSSCA was
was used to
to coordinate PEV charging and investigate
investigate the the
the impact of harmonics. As NOL-MSSCA
the results show, used coordinate
the algorithm can PEV charging and
successfully control the THDv
impact
impact of harmonics.
of the
harmonics. As the
As limit results
the results show, the algorithm can successfully control the THDv level
level within acceptable of 5%show, the algorithm
as defined by IEEE-519 can successfully
standards for control the THDv
low PEV level
penetrations
within
within the
the acceptable
acceptable limit
limit of
of 5%
5% as
as defined
defined by
by IEEE-519
IEEE-519 standards
standards for
for low
low PEV
PEV penetrations of
penetrations of 16%,
16%,
of 16%, but the THDv level is slightly over the standard limit for medium the PEV penetration
but
butthe
the THDv
THDvlevel level isisslightly
slightly over
overthe
thestandard
standard limit
limitto for medium
forfully
medium the
the PEV
PEV penetration of of 47% (5.22%).
(5.22%).
of 47% (5.22%). Further, the algorithm managed charge the penetration
PEVs before 47% 0800h. This is
Further,
Further, the algorithm
the algorithm managed
managed to fully
to fully charge
charge the PEVs
the PEVs before 0800h. This is done by shifting the
done
PEVs by to
shifting
off-peak thehours
PEVs totoreduce
off-peak the hours
effects toofreduce
current thebefore
effects
harmonics
0800h. This is harmonics
of injected
current by
done by shifting
nonlinear injectedthe
battery by
PEVs to off-peak hours to reduce the effects of current harmonics injected by nonlinear battery
nonlinear
chargers battery chargers and nonlinear industry loads. Figure 6b,c show the THDv level for PEV
chargersand andnonlinear
nonlinearindustry
industryloads.
loads. Figure
Figure 6b,c
6b,c show
show the the THDv
THDv level
level forfor PEV penetrations of
PEV penetrations of 16%
16%
penetrations
and of 16% and 32%. As expected, the THDv level is within the pre-defined allowed THD
and 32%.
32%. AsAs expected,
expected, the the THDv
THDv levellevel is is within
within the the pre-defined
pre-defined allowed
allowed THD THD levellevel ofof 5%.
5%. The
The
level of 5%.
simulation The simulation results for 16%, 32% and 47% PEV penetrations are shown in Figure 6 and
simulation results
results forfor 16%,
16%, 32% 32% andand 47% 47% PEVPEV penetrations
penetrations are are shown
shown in in Figure
Figure 66 andand Table
Table 2, 2,
Table 2, accordingly.
accordingly.
accordingly. The
The
The NOL-MSSCA
NOL-MSSCA
NOL-MSSCA was
was
was also
also
also used
used
used to
to coordinate
to coordinate
coordinate PEV
PEV
PEV charging
charging without considering
without considering
charging without considering
harmonic
harmonic distortion.
distortion. A Acomparison
comparison of
of two
two PEV daily
daily load
load curves
curves
harmonic distortion. A comparison of two PEV daily load curves (for high PEV penetration of (for
(for high
high PEV
PEV penetration
penetration of of
47%)
47%)47%)
shows
shows that the algorithm effectively reduced the THDv level of 11.60% without constraint to thethe
shows that
thatthethealgorithm
algorithm effectively
effectively reduced
reduced the THDv
THDv level
level of
of 11.60%
11.60% without
without constraint
constraint to to
the
acceptable
acceptable
acceptable level
level
levelofof 5%.
of 5%.Additionally,
5%. Additionally, the
Additionally, algorithm
the algorithm
algorithm seems seemsquite
seems quiteefficient
quite efficientin
efficient ininreducing
reducing
reducing thethe
the cost
costcostof of
of
generation
generation
generation with
withwiththethe proposed
proposed
the proposed scenario
scenario
scenarioof of shifting
ofshifting
shiftingthe the
the PEVPEV charging
charging schedules
charging schedulesto
schedules totooff-peak
off-peak hour.
off-peakhour.
hour.

(a)
(a) (b)

Figure 6. Cont.
Energies 2018, 11, 2187 12 of 17
Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 17

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

Figure 6.6. Simulation

Figure Simulation results
results for
for Case
Case 2:
2: NOL-MSSCA
NOL-MSSCA considering
considering harmonics
harmonics including
including power
power
consumption and THDv of (a,b) 16% PEV charging penetration; (c,d) 32% PEV charging penetration;
consumption and THDv of (a,b) 16% PEV charging penetration; (c,d) 32% PEV charging penetration;
(e,f)
(e,f)47%
47%PEVPEVcharging
chargingpenetration.
penetration.

6.3.
6.3. Case 3—Installation
3—Installation of
of Passive
Passive Power
Power Filters
Filters (PPFs)
(PPFs) to
to Improve
Improve the
the Performance
PerformanceofofNOL-MSSCA
NOL-MSSCAwith
with
High Penetration of PEVs
High Penetration of PEVs
The simulation results
The simulation resultsininFigure
Figure6 for6 forthethe
high high
PEVPEV penetration
penetration of 47% of 47% indicate
indicate that thethat the
NOL-
NOL-MSSCA cannot manage to fully charge all EVs before the designated
MSSCA cannot manage to fully charge all EVs before the designated time of 0800 h for the next day’s time of 0800 h for the
next
trip. day’s
This istrip. This is expected
expected since the since the collective
collective effect of effect
manyofvehicles
many vehicles
with the with the considerable
considerable low orderlow
order harmonic injections of Table 1 can create operating conditions with very
harmonic injections of Table 1 can create operating conditions with very high levels of overall THD high levels of overall
THD distortion.
distortion. To deal
To deal with with the situation
the situation and and prevent
prevent incontrollable
incontrollable harmonic
harmonic pollution
pollution conditions,
conditions, the
the NOL-MSSCA will keep postponing EV charging to the early morning hours.
NOL-MSSCA will keep postponing EV charging to the early morning hours. As a result, a number of As a result, a number
of PEVs
PEVs will
will notnotbebefully
fullycharged
chargedby by0800h.
0800h. CaseCase33 demonstrates
demonstrates the the simple
simple possible
possible solution
solution of of
installing
installing PPFs
PPFs atatthe
thebus
buswith
withthetheworst
worstvoltage
voltageharmonic
harmonicdistortion
distortion(bus
(bus26).
26). Simulation
Simulation results
results areare
shown
shown in in Figure
Figure 77 and
and Table
Table 2,2, accordingly.
accordingly. As As indicated,
indicated, the
the THDv
THDv levellevel for
for the
the worst
worst operating
operating
situation with 47% PEV penetrations is still within the permissible limit and
situation with 47% PEV penetrations is still within the permissible limit and the NOL-MSSCA the NOL-MSSCA manages
to fully charge
manages all charge
to fully EVs within
all EVsthewithin
schedule. the To assess the
schedule. performance
To assess of the proposed
the performance of the approach,
proposed
the
approach, the NOL-MSSCA was also tested for very high PEV penetrations of 63% (includes 263shown
NOL-MSSCA was also tested for very high PEV penetrations of 63% (includes 263 PEVs). As PEVs).
in
AsFigure
shown7in and Table7 2,
Figure even
and in case
Table of very
2, even high
in case ofPEV
verypenetrations, the THDv level
high PEV penetrations, is stilllevel
the THDv within the
is still
permitted
within thestandard
permitted limit of 5% and
standard limitallofPEVs
5% andare fully charged.
all PEVs For this
are fully purpose,
charged. For PPFs are designed
this purpose, PPFsand are
designed and tuned at four dominated harmonics of 5th, 7th, 11th and 13th. The fundamental
 Energies 2018, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 17
Energies 2018, 11, 2187 13 of 17

frequency is assumed to be f1 = 50 Hz for this study. The filter components are: RF = 1 Ω, LF = 100 mH,
C(5)F =at2.07
tuned fourµF, C(7)F = 0.84harmonics
dominated µF, C(11)F =of0.6 µF,7th,
5th, and C(13)F
11th and= 0.35
13th.µF [26].
The fundamental frequency is assumed
to be f 1 = 50 Hz for this study. The filter components are: RF = 1 Ω, LF = 100 mH, C(5)F = 2.07 µF,
Table 3. Main findings of this study in comparison with previous work.
C(7)F = 0.84 µF, C(11)F = 0.6 µF, and C(13)F = 0.35 µF [26].
Main Findings of This Paper (Nonlinear Online Coordination Approach) in Comparison with Previous
Table 3. Main findings of this study in comparison with previous work.
Research
Item
This Research
Main Findings(Nonlinear Online
of This Paper Approach)
(Nonlinear Online CoordinationPrevious Research
Approach) (Online
in Comparison Approach)
with
Previous
Item Implementation of uncontrolled PEV charging in Research
the
Harmonics and nonlinearities are ignored
1 presence This
of harmonics injected byOnline
Research (Nonlinear nonlinear EV battery
Approach) Previous Research (Online Approach)
(e.g., [14,17,27]).
chargersofand
Implementation industrialPEV
uncontrolled loads.
charging in the
Harmonics and nonlinearities are ignored
1Proposing
presence of harmonics
a nonlinear injected
online PEVby nonlinear EVapproach
coordination battery Implementing a newton Raphson based
(e.g., [14,17,27]).
2 (NOL-MSSCA) chargers
by usingand
DHPFindustrial loads.considering
algorithm power flow (PF) in the online approach.
Proposingand
harmonics a nonlinear
THDv in online
the PEV coordination
objective approach
cost function. Implementing a newton
Harmonics Raphson(e.g.,
are ignored based [17,27]).
2 (NOL-MSSCA) by using DHPF algorithm considering
Inclusion of PPFs as a practical solution to fully charge the power flow (PF) in the online approach.
3 harmonics and THDv in the objective cost function. Not applicable/not
Harmonics used
are ignored (e.g., (e.g., [17,27]).
[17,27]).
PEVs for high PEV penetrations.
Inclusion of PPFs as a practical solution to fully charge
3 Not applicable/not used (e.g., [17,27]).
the PEVs for high PEV penetrations.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 7. Simulation results for Case 3: Installation of PPF with NOL-MSSCA considering harmonics
Figure 7.power
including Simulation results for
consumption andCase 3: Installation
THDv; of PPF
(a,b) 47% PEV with NOL-MSSCA
penetration; (c,d) 63% considering harmonics
PEV penetration.
including power consumption and THDv; (a,b) 47% PEV penetration; (c,d) 63% PEV penetration.
Energies 2018, 11, 2187 14 of 17

7. Conclusions
In this paper, a simple and practical approach for online PEV coordination in smart grids
considering battery charger and nonlinear industrial loads is presented. The proposed NOL-MSSCA
is based on the recently implemented OL-MSSCA of [17] with the inclusion of harmonics caused
by EV chargers as well as nonlinear loads. The new approach uses the DHPF calculations within
the online coordination algorithm to include harmonic system losses and THDv in the objective cost
function. The proposed algorithm not only minimizes the cost, but also improves the power quality
and performance of the grid by preventing THDv and voltage violations. Detailed simulation results
for three case studies are shown in Table 2 and Figures 5–7 to assess the performance and prove the
validity of the presented method. The main conclusions are:

• Uncoordinated charging of PEV batteries (case 1) could have negative impacts on the performance
and power quality of a smart grid. It could result in unacceptable THDv levels beyond the
permissible limits of the IEEE-519 Standard, particularly at high penetrations of EVs during
peak-load hours. Table 2 and Figure 5 indicate that the system’s THDv level is above 11% for
a high PEV penetration of 47%.
• The proposed NOL-MSSCA managed to charge all EVs at low and moderate levels of PEV
penetration without exceeding the power quality limits. The NOL-MSSCA minimizes the costs
associated with generation and losses while controlling system overload and bus voltage
regulations as well as the bus and network voltage THDs. Simulation results for case 2
(Table 2 and Figure 6) reveal that the proposed algorithm can manage to reduce the THDv level
to approximately 5% for 16% and 32% PEV penetrations and fully charge the PEVs. However,
at very high penetrations of PEVs with significant charger and nonlinear load harmonic current
injections, particularly during peak-load hours, the NOL-MSSCA could not fully charge all PEVs
before the designated time of 0800h for the next day’s trip. As shown in Table 2 and Figure 6,
the THDv level is reduced from 11.6% to 5.36% for a high PEV penetration of 47%. However,
20 PEVs were not charged by 0800h.
• To resolve the issues and meet the need for customer satisfaction, the simple approach of installing
PPFs installation at the worst voltage quality buses is suggested (case 3). Simulation results show
the good performance of NOL-MSSCA with passive filtering for the PEV penetration of 47%.
Therefore, this practical approach successfully managed to fully charge all PEVs before their next
trip in the morning, even with high PEV penetrations. According to the results of Table 2 and
Figure 7, the THDv for high PEV penetrations is within the permissible standard level of 5% while
all PEVs were fully charged.

In conclusion, the presented research has addressed the power quality related issues for smart
grids while coordinating PEV charging activities. The power quality is one of the main factors in smart
grids which has not been considered in the recent PEV coordination approaches in the literature. Many
studies started to investigate the impacts of EV chargers and their harmonics. However, they have not
been included in the coordination and scheduling approaches to control the THDv levels and therefore
to improve the power quality.
Future works and publications could target the following research directions:

• The proposed practical approach of this paper can also be applied in other PEV coordination
technologies by considering harmonics in the objective function and constraints.
• For the cases with high PEV penetrations, a more sophisticated filtering approach could be
considered, such as the installation of active power filters (APFs) or custom power devices (CPDs)
at selected buses with poor power quality.
• For the cases with high PEV penetrations, rescheduling of SSCs can also be investigated for further
power quality improvement.
Energies 2018, 11, 2187 15 of 17

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments: This work is supported by School of Electrical Engineering, Computing and Mathematical
Sciences, Curtin University, Perth Australia.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflict of interest.

Nomenclature
A. Acronyms
APF Active Power Filter
ASD Adjustable Speed Drive
CDP Custom Power Devices
DCFC DC Fast Charging
DHPF Decoupled Harmonic Power Flow
DG Distributed Generation
EV Electric Vehicle
LTC Transformer Load Tap Changer
MSS Maximum Sensitivity Selection
NOL-MSSCA Nonlinear Online Maximum Sensitivity Selection based Charging Algorithm
PEV Plug-in Electric Vehicle
PPF Passive Power Filter
PWM Pulse Width Modulation
SSC Switched Shunt Capacitor
THD Total Harmonic Distortion
THDv THD of Voltage
VFD Variable Frequency Drive
VSD Variable Speed Drive
B. Indices, Parameters and Variables
C(h) Ratio of the hth harmonic current to its fundamental
C(h)F = Tuned filter capacitor at harmonic h
Dtcore,total Total system demand
Dt,cor,max Maximum demand level (without any PEVs) at time interval t
f1 System fundamental frequency; f1 = 50 Hz
fh Harmonic h frequency; fh = h(f1 )
Fcost (loss + demand) Objective function of the proposed NOL-MSSCA algorithm
H Highest harmonic order considered
KT Cost per MWh of losses (for example, 50$/MWh [19]
KG Cost per MWh of generation [20]
P Real power
h
Ploss (i,i +1) Harmonic power losses in the line between busses i and i + 1
Ploss Total system power losses (including fundamental and harmonic losses)
Pt,loss Total system power losses (including fundamental and harmonic losses) at hour t
Q Reactive power
RF Tuned filter resistor
Ri,i+1 Resistance of the line between busses i and i + 1
S Complex power
dS Partial derivative of S with respect to voltage
∂S
∂ |V | Partial derivative of S with respect to voltage magnitude
∂S
∂σ Partial derivative of S with respect to voltage phase angle
t Time interval (equal to 5 min in this paper)
THDv,k THD voltage of bus k
THDvi THD distortion at bus i
THDvmax Maximum allowed THD distortion at bus i
V Voltage
Energies 2018, 11, 2187 16 of 17

|V| Voltage magnitude

σ Voltage phase angle
V(h) Harmonic voltage at harmonic frequency h
(h)
Vi Harmonic voltage of bus i at harmonic frequency h
∆V m The per unit (pu) voltage deviation of bus m
∆V max = 0.1 pu Selected limited of voltage deviation
V i man Maximum limit of the harmonic rms voltage at bus i
V i mix Minimum limit of the harmonic rms voltage at bus i
Xli,i+1 Reactance of the line between busses i and i + 1
XCi,i+1 Capacitance of the line between busses i and i + 1
Y(h) Admittance matrix at harmonic frequency h
Yl,l Diagonal entries of the admittance matrix.
Yl,s Off-diagonal entries of the admittance matrix.

References
1. Masoum, M.A.S.; Fuchs, E.F. Power Quality in Power Systems and Electrical Machines, 2nd ed.; Elsevier
Academic Press: Burlington, MA, USA, 2015.
2. Ulinuha, A.; Masoum, M.A.S.; Islam, S.M. Optimal Scheduling of LTC and Shunt Capacitors in Large
Distorted Distribution Systems using Evolutionary-Based Algorithms. IEEE Trans. Power Del. 2008,
23, 434–441. [CrossRef]
3. Fuchs, E.F.; Masoum, M.A.S. Power Quality in Power Systems and Electrical Machines, 1nd ed.; Academic Press:
Cambridge, MA, USA, 2008.
4. Ladjevardi, M.; Masoum, M.A.S. Genetically optimized fuzzy placement and sizing of capacitor banks in
distorted distribution networks. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 2008, 23, 449–456. [CrossRef]
5. Electric Vehicle Charging Station Locations. Available online: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/
electricity_locations.html (accessed on 18 July 2018).
6. Impact of Electric Vehicles and Natural Gas Vehicles on the Energy Market. Available online: https:
//mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/58388/ (accessed on 9 September 2014).
7. Fang, X.; Misra, S.; Xue, G.; Yang, D. Smart grid—The new and improved power grid: A survey.
IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor. 2011, 14, 944–980. [CrossRef]
8. Dubey, A.; Santoso, S. Electric Vehicle Charging on Residential Distribution Systems: Impacts and Mitigations.
IEEE Access 2015, 3, 1871–1893. [CrossRef]
9. Gomez, J.C.; Morcos, M.M. Impact of EV Battery Chargers on the Power Quality of Distributed Systems.
ZEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 2003, 18, 975–981. [CrossRef]
10. Basu, M.; Gaughan, K.; Coyle, E. Harmonic Distortion Caused by EV Battery Chargers in the Distribution
Systems Network and Its Remedy. In Proceedings of the 39th International Universities Power Engineering
Conference (UPEC), Bristol, UK, 6–8 September 2004.
11. Singh, B.; Kushwaha, R. An EV Battery Charger with Power Factor Corrected Bridgeless Zeta Converter
Topology. In Proceedings of the 7th India International Conference on Power Electronics (IICPE),
Patiala, India, 17–19 November 2016.
12. Yilmaz, M.; Krein, P.T. Review of the Impact of Vehicle-to-Grid Technologies on Distribution Systems and
Utility Interfaces. IEEE Trans. Power Electron. 2013, 28, 5673–5689. [CrossRef]
13. Su, W.; Rahimi-Eichi, H.; Zeng, W.; Chow, M.Y. A Survey on the Electrification of Transportation in a Smart
Grid Environment. IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 2012, 3, 1–10. [CrossRef]
14. Amini, M.H.; Moghadam, P.M.; Karabasoglu, O. Simultaneous Allocations of Electric Vehicles’ Parking Lots
and Distributed Renewable Resources in Smart Power Distribution Networks. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017,
28, 332–342. [CrossRef]
15. Bahrami, S.; Wong, V.W.S.; Huang, J. An Online Learning Algorithm for Demand Response in Smart Grid.
IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2017. [CrossRef]
16. Bahrami, S.; Parniani, M. Game Theoretic Based Charging Strategy for Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles.
IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 2014, 5, 2368–2375. [CrossRef]
Energies 2018, 11, 2187 17 of 17

17. Deilami, S.; Masoum, A.S.; Moses, P.S.; Masoum, M.A.S. Real-Time Coordination of Plug-In Electric Vehicle
Charging in Smart Grids to Minimize Power Losses and Improve Voltage Profile. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid
2011, 2, 456–467. [CrossRef]
18. Recommended practices and requirements for harmonic control in electrical power systems. IEEE Stand. 2014.
[CrossRef]
19. Price List Standard Fees and Charges. Available online: www.synerg.com2018 (accessed on 1 July 2018).
20. Masoum, M.A.S.; Ladjevardi, M.; Fuchs, E.F.; Grady, W. Optimal Placement and Sizing of Fixed and Switched
Capacitor Banks Under Nonsinusoidal Operating Conditions. In Proceedings of the IEEE Power Engineering
Society Summer Meeting, Chicago, IL, USA, 21–25 July 2002.
21. Khaldi, M.R. Sensitivity matrices for reactive power dispatch and voltage control of large-scale power
systems. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst. 2004, 213–489.
22. Civanlar, S.; Grainger, J.J. Volt/Var control on distribution systems with lateral branches using shunt
capacitors and voltage regulators part III: The numerical results. IEEE Trans. Power Appar. Syst. 1985,
104, 3291–3297. [CrossRef]
23. Bass, R.; Harley, R.; Lambert, F.; Rajasekaran, V.; Pierce, J. Residential Harmonic Loads and EV Charging.
In Proceedings of the 2001 IEEE Power Engineering Society Winter Meeting, Columbus, OH, USA,
28 January–1 February 2001; pp. 803–808.
24. Yanxia, L.; Jiuchun, J. Harmonic-Study of Electric Vehicle Chargers. In Proceedings of the 2005 International
Conference on Electrical Machines and Systems, Nanjing, China, 27–29 September 2005; pp. 2404–2407.
25. Steady State Vehicle Charging Fact Sheet: Nissan Leaf. Available online: http/avt.inl.gov/sites/default/
files/pdf/fsev/SteadyStateLoadCharacterization2015Leaf (accessed on 1 July 2015).
26. Masoum, M.A.S.; Deilami, S.; Islam, S.M. Mitigation of Harmonics in Smart Grids with High Penetration of
Plug-In Vehicles. In Proceedings of the IEEE PES General Meeting, Minneapolis, RI, USA, 25–29 July 2010.
27. Masoum, A.S.; Deilami, S.; Abu-Siada, A.; Masoum, M.A.S. Fuzzy Approach for Online Coordination of
Plug-In Electric Vehicle Charging in Smart Grid. IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy 2015, 1112–1121. [CrossRef]

© 2018 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).