Electrical Power and Energy Systems 131 (2021) 107036

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijepes

Voltage regulation in unbalanced power distribution systems with

residential PV systems
Waleed Alabri *, Dilan Jayaweera
Department of Electronic, Electrical and System Engineering, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Increased integration of rooftop photovoltaic (PV) power generation in a low-voltage power distribution system
Voltage unbalance poses significant challenges due to the severity of voltage unbalance problems and complexities in regulating the
Overvoltage voltage. Conventional regulation methods are insufficient to address these challenges due to their inability to
Reactive power control
deal with the voltage unbalance. This paper proposes an advanced supervisory control methodology, with the
Photovoltaic
Unbalanced distribution systems
reactive power control and voltage regulation at residential PV inverters, as an effective means of addressing
unbalanced voltages in a power distribution system. The uniqueness of the approach is that it simultaneously
controls voltage magnitude and voltage unbalance at affected nodes by precise dispatching of reactive power.
Several cases were studied by simulating realistic operating conditions on the unbalanced IEEE 37-node test
feeder, and results suggest that the proposed approach can manage the voltage magnitude at nodes within
voltage unbalance thresholds. Further cases suggest that the application of the proposed methodology could also
reduce the operational stress of residential PV inverters significantly, facilitating distribution system with an
increased capacity of PV power generation.

1. Introduction PV inverters to avoid overvoltage issues and reduce voltage unbalance

Adoption of rooftop photovoltaic (PV) power generation is growing
rapidly [1], and their integration into a power distribution system can
potentially pose significant voltage regulation issues. Some critical is­
sues include voltage unbalance between the phases and overvoltage at
nodes [2]. Existing voltage management devices such as on-load tap
changers and switched capacitors cannot provide reliable timing re­
sponses to the rapid PV generation fluctuation. This has resulted in
reliance on substantial investments to reinforce the power distribution
system [3,4] including dedicated equipment such as energy storage
systems and static synchronous compensators to regulate the voltage
[5]. Additionally, several centralised-based control methods are also
proposed [6,7] and have shown better performance. However, they
require high speed and two-way communication infrastructure, all of
which imply substantial investment. On the other hand, the advance­
ment of PV inverter technologies and control measures provide oppor­
tunities to operate PV systems as a viable option to participate in voltage
management, which can be more effective than traditional and cen­
tralised approaches in term of investment and transient response.
Various local control strategies are proposed in the literature using
severity. These strategies include droop-based active power curtailment
and reactive power control [8]. In [9], a comparison has been made
between these control methods, and it concludes that active power
curtailment can be more effective in controlling voltage magnitude than
reactive power control because of the large R/X ratio in power distri­
bution systems. However, active power control is ineffective for voltage
unbalance reduction, especially when the power distribution system is
experiencing under-voltage. Curtailment of PV generation is also un­
likely to be an acceptable societal solution as society increases reliance
on renewable energy due to environmental and monetary benefits. By
contrast, reactive power control can be a feasible solution to mitigate
both voltage rise and voltage unbalance if a proper control strategy is in
place. Current available reactive power control strategies are based on
linear droop control, which was mainly designed to suppress the voltage
rise only. Moreover, the linear characteristic of droop control forces the
inverter to operate continuously even for slight changes in point of
common coupling (PCC) voltage, which could place additional oper­
ating stress on the inverter due to increased conduction losses, switching
losses, and gate driver losses [10].
An alternative approach is attempted in [11] for a three-phase

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: WAA790@bham.ac.uk (W. Alabri).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2021.107036
Received 10 September 2020; Received in revised form 12 March 2021; Accepted 18 March 2021
Available online 10 April 2021
0142-0615/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
W. Alabri and D. Jayaweera
inverter to mitigate only voltage unbalance by generating negative
sequence reference current. In [12], both voltage magnitude and voltage
unbalance improvement techniques are proposed by operating three
single-phase inverters at different values and types of power factor.
However, authors in [12] do not consider the penetration level of PV,
and the proposed scheme can only work effectively in specific operating
conditions where all three inverters should operate at a different type of
power factor. Another possible solution was recently developed in [13]
using a voltage-based droop controller and damping control strategy of a
three-phase PV inverter. Although the proposed control shows prom­
ising results, active power curtailment is used to mitigate the over­
voltage issues, and the effect of damping control strategy on voltage
unbalance is limited only to the use of a three-phase inverter. Authors in
[13] also neglect the variability in the PV power generation and load
demand, which may not reflect a realistic outcome.
Limited research is dedicated to address the challenges of over­
voltage and voltage unbalance mitigation in an unbalanced power dis­
tribution systems operation. For instance, [14–16] presented
approaches to limit the voltage rise on a balanced network model.
Nevertheless, the use of such a model does not represent reality since
actual power distribution systems are naturally unbalanced. There are
other studies that consider the unbalanced operation of power distri­
bution systems [17,18], but in these studies, the mutual impedances of
distribution lines were ignored. Failure to consider unbalanced line
coupling can inadvertently increase voltage unbalance when conven­
tional voltage control is employed [19]. Voltage unbalance can cause a
large unbalance in the phase currents, imposing undesirable conse­
quences on the distribution networks, including increased power losses
and inefficient operation of network assets [20].
To address these limitations of the existing literature, this paper
proposes a supervisory reactive power control based strategic approach
for PV inverters to improve both voltage magnitude and voltage un­
balance effectively using advanced step control methodology and the
local measurements of voltages. The step control objectives are to
maintain the voltage unbalance under the specified limit and voltage
magnitude within the standard bounds while limiting the PV inverter
from ageing. The efficacy of the proposed strategy is demonstrated on an
unbalanced power distribution system developed using actual metered
PV and load data. In addition, the performance of the proposed approach
is validated by simulating different penetration levels and weather
conditions. Moreover, the presented approach results are compared with
the conventional linear droop control method to justify the superiority
of the proposed control method.
The rest of this paper is organised as follows. Section 2 presents the
voltage variation and voltage unbalance in power distribution systems.
Section 3 defines the proposed voltage control methodology. Section 4
presents the framework of the network analysis. Section 5 provides
details of simulation results and analysis followed by conclusions and
final remarks in Section 6.
2. Voltage profile and voltage unbalance in power distribution
systems
Integration of residential PVs can change the paradigm of power
distribution system operation such that, the substation no longer pro­
vides the only source of power and short-circuit capacity. The integra­
tion of PV introduces technical complications due to mismatch between
PV generation and demand. For instance, the stochastic nature of PV
generation and real power injection in excess of demand can lead to
voltage rise beyond the operating limits. Keeping the voltage within the
acceptable limit is critical, as any violation would cause degradation to
customer appliances and disconnection of the PV system. For this
reason, several grid codes, regulation, and voltage variation limits have
been introduced. According to EN 50160 and ANSI C84.1-2011 stan­
dards, the voltage variation limits are ±10% and ±5%, respectively
[20].
2
International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 131 (2021) 107036
In addition to the overvoltage issue, feeders with high penetration of
PV may experience voltage unbalance, which has often been neglected
due to the lack of monitoring data in power distribution systems. Un­
balanced voltage is a condition where the three-phase voltage varies in
magnitude and/or does not have exactly 120◦ phase displacement. This
phenomenon exclusively occurs in three-phase four-wire power distri­
bution systems. Major causes of this are non-uniformity of household
load connection among the three-phase system and asymmetry of cable
impedance. The power system designers try balancing loads across
three-phases during the planning stage but, due to the uncertainty of
load and PV energy, the typical distribution systems are rarely seen as
balanced. Moreover, different sizes and arbitrary locations of PV
installed by the customers impose an intrinsically unbalanced operation.
Unbalanced voltage can overheat and derate some electrical equipment
like induction motors and distribution transformers. Furthermore, it
increases power losses and affects the power system protection [20].
There are different definitions used to describe the voltage unbalance
and its limitation [21]. Among these definitions is the phase voltage
unbalance (VU%) based on IEEE Std. 141-1993 [22], which is defined as
the ratio of maximum deviation of phase voltage to average phase
voltage and average phase voltage, as expressed in (1). According to
IEEE Std. 141-1993, VU% of 3.5% can result in 25% additional heating
on the motors, and thus a voltage unbalance higher than 2% should be
reduced.
⃒ { }⃒
⃒ ⃒
⃒
⃒Max. V a,b,c 1
∑ p
− 3 p=a,b,c V ⃒
⃒
⃒ ⃒
VU% = ∑ × 100 (1)
1
3 p=a,b,c V
p
where V p is the phase voltage, and p represents the three phases (a, b, c).
The ratio between the negative-sequence and positive-sequence
voltage has been considered in many standards to calculate the
voltage unbalance factor. However, the zero-sequence voltage is high in
the three-phase four-wire distribution networks, and it should be re­
flected to calculate the voltage unbalance accurately [9]. Therefore, in
this paper, IEEE Std. 141-1993 definition for VU% is used to assess and
compensates the voltage unbalance condition due to its effectiveness
and simple calculation procedure. It is important to note that in this
definition, the phase shift is not reflected in the voltage unbalance
calculation, as only the voltage magnitude is taken into account. The
phase displacements can be excluded because they are at very close
proximity, which can be proved with unbalanced load flow calculation.
As a result, controlling the voltage magnitude would be the prime factor
in alleviating the voltage unbalance. To develop a universal PV inverter
control in this study, the VU% is limited to 2%, and the voltage variation
is set to ±7%. The transient intermittent characteristic of PVs and loads
are not of interest in this study. This is because the voltage unbalance
and overvoltage are a steady-state parameter of the network and are
measured at 10 min intervals.
3. Proposed voltage regulation methodology
After integrating a PV system into a power distribution system, the
direction of power flow can possibly change, which could lead to fluc­
tuation in the voltage at nodes and rise beyond the standard limits. To
assess the causes of voltage rise and voltage unbalance, and to establish
an approach to limit such problems, a simplified two-bus low voltage
power distribution system with a PV system connection is presented in
Fig. 1. Vabc
o is the three-phase voltage at the low voltage side of the
transformer, and Vabc
s is the three-phase voltage at PCC. The self and
mutual impedance of lines (Zabc = Rabc + jXabc) are applied in this paper
to acquire a realistic representation of the distribution lines in an un­
balanced power distribution system. The generated active power Ppv and
reactive power Qpv of a PV system are fed to the nearby load PL + jQL,
and the net power Pn and Qn are injected into the grid.
The voltage at PCC in an unbalanced three-phase system (Vabc s ) can
W. Alabri and D. Jayaweera International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 131 (2021) 107036

Fig. 1. Simplified structure of a PV system connected to a three-phase power distribution system.

be calculated using (2). Eq. (2) indicates that the increase of PCC voltage level, availability of the inverter sizes in the market, and country’s
depends upon the line impedance and the net injected power while regulations are all main factors of PV inverter sizing. Some countries
assuming the grid voltage is constant. To regulate the voltage at PVs mandate the PV inverter operation between ±0.9 power factor [23]
connection point, the amount of injected active power or reactive power (inverter size increased by 10%) to avoid excessive reactive power in­
at each phase should be controlled. In a power distribution system, the jection. However, the current increase in PV penetration level has led to
R/X ratio is high, which means that the active power control is more significant increases in the overvoltage and voltage unbalance, which
effective to provide voltage regulation support than reactive power. Yet, have caused manufacturers to increase the size of PV inverters to enable
active power control is likely to be an unpreferable approach because of enough reactive power capability. For this reason, there are some PV
active power curtailment and its inability to solve under-voltage and inverters that are currently available in the market with size up to 125%
voltage unbalance problems. As a result, in this paper, reactive power of PPV− rated such as SMA Sunny Tripower inverter [24], which allow the
control of residential PV inverter is considered to maintain the voltage power factor of the inverter to be operated between ±0.8. Moreover,
magnitude and voltage unbalance level at PCC within a specific range. several studies have carried out recently to mitigate the problem raising
( q )* form increased PV penetration level by oversizing the PV inverter by
∑ P + jQq
Vsp = Vop + Z pq n q n (2) more than 25%, such as in [25,26]. Additionally, the significance of
q=a,b,c
Vo oversizing the PV inverter in different control strategies for a multi­
functional purpose, such as harmonic mitigation and reactive power
where p and q represent the three phases (a, b, c) compensation was also addressed in [27]. Therefore, in this study, the
The approach proposed in this paper controls the voltage magnitude size of the inverters is increased by 25% of PPV− rated , and thus, α = 1.25
and voltage unbalance by absorbing or injecting reactive power using a (Sinv = 1.25 × PPV− rated ), allowing reactive power of ±0.75 × PPV− rated to
local PV inverter. In the local reactive power control, there are different be generated or absorbed by the inverter. With this size, the inverter can
methods used for voltage regulation, and these are divided into static be operated between 0.8 leading (supplies reactive power) and 0.8
and dynamic control strategies [8]. In static methods, the power factor lagging (absorbs reactive power) power factor regardless of active
(PF) is pre-set to a fixed value, and the injected reactive power is pro­ power output. Fig. 2 shows the inverter capability for this case with the
portional to the active power production. In the case of low power shaded area representing the inverter’s range operation.
production and peak load, the probability of voltage rise is very low, and PV systems at a residential level can be single-phase or three-phase
the injection of reactive power would be unnecessary. On the other depending on the demand and availability of other facilities, including
hand, a dynamic power factor based on the injected real power PF(P) three-phase lines. Usually, a three-phase PV inverter is designed as a
may not guarantee the proper voltage regulation. This is because the compact three-phase unit [12], where the total active power is divided
voltage will not always rise with the increase of active power production equally among the three phases, and the reactive power is split among
if the variation of the load is ignored. Therefore, for better voltage the inverter phases according to the measured voltage. Many studies,
regulation, the reactive power is adjusted according to the local voltage.
Reactive power of a PV inverter can be controlled either by considering
power factor as a function of voltage (PF(V)) or reactive power as a
function of voltage (Q(V)). Both methods mitigate overvoltage and
voltage unbalance effects to the almost same level. However, the Q(V)
parameters will change at each control cycle because they depend on the
generated PV active power. That means the inverter must adjust and
check the reactive power limit at each control cycle. On the other hand,
using PF(V) control, the power factor range reminds the same regardless
of active power.
However, the amount of reactive power (power factor range) is
limited by the size of the PV inverter. For a PV inverter to supply enough
VAr support, additional capacity needs to be included in the design so
that the inverter can provide or absorb VAr regardless of rated active
power production. Usually, the inverter capacity is designed to be
slightly higher than the rated generated active power, and most of the
time, the PV produces active power less than their rating. Consequently,
making the inverter slightly oversized, provides enough freedom of
reactive power exchange, especially on a clear sky day. For a given
inverter, the maximum VAr capacity (QPV− max. ) at the rated active power
(PPV− rated ) is governed by (3).
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
QPV− max. = PPV− rated α2 − 1 (3)

where α is the size of the inverter in per unit (pu). The PV penetration
Fig. 2. Capability curve of PV inverter.

3
W. Alabri and D. Jayaweera
including [10] showed that additional operational functions of PV in­
verters (including reactive power control function) could potentially
cause a higher level of electro-thermal mechanical stress on the inverter
components. This can eventually reduce the likelihood of component
availability and subsequent impacts on the system’s reliability perfor­
mance. The reason behind it is that additional operational functions
increase conduction losses, switching losses, and gate driver losses,
which, on the other hand, depends on the control scheme associated
with the inverting system.
Typically, in the conventional voltage-dependent reactive power
control method, the PCC voltage is controlled using a linear droop
control approach [8]. The droop characteristic is a piecewise linear
function of the voltage, where the PV inverter absorbs or injects the
reactive power according to the linear relation with the measured
voltage. Linear droop control was only intended to mitigate the over­
voltage problem and has less impact on alleviating unbalanced voltage.
Furthermore, droop control’s linear characteristic keeps the inverter
operation continuous even if there is a slight change in PCC voltage,
which would place additional stress on the inverter. Therefore, to limit
the voltage variation to ±7% and VU% to 2%, a step control is proposed
in this paper, as shown in Fig. 3. The power factor of the PV inverter
varies according to the measured voltage. Consequently, the PV inverter
can adaptively adjust its reactive power generation while maintaining
its power factor within the operational range. Due to high R/X ratio in
the power distribution system, the range operation of power factor is
divided into four-steps to guarantee a high impact on voltage magnitude
in each phase and reduce the voltage difference between the phases.
As noted in (1), violating the voltage unbalance limit (VU%) stars
when the difference between any phase voltage magnitude and average
voltage magnitude more than 0.02 pu. For example, if the phase voltage
magnitude (V a,b,c ) as follows, V a = 0.98pu, V b = 1.0pu, V c = 1.02pu,
then the VU% will be 2%. Accordingly, applying steps control with the
0.02 pu voltage difference will allow different power factor values to be
assigned at each phase. This eventually reduces the voltage variation
among the phases and keeps it within limits. The adopted stepped
function is also used to reduces the PV inverter degradation because of
the deadband. At the same time, its effect could be significant on voltage
regulation and maintaining the voltage unbalance under 2%. On the
other hand, the conventional linear droop control assigns relatively the
same power factor for all phases unless the difference of voltage
magnitude between any two phases is considerably high, which then the
voltage unbalance level can be reduced. The linear droop characteristic
Fig. 3. Proposed PF(V) control.
4
International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 131 (2021) 107036
parameters are mainly dependent on the associated voltage limit,
deadband width and PV inverter size. If these parameters change, they
will have a different impact on voltage magnitude, but their influence on
voltage unbalance remains the same. For example, suppose deadband
width is increased by more than 0.02 (1.01–0.99). In that case, there will
be no reactive power injected or absorbed at this deadband, which
means that the probability of having voltage unbalance is high even if
the phase voltage magnitude is with the specified limit. Wider deadband
will allow voltage unbalance to occur mainly if all phase voltages are in
the deadband interval.
The block diagram of the PV system is shown in Fig. 4. The variation
of solar irradiation due to weather conditions and PV panels location
cause fluctuations in the output voltage. The DC-DC converter is used to
maintain the output voltage to a constant level and provide the
maximum power point tracking. Along with the phase-locked loop and
anti-islanding function, the control system is used to adjust the in­
verter’s power factor operation in response to the measured Vinv voltage.
Different control structures can be used for both control schemes (con­
ventional droop control and the proposed control) [28], which may
require almost the same computational resources. The proposed control
method can use a digital sinusoidal pulse width modulation, which is
more fixable and accurate in controlling the power factor than used in
conventional control due to the wide specific and range of power factor
involvement. The main features of this control structure are less
computational requirements and simple hardware implementation [29].
Therefore, controlling the power factor is relatively simple to imple­
ment, either using reference frame theory or to use a digital control
design, such as proposed in [30]. In most linear droop control methods,
the maximum reactive power needs to be recomputed at every operation
period, which adds complexity to the inverter’s control circuit. Whereas,
in the proposed control, the reactive power is computed according to the
power factor’s assigned value.
4. Unbalanced three-phase load flow
To assess the performance of the developed control strategy of a PV
inverter for voltage regulation, an unbalanced three-phase load flow
(UTLF) calculation needs to be considered in the analysis. Most studies
on voltage regulation use balanced load flow calculations. This can lead
to incorrect results and predictions in actual unbalanced power distri­
bution systems. Backward-Forward Sweep-based algorithms [31] and
the improved conventional Newton-Raphson method [32] are
commonly used to solve the power flow equation for unbalanced power
distribution systems. Given its convergence speed and robustness, the
latter is used in this paper. The author extended the new representation
of the voltage control bus type for balanced load flow calculation pre­
sented in [32] to the unbalanced three-phase power system [33].
Comparing with currently available techniques, the developed three-
phase power and current injection hybrid method decreases the
complexity of the load flow calculation, improves the computing time,
and reduces the number of iterations, as demonstrated in [33].
The UTLF technique used in this paper combines the current injec­
tion and power injection methods. The load (PQ bus type) buses are
modelled as in the three-phase current injection mismatches equations
[34], whereas generator bus type buses are modelled using three-phase
real power injection mismatches equations [35]. The Newton-Raphson
method is used to find the voltage magnitude and angle at each bus
by solving the nonlinear set of current and real power mismatch equa­
tions. The linearised problem is formed through the Jacobian matrix J,
as shown in (4). The sub-matrices of the Jacobian (J) element can be
found in [33].
W. Alabri and D. Jayaweera International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 131 (2021) 107036

Fig. 4. Block diagram of the PV system.

⎡ ⎤
⎡ ⎤ The admittance matrix (Y) is formulated from the series impedance
( )abc
⎢
( )abc
Δ Ikm ⎥ ⎢
⎢ Δ Vkr ⎥
⎥ and the shunt admittance of the line, including mutual effect between
⎢ ⎥
⎢ ( )abc ⎥ ⎢
⎢ ( )abc ⎥
⎥ the different conductors and the neutral conductor. To represent the
⎢ ⎥ Δ Vkm
⎢ Δ Ikr ⎥ ⎢
⎢
⎥
⎥ non-transposed characteristics of the three-phase four-wire distribution
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢
⎢ ⋮
⎥
⎥ = − J∙⎢ ⋮ ⎥ (4) line, Carson’s approach and Kron reduction are used to form a 3 by 3
⎢ ⎥
⎢
⎢ ⋮
⎥
⎥ ⎢ ⋮ ⎥ matrices for each line segment. Moreover, the three-phase transformer
⎢ ⎥
⎢
⎢ Δ(Pm )abc
⎥
⎥ ⎢
⎢ Δδabc
m
⎥
⎥ and connection types have been included in the admittance matrix.
⎢ ⎥
⎣ ⎦ ⎢
⎣
⎥
⎦ The PV inverter can be either modelled as a constant voltage source
⋮ ⋮
(generator bus) or PQ bus in load flow formulation. The constant voltage
model is usually used for large-scale controllable distribution generator.
where the three-phase current injection mismatch equations for PQ type For a residential scale, the PV inverter is modelled as a load bus, where
buses (k) are: the real power and reactive power are known. The active power
generated by the inverter is dependent on the solar irradiance and varies
( )p ∑
n ∑ ( pq r q )
diurnally, while the reactive power depends on the active output power
m q
(5)
p
Δ Iir = (Iir− sp ) − Gij (V j ) − Bpq
ij (V j )
j=1 q=a,b,c and the bus voltage in which it is connected. As a result, the node where
the PV inverter is connected would be treated as a load bus in this paper.
( )p ∑
n ∑ ( pq m q ) The active output power (Pabc pv ) of PV is known, and the reactive power
r q
(6)
p
Δ Iim = (Iim− sp ) − Gij (V j ) + Bpq
ij (V j )
j=1 q=a,b,c (Qabc
pv ) can be calculated using (13). Whereas, the power factor (PF
abc
) is
obtained according to the proposed PF(V) piecewise step function
and the three-phase real power injection mismatch equation for gener­ shown in Fig. 3.
ator buses (m) is: ( abc ) − 1
Qabc abc
pv = Ppv × tan((cos PF ) ) (13)
(7)
p p
Δ(Pi )p = (Psp cal.
i ) − (Pi )
Fig. 5 shows the flow chart of UTLF calculation with the imple­
where mentation of the PV inverter’s proposed voltage control. A 24-hour time-
p ( r )p p ( m )p
series of UTLF calculation is used to assess the performance of the pro­
(Psp
i ) Vi + (Qsp
i ) Vi posed control scheme. The load flow is repeated at ten-minute intervals
(8)
p
(Iir− sp ) = ( r p )2 ( ( m )p )2
(V i ) + Vi to generate a 24-hour time series of load flow data. As the proposed
control scheme is targeted at local control, the voltage magnitude
p ( m )p p ( r )p
(Psp
i ) Vi − (Qsp
i ) Vi measurement is assumed to trace through the inverters or installed
(9)
p
(Iim− sp ) = ( r p )2 ( ( m )p )2
(V i ) + Vi sensors at smart meters. Therefore, to perform the simulation studies,
instead of the actual data tracing through smart meters, a load flow
∑
n ∑ ⃒ ⃒( ( p ) ( p )) calculation is performed to define the voltage magnitudes, representing
(10)
p
(Pcal. |Vip |⃒Vjq ⃒ Gpq Step 1. In Step 2, the load flow calculation is carried out to check the
q pq q
i ) = ij cos δi − δj + Bij sin δi − δj
j=1 q=a,b,c
impact of proposed control on voltage magnitude and voltage
unbalance.
(11)
p
(Psp p p
i ) = Pgi − Pli After determining the bus and branches data, the Y bus matrix is
formulated. The UTLF calculation is started by giving the initial values
(12)
p
(Qsp p p
i ) = Qgi − Qli of voltages, angles, and PF of the connected PV inverter. Then, at
timet = 0, the load and PV generation profiles are used for the load flow
p, q ∈ {a, b, c} – represent the three phases calculation. After the UTLF calculation converges, the PV inverter’s PF is
Iir , Iim , Vir , Vim – are the real and imaginary part of the current and updated according to the voltage obtained in step 1, and accordingly,
voltage at bus i the reactive power is calculated. In practical, the voltage is obtained
Ppgi ,Qpgi ,Ppli ,Qpli – the specified real and reactive power of generators either by a smart metering fleet or a PV inverter. Then, to verify the
performance of the proposed control, the UTLF calculation is performed
and loads at bus i
again in step 2 after assigning the new value of PF. For each case study,
Yijpq = Gpq pq
ij + jBij – is the bus admittance matrix element between bus the same procedure is repeated every 10 min to form a 24-hour time
i and j series of UTLF calculations.

5
W. Alabri and D. Jayaweera International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 131 (2021) 107036

Fig. 6. Modified IEEE 37-bus test feeder.

as;
PPV− Peak
PL% = × 100 (14)
SL− Peak
The actual PV active power production under various weather con­
ditions and a typical load profile of a three-phase feeder throughout a
day with a time resolution of 10-minute are shown in Figs. 7 and 8,
respectively. These data are recorded by HCT GreenNest Eco House [39]
and, were taken to check the typical PV generation and load profile at
each phase for 24 h. The 24-hour load profile curve is incorporated into
all load buses in the simulated network, taking into account different
peak load levels and number of phases. Although the measurements
Fig. 5. Overview of the proposed PV inverter model in UTLF.
represent the active power load profile, they can be used to describe the
reactive power profile. It is assumed that all the connected PV systems
5. Simulation results and analysis
would have the same irradiance profile, and therefore the PV generation
profile shown in Fig. 7 can be used across all PV connection on the
5.1. Simulated network
feeder. With this measured data, an accurate representation of the
network and the practical evaluation of the proposed control can be
The selected test network used in the simulation is the modified IEEE
achieved under various operating and weather conditions.
37-bus unbalanced radial distribution feeder [36], as shown in Fig. 6. In
this test feeder, the loads are unbalanced, and the distribution lines are
5.2. Case studies
un-transposed. All loads are assumed to be constant power load types,
and the three-phase loads are connected in a star configuration. For
A 24-hour time series of unbalanced three-phase load flow is simu­
simplicity, each load node represents a group of houses supplied by a
lated in MATLAB®. Different case studies are carried out on the simu­
single or three-phase feeder. The data corresponding to the loads and the
lated network to validate the viability of the proposed control strategy.
underground cables can be found in [36], and the given loads’ data are
Different PV power output profiles (Fig. 7) and various PV penetration
assumed to be peak loads. The test network is a highly loaded feeder
levels are applied to assess the effects of the proposed control method on
with a peak demand of 2472 kW and 1207 kVAr. Bus 1 is selected to be a
voltage regulation and voltage unbalance reduction. Then, the perfor­
slack bus which represents the outgoing feeder of substation trans­
mance of the proposed control method is compared with the conven­
former. All the line segments are underground cables, making the cho­
tional linear droop control method.
sen network a valid example to test the proposed control strategy with
For each case study, the voltage magnitude and voltage unbalance
PV inverters in extreme conditions (high R/X ratio).
are calculated without incorporating the control scheme (base case) to
This study assumes that the rating of feeders and transformer of the
the connected PV inverter. Then, when the control strategy is consid­
selected test network is designed to accommodate a high PV penetration
ered, two UTLF calculations are carried out. The first load flow calcu­
level. There are different definitions used and presented in various
lation results are used to define the voltage at the connected PV buses,
studies for the PV penetration level [37]. The percentage of PV pene­
which represent the measured voltage taken either by the inverters or
tration level (PL%) is defined in this paper as the ratio of the total three-
smart meters. The second UTLF calculation is used to verify the effec­
phase peak of PV active power (PPV− Peak )to the total three-phase peak
tiveness of the suggested control by examining the voltage magnitude
load of the apparent power (SL− Peak ) in the feeder [38]. As the daily load
and unbalanced voltage, as demonstrated in the flow chart shown in
and PV curves are used here, the PL% referred in this paper to the
Fig. 5.
maximum penetration level recorded during the day, which is calculated
Four three-phase PV generation units are connected to the

6
W. Alabri and D. Jayaweera
Fig. 7. PV output power profile for 24 h under different weather conditions.
Fig. 8. Three-phase load profile for 24 h.
unbalanced distribution feeder with different ratings. Although the PVs
can be connected anywhere in the simulated test feeder, for this case
study they are connected at buses with high load densities i.e. buses; 32,
33, 34, and 35 to check their performance on voltage unbalance
reduction. This is because voltage unbalance typically first occurs at the
end of the feeder. It is worth mentioning that the injection of balanced
active power from the three-phase PV system will have a relatively small
impact on voltage unbalance. Therefore, the unbalanced connection of
loads across the phases was the main reason for the high voltage un­
balance level. At the base case, the network has been stimulated with no
control of reactive power, and PV inverters are only injecting active
power. This means that the inverters are operating at unity PF. The
simulation was initially started with a lower (25%) PV power penetra­
tion level. The unbalanced power flow was performed considering clear
sky, partly cloudy and fully cloudy scenarios. Then, the buses voltage
magnitude profile and unbalanced voltage level were investigated.
Statistical analysis of the range of voltage unbalance over 24 h for
each node is presented in Fig. 9. The line inside each box is the median,
and left and right edges of each box are the upper and lower quartiles,
respectively. For the base case (Fig. 9. (a)), the unbalanced voltage range
is the same for all PV power generation scenarios. It is noted that the VU
% exceeded the limit of 2%, reaching 2.7% during some hours of the
day. It evidences that the unbalance voltage starts increasing at the far
end of the feeder, particularly feeder segments originating from node 27.
From the load flow calculation result, the voltage levels at every node in
the simulated network are within the assigned limit. This is because the
7
International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 131 (2021) 107036
PV penetration level is relatively low, and the likelihood of having
overvoltage is lower. Thus, at this stage, the proposed control scheme
would be mainly to reduce VU%.
To minimise the voltage unbalance, the local voltage is measured,
and then, according to Fig. 3, the power factor of the inverter is adjusted.
Each phase would have different PF values, and hence, different reactive
power is absorbed or injected depending on the measured voltage. The
previous simulation has been repeated with the same data except now
the PV inverters are now enabled to control their PCC voltage. For this
case study, the flow chart shown in Fig. 5 is used. After incorporating the
proposed control strategy, the unbalanced voltage is reduced and ap­
pears within the limit during the clear sky day, as shown in Fig. 9(b).
Although at the partly cloudy day, the VU% exceeds 2% for a few mi­
nutes, as shown in Fig. 9(c), most of the time, it was within the limit.
During the cloudy day, the generated PV power is reduced to more than
50%, causing less impact of reactive control on voltage magnitude. This
can be noted in Fig. 9(d), where the VU% is reduced comparatively. As a
result of lower PV penetration, the voltage magnitudes were within
limits in all PV generation scenarios, and with the help of the proposed
control scheme, the VU% was reduced significantly.
Fig. 10 shows the corresponding PF angle (δabc PF ) values of the con­
nected PV inverters for each phase during the clear sky day. It reflects
the amount of reactive power injected/absorbed, and how often the
inverter changes its power factor values during a day. It can be observed
that most of the day, the PV inverters consume the reactive power at
phase ‘b’ and inject the power at other phases. This is because the load is
W. Alabri and D. Jayaweera
Fig. 9. Voltage unbalance for (a) the base case, and with the proposed control
strategy at (b) clear sky day, (b) partly cloudy day (c) cloudy day.
relatively low at phase ‘b’ and high at phase ‘a’ and ‘c’. Although, the PV
inverter can inject or absorb active power up to 75% of active power, at
this stage, around 32% is used to achieve limited VU%. As a result, the
inverters were operated between 0.95 leading and 0.95 lagging power
factor, which ensures that the total power absorption stayed at
Fig. 10. Corresponding PF angle of the connected PV inverter at low penetration level during the clear sky day.
8
International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 131 (2021) 107036
minimum levels while keeping the VU at the limited bounds.
In order to check the superiority of the proposed control scheme
under high PV penetration level, the rating of the connected PVs is
increased. As a high PV penetration level is considered here, the PV
output power profile at the clear sky is used for this case study. While
increasing the PV penetration level, the phase voltage rises, especially in
phase ‘b’, and at a level of 70%, the voltage starts to go out of the
permitted limits. Consequently, without considering the control strate­
gies of PV inverter, the penetration level should be limited to 70%. For
example, Fig. 11 shows the maximum voltage recorded during the day at
each phase when the level of 85% PV penetration level is used. It can be
noted that without using the proposed control of reactive power, the
voltage at phase ‘b’ from bus 31 to 35 exceed 1.07 pu.
After applying the proposed technique with the same penetration
level (85%), the load flow calculation results show the effectiveness of
the proposed method. For instance, Fig. 12 indicates that the recorded
maximum voltage is reduced to 1.04 pu. Although, at high PV pene­
tration, the VU% is relatively low, applying the proposed control scheme
further reduces the VU% and kept it within the specified limit, as shown
in Fig. 13. The new proposed control scheme allows the penetration
level of PV generation to increase up to 150% without violating the
voltage magnitude and voltage unbalance limit. Compared with 25% of
PV penetration level, the PV inverters always absorb reactive power at
each phase during operation because of excessive PV generated power.
As presented in Fig. 14, Only phase ’b’ of all PV inverters were operated
at rated PF, especially at peak generation time between 12 PM and 2 PM.
It can also be observed that, although the proposed control has a local
effect, it could also benefit the nearby nodes.
In the final case study, the proposed voltage control method is
compared with the conventional linear droop control method [8]. The
same size and power factor limit of the inverter are used for both ap­
proaches. This means that both approaches should have the same
voltage limit (±7%) and power factor operation range (±0.8). At a high
PV penetration level, both methods inject their full capacity of reactive
power when the voltage magnitude exceeds the limit, which results in a
reduced influence on voltage unbalance. However, as shown in Fig. 15,
they exhibit different impacts on the voltage unbalance at low PV
penetration level (25%) considering a clear day. In linear droop control
scheme, the VU% is reduced only to 2.45%, keeping its value above the
violated limit. The results further depict that the proposed control
W. Alabri and D. Jayaweera International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 131 (2021) 107036

Fig. 11. The maximum voltage recorded during the day at each bus for the base case at 85% PV penetration level.

Fig. 12. The maximum voltage recorded during the day at each bus with the proposed control strategy at 85% of PV penetration level.

Fig. 13. The maximum voltage unbalance during the day at each bus before and after using the proposed control strategy at 85% of PV penetration level.

scheme manages to keep the percentage of voltage unbalance within the
limit, showing its superior benefit in reducing the voltage unbalance in a
power distribution level.
With the application of proposed step control of reactive power, the
frequency of changes in inverter’s PF in a day can be observed in Figs. 10
and 14. Although the PV power generation and load demand are varying
during the day, the PV inverter is operated for several hours with the
same PF, especially at phase ‘b’ and ‘c’. In contrast, as shown in Fig. 16,
the PF in the linear droop control method is frequently changing,
especially at the phase ’a’ and ’c’. This depicts that the proposed control
reduces the inverter’s operating strain while keeping the voltage vari­
ation and voltage unbalance at specific bounds, giving superior benefits
compared to the linear droop control method.
Figs. 10 and 16 demonstrate that both the proposed control and
linear droop control schemes establish almost the same amount of
injected or absorbed reactive power from PV inverter, which leads to the

9
W. Alabri and D. Jayaweera
Fig. 14. Corresponding PF angle of the connected PV inverter at 85% of PV penetration level.
Fig. 15. The maximum unbalanced voltage recorded during the day at each bus before and after applying the proposed control and conventional droop control.
same overall network power losses. But, they demonstrate different
voltage unbalance levels and, therefore different neutral current flows
through the inverter or any nearby connected three-phase appliances. A
small unbalance in the phase voltages can cause large neutral current
which can impose inevitable consequences on the inverter or any other
electrical appliances. The neutral current cannot be precisely calculated
due to the missing of neutral transformation matrices of the provided
IEEE-37 node test system. However, when the voltage unbalance level
exceeds 2%, this could lead to a possible derating and reduce the lifetime
of any connected three-phase appliance, as indicated in [22]. Moreover,
the increased neutral current can also increase the power losses associ­
ated with the inverter or any other three-phase loads, which was ignored
due to the missing details of the connected PV inverter and load speci­
fication. Therefore, by minimising the voltage unbalance, the power
losses associated with each appliance and derating factor can be
minimised.
5.3. Discussion
All the three case studies demonstrate the proposed reactive power
10
International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 131 (2021) 107036
strategy’s ability to maintain the voltage magnitude and voltage un­
balance within the specified limit in the unbalanced power distribution
system. The proposed control strategy was examined under low PV
penetration level and various weather conditions in the first case study.
The evaluation identified that the severity of voltage unbalance can be
reduced significantly without excessive reactive power injection. The
voltage rise and voltage unbalance were also minimised at a high PV
penetration level, as demonstrated in the second case study. The pro­
posed control scheme allows the penetration level to increase from 75%
to 150% without violating the operational voltage limits. To justify the
superiority of the proposed control, a comparison between the proposed
control and linear droop control has also been made in the last case
study to compare their performance on voltage unbalance reduction and
frequency change of PV inverter power factor. As expected, the proposed
control managed to keep the voltage unbalance under 2% and the
operating strain of the PV inverter at a safe level.
The proposed control system can be adopted for any integrated PV
inverter scheme and can be easily controlled by the distribution network
operator to meet their statutory standards. It can also be used to regulate
not only the voltage at the connected PV but also nearby nodes. The
W. Alabri and D. Jayaweera
Fig. 16. Corresponding PF angle of the connected PV inverter when conventional droop control method is applied.
proposed control can also be applied to a single-phase PV inverter
because it is designed to control each phase individually. While a single-
phase inverter connection can regulate the voltage magnitude at PCC,
the other nearby connected single-phase PV inverters may also
contribute to voltage unbalance reduction in the feeders. In the absence
of solar irradiation, the proposed reactive power control with the sup­
port of an energy storage system can be used as a practical solution to
overcome overvoltage and under-voltage problems in a power distri­
bution system. On the other hand, the proposed control methodology
can limit the aging of on-load tap load changers and voltage regulators
due to frequent switching actions that they would normally face and
increase the extended usage of renewable energy. Additionally, mini­
mising voltage unbalance can also reduce the overall network power
losses associated with the increased neutral current and increase the
efficiency of power distribution system components.
6. Conclusion
With growing amounts of PVs in power distribution systems, new
strategies are necessary to effectively regulate unbalanced voltage. This
paper proposes a new and practical approach for power quality
improvement using residential PV inverters in an unbalanced power
distribution system environment considering the mutual coupling be­
tween phases. Investigations found that use of a step-based reactive
power control at each phase, based on the locally measured voltage, can
potentially keep the voltage magnitude and voltage unbalance within
limits. The proposed deadband controller reduces the operating strain of
the inverter system, increasing its lifetime and allowing for a higher
uptake of residential PV power generation through the inverters,
evidencing the capability of the proposed control.
Different case studies using real PV power generation and load de­
mand data demonstrate the ability and superiority of the proposed
approach to alleviate voltage issues in unbalancing operating conditions
in a test model of a power distribution system. The study outcome
further justifies the strength of the approach compared with the con­
ventional droop control of PV reactive power in terms of voltage un­
balance reduction and PV inverter operational strain. The findings also
open a new pathway for the power distribution voltage control in high
penetration scenarios of rooftop PVs in a smart operating system
environment.
11
International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 131 (2021) 107036
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Waleed Alabri: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Formal
analysis, Investigation, Data curation, Validation, Writing - original
draft. Dilan Jayaweera: Writing - review & editing, Supervision.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] IEA (2019), Renewables 2019: Analysis and forecasts to 2024, IEA, Paris; 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1787/b3911209-en.
[2] Khodayar ME, Feizi MR, Vafamehr A. Solar photovoltaic generation: Benefits and
operation challenges in distribution networks. Electr J 2019;32:50–7.
[3] Ch Y, Goswami SK, Chatterjee D. Effect of network reconfiguration on power
quality of distribution system. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2016;83:87–95.
[4] Murty V, Kumar A. Voltage Regulation and Loss Minimisation in Reconfigured
Distribution Systems with Capacitors and OLTC in the Presence of PV Penetration.
Iran J Sci Technol Trans Electr Eng 2020:1–29.
[5] Hashemi S, Østergaard J. Methods and strategies for overvoltage prevention in low
voltage distribution systems with PV. IET Renew Power Gener 2017;11:205–14.
https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-rpg.2016.0277.
[6] Meng F, Chowdhury B, Hossan MS. Optimal integration of DER and SST in active
distribution networks. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2019;104:626–34.
[7] Hashemipour N, Aghaei J, Lotfi M, Niknam T, Askarpour M, Shafie-khah M, et al.
Multi-objective optimisation method for coordinating battery storage systems,
photovoltaic inverters and tap changers. IET Renew Power Gener 2020;14:475–83.
[8] Chaudhary P, Rizwan M. Voltage regulation mitigation techniques in distribution
system with high PV penetration: A review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;82:
3279–87.
[9] Nour AMM, Hatata AY, Helal AA, El-Saadawi MM. Review on voltage-violation
mitigation techniques of distribution networks with distributed rooftop PV
systems. IET Gener Transm Distrib 2019.
[10] Callegari JMS, Silva MP, de Barros RC, Brito EMS, Cupertino AF, Pereira HA.
Lifetime evaluation of three-phase multifunctional PV inverters with reactive
power compensation. Electr Power Syst Res 2019;175:105873.
[11] 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;10:1577–86.
[12] Kamel RM. New inverter control for balancing standalone micro-grid phase
voltages: A review on MG power quality improvement. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2016;63:520–32.
[13] Bozalakov DV, Laveyne J, Desmet J, Vandevelde L. Overvoltage and voltage
unbalance mitigation in areas with high penetration of renewable energy resources
W. Alabri and D. Jayaweera
by using the modified three-phase damping control strategy. Electr Power Syst Res
2019;168:283–94.
[14] Olivier F, Aristidou P, Ernst D, Van Cutsem T. Active Management of Low-Voltage
Networks for Mitigating Overvoltages Due to Photovoltaic Units. IEEE Trans Smart
Grid 2016;7:926–36. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSG.2015.2410171.
[15] Alam MJE, Muttaqi KM, Sutanto D. A Multi-Mode Control Strategy for VAr Support
by Solar PV Inverters in Distribution Networks. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2015;30:
1316–26. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPWRS.2014.2344661.
[16] Mai TT, Haque ANMM, Vergara PP, Nguyen PH, Pemen G. Adaptive coordination
of sequential droop control for PV inverters to mitigate voltage rise in PV-Rich LV
distribution networks. Electr Power Syst Res 2020;106931.
[17] Safitri N, Shahnia F, Masoum MAS. Coordination of single-phase rooftop PVs in
unbalanced three-phase residential feeders for voltage profiles improvement. Aust
J Electr Electron Eng 2016;13:77–90.
[18] Shahnia F, Ghosh A, Ledwich G, Zare F. Voltage unbalance improvement in low
voltage residential feeders with rooftop PVs using custom power devices. Int J
Electr Power Energy Syst 2014;55:362–77.
[19] Zeraati M, Golshan MEH, Guerrero JM. Voltage Quality Improvement in Low
Voltage Distribution Networks Using Reactive Power Capability of Single-Phase PV
Inverters. IEEE Trans Smart Grid 2018.
[20] Kharrazi A, Sreeram V, Mishra Y. Assessment techniques of the impact of grid-tied
rooftop photovoltaic generation on the power quality of low voltage distribution
network-A review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2020;120:109643.
[21] Chen T-H, Yang C-H, Yang N-C. Examination of the definitions of voltage
unbalance. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2013;49:380–5.
[22] I.S. Association, 141-1993. IEEE Recommended Practice for Electric Power
Distribution for Industrial Plants (ANSI); 1994.
[23] Sarkar MNI, Meegahapola LG, Datta M. Reactive power management in renewable
rich power grids: A review of grid-codes, renewable generators, support devices,
control strategies and optimisation algorithms. IEEE Access 2018;6:41458–89.
[24] S.A. Solar Technology, Description of the Operating Parameters – SUNNY
TRIPOWER 60 / SUNNY HIGHPOWER PEAK1; n.d. http://www.windandsun.co.
uk/media/995570/SMA-Sunny-Highpower-PEAK1-Description-of-the-Operating-
Parameters.pdf.
[25] Cheng Z, Li Z, Liang J, Si J, Dong L, Gao J. Distributed coordination control
strategy for multiple residential solar PV systems in distribution networks. Int J
Electr Power Energy Syst 2020;117:105660.
12
International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 131 (2021) 107036
[26] Kolhe M, Rasul M. 3-Phase grid-connected building integrated photovoltaic system
with reactive power control capability. Renew Energy 2020.
[27] Bonaldo JP, Tofoli FL, Monteiro RVA, Morales-Paredes HK. Comparative analysis
of techniques for the limitation of compensation currents in multifunctional grid-
tied inverters. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst n.d.; 126: p. 106574.
[28] Hassaine L, Olias E, Quintero J, Salas V. Overview of power inverter topologies and
control structures for grid connected photovoltaic systems. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2014;30:796–807.
[29] Hassaine L, Bengourina MR. Design and digital implementation of power control
strategy for grid connected photovoltaic inverter. Int J Power Electron Drive Syst
2019;10:1564.
[30] Wu T-F, Chang C-H, Lin L-C, Yu G-R, Chang Y-R. A D-$\Sigma $ Digital Control for
Three-Phase Inverter to Achieve Active and Reactive Power Injection. IEEE Trans
Ind Electron 2013;61:3879–90.
[31] Kersting WH. Distribution System Modeling and Analysis. 4th ed. CRC Press; 2017.
[32] Sereeter B, Vuik K, Witteveen C. Newton Power Flow Methods for Unbalanced
Three-Phase Distribution Networks. Energies 2017;10:1658.
[33] Alabri W, Jayaweera D. Unbalanced Modelling of STATCOM and SVC in Hybrid
Load Flow Method. In: 2019 IEEE PES Innov Smart Grid Technol Eur, IEEE,
Bucharest, Romania; 2019. p. 1–5. https://doi.org/978-1-5386-8218-0.
[34] Garcia PAN, Pereira JLR, Carneiro S, da Costa VM, Martins N. Three-phase power
flow calculations using the current injection method. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2000;
15:508–14.
[35] Acha E, Fuerte-Esquivel CR, Ambriz-Perez H, Angeles-Camacho C. FACTS:
modelling and simulation in power networks. John Wiley & Sons; 2004.
[36] Kersting WH. Radial distribution test feeders. In: Power Eng Soc Winter Meet 2001.
IEEE, IEEE; 2001. p. 908–12.
[37] Olowu T, Sundararajan A, Moghaddami M, Sarwat A. Future challenges and
mitigation methods for high photovoltaic penetration: A survey. Energies 2018;11:
1782.
[38] Hoke A, Butler R, Hambrick J, Kroposki B. Steady-state analysis of maximum
photovoltaic penetration levels on typical distribution feeders. IEEE Trans Sustain
Energy 2012;4:350–7.
[39] HCT GreenNest Eco House, AC Electric; 2019. https://dataloggers.livetozero.co
m/hct/index.html.