DG Connection: Estimating Voltage Rise at Point of Common Coupling (PCC)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on estimating voltage rise at the Point of Common Coupling (PCC) using Thevenin equivalent circuits, as outlined in "Renewable Energy on Power Systems." The user seeks clarification on how fault current at the PCC is influenced by the number of other buses in a low-voltage radial distribution network. It is suggested that higher power demand from neighboring buses could reduce the impedance seen from the PCC, potentially leading to a smaller voltage rise. The conversation emphasizes the relationship between network topology, source impedance, and voltage rise calculations. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for accurately estimating voltage rise in distributed generation scenarios.
hnes
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Hi!

According to the book "Renewable Energy on Power Systems" by Freris & Infield, the voltage rise due to injection of power in pcc can be estimated from the Thevenin equivalent representing the network "upstream" pcc (Figure 1). The Thevenin voltage can be taken as the nominal voltage in the pcc, and the Thevenin impedance
is given by Z= V/√3⋅Isc (1).
Capture.JPG

Figure 1: Thevenin equivalent

I've got some measured fault current values (three phase) for different Pcc's in different LV radial distribution networks, and want to make an estimate of the voltage rise in each Pcc based on the calculated source impedance in formula 1. This is pretty straight forward according to the mentioned literature, but there is something i don't get:

Is the fault current in the Pcc depending on the numbers of other buses in the LV radial? For me it seems pretty obvious that the impedance seen from the Pcc with DG is lower if your neighbor has a big demand of power, and thus the voltage rise in the Pcc will become smaller (?). I don't get how this Zth calculated from the Isc can be used if this is not the case.
PS: I probably lack some understanding in source impedance and fault levels.

<< Edit -- clarification of PCC definition >>

Point of Common Coupling - the point where the the generator is connected to the public grid.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Engineering news on Phys.org
It depends where you are measuring the fault current.

Your equivalent diagram actually includes a mirror image to the right where the equivalent source impedance from the system is in series with the open circuit voltage from the system.

If you are measuring the fault current at the PCC, for example, for a single-phase-to-ground fault, the PCC sees the total fault current - from the DG as well as from the system.

If you are measuring the output of the DG (inverter), they you can use your simplified diagram since the system won't have a significant effect on the results.
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman
Hi!
Thanks for replying, magoo. I've been busy this weekend, sorry for the late response.

I have to make some clarifications, seems like my explanation was confusing:

The Thevenin equivalent is the network, Snet means produced power minus used power (net) from the DG (PV, wind, CHP, etc...). The fault current is measured in the Pcc, that's the interface between the grid operator and the consumer (and due to DG, manufacturer).

So my question still stands, but i can try to clarify it with a figure:
upload_2017-6-26_9-38-26.png
Is the fault current/level in the Pcc depending on the numbers of other buses in the LV radial (situation A vs. B) ? For me it seems pretty obvious that the total source impedance seen from the Pcc (in a thevenin equivalent) is smaller if your neighbor has a big demand of power (i.e. one or both neighbor buses in situation A have a big power demand), and thus the voltage rise in the Pcc will become smaller (?). Said in another way; How does the topology of the LV distribution network affect the source impedance? Bigger impedance seen from the Pcc = bigger voltage rise (formula 1, post 1) - but if your neighbor in some way uses all your PV-made power, should this impedance then be smaller?.
 
Very basic question. Consider a 3-terminal device with terminals say A,B,C. Kirchhoff Current Law (KCL) and Kirchhoff Voltage Law (KVL) establish two relationships between the 3 currents entering the terminals and the 3 terminal's voltage pairs respectively. So we have 2 equations in 6 unknowns. To proceed further we need two more (independent) equations in order to solve the circuit the 3-terminal device is connected to (basically one treats such a device as an unbalanced two-port...
suppose you have two capacitors with a 0.1 Farad value and 12 VDC rating. label these as A and B. label the terminals of each as 1 and 2. you also have a voltmeter with a 40 volt linear range for DC. you also have a 9 volt DC power supply fed by mains. you charge each capacitor to 9 volts with terminal 1 being - (negative) and terminal 2 being + (positive). you connect the voltmeter to terminal A2 and to terminal B1. does it read any voltage? can - of one capacitor discharge + of the...
Thread 'Weird near-field phenomenon I get in my EM simulation'
I recently made a basic simulation of wire antennas and I am not sure if the near field in my simulation is modeled correctly. One of the things that worry me is the fact that sometimes I see in my simulation "movements" in the near field that seems to be faster than the speed of wave propagation I defined (the speed of light in the simulation). Specifically I see "nodes" of low amplitude in the E field that are quickly "emitted" from the antenna and then slow down as they approach the far...

Similar threads

Back
Top