A Rapid Quasi-Static Time Series Method for Evaluating Current-Related Distributed PV Impacts including Feeder Loading and Line Losses
Abstract
Significant changes in the regulatory environment, coupled with economic viability, has led various electric utilities to consider distributed photovoltaic (PV) systems as an alternative to traditional circuit upgrades. Increased penetration of distributed PV can result in the overload of the distribution system infrastructure, which can lead to premature failures and costly repairs. Quasi-static time series (QSTS) analysis is the state-of-the-art for evaluating distributed PV impacts, however, existing QSTS methods require significant computational time. To address this issue, this paper presents a fast, scalable, and novel method to estimate the current-related PV impact metrics including circuit element loading, overload duration, and line losses for a yearlong, 1-second resolution QSTS simulation. The efficacy of the proposed algorithm is tested on a utility-provided 2969-bus distribution system model, demonstrating a 99.3% reduction in computation time.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
These fast QSTS studies show more than a 99% reduction in computation time compared to the traditional time series method.
“The results of these studies show more than a 99% reduction in computation time compared to the traditional time series method.”
From Methods and Tools for PV and EV Hosting Capacity Determination in Low Voltage Distribution Networks—A Review (2023) · cites this paper as [84]
The linear sensitivity model was further modified by [84] to assess the current-related PV impact on the distribution network including feeder loading and losses in the line.
“The linear sensitivity model was further modified by [84] to assess the current-related PV impact on the distribution network including feeder loading and losses in the line.”
From Methods and Tools for PV and EV Hosting Capacity Determination in Low Voltage Distribution Networks—A Review (2023) · cites this paper as [84]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Umoh, V., Davidson, I., Adebiyi, A., & Ekpe, U. (2023) · Energies · doi:10.3390/en16083609 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
- Authors
- Qureshi, M. U., Grijalva, S., & Reno, M. J.
- Affiliations
- Georgia Institute of Technology (US)
- Sandia National Laboratories (US)
- Venue
- 2019 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting (PESGM)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2019-08
- Pages
- 1-5
- ISSN
- 1932-5517 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3003368556
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 0.80
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Optimal Power Flow Distribution
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Electric Power System Optimization
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Smart Grid Energy Management
- Keywords
- distributed photovoltaic generation, line losses, computational efficiency
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
