When static Volt–VAr control helps and when it does not: Operational and planning lessons from a weak radial distribution feeder

Long radial distribution feeders are increasingly exposed to sustained undervoltage as electrification-driven load growth outpaces reinforcement. Static inverter Volt–VAr curves are attractive because they can be deployed through existing controller settings, but standard curves may be too conservative for electrically weak feeders. This paper evaluates the operational and planning value of feeder-specific static Volt–VAr settings under data conditions commonly available to distribution system operators: sparse voltage measurements, hourly feeder-level inputs, and offline parameter updates. The study applies the slope-selection procedure developed in [ 1 ] to a predefined BESS Volt–VAr curve and evaluates the resulting setting through quasi-static time-series power flow for a real 22 kV radial feeder in Northern Norway. During the constructed 168 h high-load/no-generation stress period, the model-based, condition-matched comparison produced 153 h within the adopted target band with the full feeder-specific setting, compared with 8 h under the IEEE 1547-type setting and 1 h without BESS Volt–VAr support. An independent 2025 operating period was used for quantitative comparison with field measurements. The model reproduced the average voltage and voltage-band occupancy, while the disagreement in hourly variation limits its use to comparative screening rather than point-by-point prediction. The transferred feeder-specific setting produced 0 h outside the target band, compared with 16 h under the IEEE-type curve and 55 h without BESS Volt–VAr support. Higher-resolution measurements from the BESS and hydropower plant were used separately to examine interaction between the two local controllers. Under the 59% industrial-growth stress scenario, 4 MVAr was the smallest tested reactive-power rating that kept all 168 hourly voltages at or above the lower limit of the adopted target band after feeder-specific slope selection. The results provide a practical DSO screening procedure: test static tuning first, then identify whether the remaining limitation is curve setting, VAr headroom, or interaction between independently controlled assets.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Electric Power Systems Research
Published
2026-09-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2026.114179
Primary Topic
Optimal Power Flow Distribution
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

When static Volt–VAr control helps and when it does not: Operational and planning lessons from a weak radial distribution feeder

Karoline Ingebrigtsen, Chiara Bordin, Sigurd Bakkejord, Matteo Chiesa
Electric Power Systems Research
Optimal Power Flow Distribution
article

When static Volt–VAr control helps and when it does not: Operational and planning lessons from a weak radial distribution feeder

Karoline Ingebrigtsen, Chiara Bordin, Sigurd Bakkejord, Matteo Chiesa
article en

Abstract

Long radial distribution feeders are increasingly exposed to sustained undervoltage as electrification-driven load growth outpaces reinforcement. Static inverter Volt–VAr curves are attractive because they can be deployed through existing controller settings, but standard curves may be too conservative for electrically weak feeders. This paper evaluates the operational and planning value of feeder-specific static Volt–VAr settings under data conditions commonly available to distribution system operators: sparse voltage measurements, hourly feeder-level inputs, and offline parameter updates. The study applies the slope-selection procedure developed in [ 1 ] to a predefined BESS Volt–VAr curve and evaluates the resulting setting through quasi-static time-series power flow for a real 22 kV radial feeder in Northern Norway. During the constructed 168 h high-load/no-generation stress period, the model-based, condition-matched comparison produced 153 h within the adopted target band with the full feeder-specific setting, compared with 8 h under the IEEE 1547-type setting and 1 h without BESS Volt–VAr support. An independent 2025 operating period was used for quantitative comparison with field measurements. The model reproduced the average voltage and voltage-band occupancy, while the disagreement in hourly variation limits its use to comparative screening rather than point-by-point prediction. The transferred feeder-specific setting produced 0 h outside the target band, compared with 16 h under the IEEE-type curve and 55 h without BESS Volt–VAr support. Higher-resolution measurements from the BESS and hydropower plant were used separately to examine interaction between the two local controllers. Under the 59% industrial-growth stress scenario, 4 MVAr was the smallest tested reactive-power rating that kept all 168 hourly voltages at or above the lower limit of the adopted target band after feeder-specific slope selection. The results provide a practical DSO screening procedure: test static tuning first, then identify whether the remaining limitation is curve setting, VAr headroom, or interaction between independently controlled assets.

Electric Power Systems ResearchVol. 265
Khalifa University of Science and Technology (AE), Tomra (Norway) (NO), UiT The Arctic University of Norway (NO)
Openalex Percentile: Top 20%
Optimal Power Flow Distribution
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.