See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/232175400

Grid Integration Aspects of Large Solar PV Installations: LVRT Capability and

Reactive power/Voltage support Requirements

Conference Paper · June 2011

DOI: 10.1109/PTC.2011.6019324

CITATIONS READS

132 8,855

6 authors, including:

Antonios Marinopoulos Fabio Papandrea

European Commission 2 PUBLICATIONS   149 CITATIONS   
54 PUBLICATIONS   674 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Staffan Norrga F. Spertino

KTH Royal Institute of Technology Politecnico di Torino
176 PUBLICATIONS   4,808 CITATIONS    140 PUBLICATIONS   2,145 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Photovoltaic Modules, new Special Issue of Energies journal View project

HICAPS View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Antonios Marinopoulos on 28 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Paper accepted for presentation at the 2011 IEEE Trondheim PowerTech
Grid Integration Aspects of Large Solar PV
Installations: LVRT Capability and Reactive
power/Voltage support Requirements
Antonios Marinopoulos, Fabio Papandrea, Muhamad Reza, Staffan Norrga, Filippo Spertino, and
Roberto Napoli
Abstract--The current work focuses on two specific issues
concerning grid-connected solar PV units, i.e. the fault ride-
through capability, also called low voltage ride-through
capability, and the voltage support function through reactive
power injection during faults. With the first one the PV unit can
actually provide some limited grid support, whereas with a
defined reactive power characteristic it can give a complete
dynamic grid support. These two requirements, already known
for wind power generation but new for the PV, have been
recently introduced in the German technical guidelines for
connection to the MV grid. Scope of the paper is to implement
these requirements in a large solar PV plant, modeled in
DIgSILENT PowerFactory, in order to understand its operation,
and to evaluate its behavior and impact on the grid, in terms of
stability and voltage support during grid fault.
Index Terms—Photovoltaic systems, reactive power control,
solar power generation, voltage control.
I. INTRODUCTION
I N the last decade a number of reasons have led the capacity
of solar PV plants to a continuous increase. Some of them
include significant cost reduction of PV modules, market
incentives for electricity production from PV, greater social
acceptance of solar PV parks, etc. At the same time there have
been concerns about the connection to the grid of these
upcoming large PV plants, sizing from a couple of MW up to
hundreds of MW. The up to now connection of small PV
plants, i.e. smaller than 1-2 MW, was very much dealt with
using known practices regarding the distribution grid.
However, the upcoming integration of large solar PV
installations into the sub-transmission and even the
transmission grid has different characteristics, which will
highly affect the transmission and generation systems. Thus, a
number of technical issues regarding the impact on the system
operational security, stability, and power quality have to be
taken into consideration before these plants can be connected
to the electricity grid.
This paper concentrates on two specific aspects concerning
solar photovoltaic (PV) power generation units connected to
A. Marinopoulos, M. Reza, and S. Norrga are with ABB AB, Corporate
Research, Västerås, Sweden (e-mail: antonis.marinopoulos@se.abb.com).
F. Papandrea is with ISOFOTÓN S.A., Milan, Italy (email:
papandrea.fabio@gmail.com).
R. Napoli and F. Spertino are with Politecnico di Torino, Italy (email:
roberto.napoli@polito.it, filippo.spertino@polito.it)
978-1-4244-8417-1/11/$26.00 ©2011
the utility network. The first issue is the Fault Ride-Through
(FRT) or Low Voltage Ride-Through (LVRT) capability,
defined as the PV inverters' capability of remaining connected
to the grid in the event of grid failures, of not supplying any
active power during a grid fault, and of delivering active
power directly after clearing the fault, thus stabilizing the grid.
The second aspect is also related to LVRT, but it refers to the
additional capability of injecting reactive power in the grid in
case of grid fault, with the purpose to give a voltage support
during fault conditions.
Initially, an investigation on new requirements for PV
power plants is done. These requirements are quite similar to
the current Grid Code (GC) requirements for wind power
plants. However, the only existing legislation in effect, that
refers to technical guidelines and requirements specifically
for PV interconnection is the German GC [1]-[2].
An evaluation of a solar PV power plant with fault ride-
through capability and reactive power support in dynamic
conditions in case of grid faults is performed. The control
system model of this solar PV power plant is studied and a
number of simulations for various scenarios is done. The
scenarios concern different size of the solar plant, different
strengths of the grid connection, different faults and control
strategies. The modeling of the solar PV plant and the
necessary simulations have been performed in DIgSILENT
Power Factory v14.
II. GRID CODES
The GC is a technical document containing the rules that
govern the operation, maintenance & development of the
system at the Point of Common Coupling (PCC). Grid codes
usually make a distinction between traditional power plants,
which have a synchronous generator directly connected to the
grid, and other types, mostly including RES.
A. Grid codes for Wind power plants
Regarding wind power plants, GCs already exist for
numerous countries worldwide, due to the maturity in wind
power technology and the resulting high penetration of wind
power generation. The international guidelines and standards
require in general that wind plants achieve the same levels of
reliability and performance as conventional generation plants.
It is foreseen that in the near future this requirement will be
also posed for large solar PV plants. According to the general
trend among the various GCs, the main requirements for wind
 2

plants are the following, although the detailed specifications

may of course vary:
• All the wind generation plants should support grid
disturbances and faults without being disconnected from the
grid (LVRT). In that way, they will help to maintain the
voltage stability of the grid.
• They should also support utility grid when necessary,
mainly during a fault, by generating/absorbing reactive power.
Today, the main problems that could lead a grid inverter to
trip under faulty grid operating conditions are under- and/or
over- voltages and heavy imbalance on the ac side as the
consequence of a fault. Some grid codes have a specific plan
of reactive power to be injected during grid faults, as a support
Fig. 1. Borderlines of the voltage profile for a type-2 generating unit at the
to avoid a grid collapse. For this purpose inverters need simple network connection point [1]. Type-2 units are all generating plants that do
control strategies for managing the reactive power delivered not consist of a synchronous generator directly connected to the network (PV
under voltage dips (or under unbalanced operating conditions). and Wind power generation units belong to this type).

B. Grid requirements for PV power plants

Regarding PV power plants, only the German grid code has
some specific requests for solar PV. This is due to the fact that
currently there is a significant penetration of solar PV
technology in Germany; according to the German Federal
Network Agency the cumulative nominal PV power installed
at the end of 2010 was a little more than 15 GW [3]. A draft
copy for grid connection guidelines for PV is under
investigation in Spain, where also many solar PV units are
already installed and many more are under construction.
Until now, PV generators connected to the grid are usually
not permitted to take over an active role during faults and thus
have to be disconnected. However, the new guidelines, as
already stated in the German GC, will require the units to
actively support the grid during faults. These new
requirements have two principal parts: first, in steady-state
conditions, grid support should be provided by contributing to
the voltage control through the injection of reactive power.
Second, during transient conditions, grid support can be
performed by staying connected (LVRT) and by injection of
reactive power during grid faults.
In the German GC, from January 1st 2011, PV plants have
to be capable to participate in full dynamic network support
during grid faults: to stay connected to the network and
provide voltage support by feeding a reactive current. They
LVRT requirement is shown in Fig. 1, where borderline 2 is
the corresponding boundary line for PV plants. According to
it, a PV plant should not disconnect from the network in case
the voltage drops down to 0 for a time period less than 150
ms. After 150 ms, below the blue line there is no requirement
for the PV plant to remain connected.
The voltage support requirement is shown in Fig. 2. The
GC requires an injection of 90° lagging current, which
depends on the minimum voltage. Nominal reactive current
should be injected for faults having residual voltages of less
than 50% of the UN. Voltages in the normal operation area
(dead band) do not require any dynamic voltage support
characteristic.
Fig. 2. Voltage support requirement during grid faults [4].
Additional requirements, such as active power reduction in
the case of over frequency or reactive power output during
steady state condition, exist in the German GC. In specific, the
first requirement aims to reduce active power when the
frequency is more than 50.2 Hz, and returns at nominal active
power when the frequency is below 50.05 Hz. The second
requirement specifies cosij(P) or cosij(V) characteristics in
order to regulate power factor in function of active power
output or voltage at the PCC. As already mentioned, similar to
the German GC is the draft copy of the Spanish one [5].
III. PHOTOVOLTAIC POWER PLANT
A model of a PV power plant in DIgSILENT PowerFactory
[6] is presented, and later used in power system simulations.
This model is based on a PV Generator block, where a
complete PV plant of 0.5 MVA nominal power is modeled.
The PV plant is operating at LV, i.e. 400V, and is
interconnected to the MV grid through a step up transformer,
as shown in Fig. 3. The MV bus has a nominal voltage of
23kV and the transformer has a rated power of 0.5 MVA,
nominal voltages 0.4/23 kV, impedance 6% and the windings
are connected in Dyn11. The External Grid is modeled as an
infinite bus with maximum short circuit power 200 MVA.

Fig. 3. Model of 0.5 MVA photovoltaic power plant in DIgSILENT.
The PV Generator element, as appears in Fig. 3, models a
complete PV power station. It consists of different blocks for
measurement and different models for each component, like
the photovoltaic model, the DC link and the Vdc controller,
the PV inverter, etc., as illustrated in Fig. 4.
Fig. 4. PV Generator in DIgSILENT, containing all the components, control
systems, measurements, etc.
The PV plant is interfaced with the AC grid via the PV
inverter, which is modeled through the Static Generator block,
shown at the right side of Fig. 4. The inverter is controlled by
the Vdc controller which provides it with the reference values
for id and iq. The Vdc control is the main part of the control
for the whole PV plant and it is presented with more detail in
Fig. 5.
Fig. 5. Model of the Vdc controller in DSL (DIgSILENT Simulation
Language).
3
Concerning the inverter size, the power injected is limited
by its nominal current, thus its apparent power. As a
consequence, it is not possible to work at maximum value of
active and reactive power at the same time. With a constant
value of the active power and by knowing the PQ capability
curve, the inverter’s reactive power limits can be determined.
As shown in Fig. 6, PPV is the active power and S the apparent
power. Qlim is determined as the reactive power limit.
Fig. 6. Determining the inverter’s reactive power limits.
Consequently, the inverter can use its entire rating to
supply Q if PPV equals zero and it has no Q capability if PPV
equals S. For example, during the night when there is no
sunlight it can be used for reactive power support to regulate
voltage at almost no extra cost.
Anyway, during maximum active power production, some
Q capability can always be retained by over-sizing the
inverter. A reasonable increase in ratings to provide reactive
power support can be 10% of the inverter size, with
S=1.1xPPVmax. In this way the reactive power capability can be
increased from zero to nearly 46% in the maximum PV power
generation condition. This will give the power factor range of
unity to 0.91 leading/lagging, and Q capacity during no sun
condition up to 110%.
Concerning LVRT capability, we must consider that the
three main reasons for inverter disconnection during voltage
dips are: excessive DC voltage, overcurrent due to low voltage
with constant active power operation, and loss of
synchronism. In particular, overcurrent occurs because the DC
link voltage control is generally designed to keep the DC
voltage equal to the reference (MPP). In this way, the active
power is always constant resulting in distorted current when
the voltage is unbalanced.
Another issue when it comes to PV plant control is the
PLL, which is one of the most important components of a PV
system connected to the utility network. This is because it
must guarantee the synchronization with the grid voltage
vector, through the detection of its phase angle, an information
that is very critical for grid connected systems. The
detrimental influence of grid faults on the synchronization
algorithm is another problem in the LVRT capability.
Nowadays, the PLL technique is the state of the art method to
extract the phase angle of the grid voltages. A classical PLL is
implemented in dq reference frame and its schematic is
illustrated in Fig. 7.

Fig. 7. General structure of three phase dq PLL [7].
The grid voltages are the input into the algorithm and they
are transformed into synchronous reference frame by means of
abc ĺ dq transformation module. The phase locking is
realized by controlling the d-voltage to be zero. Ud value is
compared with its reference value and with a PI regulator the
value of grid frequency is calculated. After the integration of
the grid frequency, the utility voltage angle is obtained.
In the case of unsymmetrical voltage faults, the second
harmonics produced by the negative sequence will propagate
through the PLL system and will be reflected in the extracted
phase angle. Then, this structure is not able to provide a clean
synchronization signal for the current reference due to the
appearance of the negative sequence in the grid voltages.
Another drawback of this structure is that it cannot detect the
phase angle of each grid voltage, thus independent
synchronization of each current cannot be realized with this
algorithm.
In order to overcome the above problems, different filtering
techniques are necessary so that the negative sequence is
filtered out. In [7], a novel PLL algorithm which is able to
filter out the negative sequence and to provide a clean
synchronization signal is proposed. However, in this paper
only symmetrical three-phase faults are investigated, thus the
PLL used is the classic one, as shown in Fig. 7.
FORMULATION OF SCENARIOS
PV plant nominal Short-circuit power at
Scenario power (MVA) PCC (MVA)
0.5 20.0 70 (1.7kA) 200 (5 kA)
SC#1 X X
SC#2 X X
SC#3 X X
SC#4 X X
SC#5 X X
SC#6 X X
SC#7 X X
SC#8 X X
SC#9 X X
4
IV. SIMULATIONS AND RESULTS
Two main groups of scenarios have been investigated: the
first one concerns a small PV plant of 0.5 MVA, and the
second one a larger PV plant of 20 MVA. Then, five different
simulations are performed for the first group and four for the
second group. Due to the large number of scenarios simulated,
only some of the results are presented in figures.
A. Formulation of scenarios
1) Power plant with nominal power of 0.5 MVA
In the first group of scenarios, a standard value of
200 MVA for the short circuit power at the PCC with the MV
grid is used. A three phase short circuit fault at the MV bus is
simulated for varying fault reactances, in order to obtain
different voltage dips at the PCC. By varying the so called
“droop value” of the Vdc controller, different behaviours of
the PV plant can be obtained. The droop value is described by
the following equation:
Iq = duac ⋅ droop (1)
where duac is the value of voltage dip and Iq the value of q
axis current, both in pu. The droop value that satisfies the
German GC is 2 pu [4].
2) Power plant with nominal power of 20 MVA
In the last four scenarios the model of a large solar PV
plant of 20 MVA is used for the simulations. This model
consists of many parallel connected single units using the
single 0.5 MVA PV plant model. For these scenarios, two
values for the short circuit power of the network are used, i.e.
200 MVA and 70 MVA. In each case, with the two short
circuit power values, two different simulations are performed,
one with complete reactive power/voltage support, with droop
value equal to 2 pu, and the other with no reactive
power/voltage support, with droop value set to 0 pu.
All the above scenarios are presented in Table I.
TABLE I
Droop static for AC voltage
Fault reactance (Ohm)
support (pu)
0.7 1.9 2.2 4.0 5.5 0 1 2
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
 5

3) Scenario #3
B. Results of simulations and discussion
The fault reactance is set to 2.2 ȍ, leading to a voltage dip
In the following paragraphs the results from all simulated of 0.506 pu. The LV value is 0.492 pu, and the MV value
scenarios are shortly presented and discussed. However, due 0.432 pu. The difference is 0.06 pu, that is the voltage drop in
to space limitations only four of the nine in total scenarios are the transformer’s reactance. In this case the reference value of
illustrated in figures. active and reactive current is respectively 0 and 1 pu, and this
The PV plant operates in steady-state providing 448.8 kW fully satisfies the GC. The injected reactive power in this case
of active power at MPP and almost zero reactive power. The is 246 kVar, almost double than the previous scenario.
voltage at the LV bus is 0.99 pu and at the MV bus is constant
1 pu. At time t=0s a three phase short circuit occurs at the MV
bus and is cleared after 500ms. The behaviour of the PV
power plant for the voltage dips in the MV and the LV buses
caused by the short circuit is evaluated.
Varying the value of the fault reactance different voltage
dips are created in order to study the behaviour of the PV plant
for various voltage dip magnitudes. Different control
strategies regarding the voltage support for the PV plant are
also studied, by varying the droop value of the Vdc controller.
For all simulations the following variables are recorded
during the fault (in parenthesis the colour of the line in the
respective figure): voltage at the MV bus (red), voltage at the
LV bus (green), AC voltage dip (magenta), active (red) and
reactive (cyan) power injected from the PV plant, and active
(green) and reactive (magenta) current reference. For the Fig. 8. Scenario #1: 0.5 MVA Solar PV plant, three phase fault at MV bus.
Voltage values during the voltage dip.
second group of scenarios for the large PV park, the plotted
results for the active and reactive power regard only one single
0.5 MVA unit. The main parameters of the PV plant model,
are given in the Appendix.
1) Scenario #1
In this case in the LV bus the voltage dip is around 0.76 pu,
while it is a bit higher in the MV bus, around 0.8 pu (Fig.8).
This is due to the presence of the transformer. In this case the
reference value of active and reactive current, Idref and Iqref
are respectively 0.241 pu and 0.759 pu. The injected values of
active and reactive power are 28.6 kW and 91.789 kVar (Fig.
9). It is important to note that the values of power are
influenced not only by the reference values of currents, but
also by the voltage value on the LV bus.
This behaviour has to be improved to meet the GC
requirements. In fact, this plant satisfies the German LVRT Fig. 9. Scenario #1: 0.5 MVA Solar PV plant, three phase fault at MV bus.
requirement, as it is shown in Fig. 1, but doesn’t satisfy the Injected active and reactive power and current references.
voltage support requirement through injection of reactive
current. In case of voltage dip larger than 0.5 pu, the GC
requires 1 pu of reactive current, and consequently 0 pu of
active current. In this case this requirement is not satisfied.
2) Scenario #2
To change the above behavior of the PV plant the value of
droop in the Vdc controller is increased from 1 to 2 pu. In this
case the voltage dips are a bit lower than in the first
simulation, around 0.745 pu, because more reactive power is
injected (Fig. 10). The Vdc controller sets the reference value
of active and reactive current respectively at 0 and 1 pu,
according to the GC requirements. The reactive power injected
is around 127 kVar, about 35% higher than the first case (Fig.
11). This increases by 0.015 pu the LV value, but does not
influence the MV value. Fig. 10. Scenario #2: 0.5 MVA Solar PV plant, three phase fault at MV bus.
Voltage values during the voltage dip.

Fig. 11. Scenario #2: 0.5 MVA Solar PV plant, three phase fault at MV bus.
Injected active and reactive power and current references.
4) Scenario #4
The fault reactance value is further increased to 5.5 ȍ,
causing a smaller value of voltage dip, around 0.3 pu, with a
LV value of almost 0.7. In this case the reference values of
active and reactive current are respectively 0.387 and 0.613
pu. The reference value of reactive current satisfies the
requirement shown in Fig. 2. The injected values of active and
reactive power are 133.9 kW and 212.2 kVar, respectively.
5) Scenario #5
In this scenario the parameters are the same with the third
one, but with no AC voltage support, i.e. the droop value is set
at 0. In this case the voltage dip is around 0.572 pu, and the
LV value is 0.431 pu, while the MV value is 0.427 pu.
Consequently at these values of voltages, the reference value
of active and reactive current is respectively 1 and 0 pu. The
injected values of active and reactive power are 213 kW and
almost 0 kVar, respectively. It is clear that this situation does
not satisfy any GC requirement.
In this case without voltage support the LV value is
0.431 pu and the MV value is 0.427 pu (comparing to
0.492 pu and 0.432 pu, respectively, in the third scenario). It is
clear to see that the effect of the voltage support in the MV
bus is very small, around 0.005 pu, almost negligible. This
fact is due to the very large difference (400 times) between the
values of the nominal power of the PV plant (0.5 MVA) and
the short circuit power of the grid at the PCC (200 MVA).
6) Scenario #6
This scenario concerns a large solar PV park with 20 MVA
nominal power. In this case the voltage dip is 0.501 pu, while
the LV value is 0.498 pu and the MV value is 0.438 pu. In this
case the reference value of active and reactive current
respectively is 0 and 1 pu, fully satisfying the German GC.
The total reactive power injected is 9.96 MVar.
7) Scenario #7
This scenario is the same as the above, however with
deactivated voltage support, i.e. the droop value is set to 0.
Without injection of reactive power during grid fault the
voltage value at LV and MV bus is the same, equal to 0.388
pu. The reference value of active and reactive current is
respectively 1 and 0 pu. Injected values of active and reactive
power are 7.68 MW and almost 0 Var, respectively.
6
Comparing with scenario six, the voltage at LV and MV
bus (now equal to 0.388 pu) was 0.493 pu for the LV and
0.432 pu for the MV bus. The difference due to the effect of
the voltage support is about 20% for the LV and 10% for the
MV. Thus, a significant voltage support can be observed. It is
noted that in these scenarios the power of the PV plant (20
MVA) and the short circuit power of the grid (200 MVA)
become comparable (10 times comparing with 400 times in
the first five cases).
8) Scenario #8
The PV plant has the same droop value, but the short circuit
power of the grid at the MV bus is 70 MVA and the fault
reactance is 4 ȍ. The value of short circuit power is based on
data from Iberdrola, the DSO responsible for the connection of
an PV plant in Totana, Spain, recently constructed by ABB.
That plant is connected at the distribution MV grid with short
circuit power in the connection point 75.02 MVA. In this case
the voltage dip is 0.506 pu, while the LV value is 0.493 pu and
the MV value 0.432 pu (Fig. 12). The reference value of active
and reactive current is 0 and 1 pu, respectively. The reactive
power injected is 9.85 MVar, providing a satisfactory voltage
support (Fig. 13).
9) Scenario #9
The last scenario is the same with the previous one, but
with deactivated voltage support, thus the droop is set to 0.
Same short circuit power and fault reactance values exist, but
different droop value, not providing any reactive power
support. Without injection of reactive power during the grid
fault the voltage value at the MV and the LV bus is the same,
equal to 0.301 pu (Fig. 14). In this case the reference value of
active and reactive current is 1 and 0 pu, respectively. Finally,
the values of injected active and reactive power are 5.96 MW
and almost 0 Var, respectively (Fig. 15).
Comparing with the previous scenario, the voltage at LV
and MV bus (now equal to 0.301 pu) was 0.493 pu for the LV
and 0.432 pu for the MV bus. The difference due to the effect
of the voltage support through injection of reactive power is
almost 40% for the LV and 30% for the MV. Again, similar to
scenario 7, a significant voltage support can be observed.
Fig. 12. Scenario #8: 20 MVA Solar PV plant, three phase fault at MV bus.
Voltage values during the voltage dip.
 7

with DIgSILENT Power Factory was used to evaluate the

behavior of such a plant, with low voltage ride-through
capability and reactive power support. The simulations results
showed the different impact of the two new requirements in
the grid. The LVRT requirement hinders the loss of good
quantity of power, while the reactive power support allows a
better behavior in terms of voltage values at the PCC.
When there is a large difference between the rating of the
PV power plant and the short circuit power at the PCC, e.g.
more than 10 times, then the effect of reactive power injection
on voltage values becomes almost negligible. On the other
hand, as this difference is reduced, the effect of reactive power
support can be substantial for the grid.
In future papers the authors intend to investigate these GC
requirements on PV power plants for a more realistic case in a
Fig. 13. Scenario #8: 20 MVA Solar PV plant, three phase fault at MV bus.
Injected active and reactive power and current references.
region with multiple large solar installations, in other words in
a high PV penetration scenario. Very large scale PV parks
(close to GW scale) are also going to be included in future
research.

VI. APPENDIX
Parameters of the 0.5 MVA PV plant model. These are the
values entered in the respective blocks in DSL.

DC Busbar and Capacitor

Capacity of capacitor on dc 0.0172 [s]
busbar
Udc0 Initial dc voltage 700 [V]
Udcn Nominal dc voltage 1000 [V]
Pnen Rated Power 0.5 [MW]
Fig. 14. Scenario #9: 20 MVA Solar PV plant, three phase fault at MV bus.
Injected active and reactive power and current references. PV Array
UI0 Open circuit voltage 43.8 [V]
Umpp0 MPP voltage 35 [V]
Impp0 MPP current 5.58 [A]
Ik0 Short circuit current 5 [A]
N Parallel Modules 140
N Serial Modules 20

Vdc Controller
Tr Active power measurement delay 0.001 [s]
Kp Gain, active power PI controller 0.005
Tip Integration time constant, 0.03 [s]
active power PI controller
Deadband for AC voltage support 0.1 [pu]
Fig. 15. Scenario #9: 20 MVA Solar PV plant, three phase fault at MV bus. Droop static for AC voltage 1 [pu]
Injected active and reactive power and current references. support
Idmin minimum active current limit 0 [pu]
V. CONCLUSIONS Idmax maximum active current limit 1 [pu]
In this paper, a review about the current European grid Iqmin minimum reactive current limit -1 [pu]
codes in the field of photovoltaic applications is done. These Iqmax maximum reactive current limit 1 [pu]
grid codes, currently existing only in Germany and partially in maxAbsCur maximum allowed absolute 1 [pu]
Spain, provide the technical requirements to permit a higher current
penetration of unconventional power sources into the grid. maxIq Maximum absolute reactive 1 [pu]
The development and simulation study of a PV plant model current in normal operation
 8

[3] Total PV installed capacity until 2010/11/30 from SMA website, based
on data from the Database of the German Federal Energy Agency.
PLL Available online: http://www.sma.de/en/news-information/pv-electricity-
Controller Gain 1 produced-in-germany.html
Integration Gain 0.1 [4] Grid Code: High and Extra High Voltage, E.ON Netz GmbH, Bayreuth,
April 2006.
Upper frequency limit 1.2 [5] Requisitos técnicos de las instalaciones eólicas, fotovoltaicas y todas
Lower frequency limit 0.8 aquellas instalaciones de producción cuya tecnología no emplee un
generador síncrono conectado directamente a la red, Draft copy of
PO 12.2, October 2008, Spain.
VII. REFERENCES [6] DIgSILENT Power Factory, www.digsilent.de
[1] Technical Guideline: Generating Plants Connected to the Medium- [7] A.V. Timbus, T. Teodorescu, F. Blaabjerg, M. Liserre, P. Rodriguez,
Voltage Network, Bundesverband der Energie- und Wasserwirtschaft "PLL Algorithm for Power Generation Systems Robust to Grid Voltage
e.V., BDEW, June 2008. Faults," 37th IEEE Power Electronics Specialists Conference, 2006.
[2] Supplement to the Guideline on „Generating Plants Connected to the PESC '06, pp.1-7, 18-22 June 2006.
Medium-Voltage Network“ (June 2008 edition), BDEW, January 2009.

View publication stats