IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution

Review Article

Review on voltage-violation mitigation ISSN 1751-8687

Received on 3rd June 2019
Revised 25th September 2019
techniques of distribution networks with Accepted on 26th November 2019
E-First on 19th December 2019
distributed rooftop PV systems doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2019.0851
www.ietdl.org

Ahmed M.M. Nour1 , Ahmed Y. Hatata2,3, Ahmed A. Helal4, Magdi M. El-Saadawi2

1Department of Electrical Engineering, Alexandria Higher Institute of Engineering & Technology (AIET), Alexandria, Egypt
2Department of Electrical Engineering, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt
3Department of Electrical Engineering, Shaqra University, Shaqraa Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
4Department of Electrical and Control Engineering, Arab Academy for Science and Technology and Maritime Transport, Alexandria Egypt

E-mail: ahmed.nour@aiet.edu.eg

Abstract: The integration of the various types of distributed generators in low-voltage (LV) distribution networks becomes a
great concern, especially the rooftop photovoltaic (PV) systems. The negative impacts of the rooftop PVs on the distribution
feeder buses’ voltage include voltage rise and voltage unbalance (VU). Such a voltage-violation condition depends mainly on
the PVs ratings and the network unbalance percentage. This study presents a review for different techniques used to mitigate
the voltage violation resulting from PVs integration in a typical three-phase four-wire LV distribution network case study. The
voltage-violation mitigation techniques studied in this study are enhancement of the feeder, on-load tap changer, demand-side
management, active power curtailment, a reactive power control, static transfer switch, energy storage systems and hybrid
strategies. The LV distribution network case study was modelled based on constant power model method using MATLAB
software environment. The simulation results demonstrate both voltage regulation and alleviating VU capabilities of each
technique.

1 Introduction regulation methods into three control structures types: centralised,

Owing to unsustainable fossil fuel resources in long-term national
strategies, environmental pollution, and rising global energy
consumption, there is a need to develop renewable energy power
plants.
Moreover, due to the high cost of power plants, transmission
lines, and distribution networks, there is a global trend to install
distributed generators (DGs). The concept of DG is small
generation units beside loads instead of bulk power plants and long
transmission lines [1]. Rooftop photovoltaic (PV) system is a form
of DGs, which is recently increased around the world [2]. Despite
the benefits of the rooftop PVs, they cause negative impacts on the
distribution networks performance. Distribution networks are
designed for unidirectional power flow [3]. While connecting high
PV penetration causes bidirectional power flows in the distribution
networks. This leads to overvoltage that occurs at consumers’
nodes and overloading problems on distribution systems’
components [3].
Moreover, the intermittent nature of solar irradiance causes
voltage flicker and effects on the network protection setting [4].
The unsymmetrical distribution of DGs and loads results in voltage
unbalance (VU) [5]. So, the concerned negative impacts in this
paper are voltage rise and VU.
There are review papers on voltage-rise mitigation methods in
distribution networks with high PV penetration in [6–9]. The
voltage regulation methods for distribution networks with high PV
penetrations in two categories conventional and emerging methods
are presented in [6]. The overvoltage and VU are the concerned
voltage quality problems. Three examples of conventional methods
and six examples of emerging methods are studied in [6]. It
concludes that conventional methods are not effective comparing
with emerging methods due to the fluctuation in nature of
distributed PVs. In [7], the impact of DG in low-voltage (LV)
distribution network according to technical, commercial, and
regulatory is presented.
Additionally, it describes the impact of voltage regulation
strategies based on two worst scenarios of both loads and DG
generations mathematically. Moreover, it discusses the voltage
decentralised independent, and decentralised-dependent controls. It
shows that the best effective control technique is the decentralised-
dependent control, which allows coordination between different
devices for regulating the voltage violation. A comprehensive
review of four techniques for mitigating voltage rise is presented in
[8]. Also, it discusses the impact of high PV penetration on voltage
profile mathematically in both transmission and distribution
networks. Also, a brief comparison between four mitigation
methods is included. It concludes that energy storage system (ESS)
technique is the best choice for voltage-rise regulating. It suggests
that future-work should investigate the suitable type of ESS for this
purpose. A brief technical survey on voltage control techniques to
increase the DGs’ ratings of distribution networks is introduced in
[9]. It advises that the existence of DG in distribution networks
requires two levels of control. The first level ensures fast control
response, whereas the second level coordinates between DGs. Six
voltage regulation methods in high PV penetration based on
economic view analysis are reviewed in [10]. It investigates the
mitigation methods in a reference LV rural network based on real
consumption and generation data. The studied case considers that
loads are balanced and they have slow load variations. It compares
between the reinstallation and emerging methods presenting the
investment cost in each method.
However, these review papers [6–9] do not present all the
mitigation methods, and there is neither case study nor a detailed
comparison between them based on the simulation results.
Moreover, in [10], it is mainly focused on the investment cost
rather than the effectiveness of mitigation methods and does not
study VU.
The main contribution of this work is presenting a detailed
evaluation of voltage-rise mitigation techniques in the radial
distribution feeders presenting their concepts, pros, and cons.
Moreover, a typical three-phase four-wire distribution feeder case
study with unbalanced loads and high rooftop PV penetration is
presented for evaluating and comparing the effectiveness of
different mitigation methods. It presents the ability of each
technique to alleviate another voltage violation such as VU. Also,
the impacts of both voltage rise and VU on line loss are studied.

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 3, pp. 349-361 349
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
Fig. 1  Classification of voltage-rise solutions’ strategies
This paper is organised as follows. Section 2 presents a
classification of various methods for alleviating the violation of
voltage. Summary of the studied mitigation techniques is presented
in Section 3. Section 4 describes the case study of a distribution
system. Then, the simulation results are presented in Section 5. The
feeder power loss of voltage-violation mitigation methods is
presented in Section 6. Finally, the conclusion is presented in
Section 7.
2 Voltage-violation mitigation strategies
According to EN 50160 Standard [11], a rapid voltage change must
not exceed 5% of nominal voltage under normal operating
conditions. The VU factor, which is the ratio of the negative-
voltage sequence component root mean square (RMS) to the
positive-voltage sequence component RMS, should not exceed 2%.
Engineering Recommendation P29 in UK standard [12] is more
restricted. It limits the VU to 1.3% at the user.
Many types of research propose different strategies to suppress
the voltage violation in grid-connected rooftop PV systems based
on the standards. According to the concept of violation mitigation
methods, Fig. 1 presents a classification of these strategies.
Furthermore, Fig. 1 presents the topic arrangement of the studied
mitigation strategies in this section.
2.1 Feeder enhancement
The feeder enhancement is based on changing the feeder cable with
higher ampacity or changing the character of the feeder such as
changing the values of multi-grounded resistances [13, 14].
The consequence of replacing the distribution feeder by another
feeder with higher cross-section area lower both voltage rise and
VU along the new feeder. This is because the new feeder
impedance becomes lower. Both voltage rise and VU are directly
proportional to the length of conductor [13, 14]. The influence of
three cables’ types on VU is investigated in [14]. It is concluded
that the aerial bundle cable has lower VU than steel conductor
galvanised and aluminium conductor steel reinforced.
On the other hand, the neutral current decreases when neutral
ground resistances in multi-grounded distribution networks are
small. The consequence is that VU becomes smaller [15]. The
investment in cables enhancement may not guarantee the best
economical solution for voltage-violation problems. As an
example, given the future scenarios for consumption and PV
penetration in Dutch LV, a probabilistic load flow approach
networks expose that investment in on-load tap-changer (OLTC)
transformer is more economical than cables enhancement [16].
350
2.2 OLTC transformer
OLTC changes the turns’ ratio between the corresponding primary
and secondary voltages in the transformer. Traditionally, it is
common to utilise OLTC transformers at medium-voltage (MV)
feeders while off-load tap-changer transformers are installed in LV
feeders [17]. Nowadays, there is a trend to study the effect of
installing the OLTC transformer in active LV networks connected
to the DGs [18]. It increases the allowable PV penetration in the
distribution networks and gives the flexibility to regulate the
customers’ voltages. However, to effectively regulate customers’
voltages in this method, LV networks’ measurements are required
[18].
OLTC can be controlled as three phase or three single phases.
There is a study for using decoupled three-phase OLTC due to its
effectiveness for regulating the voltage profile in the distribution
network with DG units. The study results show that the three
single-phase OLTCs are better than three-phase OLTC in
minimising the voltage deviation and the power line losses with
high PV penetration [19].
There are two types of tap changers according to the
construction: mechanical and electronic changers. In a mechanical
tap changer, at least 20 cycles are required for measuring the RMS
value of the bus voltage due to the delay time of the low-pass filter.
At first glance, the OLTC can mitigate the temporary voltages’ sag
or swell but the mechanical parts of OLTC do not provide that
because it has a specific taps number before malfunction [20].
Therefore, the operation time of high/MV OLTC is 30 s and
operation time of MV/LV OLTC is 60 s [21]. In modern tap
changer, triac switches replace the mechanical tap changing switch.
Electronic tap changer needs more design consideration for
robustness. It could change its tap position every half cycle. It is
very effective for rapid voltage regulation due to controlling
fluctuations of the PV power injection in the network [22]. The
limitation of electronic tapping is transformer's malfunction with
changing of supply frequency. Therefore, it is necessary to detect
the zero crossing frequently for measurement and tapping. The
other drawbacks of solid-state devices are high conduction loss,
high cost, the need for snubber circuit, and a proper protection
equipment [20].
According to OLTC operation, it can be used to justify a certain
bus or whole feeder. In case of confirming a specific bus within the
valid range, the controller of OLTC compares between the
predetermined dead-band (DB) voltage and difference voltage ΔU.
The ΔU is the subtraction between the actual secondary voltage
Uactual of the transformer and reference voltage Uref. During the
normal operation, the DB voltage is greater than the difference
voltage. If the difference voltage becomes greater than the DB and
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 3, pp. 349-361
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019

Fig. 2  Flowchart of the tap-changer control algorithm
exceeding a certain predetermined time delay, the tap position is
changed appropriately [23].
For ensuring the voltages along the feeder are within the
acceptable limit, two sensors are connected at the beginning and
end of the feeder. However, the remote bus is the most important in
the feeder [24]. Fig. 2 shows the flowchart of tap-changer strategy
for ensuring all buses’ voltages in a suitable range. Umax and Umin
are the measured maximum and minimum voltages, respectively.
UL is the lower statutory voltage limit and UH is the upper
statutory voltage limit. Ustep is the voltage step per tap change. Tap
is the position of the tap changer. ΔUmax is the difference between
the maximum voltage and upper statutory voltage. ΔUmin is the
difference between the lower statutory voltage and minimum
voltage. The formulations of ΔUmax and ΔUmin are expressed in
(1–2) [25],
ΔUmax = Umax − UH (1)
ΔUmin = UL − Umin (2)
There are two types for controlling OLTC: the conventional control
and intelligent control. Examples of conventional control are line
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 3, pp. 349-361
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
drop compensation [26], source drop compensation, and pre-
emptive tap changer [27]. The conventional control methods are
not efficient for mitigating voltage rise, which is caused by DG in
the distribution network [28]. The alternative control method is an
intelligent control such as artificial neural network [28], fuzzy
logic (FL) [29], and state estimation [30].
2.3 Demand-side management
Demand-side management (DSM) is a remote direct residential
load control by distribution network operator (DNO) for managing
the power flow in the distribution network. This allows to shift the
consumption of the deferrable household loads from the peak hour
to off-peak hour consumption such as electric water heating, air
conditioning, and pumps. The smart meter is essential, and the
storage battery can be included in this technique. However, the
customer's privacy violation is the main problem of DSM [31].
DSM can be used to mitigate the voltage-rise problem in the LV
distribution network but the end-user cooperation is essential.
Therefore, incentive policies are applied to facilitate such
technique. The DNO sends the optimal power flow data during the
day to each energy consumption scheduler (ECS) based on the data
history of consumption and generation of each end user. The ECS
controls the deferrable loads and storage batteries in PV units for
reducing both the electricity bill and reverse power flow, which, in
turn, mitigate the voltage rise consequently [32]. The household
with PV unit should not export power more than a certain threshold
value, which is identified by the DNO. This threshold value is
based on the distribution network parameters. Also, threshold
values in all households are the same for guaranteeing justice [32].
There are mainly three schemes of the DSM: peak shaving, load
shifting, and valley filling. In [33], the load shifting during a high
PV penetration is considered to maximise the PV generation
without violating the voltage-rise limit. In this method, each
flexible load must be chosen to operate in a suitable time based on
the amount of PV generation. The results show that the DSM
operates effectively in controlling the voltage rise for LV networks
with rooftop PV integration [33]. DSM is more effective with low
number of distributed PV systems [34]. A new cost function based
on export power, the threshold value, and the level of terminal
voltage is proposed in [32]. The results prove that the use of DSM
not only reduces the electricity bill but also prevent the voltage
rise.
2.4 Active power curtailment
This method depends on reducing the active power produced from
the PV based on the voltage-rise condition. The active power
curtailment (APC) strategy consists of three conditions. In the first
condition, when the bus voltage exceeds its upper statutory voltage
limit UH, the generated active power is zero. The second condition
is that the bus voltage locates between the upper statutory voltage
limit and the reference voltage Uref. Therefore, the curtailed PV
active power should be reduced by the power curtailment ratio m.
In the third condition, no curtailment is done when the bus voltage
is less than the reference voltage value [35]. The power curtailment
ratio is expressed in the equation below:
0 Uk ≥ UH
PPV, nom = PPV, max × UH − Uk / UH − Uref Uref ≤ Uk ≤ UH
PPV, max Uk ≤ Uref
(3)
where Uk is the actual bus voltage at bus k, PPV,nom is the normal
operating power, and PPV,max is the maximum PV power
generation [36]. The output power loss (OPL) is the amount of
curtailed PV's active power. The PVs on the feeder ends have more
OPL than the others, which is a kind of unjustness [37]. Different
droop coefficient techniques are used to ensure the same OPL
value for all distributed PVs along the feeder. This causes less
energy yield for the whole feeder [38]. This method can operate
effectively based only on the local measurements without
351
Fig. 3  Reactive-voltage control curve of PV inverter
communication between PVs and a central controller [39].
Moreover, the APC method has successfully reduced the VU at
high PV penetration only [24].
2.5 Reactive power control
The aim of this control strategy ensures that the bus voltage is
under its limits by injecting/absorbing reactive powers into/from
the system. There are two main methods used to the control
reactive power in the active distribution networks: PV-inverter
capability and custom power devices such as distribution static
compensators (D-STATCOMs) and dynamic voltage restorers
(DVRs) [40]. The PV inverter produces the regular active power
based on maximum power point Pmpp of PV array and the
remainder PV capacity generates reactive power. The maximum
reactive power QMAX can be determined by [41]
2 2
QMAX = SMAX − Pmpp (4)
where SMAX is the inverter apparent power rating. There are two
strategies for controlling PV-inverter reactive power: distributed
voltage control and non-distributed voltage control. The first one
depends on the communication between all PV inverters for
injecting the same current with taking into consideration the
minimum reactive power value among all inverters. The period of
the transmission message for each inverter has been set from 50 to
200 μs [42]. The second strategy depends on the local voltage
control with no need for communication link [42]. Reactive
power–voltage control curve is a piecewise linear function, and it is
independent of active power generation, as shown in Fig. 3 [43]. It
can be modified to become an asymmetric function rather than
symmetric function.
The maximum reactive power is determined based on the PV-
inverter capability and its locations. The standards define the
upper- and lower-voltage limits and the dead zone. If the voltage
exceeds the limits, the PV inverter injects/absorbs the rated
reactive power [43]. Robbins et al. [44] propose a technique for
mitigating the voltage violation based on two stages. In the first
stage, the controller estimates the necessary amount of local
reactive power from the integrated DG at the bus bar. If the first
stage fails to improve the voltage profile locally, the closer DGs
share their information and work together based on the distributed
control strategy. The reactive power control (RPC) method using
PV inverters is more effective than the OLTC for decreasing the
VU [19]. However, the reactive power of PV inverter is limited due
to PV inverter capability based on (4). This method is suitable
when the required generated active power is low.
On another hand, the RPC using the custom power devices such
as D-STATCOM and dynamic voltage regulators is independent of
active power. The coordination issue among devices is not
required. The drawbacks of this method are the maintenance
requirement and additional prices [45]. The D-STATCOM is
connected in parallel with the distributed feeder for exchanging the
reactive power with the LV feeder, whereas the back-to-back
converter connects two distributed feeders [46]. The DVR is
connected in series with the load. The phase angle and magnitude
of the injected voltage varies because of the variable real and
reactive power exchange between the DVR and distribution system
352
[47]. The D-STATCOM compensates the voltage sag with 85% for
0.1 s [48]. The DVR can inject 22% of the nominal voltage for 0.5 
s and recovers the load voltage from 0.001 to 0.99 pu within 1 ms
[47]. The D-STATCOM can generate high reactive power
comparing with the PV inverters [47]. It is effective than the DVR
for voltage enhancement and VU reduction. However, the DVR
requires a smaller power rating than the D-STATCOM. Therefore,
the DVR is effective on the first one-third of the radial feeder,
whereas the D-STATCOM is preferably installed on the last one-
third [48]. Both devices can mitigate the VU, voltage sag, and
harmonics [48].
The RPC method enhances the voltage profile and the power
flow but it is not effective for high R/X feeder. It adds cost whether
selecting high inverter size [49] or installing DVR or D-
STATCOM. Owing to highly resistive line characteristics for LV
systems, the APC is more effective than the RPC for suppression
of the voltage violation [50].
2.6 Static transfer switch
The main objective of the static transfer switch (STS) is that
transfers the load from its source to alternative source in case of a
feeder failure or problem in power quality issue in the main source.
The STS can minimise the VU for the sensitive loads that, in turn,
enhance the voltage profile [51]. The applications of the STS in the
residential houses are presented in [52] for reducing the VU at each
bus in the distributed feeder. It is used to changeover the residential
houses supply from one phase to another. It considered that each
residential house has a rooftop PV system. The STS control can
depend on the artificial intelligence such as a genetic algorithm to
determine the best phase connection arrangement of the houses
along the three-phase feeder. The system requires sensing units,
central controller, and a communication link for arrangement of the
power flow from one phase to another along the feeder.
The STS can rearrange the consumers continuously based on
the variation of both load consumption and PV generation during
the day. The artificial intelligence methods control the STS system
instead of the trial and error method. The switching transfer time is
5 ms at unity power, and it takes more than 5 ms at lag power
factor due to the lag of zero crossing of the current. The STS is
very effective for reducing the unbalance powers between phases,
so the VU decreases consequently [53].
2.7 Energy storage systems
The ESS can be used to improve the voltage profile in the rooftop
PV systems. The voltage-rise/drop suppression depends on the
battery capacity and its charging/discharging rate over a period
[54]. There are two main strategies for installing the ESS:
distributed batteries and centralised bank battery.
The first strategy is the distributed ESS (DESS), which
depended on the ESS of each rooftop PV system. The traditional
DESSs control is activated when the generated PV power is higher
than the load power. During the noon, the DESS is fully charged,
and it does not prevent overvoltage. Therefore, the trend of
charging the ESS depends on a certain power threshold [55].
Instead of a conventional charging/discharging strategy, there are
different types of charging/discharging strategies per day such as
trapezoidal, rectangle, and triangle. Similarly, in the evening,
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 3, pp. 349-361
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
Fig. 4  Curves of the APD
(a) Identical, (b) Non-identical thresholds, (c) GGC standard cos ϕ(P) characteristic
DESS discharges with the same strategy to avoid undervoltage
[56]. Also, the batteries’ inverters can produce real and reactive
powers. The batteries at the feeder end are more effective for
improving voltage profile than their counterparts at the feeder start
[57].
The second strategy is the centralised ESS (CESS), which
required identifying the optimal location, amount of peak shave,
and size of the battery bank in the distribution network. The best
position for installing the battery bank is at the end of the feeder in
the furthest position from the substation [58]. The power required
from the CESS, PESS, at the end of the feeder for suppressing the
voltage-rise can be determined by (5) [59],
PESS = Umax − UH × ∥ dU /dP ∥
where ∥ dU /dP ∥ is the voltage sensitivity factor. The battery
location with PV generation has a better control effect on the
reduction of voltage rise than the other locations. The battery with
active power control is more effective than the battery with RPC
[60].
The rapid voltage variation is another problem, which can be
solved by the ESS. The IEC standard 61000–2–2 recommends that
a rapid voltage variation should not exceed 3% of the nominal
value for LV distribution network [61]. Therefore, Alam et al. [61]
propose a ramp-rate control strategy that applied on the DESS for
mitigating the rapid voltage variation due to the rapid change of the
rooftop PV systems output. They extend their research in [62] by
applying the DESS for alleviating the neutral-to-ground voltage
based on the power-balancing algorithm. In Australian rooftop PVs
at residential loads, batteries’ sizes are from 3 to 8 kWh based on
the consumption and PV generation [62]. As an additional
function, DESS of each rooftop PV systems can mitigate the VU
on three-phase four-wire distribution networks. Cooperative ESSs
strategy on the same bus is effective for VU mitigation in a small
zone of the feeder but it draws a high current from ESSs.
The strategy of cooperative ESSs along the distribution feeder
is effective for VU mitigation. This strategy requires fewer currents
and makes lower stress on ESSs but the communication link is
mandatory [63].
It is worth noting that any mismatch between PV generation
and load consumptions leads to voltage rise. Three routes are
investigated in [34] for improving the load mismatch: PV angle,
DSM, and electrical energy storage. This paper concludes that the
optimum load match has occurred with large electrical storage size;
hence, the size of the storage system must be optimised. Like
DSM, ESS is more effective in medium- and low-PV penetration
levels [34].
2.8 Hybrid strategies
Voltage-violation mitigation strategies can be merged to be more
effective and solving the deficiency of each strategy. This section
provides examples of hybrid strategies.
2.8.1 Active and RPC: The deficit of both RPC and APC leads to
merging both strategies for better performance. Voltage sensitivity
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 3, pp. 349-361
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
matrix of the distribution network is essential to coordinate both
APC and RPC on the LV grids [64]. Sensitivity matrix can be
expressed in the equation below:
Δδ ∂δ/δP ∂U/δP ΔP
= (6)
ΔU ∂δ/∂Q ∂U/∂Q ΔQ
From the previous matrix, the voltage magnitude variation ΔU at
the nth bus has to be zero for identifying the required power factor
[65]
ΔUn = SU , P ΔP + SU , Q ΔQ = 0 (7)
(5) mn = SU , P /SU , Q (8)
PFn = 1/ 1 + mn2 (9)
where SU , P and SU , Q are the voltage sensitivities to active power
and reactive power, respectively. mn is the slope at the nth bus. PFn
is the power factor at the nth bus. The active power dependents
(APDs) on reactive power method injects the reactive power based
on APC as presented in Fig. 4.
The Q(P) characteristic of distributed PVs is illustrated in
Figs. 4a and b. Pth,n is the threshold power at the nth bus. The
slopes (m1, m2, …, mn) are determined from (7) to (9) based on
improving the voltage at the target bus or the whole feeder. The
Q(P) characteristic of the distributed PVs becomes non-identical
by maximising the reactive powers based on the identical threshold
value of the reactive power as illustrated in Fig. 4a. Also, it
becomes identical based on the non-identical threshold value of the
reactive power [66]. The German grid codes (GGCs) are examples
of the APD method. The GGC is determined according to the
identical characteristic for each PV system, and it does not depend
on its location in the grid. The power factor of the DG is unity
when the generated power is <50% of the Pmax as presented in
Fig. 4c. The minimum power factor of the DG is 0.9 lag when the
DG operates at its full capacity, and its capacity is larger than 13.8 
kVA.
Meanwhile, the minimum power factor of DG is 0.95 lag when
the capacity of DG is <13.8 kVA [67]. This technique does not
need the aid of communication systems but it depends on pre-
defined value of the R/X ratio of the network. According to GGC
characteristic curve, adjusting the active and reactive powers for
voltage regulation within 10 s is not proper for short-term voltage
violation [67].
Generally, PF(P) control does neither depend on the terminal
voltage nor DG unit's location; thus, excessive reactive power
passes through the distribution feeder and the grid loss increases.
Q(U) curve, which is depicted in Fig. 3, is more effective than
PF(P) curve for mitigating the voltage violation [68].
2.8.2 RPC with storage system: The ESSs can be combined
with the RPC of PV inverters to mitigate the overvoltage in favour
of reducing the size of the required ESS. The DESSs with PV
353
Table 1 Comparison between voltage-violation mitigation methods
Mitigation technique Voltage rise VU Installing device Delay time Line power losses References
feeder enhancement √ √  ×  N/A •• [13–16]
three-phase OLTC √  ×  √ ••• ••• [17–30, 73, 74, 76, 79]
three single-phase OLTCs √  ×  √ ••• ••• [19, 75]
DSM √ √ √ • N/A [31–34]
APC √  ×   ×  • • [24, 36–39, 79]
RPC √ √ √ • •••• [24, 42–49, 73, 74, 79]
STS  ×  √ √ • •• [51–53]
APD √  ×   ×  • •• [64–68]
DESS √ √ √ •• •• [54–57, 61–63, 70, 71, 77]
CESS √ √ √ •• •• [58–60, 72, 78, 79]

inverters operate at fixed power factor are a more efficient and
smaller size of ESSs than the CESS at the end of the feeder [69].
Another method for decreasing the size of the DESSs is the
variable droop coefficients based on ESS's location instead of the
constant droop coefficient. It ensures a uniform energy storage
value along the feeder. The variable droop is determined according
to the sensitivity matrix of the feeder [70]. Moreover, applying
dynamic set points for the ESS control is another factor for
decreasing the required size of ESS comparing with the fixed
power threshold control. The PF(P) method with ESS is more
efficient in low-PV penetration, whereas Q(U) method with ESS is
better efficient in high PV penetration [71].
Owing to the deficit of step voltage regulator, which opposes
the rapid change of PV, exchange of the active and reactive powers
of batteries’ inverters is more efficient and better choice. It
decelerates the high ramp up/down of PV generation based on its
local measurements by smart meters or DB comparator. DB
comparator communicates with both a smart meter and the time
delay controller for controlling the tap changer [72].
2.8.3 OLTC transformer with RPC: In general, OLTC alone is
more effective for preventing the voltage rise comparing with RPC
technique. However, RPC technique has less effect on the
transformer loading compared with the OLTC. The combination of
both methods causes more robust voltage control and transformer
loading [21]. Therefore, the best result can be obtained when the
OLTC is activated as primary control and the RPC is the auxiliary
control [25]. Unfortunately, this technique may cause excessive
transformer tapping. Decreasing the voltage rise can occur by
injecting a certain amount of reactive power via the PV inverter.
However, the transferred reactive power from the PV units in LV
side to MV side of the transformer, which has the small R/X ratio,
causes more voltage decrease. Therefore, the OLTC opposes this
action by increasing its tapping [73].
To avoid this problem, Aziz and Ketjoy [74] suggest that the
reference voltage Uref for D-STATCOM be variable based on the
selective tolerance range ΔU as presented in the equation below:
Uref =
(10)
1 + ΔU if U > 1 + ΔU DSTATCOM and OLTC
1 if 1 − ΔU < U ≤ 1 + ΔU DSTATCOM
1 − ΔU if U < 1 − ΔU DSTATCOM and OLTC
D-STATCOM has activated alone when the voltage variation is less
than the tolerance range. When the measured voltage exceeds both
the tolerance range and the delay time operation of the OLTC, the
OLTC reduces the reactive power from D-STATCOM until the
voltage is beneath the allowable range again. The limitation of this
approach is the excess of reactive power. The delay time of the
RPC is around 1 s, which is notably smaller than 1 min delay
operation of MV/LV OLTCs [73, 74].
There are two methods of operations for this combination. The
first method is that the OLTC mitigates the voltage fluctuations,
and then the D-STATCOM mitigates the problems of the excessive
tap changes on transformer lifetime. The advantage of this method
is the cost reduction from utilising a smaller rating D-STATCOM.
A combined OLTC/D-STATCOM can be cheaper than the D-
STATCOM alone [45]. The second method is that the D-
STATCOM controls the bus voltage. The OLTC is activated when
the D-STATCOM is insufficient. The D-STATCOM can mitigate
the VU and current harmonics [75]. The PVs inverters can
coordinate with OLTC instead of D-STATCOM. Therefore, it is
required to install voltage sensors at the feeder terminals. The APC
is the final destination in case of failure of OLTC/RPC based on the
PVs inverters. This technique is suitable for high PV penetration
only due to the abundant number of PVs [76].
2.8.4 OLTC transformer with ESS: This combination method
decreases the stress on the tap changer. During non-peak load time,
the OLTC operates for diminishing the voltage rise, and then the
DESSs operate coordinately to charge the excess generated power
of the DG along the feeder. While during the peak load time,
DESSs on each load discharge to decrease the grid peak load, and
then the OLTC operates. This requires a coordination controller to
coordinate the DESSs charging/discharging operation [77].
The objective in [78] is mitigating the overvoltage and
maximising the net revenue of the PV system based on optimising
both PV-inverter capacity and ESS. Particle swarm optimisation is
used for optimising both battery capacity and PV inverter. An FL
controller is applied to fine-tune the tap position based on loads’
consumption and PVs generation. Scheduling of battery storage
system is necessary for maximising net revenue.
Three fuzzy controllers for OLTC, DG reactive power, and APC
are presented in [79] to tackle the voltage violation and minimise
the communication burdens, which are dilemma in central and
distributed controllers. These fuzzy controllers have multi-inputs,
high degree of freedom, and adaptive reference instead of fixed
reference comparing with hysteresis or proportional–integral
controllers. The OLTC fails to adjust the voltage in parallel radial
feeders connecting with a common distribution transformer.
Voltages in the first feeder may exceed the upper limit of voltage,
whereas the second feeder has undervoltage. A huge amount of
reactive power is required from DGs to prevent excessive
transformer tapping. Practically, it is an infeasible solution.
Therefore, the fuzzy controller on APC of DG compensates this
shortage. Third fuzzy controller in [79] is suggested to be suitable
for charging the ESS instead of abandoning the amount of the DG
active power.
3 Summary of the studied mitigation techniques
In this section, the summary of the studied methods is presented as
illustrated in Tables 1 and 2. Table 1 compares the voltage-
violation mitigation methods at different aspects; the ability to
mitigate voltage rise, VU, the additional device requirement, the
minimum time required to solve the problem and their influences
on the line power losses. In Table 1, the smart meter is the main
required device for applying DSM, APC, RPC, STS, and APD
methods. Several factors influence on the delay time of voltage-
violation mitigation methods such as inverters’ types including

354 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 3, pp. 349-361
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
Table 2 Summary of the studied mitigation techniques
Mitigation Concept Features
technique
feeder • decreasing the impedance of the feeder via replacing • it requires high initial cost comparing with other mitigation
enhancement with higher cross-section area feeder methods
• it shares to reduce voltage violation but it does not suppress
the voltage rise and VU completely
OLTC • controlling three-phase supply voltages • it is suitable for network extension
• controlling individual phase supply voltage • high PV penetration causes saturation in the transformer, so
the ability of voltage regulation declines
• it fails to improve the VU
DSM • controlling load apparent or active powers end user may not cooperate
• communication infrastructure is essential in this method
APC • controlling DG active power • it is the final destination for reducing voltage rise when other
mitigation methods fail
• it has a minor modification in inverters control
• it is not suitable for VU reduction that causes by loads
RPC • controlling reactive power via DG • it can mitigate sudden changes in PV output
• controlling reactive power via custom power devices • it can mitigate both voltage rise and VU effectively
• drawbacks of this method are the limitation of DG remaining
capacity and the cost and location of D-STATCOM
• it is not effective with high R/X ratio feeder
ESS • controlling active power or current active component • it has the ability to mitigate sudden changes in PV output
• controlling reactive power or reactive current component • it has the ability of multi-tasks
• controlling both active and reactive powers or active and • main problem in CESS is the available location and size of the
reactive current components CESS in the distribution network
• main problem in DESS is that the end user may not cooperate
STS • rearrangement of prosumers (loads with DG) between • it has the ability to minimise the VU effectively
phases • it depends on the communication network
• it is timing, lack control for a triac/thyristor
• losing data packets in the communication system
• practise is only carried out once and was not dynamic
APD • controlling both active and reactive powers via DG itself • it has a lower OPL comparing with APC
based on piecewise linear functions • best coordination between active and reactive powers depends
on the sensitivity matrix of the distribution network
RPC with ESS • DG RPC and secondary control is the active power of • investment in D-STATCOM is lower when compared with total
ESS investment in battery storage system
OLTC with RPC • main control is OLTC and the secondary control is RPC • priority control for OLTC causes excessive tapping. This
of DG technique has lower network power losses and less
dependency on DGs. it is useful in low DGs penetration
• main control is RPC via D-STATCOM or DVR and the • priority control for D-STATCOM causes problems in both
secondary control is OLTC transformer loading and feeder ampacity. The OLTC may work
against the high amount of injected reactive powers
• main control is RPC of DG and the secondary control is • it requires high DGs penetration
OLTC
OLTC with ESS • first type: the priority is OLTC and the secondary control • first type: using the minimum size of ESS
is CESS • second type: the priority is ESS and the • second type: preventing excessive tap changing
secondary control is OLTC

their time constant and gains, the time constant of sensors, and
controller's types [45].
CESS and DESS are in the second places in Table 1 because the
delay time of batteries adds to the previous factors. Generally, the
OLTC operation is restricted with long delay time for preventing
the excessive tap changes and increasing its lifetime. So, the OLTC
has the highest delay time in Table 1. APC and RPC may be
restricted based on the bandwidth of the controller [67].
Table 2 describes the concepts and cons and pros of the studied
methods. Feeder enhancement cannot mitigate both voltage rise
and VU completely.
In case of high unbalance network, mitigating the voltage rise
using three-phase OLTC increases the voltage drop in other phases.
Therefore, three-phase OLTC is not recommended in this case. It is
possible that DNO controls the deferrable loads for mitigating both
voltage rise and VU via a communication link.
APC method is very successful in mitigating voltage rise in
high R/X ratio feeder but the main limitation of APC method is the
generated power sacrifice, and it is a deficit to mitigate voltage
drop. Delay time of APC depends mainly on the response of the
PV inverter. All the studied mitigation methods are effective to
mitigate the voltage rise in case of the balance network but STS
does not. The main obstacles of DESS are their capacities and the
end-user permission, while CESS requires an available place at the
feeder end.
4 Test system configuration ‘case study’
The studied radial LV feeder is three-phase four wire with 12 buses
connecting with rooftop PVs in residential loads, as shown in
Fig. 5. The designed feeder is 3 × 185 + 95 mm2 underground cable
and 512 m long. The voltage drop limits and current-carrying
capability are the criteria for determining the cable specifications.
The feeder is a four-core cable, so it supposes that there are no
different mutual inductances between phases. Therefore, the
phases’ impedances are the same.

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 3, pp. 349-361 355
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
Fig. 5  Proposed LV distribution network

Table 3 Test system parameters

Symbol Quantity Values
ZF feeder impedance per km at frequency 50 Hz RF = 0.1290 Ω/km
XF = 0.0727 Ω/km
ZN neutral impedance per km at frequency 50 Hz RN = 0.2480 Ω/km
XN = 0.0734 Ω/km
PL,A load active power at phase A 2 kW
PL,B load active power at phase B 1.6 kW
PL,C load active power at phase C 0.8 kW
PPV,A PV active power at phase A 7.8 kW
PPV,B PV active power for phase B 5.2 kW
PPV,C PV active power at phase C 2.6 kW

The studied mitigation methods should not allow the bus's
voltage more than 105% of its normal voltage [11]. Many
standards consider the VU factor based on the ratio between the
negative-voltage sequence and positive-voltage sequence.
However, the zero-voltage sequence is higher in the three-phase
four-wire distribution network [52]. Therefore, VU factor in [12] is
selected. The VU factor expresses as below:
max V an, V bn, V cn
VU % = × 100
1/3 × V an + V bn + V cn
STS can also reduce the VU but still out of its permissible range as
illustrated in Fig. 7. As presented in Figs. 7b, f, g and h, it can be
noted that the RPC, DESS, CESS and STS are efficient to limit the
VU as the second target.
Also, all these techniques mitigate the voltage rise as presented
in Figs. 6b, f, g and h. Voltage rise is increased by applying the
second target in both three-phase OLTC and three single OLTC
techniques.
(11)
5.1 Active power curtailment

If the VU at any bus violates by 1.3%, the studied mitigation
methods should eliminate the violation according to [12]. The
constant power model based on the backward–forward sweep
(BFS) is used to study the power flow calculation in the proposed
network.
Nour et al. [80] investigate the voltage-violation mitigation
techniques at 12 PM based on the ability to alleviate the voltage
rise only. At this time of the day, the highest PV generation occurs
while loads’ consumption is normally at their lowest value. For
further extension research, the ability of each voltage-violation
mitigation methods to alleviate both voltage rise and VU at the
same studied network is investigated in this paper. It considers that
the power factor of each load is 0.95 lag. All buses have the same
values of loads and PVs powers. The nominal line supply voltage
is 380 V. Table 3 presents the proposed network parameters.
5 Simulation results
APC, RPC, APD, OLTC, ESS and STS methods are applied to the
proposed LV distribution test feeder case study. Each method can
be used to achieve two different targets. The first target is voltage-
rise mitigation, and the VU alleviation is the second target. Fig. 6
presents buses’ voltages as a percentage of its nominal voltage
based on applying both targets separately. By considering the first
target: APC, RPC, APD, three-phase OLTC, three single OLTCs,
DESS, CESS and STS techniques can suppress the voltage rise as
presented in Fig. 6. While the APC, RPC, APD, DESS, CESS and
356
APC is deficit to solve the VU as shown in Fig. 7a. The amount of
curtailed active power of PVs for first and second targets by
applying both APC and APD is shown in Fig. 8. The percentage of
the total curtailed PV is 41, 5.675 and 0% of distributed PVs along
the feeder on phases A, B and C, respectively, for the first target.
For the second target, it needs to abandon 51.34, 30.89 and 0% of
distributed PVs along the feeder on phases A, B and C,
respectively. So, applying the APC method to mitigate the VU is
the worst choice. It requires decreasing PVs’ generation more than
the first target with no notable change in the VU as presented in
Fig. 7a. Also, economically, it is not preferred.
5.2 Reactive power control
D-STATCOM is installed at bus eight. The incremented iterative to
determine the required reactive power based on the BFS method is
presented in [80]. The second target is better than the first target in
applying the RPC technique. The VU reaches 1.29 and 0.47% at
(2/3) of the feeder and the end of the feeder, respectively, in the
second target. Meanwhile, the VU reaches 5.02% at the feeder in
the first target as presented in Fig. 7b. The required reactive powers
are presented in Table 4 for both first and second targets.
The capacity limitation of the D-STATCOM is important for
implementing the RPC method. The second target requires less D-
STATCOM capacity comparing with the first target. The maximum
absolute required reactive power is more than 35 kVAR in phase A
for the first target comparing with more than 21 kVAR in phase B
for the second target.
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 3, pp. 349-361
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
Fig. 6  Buses’ voltages (%) first and second targets
(a) APC, (b) RPC, (c) APD, (d) Three-phase OLTC, (e) Three single-phase OLTCs, (f) DESS, (g) CESS, (h) STS

Fig. 7  Buses’ voltages unbalance (%) first and second targets

(a) APC, (b) RPC, (c) APD, (d) Three-phase OLTC, (e) Three single-phase OLTCs, (f) DESS, (g) CESS, (h) STS

Fig. 8  PV power (%) for first and second targets in APC and APD
(a) First target (phase A), (b) First target (phase B), (c) First target (phase C), (d) Second target (phase A), (e) Second target (phase B), (f) Second target (phase C)

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 3, pp. 349-361 357
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
Table 4 Required reactive power at (2/3) feeder
Time 12:00 PM RPC for voltage rise, kVAR
phase: A
phase: B
phase: C
Fig. 9  Required charging or discharging batteries power (%) for first and second targets in DESS
(a) First target (phase A), (b) First target (phase B), (c) First target (phase C), (d) Second target (phase A), (e) Second target (phase B), (f) Second target (phase C)
5.3 APD on reactive power
The incremented iterative is examined for decreasing the active and
reactive power generations from the PV based on the curve in
Fig. 4c. The OPL in the APD is less than in the APC. It is required
to reduce 17.5, 0.9167 and 0% of the distributed PVs’ power along
the feeder on phases A, B and C, respectively, in first target. While
the second target should curtail 25.83, 6.66 and 0% on phases A, B
and C, respectively, as shown in Fig. 8. Although applying the
second target based on APD reduces the VU at the feeder end from
3.85 to 2.56%, it still exceeds the allowable value of the VU. So,
the APD is not suitable for the VU reduction.
5.4 On-load tap changer
In general, a tap-changer device is located at the high-voltage side
of the transformer to ensure switched small current in the device.
Most of tap changer regulates ±10% of the nominal voltage in 16
or 32 steps [22]. In this paper, the studied OLTC has 32 steps. For
adjusting the last bus's voltage beneath 105% of the normal
voltage, it is required to decrease the tap ratio of the three-phase
OLTC by eight steps for the first target. While the tap ratio should
be increased to 16 steps for the second target. Applying the second
target on three-phase OLTC is a disaster for voltage rise. It reduces
the VU slightly to 5.32% but the voltage rise becomes worst as
shown in Fig. 6d. Moreover, the three-phase OLTC cannot adjust
the undervoltage in this case. Applying the first target in three
single-phase OLTCs requires decreasing the tap setting by eight
steps on phase A. All buses’ voltages magnitudes are within the
allowable limits as seen in Fig. 6e but the VU is still high. The VU
at first and last buses are 2.27 and 3.52%, respectively, as shown in
Fig. 7e. Applying the second target with the priority for the first
bus rather than the last bus decreases the tap ratio five steps on
phase A. The first bus has low VU, whereas the last bus has the
highest VU. Three single-phase OLTCs are effective than three-
phase OLTC to mitigate voltage rise at high unbalance loads but
both methods fail to reduce the VU.
5.5 Energy storage system
According to Chaiyatham and Ngamroo [60], APC method is
efficient than the RPC for batteries’ inverters. The active power for
358
RPC for VU, kVAR
35.304 16.176
0 −21.096
2.472 15.216
battery control is adopted in this case study. The DESS method has
the ability to mitigate both voltage rise and VU effectively.
Applying the second target on DESS is more effective than the first
target as shown in Figs. 6f and 7f. However, it increases batteries’
stress comparing with the first target. The required batteries’
powers percentages based on PV powers in both targets are shown
in Y-axis in Fig. 9. The positive and negative values indicate
charging/discharging statuses, respectively. It is required to charge
17.75% of the total PV powers along the feeder on phase A to
reduce the voltage rise as shown in Figs. 9a–c. Also, charge
22.16% and discharge 24.41% of the total PV powers along the
feeder on phases A and C, respectively, is required to mitigate the
VU as shown in Figs. 9d–f. The CESS method is investigated at the
last bus according to the best location of the CESS [60]. It is
required to charge 19.39% of the total PV powers along the feeder
on phase A only to reduce the voltage rise. Meanwhile, charging
24.375% and discharging 26% of total PV powers along the feeder
on phases A and C, respectively, is required to mitigate VU.
Comparing between DESS and CESS in first and second targets
deduces that CESS requires higher capacity than DESS.
5.6 Static transfer switch
In unbalance network, high VU value leads to voltage rise. The
STS rearranges the consumers in the distribution feeder from one
phase to another phase to decrease the unbalance level in the
distribution network, so that the voltage rise decreases
consequently.
In contrast, the balance network, which has PV generation more
than the load consumption, has high-voltage rise with low VU.
Therefore, consumers’ rearrangement technique is not feasible in
this case. The VU and voltage rise are high at the unbalance feeder
end comparing with the feeder beginning. Consumers’
rearrangement at the feeder beginning buses has a limited impact
on voltage rise and VU along the feeder. Therefore, STSs at the
feeder end have the priority to rearrange. Nour et al. [80] use the
particle swarm algorithm to rearrange all loads along the feeder. In
this paper, it is sufficient to rearrange the last three buses to
mitigate voltage rise while mitigating the VU needs to rearrange
the last four buses. The first and second targets in STS limit the
voltage rise as shown in Fig. 6h. The first target mitigates the
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 3, pp. 349-361
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
Table 5 Total feeder's power losses for each target at different methodS
Mitigation technique Voltage-rise mitigation target power loss, W
APC 1524
RPC 6539
APD 2487.6
three-phase OLTC 4821.1
three single-phase OLTCs 4739.4
DESS 2522.4
CESS 2734.6
STS 3095.1
voltage rise only. The results show that applying the first target
causes maximum VU up to 1.76% at the sixth bus. Meanwhile, the
maximum VU is 0.87% at the fourth bus for the second target.
6 Feeder power loss of the voltage-violation
mitigation techniques
In this section, the applied mitigation techniques are evaluated and
compared. The effect of applying each technique on the total
distribution feeder power losses is presented for each different
mitigation target. The simulation results for the used test
distribution system indicates, as per Table 5, that the APC method
has the lowest line power loss among all other methods due to the
reduction in the active power flow in the feeder. The RPC has the
highest line power loss due to the high amount of injected reactive
power in the feeder. The power losses in three-phase OLTC and
three single-phase OLTCs are approximately equal as they have the
same tap setting in the first mitigation target. Also, it could be
noted that applying the VU target causes lower line power loss than
the voltage-rise mitigation target in all techniques. APD has a
higher-power loss than APC due to the reactive power component.
The power loss in STS is moderate compared with other methods.
The line power loss in DESS is slightly lower than CESS in both
targets. The literature review and results conclude that both DESS
and CESS have better performances comparing with other
mitigation techniques. They have the ability of multifunction
opportunity such as long-term, short-term voltage variation
mitigation, VU and line power flow control without causing high
line power losses. DESS is slightly better than CESS in all aspects.
7 Conclusion
This paper discussed the theory of operation, strengths and
weaknesses of various voltage-violation mitigation techniques in
grid-connected distributed PV systems in LV distribution network.
This paper has presented in detail the evaluation of each method
applied to the generic three-phase four-wire distribution test
system.
There are two applied independent targets on APC, RPC, APD,
three-phase OLTC, three single-phase OLTCs, DESS, CESS and
STS methods, which are voltage rise and VU mitigations targets.
The results show that:
(i) The APC, APD, OLTC, ESS, three-phase OLTC, three single-
phase OLTCs, DESS, CESS and STS methods fulfil the first target
based on the studied unbalance distribution network.
(ii) The RPC, DESS, CESS and STS are effective in the second
target.
(iii) Reducing the VU leads to a decrease in the voltage rise in all
mitigation techniques, except the OLTC techniques.
(iv) The OLTC techniques have the number of the same steps to
prevent the voltage rise. However, the three single-phase OLTCs
can reduce the VU by 48.7% than the three-phase OLTC in the first
target. However, both OLTC techniques are not suitable for the
second target.
(v) The APC is very effective for mitigating the voltage rise in high
R/X distribution network but it has to sacrifice with the generated
power. The average OPL in the APD method is reduced by 39.5%
than in APC for mitigating both voltage rise and VU.
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 3, pp. 349-361
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
VU mitigation target power loss, W
805.26
4651.9
1829.1
3719.8
4602.2
2427.5
2622.5
3004.4
(vi) The RPC can mitigate both voltage rise and VU but it boosts
the line power loss. It is limited by the PV-inverter capacity and the
feeder ampacity violation. The voltage rise and VU are better in the
second target than those in the first target. The required reactive
power in the second target is 60% of that in the first target. Also,
the line power is decreased in the second target by 29.9% than in
the first target.
(vii) The STS reduces the VU effectively but it is not adaptive for
the system extension. The voltage rise and VU are better in the
second target than those in the first target. The VU in the second
target is around 50% of its value in the first target.
(viii) The DESS and CESS have the advantages of both APC and
RPC and they can be used for controlling the line power flow.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the DESS and CESS techniques
are better than other methods. The DESS charges 91.5% of the
required power of the CESS for mitigating the voltage rise. While,
for mitigating the VU, the DESS charges and discharges 90.9 and
93.88% of the total PV powers along the feeder on phases A and C,
respectively, comparing with the CESS.
The high technology of smart inverters, measurement instruments,
data transmission systems and controller units facilitate to boost the
performance of each voltage-violation mitigation methods. For
improving the voltage profile along of distribution feeder and
avoiding limitations, coordination between studied methods must
be considered to accomplish the mitigation goal.
8 References
[1] Tan, W.S, Hassan, M.Y, Majid, M.S, et al.: ‘Optimal distributed renewable
generation planning: a review of different approaches’, Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev., 2013, 18, pp. 626–645
[2] Tang, J., Cai, D., Yuan, C., et al.: ‘Optimal configuration of battery energy
storage systems using for rooftop residential photovoltaic to improve voltage
profile of distributed network’, J. Eng., 2019, 2019, (16), pp. 728–732
[3] Lakshmi, S., Ganguly, S.: ‘Modelling and allocation planning of voltage
sourced converters to improve the rooftop PV hosting capacity and energy
efficiency of distribution networks’, IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2018, 12,
(20), pp. 4462–4471
[4] Nasri, A., Golshan, M.E.H., Nejad, S.M.S.: ‘Optimal planning of dispatchable
and non-dispatchable distributed generation units for minimizing distribution
system's energy loss using particle swarm optimization’, Int. Trans. Electr.
Energy. Syst., 2014, 24, pp. 504–519
[5] El-Naggar, A., Erlich, I.: ‘Control approach of three-phase grid connected PV
inverters for voltage unbalance mitigation in low-voltage distribution grids’,
IET Renew. Power Gener., 2016, 10, (10), pp. 1577–1586
[6] Haque, M.M., Wolfs, P.: ‘A review of high PV penetrations in LV distribution
networks: present status, impacts and mitigation measures’, Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev., 2016, 62, pp. 1195–1208
[7] Mahmud, N., Zahedi, A.: ‘Review of control strategies for voltage regulation
of the smart distribution network with high penetration of renewable
distributed generation’, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 2016, 64, pp. 582–595
[8] Chaudhary, P., Rizwan, M.: ‘Voltage regulation mitigation techniques in
distribution system with high PV penetration: a review’, Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev., 2018, 82, (3), pp. 3279–3287
[9] Xu, T., Taylor, P.C.: ‘Voltage control techniques for electrical distribution
networks including distributed generation’, IFAC Proc. Vol., 2008, 41, (2), pp.
11967–11971
[10] Siewierski, T., Szypowski, M., Wędzik, A.: ‘A review of economic aspects of
voltage control in LV smart grids’, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., 2018, 88, pp.
37–45
[11] Voltage characteristics of electricity supplied by public distribution systems.
Standard EN 50160, 2005
[12] Energy Networks Association, Planning limits for voltage unbalance in the
United Kingdom, The Electricity Council, Engineering recommendation P29,
1990
359
[13] Shahnia, F., Majumder, R., Ghosh, A., et al.: ‘Voltage imbalance analysis in
residential low voltage distribution networks with rooftop PVs’, Electr. Power
Syst. Res., 2011, 81, (9), pp. 1805–1814
[14] Shahnia, F., Majumder, R., Ghosh, A., et al.: ‘Sensitivity analysis of voltage
imbalance in distribution networks with rooftop PVs’. IEEE PES Power and
Energy Society General Meeting, Providence, RI, USA, 2010, pp. 1–8
[15] Chen, T.-H., Yang, W.-C.: ‘Analysis of multi-grounded four-wire distribution
systems considering the neutral grounding’, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., 2001,
16, (4), pp. 710–717
[16] Nijhuis, M., Gibescu, M., Cobben, J.F.G.: ‘Incorporation of on-load tap
changer transformers in low-voltage network planning’. 2016 IEEE PES
Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conf. Europe (ISGT-Europe), Ljubljana,
2016, pp. 1–6
[17] Navarro-Espinosa, A., Ochoa, L.F.: ‘Increasing the PV hosting capacity of LV
networks: OLTC-fitted transformers vs. reinforcements’. IEEE Power &
Energy Society (ISGT), Washington, DC, USA, 2015, pp. 1–5
[18] Armendariz, M., Babazadeh, D., Brodén, D., et al.: ‘Strategies to improve the
voltage quality in active low-voltage distribution networks using DSO's
assets’, IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2017, 11, (1), pp. 73–81
[19] Zecchino, A., Hu, J., Coppo, M., et al.: ‘Experimental testing and model
validation of a decoupled-phase on-load tap-changer transformer in an active
network’, IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2016, 10, (15), pp. 3834–3843
[20] Faiz, J., Siahkolah, B.: ‘Solid-state tap-changer of transformers: design,
control and implementation’, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst., 2011, 33, (2),
pp. 210–218
[21] Kulmala, A., Repo, S., Bletterie, B.: ‘Avoiding adverse interactions between
transformer tap changer control and local reactive power control of distributed
generators’. IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conf. Europe
(ISGT-Europe), Ljubljana, Slovenia, 2016, pp. 1–6
[22] Kabiri, R., Holmes, D.G., McGrath, B. P.: ‘Voltage regulation of LV feeders
with high penetration of PV distributed generation using electronic tap
changing transformers’. Australasian Universities Power Engineering Conf.
(AUPEC), Perth, WA, Australia, 2014, pp. 1–6
[23] Mawarni, D.E., Ali, M.M.V.M., Nguyen, P.H., et al.: ‘A case study of using
OLTC to mitigate overvoltage in a rural European low voltage network’.
Universities Power Engineering Conf. (UPEC), Stoke on Trent, UK, 2015, pp.
1–5
[24] Safitri, N., Shahnia, F., Masoum, M.A.S.: ‘Different techniques for
simultaneously increasing the penetration level of rooftop PVs in residential
LV networks and improving voltage profile’. Asia-Pacific Power and Energy
Engineering Conf. (APPEEC), Perth, Australia, 2014, pp. 1–5
[25] Efkarpidis, N., De-Rybel, T., Driesen, J.: ‘Technical assessment of centralized
and localized voltage control strategies in low voltage networks’, Sustain.
Energy Grids Netw., 2016, 8, (8), pp. 85–97
[26] Gao, C., Redfern, M.A.: ‘Advanced voltage control strategy for on-load tap-
changer transformers with distributed generations’. Proc. 46th Int.
Universities’ Power Engineering Conf. (UPEC), Soest, Germany, 2011
[27] Smith, C.A., Potts, S.C., Redfern, M.A.: ‘Optimised and pre-emptive
strategies for on- load tap changing transformer control relays’. Proc. Eighth
IEE Int. Conf. Developments in Power System Protection, Amsterdam,
Netherlands, 2004
[28] Hasan, E.O., Hatata, A.Y., Badran, E.A., et al.: ‘A new strategy-based on
ANN for controlling the electronic on-load tap-changer’, Int. Trans. Electr.
Energy Syst., 2019, 29, p. 1016
[29] Salman, S.K., Wan, Z.G.: ‘Fuzzy logic-based AVC relay for voltage control of
distribution network with and without distributed/embedded generation’.
Proc. IEEE Power Tech Conf., Lausanne, Switzerland, 2007
[30] Li, K.: ‘State estimation for power distribution system and measurement
impacts’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 1996, 11, (2), pp. 911–916
[31] Mohsenian-Rad, A-H., Wong, V.W.S., Jatskevich, J., et al.: ‘Autonomous
demand-side management based on game-theoretic energy consumption
scheduling for the future smart grid’, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, 2010, 1, (3),
pp. 320–331
[32] Yao, E., Samadi, P., Wong, V.W.S., et al.: ‘Residential demand side
management under high penetration of rooftop photovoltaic units’, IEEE
Trans. Smart Grid, 2016, 7, (3), pp. 1597–1608
[33] Pillai, G.G., Putrus, G.A., Pearsall, N.M.: ‘The potential of demand side
management to facilitate PV penetration’. 2013 IEEE Innovative Smart Grid
Technologies-Asia (ISGT Asia), Bangalore, India, 2013, pp. 1–5
[34] Widén, J., Wäckelgård, E., Lund, P.D.: ‘Options for improving the load
matching capability of distributed photovoltaics: methodology and application
to high-latitude data’, Sol. Energy, 2009, 83, (11), pp. 1953–1966
[35] Bollen, M., Hassan, F.: ‘Voltage magnitude variations’, in (Eds.): ‘Integration
of distributed generation in the power system’ (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
Hoboken, NJ, 2011, 1st edn.), p. 205
[36] Kontis, E.O., Kryonidis, G.C., Chrysochos, A.I., et al.: ‘Effect of load
modelling in coordinated active power curtailment of distributed renewable
energy sources’. Mediterranean Conf. Power Generation, Transmission,
Distribution and Energy Conversion (MedPower 2016), Belgrade, Serbia,
2016, pp. 1–8
[37] Tonkoski, R., Lopes, L.A.C., El-Fouly, T.H.M.: ‘Coordinated active power
curtailment of grid connected PV inverters for overvoltage prevention’, IEEE
Trans. Sustain. Energy, 2011, 2, (2), pp. 139–147
[38] Tonkoski, R., Lopes, L.A.C.: ‘Impact of active power curtailment on
overvoltage prevention and energy production of PV inverters connected to
low voltage residential feeders’, Renew. Energy, 2011, 36, (12), pp. 3566–
3574
[39] Yap, W.K., Havas, L., Overend, E., et al.: ‘Neural network-based active
power curtailment for overvoltage prevention in low voltage feeders’, Expert
Syst. Appl., 2014, 41, (4), pp. 1063–1070
360
[40] Ipinnimo, O., Chowdhury, S., Chowdhury, S.P., et al.: ‘A review of voltage
dip mitigation techniques with distributed generation in electricity networks’,
Electr. Power Syst. Res., 2013, 103, pp. 28–36
[41] Jahangiri, P, Aliprantis, D.: ‘Distributed volt/VAr control by PV inverters’,
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2013, 28, (3), pp. 3429–3439
[42] Marti, P., Velasco, M., Fuertes, J.M., et al.: ‘Distributed reactive power
control methods to avoid voltage rise in grid-connected photovoltaic power
generation systems’. IEEE Int. Symp. Industrial Electronics (ISIE), Taipei,
Taiwan, 2013, pp. 1–6
[43] Watson, J.D., Watson, N.R., Santos-Martin, D., et al.: ‘Impact of solar
photovoltaics on the low-voltage distribution network in New Zealand’, IET
Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2016, 10, (1), pp. 1–9
[44] Robbins, B.A., Hadjicostis, C.N., Dominguez-Garcia, A.D.: ‘A two-stage
distributed architecture for voltage control in power distribution systems’,
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2013, 28, (2), pp. 1470–1482
[45] Yan, R., Marais, B., Saha, T.K.: ‘Impacts of residential photovoltaic power
fluctuation on on-load tap changer operation and a solution using
DSTATCOM’, Electr. Power Syst. Res., 2014, 111, pp. 185–193
[46] Shahnia, F., Ghosh, A.: ‘Coupling of neighbouring low voltage residential
distribution feeders for voltage profile improvement using power electronics
converters’, IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2016, 10, (2), pp. 535–547
[47] Al-Mathnani, A.O., Shareef, H., Mohamed, A., et al.: ‘Power quality
improvement using DVR with two fast vector control’. Power Engineering
Optimization Conf. (PEOCO), Shah Alam, Malaysia, 2010, pp. 376–381
[48] Shahnia, F., Ghosh, A., Ledwich, G., et al.: ‘Voltage unbalance improvement
in low voltage residential feeders with rooftop PVs using custom power
devices’, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst., 2014, 55, pp. 362–377
[49] Perera, L.B., Ledwich, G., Ghosh, A.: ‘Multiple distribution static
synchronous compensators for distribution feeder voltage support’, IET
Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2012, 6, (4), pp. 285–293
[50] Tonkoski, R., Lopes, L.A.C.: ‘Voltage regulation in radial distribution feeders
with high penetration of photovoltaic’. IEEE Energy 2030 Conf., Atlanta, GA,
USA, 2008, pp. 1–7
[51] Gholizad, B.: ‘Improving of STS algorithm to detecting voltage unbalance in
low voltage distribution networks’. 36th Annual Conf. IEEE Industrial
Electronics Society (IECON), Glendale, AZ, USA, 2010, pp. 3012–3017
[52] Shahnia, F., Wolfs, P.J., Ghosh, A.: ‘Voltage unbalance reduction in low
voltage feeders by dynamic switching of residential customers among three
phases’, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, 2014, 5, (3), pp. 1318–1327
[53] Popoola, O., Jimoh, A., Nicolae, D.: ‘On-line remote and automatic switching
of consumers’ connection for optimal performance of a distribution feeder’.
AFRICON, Windhoek, South Africa, 2007, pp. 1–6
[54] Alam, M.J.E., Muttaqi, K.M., Sutanto, D.: ‘Distributed energy storage for
mitigation of voltage-rise impact caused by rooftop solar PV’. IEEE Power
and Energy Society General Meeting, San Diego, CA, USA, 2012, pp. 1–8
[55] Marra, F., Yang, G., Traeholt, C., et al.: ‘A decentralized storage strategy for
residential feeders with photovoltaics’, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, 2014, 5, (2),
pp. 974–981
[56] Alam, M.J.E., Muttaqi, K.M., Sutanto, D.: ‘Mitigation of rooftop solar PV
impacts and evening peak support by managing available capacity of
distributed energy storage systems’, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., 2013, 28, (4),
pp. 3874–3884
[57] Jayasekara, N., Wolfs, P., Masoum, M.A.S.: ‘An optimal management
strategy for distributed storages in distribution networks with high
penetrations of PV’, Electr. Power Syst. Res., 2014, 116, pp. 147–157
[58] Deeba, S.R., Sharma, R., Saha, T.K..: ‘Coordinated control of multi-
functional battery energy storage system in an unbalanced network’.
Australasian Universities Power Engineering Conf. (AUPEC), Perth, WA,
Australia, 2014, pp. 1–6
[59] Wang, L., Liang, D., Crossland, A., et al.: ‘Using a smart grid laboratory to
investigate battery energy storage to mitigate the effects of PV in distribution
networks’. 22nd Int. Conf. Exhibition on Electricity Distribution (CIRED),
Stockholm, Sweden, 2013, pp. 1–4
[60] Chaiyatham, T., Ngamroo, I.: ‘Bee colony optimization of battery capacity
and placement for mitigation of voltage rise by PV in radial distribution
network’. 2012 Tenth Int. Power & Energy Conf. (IPEC), Ho Chi Minh City,
Vietnam, 2012, pp. 13–18
[61] Alam, M.J.E., Muttaqi, K.M., Sutanto, D.: ‘Mitigation of rapid voltage
variations caused by passing clouds in distribution networks with solar PV
using energy storage’. Eighth Int. Conf. Electrical Computer Engineering,
Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2014, pp. 305–308
[62] Alam, M.J.E, Muttaqi, K.M., Sutanto, D.: ‘Alleviation of neutral-to-ground
potential rise under unbalanced allocation of rooftop PV using distributed
energy storage’, IEEE Trans. Sustain. Energy, 2015, 6, (3), pp. 889–898
[63] Nour, A.M.M., Hatata, A.Y., Helal, A.A., et al.: ‘Rooftop PV systems with
distributed batteries for voltage unbalance mitigation in low voltage radial
feeders’, J. Renew. Sustain. Energy, 2018, 10, (10), pp. 055302-1–055302-20
[64] Su, X., Masoum, M.A.S., Wolfs, P.: ‘Comprehensive optimal photovoltaic
inverter control strategy in unbalanced three-phase four-wire low voltage
distribution networks’, IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, 8, (11), pp. 1848–
1859
[65] Darwish, E.M., Hasanien, H.M., Atallah, A., et al.: ‘Reactive power control
of three-phase low voltage system based on voltage to increase PV
penetration levels’, Ain Shams Eng. J., 2017, 9, (4), pp. 1–7
[66] Samdi, A., Shayesteh, E., Soder, L.: ‘Optimal coordination of Q(P)
characteristics for PV systems in distribution grids for minimizing reactive
power consumption’. AORC Technical Meeting, Sweden, 2014, pp. 1–7
[67] Samadi, A., Eriksson, R., Soder, L., et al.: ‘Coordinated active power-
dependent voltage regulation in distribution grids with PV systems’, IEEE
Trans. Power Deliv., 2014, 29, (3), pp. 1454–1464
[68] Demirok, E., Sera, D., Rodriguez, P., et al.: ‘Enhanced local grid voltage
support method for high penetration of distributed generators’. 37th Annual
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 3, pp. 349-361
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
 Conf. IEEE Industrial Electronics Society (IECON), Melbourne, VIC,
Australia, 2011, pp. 2481–2485
[69] Marra, F., Fawzy, Y.T., Bülo, T., et al.: ‘Energy storage options for voltage
support in low-voltage grids with high penetration of photovoltaic’. Third
IEEE PES Int. Conf. Exhibition (ISGT Europe), Berlin, Germany, 2012, pp.
1–7
[70] Kabir, M.N., Mishra, Y., Ledwich, G., et al.: ‘Coordinated control of grid-
connected photovoltaic reactive power and battery energy storage systems to
improve the voltage profile of a residential distribution feeder’, IEEE Trans.
Ind. Inf., 2014, 10, (2), pp. 967–977
[71] Hashemi, S., Ostergaard, J.: ‘Efficient control of energy storage for increasing
the PV hosting capacity of LV grids’, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, 2016, 99, pp.
1–9
[72] Chamana, M., Chowdhury, B.H.: ‘Impact of smart inverter control with PV
systems on voltage regulators in active distribution networks’. 11th Annual
High Capacity Optical Networks and Emerging/Enabling Technologies
(Photonics for Energy), Charlotte, NC, USA, 2014, pp. 115–119
[73] Zad, B.B., Lobry, J., Valle, F.: ‘Coordinated control of on load tap changer
and D-STATCOM for voltage regulation of radial distribution systems with
DG units’. Third Int. Conf. Electric Power Energy Conversion Systems,
Istanbul, Turkey, 2013, pp. 1–5
[74] Aziz, T., Ketjoy, N.: ‘Enhancing PV penetration in LV networks using
reactive power control and on load tap changer with existing transformers’,
IEEE Access, 2018, 6, pp. 2683–2691
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 3, pp. 349-361
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2019
[75] Efkarpidis, N., Wijnhoven, T., Gonzalez, C., et al.: ‘Coordinated voltage
control scheme for Flemish LV distribution grids utilizing OLTC transformers
and D-STATCOM's’. 12th IET Int. Conf. Developments Power System
Protection (DPSP), Copenhagen, Denmark, 2014, pp. 1–6
[76] Safitri, N., Shahnia, F., Masoum, M.A.S.: ‘Stochastic analysis results for
coordination of single-phase rooftop PVs in unbalanced residential feeders’.
IEEE PES Asia-Pacific Power and Energy Engineering Conf. (APPEEC),
Brisbane, QLD, Australia, 2015, pp. 1–5
[77] Liu, X., Aichhorn, A., Liu, L., et al.: ‘Coordinated control of distributed
energy storage system with tap changer transformers for voltage rise
mitigation under high photovoltaic penetration’, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid,
2012, 3, (2), pp. 897–906
[78] Yang, H.T., Chen, Y.T., Liao, J.T., et al.: ‘Overvoltage mitigation control
strategies for distribution system with high PV penetration’. 2015 18th Int.
Conf. Intelligent System Application to Power Systems (ISAP), Porto,
Portugal, 2015, pp. 1–6
[79] Azzouz, M.A., Farag, H.E., El-Saadany, E.F.: ‘Real-time fuzzy voltage
regulation for distribution networks incorporating high penetration of
renewable sources’, IEEE Syst. J., 2017, 11, (3), pp. 1702–1711
[80] Nour, A.M.M., Hatata, A.Y., Helal, A.A., et al.: ‘Distribution network line
power loss evaluation with grid connected rooftop photovoltaic systems
utilizing over voltage mitigation techniques’. IEEE Int. Conf. Power Energy
(PEcon), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2018, pp. 23–28
361