IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution

Research Article

ISSN 1751-8687
Effectiveness of power electronic voltage Received on 2nd March 2016
Revised on 27th June 2016
regulators in the distribution network Accepted on 27th July 2016
doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2016.0300
www.ietdl.org

Jeremy D. Watson 1, Neville R. Watson 1 , Bhaba Das 2

1
University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand
2
ETEL Ltd, Auckland, New Zealand
E-mail: neville.watson@canterbury.ac.nz

Abstract: Steady-state voltage levels will be a significant problem in the future distribution network due to a high
penetration of new technologies, particularly photovoltaics. A smart transformer which incorporates a fixed tap
transformer with a power electronic voltage regulator has the potential to mitigate this problem by varying the line
voltage automatically in response to changes in loading. This study considers various control strategies for the voltage
regulator and looks at the potential impact that a smart transformer could have on reducing system voltage violations.
These impact studies are performed on a computer model of an entire utilitys distribution system in New Zealand.

1 Introduction conned to a small number of test or representative networks [3

Maintaining the voltage at all customer connection points to an
acceptable level while the loading uctuates has always been
important in the low voltage distribution system. With the increasing
levels of distributed generation such as photovoltaics (PV) [1], and
the associated possibility of reverse power ow, this has become a
more difcult task. One of the most signicant problems is that the
evening peak load does not coincide with PV generation, whereas
peak PV generation during the daytime is typically accompanied by
low loading on the feeder (as many residential customers will be at
work or otherwise absent from their homes). For this reason, new
power electronic voltage regulators are being considered as a
potential solution to maintain the steady-state voltage within the
regulatory limits of 6% of 230 V (phase-to-neutral) [2], and a smart
transformer is actively being developed, which essentially consists of
packaging a xed tap transformer with a voltage regulator on the low
voltage (LV) side. The 230 V phase-to-neutral or 400 V
phase-to-phase voltage is known as the LV system. The 11 kV/400 V
distribution transformers used in the power system either do not have
any voltage regulation capability, or at most have a off-load
tap-changer. Their size and cost does not make on-load tap changers
(OLTCs) a practical option, hence these distribution transformers
cannot respond to daily changes in loading. OLTCs only exist at the
higher voltage levels (typically 66/11 kV) at the zone substations.
Traditionally, to ensure that the voltage at the end of the feeder is
sufcient under high loading, the low voltage side of the 11 kV/400
V transformer is typically set to the high end of the allowable band
(typically around 1.04 p.u. or purchased as a xed tap 11 kV/415 V
transformer). Voltage regulators have the potential to mitigate voltage
problems by varying the LV voltage in response to changes in
loading. When the loading is high, the regulator in the smart
transformer increases its output voltage; and when there is reverse
power-ow, the regulator has a low output voltage to prevent
overvoltages occurring. The questions this paper addresses are:
(i) If for economic reasons only one voltage regulator is allocated
per 11 kV/415 V transformer, where should this be placed? At the
transformer, or partway down the longest feeder?
(ii) What is the best control strategy and what loss of effectiveness
can be expected with a simplied control strategy?
11]. A brief summary of these studies is provided in Table 1. The
originality in this study is found in:
(i) Studying the effect of the regulator on a very large number of LV
networks, which form the complete distribution system of one utility.
This gives accurate statistics on an actual distribution system with its
variety of LV systems (urban, commercial, industrial, city centre), as
opposed to using a single test system [12, 13].
(ii) Developing a tool to plot the behaviour of the regulator.
(iii) Developing a method of measuring the overall performance of
the regulator on a network.
(iv) Determining optimal control strategies for the regulator.
The paper is organised as follows: Section 2 presents the
background to this research. Section 3 discusses how each part of
the distribution network is modelled. In Section 4, the results of
the study are presented, including the control strategies and their
effectiveness. These results are discussed in Section 5 and
conclusions are formed.
2 Background
2.1 Concept
As previously mentioned, voltage regulators have the potential to
mitigate voltage problems on the LV by varying the line voltage in
response to changes in loading, as illustrated in Fig. 1. When the
loading is high, the regulator in the smart transformer increases its
output voltage; and when there is reverse power-ow, the regulator
has a low output voltage to prevent overvoltage.
The voltage regulator is based on an ac chopper circuit followed
by a series injection via an injection transformer, as shown in
Fig. 2. The advantage of this circuit is there is no need to
synchronise the injection with the phase voltage, as a proportion
(depending of duty-ratio of chopper) of the phase-to-neutral is fed
back [14, 15].
2.2 Control of regulator

Previous research in the area of low voltage regulators has focused The effectiveness of the voltage regulator depends on how its output
more on the technology used to regulate the voltage, or has been voltage is set based on line and load conditions, and the regulators

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2016, Vol. 10, Iss. 15, pp. 38163823
3816 This is an open access article published by the IET under the Creative Commons
Attribution-NoDerivs License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/)
Table 1 Summary of previous studies
Ref. Electricity network Contribution/comments
[3] IEEE 34 bus system The contribution was to develop
a NewtonRaphson based
three-phase power-flow for
modelling unbalanced
distribution networks.
Demonstrated the possible
impact of DG on the distribution
system.
[4] A UK Generic distribution The coordination of three
system, which consists of 95 devices: OLTC, voltage regulator,
11 kV busbars and the PV inverter reactive
power was presented. The
number of tap operations is
minimised to extend the
operating life of the tap control
mechanism.
[5] The IEEE 123 bus unbalanced Proposed a power-flow
test feeder formulation which incorporated
series voltage regulators in
unbalanced distribution feeders.
The importance of modelling
voltage regulators is highlighted
by comparing results with and
without the voltage regulator. The
voltage regulator is an
autotransformer and an on-load
tap-changing mechanism.
[6] 19 busbar test system Proposed a method for
determining optimal allocation
and tap setting of voltage
regulators in an unbalanced
radial distribution system using
particle swarm optimisation. A
tapped voltage regulator is used.
[7] IEEE 34 bus test Different configurations of a
tapped autotransformer voltage
regulator were incorporated into
a power-flow algorithm and their
behaviour compared. (Wye,
open-delta and closed delta)
[8] Singapores high voltage Stepped (solid-state) voltage
transmission/distribution regulator, using a full transformer
system (400 kV, 220 kV, 66 kV, rather than autotransformer.
10.516 kV busbars). Three designs are presented and
applied to Singapores system.
[9] one distribution feeder from Looked at the coordination of DG
Aurora Energys network (48 and OLTC for voltage
km long with 1.0136 MVA load management.
distributed along the line)
[10] not applied to any test system Proposed a methodology for
controlling traditional voltage
regulators assuming smart-meter
data is available.
[11] 22 kV distribution system from The effect of various DG
one substation in Thailand scenarios on voltage magnitude
and losses was considered.
output voltage should compensate for the line voltage drop (or rise),
ensuring that the voltage at all customers is within the statutory
requirements. Ideally full network voltage data would be available
to the regulator. However, in practice full network data is usually
not available to the regulator. Smart-metering data may present an
opportunity to supply the regulator with this eventually, but at
present this is not feasible commercially. The regulator needs to
have a sufciently quick response to load changes, and this
voltage regulator offers sub-cycle response. However, this would
be limited by the sampling rate of the measurement data received
by the regulator. At present most smart-meters only save
15-minute or half-hourly voltage readings. The meters do have the
capability to record at a higher sample rate, however, the amount
of data transfer needed becomes immense if each smart-meter in a
network sends several readings a second. This would undoubtedly
overload the communication channels for most advanced metering
infrastructure in New Zealand.
It therefore becomes important to know how to set the regulator
based on the available data (such as current or a voltage), and to
know whether additional sensors are worthwhile. Once the
appropriate control strategies have been established, it is possible
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2016, Vol. 10, Iss. 15, pp. 38163823
This is an open access article published by the IET under the Creative Commons
Attribution-NoDerivs License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/)
to evaluate the impact of the voltage regulator accurately. It
therefore becomes important to know how to set the regulator
based on the available data (such as current or voltage), and to
know whether additional sensors are worthwhile. Once the
appropriate control strategies have been established, it is possible
to evaluate the impact of the voltage regulator accurately.
Two possible control modes are available. The rst is to supply a
voltage set-point (analogue quantity) to the voltage regulator. This is
referred to as full voltage range. The second, already implemented in
the voltage regulator, is a logical input that allows the regulator to
switch between two pre-set programmed voltage set-points.
In the case of full voltage range the set-point is a linear (or non-linear)
function of; current, voltage, power, or a combination of them. The ideal
is full output voltage range and full measurement data (voltages at all
the nodes). Other options have been explored such as using one
voltage sensor along the feeder or no voltage sensors and using the
current through the regulator to linearly determine the set-point
voltage (effectively acting like line-compensation). Another option
explored is to use the proportion of maximum power being supplied
(either in a linear or non-linear manner).
Four ways of controlling the switching between the two set-point
voltages were compared. They were (i) current compared with an
offset-current level, (ii) end-of-feeder voltage (compared with 1.06
p.u.), (iii) end-of-feeder voltage (compared with 1.00 p.u.) and (iv)
the direction of the current.
3 Modelling
3.1 Distribution system
The computer simulations use the complete Orion low voltage
distribution system, which supplies the city of Christchurch, New
Zealand, and its surrounding rural environs. Electrically, this
comprises 10,558,11 kV/415 V transformers, their associated feeders,
and nearly 200,000 customer loads. A GIS spreadsheet containing
the lengths, conductor types, number of loads on any conductor, and
peak load values was obtained from Orion. Parent, branch and asset
IDs allowed the construction of each network. The line impedances
and transformer ratings were also provided. A program in MATLAB
was written to construct each low voltage distribution feeder, assign
loads to network nodes, look up conductor impedances, current
limits and transformer ratings [12]. This was used as input to another
program which processes the power-ow of each low voltage
transformer and associated feeders, returning the voltage at each
node, all branch currents, and other statistics.
Time-varying load information was not available. Each load was
able to be matched with the correct LV conductor, however the
exact location of loads along the conductor is not known. These
were assumed to be distributed equally along the conductor, with
the last customer placed at the end of a feeder. Exact load values
for each installation control point (ICP) (these are customer
connection points) were not available, and the transformer load
was distributed equally amongst ICPs. In practice the load
distribution is less reliable in those cases where the feeder supplies
a signicant number of non-residential loads. The single-phase
loads were distributed across the phases, with each successive load
being assigned to the next phase. This results in the system being
either balanced or only slightly unbalanced. The local utility has
little difculty in mitigating unbalance by changing the connection
of any particular ICP.
3.2 Voltage regulator and PV systems
The regulator is modelled as a device which clamps its output voltage to
the desired setpoint. This matches the testing in the laboratory.
Laboratory measurements of a 5 kW PV inverter were used as the
basis of the PV model, which was modelled at an output power of
3.7 kW. A stochastic modelling approach was taken for the uptake of
PV units due to the uncertainty regarding which customers will adopt
PV. The approach is similar to that taken for electric vehicle studies
3817
Fig. 1 Illustration of the benet of using a smart transformer with inbuilt voltage regulator

[1619]. The solar PV installations were distributed randomly
throughout the network. The PV systems are modelled as xed
current injections; however, the current spectra were shifted between
iterations in accordance with the voltage angle (using the previous
iteration estimate). By doing this the correct phase relationship
between the terminal voltage and current spectrum is maintained.
3.3 Power-flow
A network admittance matrix based unbalanced three-phase
power-ow developed in MATLAB was used to solve for the
voltages in each LV network. The loads were represented as
constant power loads, although modelling them as constant
impedance loads was also performed for comparison. At peak
load, the difference between the two methods did not exceed a
volt. The program converts the load power into equivalent
impedances, solves the linear system of equations for voltages,
then uses the estimated voltages to recalculate the load
impedances. The algorithm iterates until the power mismatch at
every node is less than 0.1 W [12].
3.4 Measurement of performance
The voltage regulator must be controlled in a way which allows it to
cope with both network extremes: reverse power-ow and peak load.
Therefore an evaluation measure is needed to take account of
different network conditions, assess the regulators performance in
each case, and come up with a unied measure of performance.
The measure of performance is assessed by the number of
steady-state node voltages in each scenario which fall outside the
6% threshold, multiplied by a weighting and summed over all the
cases. Hence a low value corresponds to less steady-state voltage
problems, which in turn corresponds to effective regulator control
settings. The ultimate goal is therefore to minimise the measure of
performance by nding optimal control settings. The scenarios and
weightings chosen are given in Table 2.
The weighted measure (M) used in Sections 4 and 5 to evaluate
control strategies is therefore
M = P(1) 0.1 + P(2) 0.2 + P(3) 0.3 + P(4) 0.4 (1)
Where P(s) is the proportion of steady-state voltage violations for
scenario s (s = 1, 24). Hence four scenarios are considered resulting
in P(1), P(2), P(3)&P(4), which are proportion of node voltages
outside the 6% threshold. These are then weighted and summed to
give the overall measure of performance. A lower weighted measure
(M) is preferable, as it indicates less nodes with voltage violations.
4 Results
4.1 Control optimisation
Many different control algorithms were trialled, including choosing
the voltage setpoint based on:
Full network information
Current magnitude
One or more voltage sensors
Current magnitude and network impedance estimate (line droop
compensation)
Power per ICP

Table 2 Measure of performance description

Scenario Description Loading, % PV Weighting,

of peak penetration, % %

1 extreme levels 20 100 10

of PV
2 realistic level 20 30 20
of PV
3 usual 50 10 30
operation
4 peak load 100 0 40
Fig. 2 Inbuilt AC chopper based voltage regulator

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2016, Vol. 10, Iss. 15, pp. 38163823
3818 This is an open access article published by the IET under the Creative Commons
Attribution-NoDerivs License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/)
 To understand how the ideal regulator output setpoint varies with
network conditions, a very large sample (many cases with different
system conditions) was run. As an example, Fig. 3 shows the ideal
setpoint against normalised load, where the x coordinate represents
the normalised load, which is the load as a proportion of the peak
loading (1 = peak loading condition). The y coordinate is the
voltage that the voltage regulator needs to produce in order to
eliminate all steady-state voltage violations. Note that each point
in the gure corresponds to a network where the voltage regulator
successfully corrected the voltage violations. Cases where it was
not possible for the regulator to prevent any steady-state voltage
violations are not shown (i.e. no suitable setpoint could be found).
Some additional correlations are given in Appendix.
These correlations allow a possible control setting to be
formulated, such as the line shown in Fig. 4, which will give a
satisfactory outcome for most cases (even though not optimum for
a given scenario). Finding the exact optimum is difcult,
especially in view of the fact that in many networks there is a
range of possible regulator output voltages which ensure that all
steady-state voltage levels are within the limit. This analysis gives
guidance as to what inputs to the controller are well-correlated to
the ideal setpoint (and are therefore important to have). It also
enables an informed design of regulator control curve.
4.2 Overview
Fig. 5 shows the effectiveness of some of the various control
strategies simulated. All control strategies (except the basecase and
network reinforcement options) involve either using; full output
voltage range (output voltage is innitely adjustable between 150
and 315 V) for the setpoint (with the setpoint depending linearly
on some input parameter), which are displayed in Fig. 5a, or two
voltage setpoints, shown in Fig. 5b. These are further
differentiated by how the setpoints are determined. For example,
algorithm 1 in Fig. 5b switches between the two setpoints based
on whether the current is above or below a predetermined value
(offset). Similarly, for the full voltage range algorithms, an
equation involving current and/or voltage is used to calculate the
setpoint. The best control algorithm not requiring any further
sensors to be installed is algorithm 8 (Fig. 5a).
The particular voltage regulator tested has an inbuilt feature where
it can switch between two pre-determined setpoints based on a signal
from an external relay. There are denite nancial advantages from
using such a simple control scheme, and research was performed to
nd the optimal values for the setpoints, as well as what criteria the
setpoints should be switched on. Fig. 5b showed that switching
Fig. 3 Ideal setpoint vs proportion of peak load
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2016, Vol. 10, Iss. 15, pp. 38163823
This is an open access article published by the IET under the Creative Commons
Attribution-NoDerivs License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/)
based on current direction was the best option, and Fig. 6 shows
how the two setpoints were tuned. The ideal setpoints are therefore
1.05 p.u. (241.5 V) for forward current, and 0.97 p.u. (223.1 V) for
reverse power-ow. A low voltage setpoint for forward current or
a high setpoint for reverse current perform poorly, as expected.
Fig. 5a displays the results for using a full voltage range for the
setpoint alongside the basecase as well as strengthening the supply
(see scenario ix). The scenarios displayed are:
(i) Full voltage range based on full voltage data (i.e. all node
voltages). With the voltage at all nodes monitored the voltage
regulators setpoint is adjusted to minimise the number of nodes
with voltage violations.
(ii) Full voltage range with setpoint depending linearly on current
magnitude (at the transformer).
(iii) Full voltage range with setpoint depending linearly on one
voltage sensor (at the end of the line).
(iv) Full voltage range with setpoint depending on one voltage
sensor (at the end of the line), however, the voltage regulator
setpoint is only adjusted if a voltage violation is detected (to
remove it).
(v) Full voltage range setpoint depending on current at the
transformer (using modelled curve). The modelled curve comes
from the previous results used to identify the setpoints that
removed all voltage violations (section 4.1). This is illustrated in
the appendix where Fig. 10a shows the results for ideal setpoint
against transformer current as well as a tted curve for control
purposes.
(vi) Full voltage range setpoint depending on setpoint matrix. This
is formed by scaling the transformer current by the number of ICP
and using the modelled curve.
(vii) Full voltage range setpoint depending linearly on proportion
of maximum load at the transformer. This means a single straight
line tted to the scatter plot of Fig. 3.
(viii) viii.Full voltage range setpoint based on modelled curve and
proportion of maximum load. This modelled curve is the
piecewise linear characteristic displayed in Fig. 4.
(ix) Effect of strengthened supply only. This means reducing the
supply impedance as seen from the LV side of the transformer.
This was modelled by reducing the transformer impedance and
maintaining the LV voltage at 415 V via the voltage regulator.
(x) Basecase result.
For Fig. 5b the algorithms displayed are:
(i) Switching between two setpoints based on current (compared
with an offset).
Fig. 4 Illustration of a simple control strategy for the regulator
3819

Fig. 5 Comparison of control algorithms
a Using full voltage range for setpoint
b Using switching between two setpoint voltages
(ii) Switching between two setpoints based on end-of-line voltage
>1.06 p.u. (243.8 V).
(iii) Switching between two setpoints based on end-of-line voltage
>1 p.u. (230 V).
(iv) Switching between two setpoints based on actual current
direction.
(v) Effect of strengthened supply only.
(vi) Basecase result.
The optimised control strategy has been determined in the case of:
Full output voltage range and full measurement data (ideal
regulator in terms of control).
A full output voltage range but no additional sensors (no voltage
data).
Output conned to two setpoints and no additional sensors (no
voltage data).
Hence the overall effect of the voltage regulator can be plotted and
compared with the case without a regulator, as shown in Fig. 7a.
It is also worth examining the differences between the three
voltage controller options (Fig. 7b). There is only a marginal
improvement in having voltage data and the larger benet is in
3820 This is an open access article published by the IET under the Creative Commons
Attribution-NoDerivs License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/)
Fig. 6 Tuning one voltage setpoint for
a Usual load conditions
b Reverse power conditions
having a full output voltage range rather than just two setpoint
voltages.
The substantial benet due to having a voltage regulator in the
urban distribution network is illustrated in another way in Fig. 8.
The relative high number of urban networks experiencing
undervoltage is due to the fact that the GIS data, which the
simulations are based on, contains estimates for:
load distribution, particularly of non-residential loads;
unknown conductors (conservatively estimated to highlight
potential problems);
transformer secondary voltage (in some problem networks this
voltage is set higher than 1.04 p.u. to avoid undervoltage).
Fig. 8 shows the effectiveness of the voltage regulator under two
conditions; removing undervoltages with loading (Fig. 8a) and
removing overvoltages due to PV installations (Fig. 8b). In the PV
case the load is set to 20% of peak, as in [12, 13].
4.3 Voltage regulator placement
An evaluation of the potential benets of bundling the voltage
regulator as part of a smart transformer against placement of a
voltage regulator partway down the most problematic feeder was
undertaken. It is prohibitively expensive to use more than one
regulator per transformer. While it is well known that for a single
feeder it is preferable to place the regulator partway down the
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2016, Vol. 10, Iss. 15, pp. 38163823
Fig. 7 Illustration of the benet of a smart transformer with inbuilt voltage
regulator (a) View 1, (b) View 2
a With inbuilt voltage regulator (view 1)
b With inbuilt voltage regulator (view 2)
feeder, Fig. 9 shows that this is not as effective as having the voltage
regulator at the transformer. This is because urban networks in New
Zealand the target market for the voltage regulator usually have
two or more feeders per transformer and although the voltage
regulator partway down the longest feeder xes voltage violations
for this feeder the other feeders may well be experiencing voltage
problems. A single voltage regulator at the transformer is
sufcient, as clearly demonstrated in Fig. 9.
5 Discussion and conclusions
There were two major goals of this work: the development of an
optimal control strategy for the voltage regulator; and an
evaluation of the effectiveness of the voltage regulator and hence
smart transformer in the New Zealand power distribution system.
Almost all the regulator impact study results presented can also be
extended to any voltage regulator which allows its output voltage
to be controlled in real-time.
5.1 Control strategy
The optimal control strategies have been found and are summarised
in Table 3.
Note that the full output voltage range controller is not symmetric
around a 1.00 p.u./zero current point. This is a result of two facts:
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2016, Vol. 10, Iss. 15, pp. 38163823
This is an open access article published by the IET under the Creative Commons
Attribution-NoDerivs License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/)
Fig. 8 Illustration of the benet of the voltage regulator
a With load
b With PV
The network has traditionally been designed for a transformer
secondary voltage above 1.0 p.u.
On average the network will be drawing power rather than
supplying it.
One key nding is that the method used to design the regulator
controller (e.g. shown in Fig. 4) simplies the design signicantly.
In practice it could be possible to implement this with a learning
algorithm with the regulator, where additional voltage sensors are
placed on the network for a training period. These sensors would
communicate with the regulator software, in order to build up a set
of data points as in Fig. 3. After the training period is complete, a
best-t line to the data points could be used to control the regulator.
Another key nding was that using the transformer current as a
proportion of maximum current as the input was superior to other
system inputs. These included using a single voltage sensor at the
end of the longest feeder, or using the current measurement
without normalisation. In terms of practical implementation, the
maximum current of the network transformer needs to be known.
This could be provided by linking the maximum demand indicator
of the transformer to the voltage regulator to provide this
information, or the regulator microcontroller could update this
value over time as it already measures the current. Hence this
maybe a practical and cost-effective algorithm.
This controller relies on the distribution network designs being
consistently suited to its typical and maximum loading. Then the
3821
 Table 3 Controller descriptions
Normalised Voltage (full range), Voltage (switched setpoint),
current p.u. p.u.

0.25 to 1 1.055 1.05

0 to 0.25 linear from 1.021 to 1.05
1.055
0 to 0.50 linear from 1.021 to 0.97
0.945
0.50 to 1 0.945 0.97

sensors. The reason this current-based control scheme is effective

Fig. 9 Impact of voltage regulator placement
total loading at the transformer is a good indication of whether there
are any voltage problems which need to be remedied by the
regulator. By contrast, in a poorly designed network a single load
at a point where the system is very weak could have a very large
effect on the voltage at that point without contributing much to the
total load. If voltage problems already exist at low loading, the
regulator would be unable to detect these without additional
in the Orion network is because this low voltage network is well
designed.
Overall, it is clear that the voltage regulator can mitigate
steady-state voltage problems substantially. Due to the limited
benet associated with using full voltage sensor data or a full
output voltage range, it may be practical to simply switch two
voltage setpoints in the manner described. However, it should also
be considered that appliances perform better in terms of energy
efciency and lifespan with a voltage closer to 230 V, which may
either make the full range preferable, or setpoints closer to 1.00 p.u.
In the two setpoint control strategy, it is worth noting that while
the overall transformer current may be in one direction, some
feeders may experience current in the other direction which is
cancelled out by other feeders. This is why the two preferred
setpoints (1.05 and 0.97 p.u.) are not at the extremes of the
permissible voltage range.

Fig. 10 Ideal setpoint against

a Transformer current
b Voltage sensor at the end of the longest feeder
c Estimated end-of-feeder voltage
d Power per ICP

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2016, Vol. 10, Iss. 15, pp. 38163823
3822 This is an open access article published by the IET under the Creative Commons
Attribution-NoDerivs License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/)
5.2 Effectiveness
The regulator is effective in maintaining an appropriate LV voltage,
solving (in simulation) 9697% of previously-existing voltage level
violations depending on which of the proposed algorithms is chosen.
It should also be noted that by clamping the output voltage, the
voltage regulator effectively removes the transformer impedance
from the circuit. This strengthens the supply to the loads
connected to the regulator. The benet of this alone is quite
signicant in the distribution network, as can be seen in Fig. 5.
In terms of placement, placing the regulator right at the
transformer (i.e. right after the LV winding) makes commercial
sense. The results clearly show that this is sufcient to keep the
voltage within range for the vast majority of LV networks.
In summary, distribution network voltage regulators are a
promising option for dealing with the challenges associated with
DG. In the short-term it may be worth the investment for urban
networks prone to overvoltage or undervoltage and not limited by
conductor or transformer ratings.
6 Acknowledgments
The authors wish to record their appreciation of Mr Peter Leece,
CEO (ETEL Ltd) and Mr Gopalan Ramesh, Group-Manager
Engineering (ETEL Ltd) for their support of this work. The
authors thank Orion for the use of their system data.
7 References
1 Miller, A., Williams, J., Wood, A., et al.: Photovoltaic solar power uptake in New
Zealand. Electricity Engineers Association (EEA) Conf. and Trade Exhibition,
2014
2 New Zealand Government: Electricity (safety) regulations 2010. Available at http://
www.legislation.co.nz/regulation/public/2010/0036/latest/DLM2763501.html [accessed
14 October 2015]
3 Jan-E-Alam, M., Muttaqi, K.M., Sutanto, D.: Assessment of distributed generation
impacts on distribution networks using unbalanced three-phase power ow
analysis. PES General Meeting, 2011 IEEE, 2429 July 2011, pp. 18
4 Agalgaonkar, Y.P., Pal, B.C., Jabr, R.A.: Distribution voltage control considering
the impact of PV generation on tap changers and autonomous regulators, IEEE
Trans. Power Syst., 2014, 29, (1), pp. 182192
5 Farag, H.E., Abdelaziz, M., El-Saadany, E.F.: Incorporating voltage regulator and
load models in unbalanced power ow studies of active distribution systems. IEEE
Power and Energy Society General Meeting, San Diego, CA, 2226 July 2012,
pp. 17
6 Reddy, P.U., Reddy, M.L., Sivanagaraju, S., et al.: Optimal location of voltage
regulators in unbalanced radial distribution system for loss minimization using
particle swarm optimization. 2012 Int. Conf. on Advances in Power Conversion
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2016, Vol. 10, Iss. 15, pp. 38163823
This is an open access article published by the IET under the Creative Commons
Attribution-NoDerivs License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/)
and Energy Technologies (APCET), Mylavaram, Andhra Pradesh, 24 August
2012, pp. 16.
7 Gallego, L., Padilha-Feltrin, A.: Voltage regulator modeling for the three-phase
power ow in distribution networks. IEEE/PES Transmission and Distribution
Conf. and Exposition, Latin America, Bogota, 1315 August 2008, pp. 16
8 Toh, C.W., Lock, C.S., Chen, S., et al.: A voltage quality improvement solution
using step dynamic voltage regulator. 2000 Int. Conf. of Power Systems
Technology (PowerCon 2000), Perth Australia, December 2000, vol. 2,
pp. 983988
9 Le, A.D.T., Muttaqi, K.M., Negnevitsky, M., et al.: Response coordination of
distributed generation and tap changers for voltage support. Australasian
Universities Power Engineering Conf., 2007, 912 December 2007, pp. 17
10 Periera, P., Canha, L., Malbradt, R., et al.: Optimization of voltage regulators settings
and transformer tap zones in distribution systems with great load variation using
distribution automation and the smart grids initiatives. Eighth Int. Conf. on the
European Energy Market (EEM), Zagreb, Croatia, 2527 May 2011
11 Kongtripop, S., Premrudeepreechacharn, S., Kasirawat, T., et al.: Effect of
distributed generation on very long distribution line with automatic voltage
regulator. Sixth Int. Conf. on Electrical Engineering/Electronics, Computer,
Telecommunications and Information Technology (ECTI-CON 2009), Chonburi,
Thailand, 69 May 2009, pp. 190193
12 Watson, J.D., Watson, N.R., Santos-Martin, D., et al.: Low voltage network
modelling. EEA Conf. and Exhibition 2014, Auckland, NZ, June 2014, pp. 115
13 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., 2015, 10, (1), pp. 19
14 Nan, J., Hou-jun, T., Jian-yu, L., et al.: Dynamic voltage regulator based on PWM
AC chopper converter: topology and control, WSEAS Trans. Syst., 2010, 9, (5),
pp. 539548
15 Khan, M., Rana, A., Dong, F.: Improved ac/ac choppers-based voltage regulator
designs, IET Power Electron., 2014, 7, (8), pp. 19892000
16 Papadopoulos, P., Skarvelis-Kazakos, S., Grau, I., et al.: Impact of residential
charging of electric vehicles on distribution networks, a probabilistic approach.
2010 45th Int. Universities Power Engineering Conf. (UPEC), 31 August3
September 2010, pp. 15
17 Papadopoulos, P., Skarvelis-Kazakos, S., Grau, I., et al.: Predicting electric
vehicle impacts on residential distribution networks with distributed generation.
IEEE Vehicle Power and Propulsion Conf., 13 September 2010, pp. 15
18 Frame, D., Ault, G.W., Huang, S.: The uncertainties of probabilistic LV network
analysis. IEEE Power and Energy Society General Meeting, 2226 July 2012,
pp. 18
19 Frame, D., Ault, G.W.: Exploring the uncertainties of probabilistic LV network
analysis. CIRED 2012 Workshop Integration of Renewables into the
Distribution Grid, 2930 May 2012, pp. 14
8 Appendix
For these runs the voltage regulator was given full information (all
the system voltages) so it can determine the ideal setpoint to
prevent any steady-state voltage violations. Fig. 10a shows the
ideal setpoint against transformer current. As expected, when there
is reverse power ow (negative current) the ideal setpoint has to
drop to ensure the end of the feeder does not experience an
over-voltage.
3823