2015 23rd Iranian Conference on Electrical Engineering (ICEE)

Investigation on Reactive Power Support Capability

of PEVs in Distribution Network Operation
Sasan Pirouzi1

Mohammad Amin Latify2

G. Reza Yousefi2

s.pirouzi@ec.iut.ac.ir
latify@cc.iut.ac.ir
yousefi@cc.iut.ac.ir
M.Sc. graduate, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
2
Faculty member, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran
1

AbstractAccording to the environmental and economic

advantages of the Electric Vehicles (EVs), it is predicted that the
penetration of EVs will be increased in the near future. EVs are
fast growing loads in the power systems. Several types of EVs are
invented and commercialized, such as Plug-in Hybrid Electric
Vehicles (PHEVs) and Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs). A PHEV
needs a battery charging plug. The high penetration of the
PHEVs in the Grid has great impact on the network planning
stages, as well as the network operation schemes. Increasing the
number of PHEVs, without an appropriate management, could
decrease the power quality in distribution networks. In this
paper we present a reactive power management strategy,
considering a high penetration of PHEVs, to tackle with the
negative impact of PHEVs, namely reducing the power losses,
improving the voltage profile and removing line congestion in
distribution network. To do so, at the first step, we obtain a
generic model for D 3+(9 WR VLPXODWH WKH 3+(9V FRQQHFWLRQ
into a distribution network. Then we present a reactive power
management scheme to demonstrate how PHEVs could be used
to control reactive power and how it could minimize the power
losses and improve the voltage profile, as well as removing
congestion in the distribution networks. 33-bus distribution
network is considered to perform the case study. The results are
highly implicate the performance of the proposed method.
Keywords- electric vehicles; reactive power management;
PHEV; loss reduction; voltage profile.

I.

INTRODUCTION

Nowadays, energy consumption and its growth are restricted

with the environmental concerns, and clean energy production
and efficient consumption are aimed by the regulators, as well
as owners of technologies, all around the world. One of the
fast growing technologies is Electric Vehicle (EV). Several
types of EVs are in market now, such as Plug-in Hybrid
Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) and Hybrid Electric Vehicles
(HEVs). Obviously, a PHEV needs an electricity source for
battery recharging. With increasing the penetration of electric
vehicles in distribution networks, the electricity demand will
be increased, and it could be the source of some problems in
distribution networks operation, and it should definitely be
considered in network planning [1]. A high penetration of
PHEVs in a distribution network could lead to increasing the
network losses and worsening the buses voltage profile [2].
Battery chargers (which are using in PHEVs) are power
electronic based devices. Thus, dealing with harmonics due to
switching operation of power electronic elements are expected

c
978-1-4799-1972-7/15/$31.00 2015
IEEE

[3] and single phase chargers worsen the power quality

parameters in such distribution systems [4].
The most problems occur in distribution networks, caused
by a high penetration of PHEVs, are due to lack of charging
control, as well as absence of a proper coordinating
mechanism between them. Researchers have been paid
attention to defects of PHEVs in distribution networks and
presented different strategies to reduce the negative impact of
PHEV in the grid. Active power management of PHEVs is
used in [5] to improve the voltage profile along the network,
in while the batteries of PHEVs are controlled in such a way
that they should inject the power to the grid on some buses
and/or absorb the power on some other buses. In [6], based on
the network level of load and voltage profile, optimum battery
charging time interval is obtained for each incoming PHEV
into the network. A real-time smart load management (RTSLM) strategy is represented in [7] in which the PHEVs are
charged based on a priority selection over each time interval.
The most of articles are focused on active power and less
attention have been made to reactive power management of
PHEVs.
In this paper, we present a reactive power management
strategy in a distribution network with a high penetration of
PHEVs to tackle with the negative impact of PHEVs into the
grid. We have used the reactive power management to obtain
the optimum voltage profile, as well as gaining the minimum
power losses and increasing the available transmission
capacity in distribution network. The proposed strategy is
implemented on the 33-bus distribution network and its
capability is appreciated.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: in Section II,
DJHQHULFPRGHORID3+(9V charger is proposed, its structure
and its active and reactive power capability are discussed. In
section III, required data and necessary assumptions for
evaluation of the PHEVs effects on a distribution network are
proposed. Section IV is dedicated to the reactive power
support using PHEVS. Section V is dedicated to the
simulation results, and finally section VI concludes the paper.
II.

ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGERS

Charger is an interface between the network and vehicle.

Basically, it converts AC to DC to charge the battery. Also,
the charger could be designed and implemented in such a way
that it would be able to control its active and reactive power
[8]. The rest of this section is dedicated to the explanations of
the mentioned control features of a charger.

1591

2015 23rd Iranian Conference on Electrical Engineering (ICEE)

A. Structure of the chargers
Different structures have been used for EV chargers. But all of
them are common in the two main sections, namely AC-DC
converter and DC-AC converter [8]. A charger could be
designed just to transfer the electricity power from the
QHWZRUN LQWR WKH EDWWHU\ ZKLFK LV FDOOHG Xnidirectional
charger. Adding to this, if the charger is able to inject the
SRZHU LQWR WKH QHWZRUN LV FDOOHG Eidirectional FKDUJHU [8].
Unidirectional charger is sometiPHVUHIHUUHGDVSRZHUIDFWRUcorrected FKDUJHUVEHFDXVHWKis type of chargers are designed
to operate at unity power factor. Bidirectional chargers are
NQRZQDVFour-quadrant chargersEHFDXVHHOHFWULFLW\SRZHU
could be transferred between the network and the battery in
four quarters of the P-Q system (as discussed in section 2-4).
To compare the capabilities of different chargers in reactive
power support, two different types of charchers, namely power
factor-corrected (unidirectional) charger (Fig. 1), and fourquadrature (bidirectional) charger (Fig. 2) are used and their
bahavior in reactive power support are compared in the test
result section.

Where 9FK is the voltage magnitude of the charger and G

is phase difference between 9QHW W and 9FK W.
Using phasors in steady state condition, network and
charger voltages could be written as (3) and (4), respectively.

V net ( j Z ) |V net | 0

(3)

Vch ( j Z ) |Vch |  G

(4)

According to Fig. 3, charger current,,OLQH , could be formulated

as (5).

I line ( j Z )

V net ( j Z ) Vch ( j Z )
X line

| I line | T
(5)

Where, ;OLQH is the line reactance between the network and the
charger. Obviously, ,OLQH and T are the magnitude and phase
angle of the ,OLQH Z, respectively. Resistance of this line is
omitted and the corresponding losses is added to the internal
losses of the charger, as will be discussed on subsection II.C.
According to Fig. 3, the complex power, delivered by the
network to the charger could be written as (6):

S net

*
V net ( j Z ).I line
( j Z)

Pnet  jQ net

(6)

Therefore:
Figure 1. Structure of a power factor- corrected (unidirectional) charger [8].

Pnet
Qnet

Vnet . Vch
Xline
Vnet
Xline

. sin G

.( Vnet  Vch . cos G )

(7)
(8)

Figure 2. Structure of a Four-quadrature (bidirectional) charger [8].

B. Analysis of charger active and reactive power

As mentioned, focus of this paper is on the bidirectional
charger structure (Fig. 2) and in this subsection its active and
reactive power transfer is analyzed. To do so, the network is
considered as an ideal voltage source, 9QHW W , with a fixed
magnitude, 9QHW , and constant frequency, Z, as presented
in (1):
V net (t )

2 |V net | .sin(Zt )

(1)

The Thvenin equivalent of the bidirectional charger, in

9QHW W point of view, is shown in Fig. 3. It should be noted that
9FK W is a harmonic distorted voltage. Switching operation of
the power electronic elements of the charger generates
harmonics. In this study we just considered the main
frequency and ignored the other relatively small magnitudes of
the higher harmonics [10-11]. So, the instantaneous Thvenin
voltage of the charger could be written as (2):
Vch (t )

2 |Vch | .sin(Zt  G )

(2)

Figure 3. Equivalent circuit of the network and the charger.

C. Active and reactive power losses of the charger

Losses in a charger are include internal active power losses of

the charger, and active and reactive power losses of the
connector between the charger and the network. Internal active
losses are due to diodes and switches that are exist in charger
circuit. The coupling impedance of the charger consists of a
resistance and a reactance. The former causes active power
losses and the latter is a reactive power absorber. So, the total
delivered active power to the charger, 3QHW , is equal to the
battery power, 3EDW , and related active losses, 3FK
ORVV . Also,
absorbed reactive power from the network, 4QHW , is equal to the
charger reactive power (reactive power in a and b points at

1592

2015 23rd Iranian Conference on Electrical Engineering (ICEE)

Fig. 2), 4FK , and reactive absorption in ;OLQH , which is denoted
by 4OLQH
. Losses equations are formulated in (9) and (10).
ORVV

Pnet

ch
Pba t  Ploss

Qnet

ch
Qch  Qloss

(9)
(10)

Active and reactive power losses of the charger could be

expressed as a function of the absorbed active and reactive
power from the network [11], as illustrated in (11) and (12).
ch
Ploss

f ( Pnet , Qnet )

ch
Qloss

g ( Pnet , Qnet )
3FK
ORVV

(11)
(12)

max
Qnet

ch
Ploss

D rph . Pnet  D im
ph . Qnet

ch
Qloss

E ph .( Pnet  Qnet )

where USK , LP
SK and SK are losses factors of the charger.

(13)
(14)

D. The capability curve of a bidirectional charger

According to (8) and (9), 9FK and G are controllable

variables. Therefore, by changing 9FK and G, active and
reactive transfer power between the charger and the network
will be controlled, as summarized in Fig. 4 [8]. As it is shown,
the charger could be operated in four modes (areas). In areas I
and IV the charger is charging the battery. So, the charger
absorbs real power from the network. And in areas II and III,
battery delivers real power to the network. In the reactive
point of view, the charger acts as an inductor in areas I and II
(absorbs reactive power), and is as capacitor in area III and IV
(generates reactive power).
In Fig. 4, the maximum apparent power which could be
absorbed from the network is indicated by a circle. The radius
of this circle could be calculated by (15):
max
max
Vnet
. I line

(15)

III.

(16)

DATA AND NECESSARY ASSUMPTIONS

Essential data required to determine PHEVs characteristics

and their effects on distribution networks are include plug in
time (the VWDUWLQJWLPHIRU3+(9VEDWWHU\FKDUJLQJ, remained
amount of energy in the battery at plug in time, needed time
and energy for a full battery charge, number of PHEVs per
house, vehicle type and the connection node in the distribution
network. These data and assumptions are discussed in the
following subsections.
x

Plug in time

StartLQJWLPHIRUD3+(9VEDWWHU\UHcharging depends on the

vehicle ownerV GHFLVLRQ DQG OLIHVW\OH. Based on [12], we
assumed that the PHEVV owners plug in their vehicles when
they arrive home after their last trip. Fig. 5 shows the
percentage of vehicles versus arrival time at home during a
normal weekday of summer [12]. In this paper, we have used
these data as starting time for PHEVs. It could be seen in Fig.
5 that peak arrival time of vehicles occurs between 16:00 to
20:00.
x

Battery state of the charge

The amount of energy released from a battery of a PHEV is

depend on the distance which PHEV is driven and the streets
traffic. A battery has a specific capacity, C in kWh, and its
consumption energy could be shown by (F . As a fuel meter in
combustion engine vehicles, State of the Charge (SOC) of a
battery could be used as a remained energy in the battery, as it
is formulated in (17):
Ec

Figure 4. Charger operation modes [8].

( Snet ) 2  ( Pnet ) 2

According to Fig. 4, a bidirectional charger could be

treated as a PV bus in the network; because, it is able to
manage its reactive power generation or absorption, and is
able to adjust its voltage magnitude. On the other hand, active
power demand (in charging mode) or active power injection to
the grid (discharging mode) is controllable through different
switching schemes RIWKHFKDUJHUVSRZHUHOHFWURQLFHOHPHQWV
that is not considered in this paper.

4FK
ORVV

and
are estimated as linear functions
In this paper,
of 3QHW and 4QHW as follows.

max
Snet

PD[
Where, 9PD[
QHW and ,OLQH are the maximum allowed voltage of
the charger, and the current rating of the interface between
charger and network, respectively. Therefore, the maximum
reactive power should satisfy (16):

(1  SOC ).C

(17)

Figure 5. Percentage of vehicles versus their home arrival time for a regular
weakday of summer [12].

1593

2015 23rd Iranian Conference on Electrical Engineering (ICEE)

And SOC could be calculated using (18):
SOC

(1 

Od

AER

for Od d AER

(18)

Where, OG is the traveled distance and All Electric Range

(AER) is the total distance that could be traveled with a full
charge battery. OG could be extracted from such a data
presented in Fig. 6. As it could be seen in Fig. 6, percent of
vehicles and cumulative percent of vehicles are drown versus
driven distance in a regular summer weekday [12].

time axis in Fig. 9 and other figures is equal to 15 minuts. 24

hours is divided into 96 of 15 minutes intervals).
A 3.3 kVA unidirectional charger, and a 4.6 kVA
bidirectional charger are used in our numerical and simulation
studies. Loss factors, USK  LP
SK and SK are considered 0.09,
0.0475 and 0.02, respectively. OG and charging time are listed
in Table I, based on the battery capacity. According to Fig. 5
and charging time of PHEVs, the total number of PHEVs that
plugged in into the network will be determined during any
time interval, as demonstrated in Fig. 10.
In this paper, we have assumed that the number of PHEVs
are almost equal to the number of houses. Based on this, we
define three categories as follows:
Group 1: If the number of houses are between zero to 25
houses, 21 PHEVs are considered on that bus.
Group 2: If the number of houses are between 26 to 45 houses,
30 PHEVs are considered on that bus.
Group 3: If the number of houses are between 46 to 75 houses,
60 PHEVs are considered on that bus.

Figure 6. Percent of vehicles entered to the network based on driven distance

during a regular summer weekday [12].
x

PHEV type

Type of PHEV determines battery capacity, AER and electric

energy consumption per driven kilometer (or mile). Different
types of PHEVs are listed in [8] and [12]. In this paper we
have used [12@DV3+(9VUHIUHQFHGDWD
IV.

REACTIVE POWER SUPPORT USING PHEVS

The main objective of this paper is to show ability/disability of

PHEVs in reactive management and control in distribution
systems with a high penetration of such type of vehicles. To
do so, we will show how PHEVs could be coordinated and
managed in such a way that operation of a distribution
network could be handled and all operation constraints be
satisfied. Using a dynamic program over 24 hours, we
determine active and reactive dispatch of PHEVs in a
distribution network. We obtain the operation area of a
bidirectional charger, i.e. when a battery should be charged
and when it should be discharged. And also we determine the
power factor operation (lead, unity or lag) of the charger. The
method is successfully tested on the 33-bus distribution
network, as reported in the following section.
V.

We assumed that he bidirectional charger should have

reactive power support, while we expect to have the same
active power charging current as unidirectional charger. That
is why the rating of bidirectional charger is chosen larger than
the unidiractional charger rate. Two specific scenarios are
considered as follows:
Case I: Study of the distribution network, considering PHEVs
armed with power factor- corrected chargers with the different
level of penetration ( Qch 0 ),
Case II: Study of the distribution network, considering
PHEVs armed with bidirectional chargers in capacitor mode
with the different level of penetration ( Qch z 0 )

Figure 7. Radial 33-Bus test feeder [13].

SIMULATION AND RESULTS

A. Case study
To investigate the penetration impact of PHEVs on the grid,
the radial 33-bus distribution system is considered [13], as
shown in Fig. 7. The network is considered as a residential and
balanced three-phase system. The number of houses on each
bus is illustrated in Fig. 8. Power factor of a residential user is
usually between 0.9 to 0.95 (lag). We have chosen 0.92 (lag)
as an average amount for power factor. Assumed daily load
curve for each house is shown in Fig. 9 (Each time interval in

Figure 8. Number of houses on each bus in 33-Bus test feeder.

1594

2015 23rd Iranian Conference on Electrical Engineering (ICEE)

3.5

x 10

0.98

0.96

0.94
NO- PHEVs
10% PHEVs
14.5% PHEVs
V min

0.92

0.9
0

10

15

Bus

20

25

30

35

Figure 12. Voltage profile at the peak load moment.

ENERGY LOSS FOR EACH PENETRATION OF PHEVS.

TABLE II.

-3

Active Power
Apparent Power

Load Power (pu)

PHEVs. Obviously, with the more penetration of PHEVs the

losses will be more.

Voltage (pu)

Case I- Results: Figures 11 and 12 along with Table II

summarize the results of case I. The daily apparent power
delivered into the distribution network (through bus 1 in Fig.
7) is shown in Fig. 11. It could be seen that with the high
penetration of the PHEVs in the network, peak load of the
system will be increased. It should be noted that peak of plug
in time of the PHEVs were about peak period of the network
(Fig. 5 and Fig. 10). So, over the peak time period, some of
the distribution branches could be congested and plug in of
more PHEVs (or other electric devices) into the network will
be restricted. In this special case (case I) the maximum
penetration of the PHEVs into the network is 14.5%. Voltage
profile of 33 buses at peak load moment is shown in Fig. 12.
As it could be seen in Fig 12, in this moment there are a few
buses with an unacceptable voltage magnitude (under 0.95 per
unit).

2.5

No PHEVs

10% PHEVs

14.5% PHEVs

11337.1 kWh

11644.1 kWh

11782.5 kWh

2
4.5

1.5

0.5
0

10

20

30

40

50

time (15 min)

60

70

80

90

Apparent Power (pu)

100

Figure 9. Daily load curve for each house [12].

TABLE I.

CHARGING

C
Time charging (h)
Od

TIME AND OD, BASED ON BATTERY CAPACITY

C d 8 kW
3
AER

8 kW d C d 12 kW
4
0.8 AER

3.5

NO-PHEVs
14.5% PHEVs for Case I
14.5% PHEVS for Case II
S max

3
2.5
2
1.5

15 kW d C
6
0.75 AER

1
0

10

20

30

40

50

Time (15 min)

60

70

80

90

100

(a)
1

Voltage (pu)

0.98

0.96

0.94

0.92

0.9
0

NO PHEVs
14.5% PHEVs for Case I
14.5% PHEVs for Case II
V min
5

10

15

Active Power Loss (pu)

Apparent Power (pu)

0.2

NO- PHEVs
10% PHEVs
14.5% PHEVs
S max

3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0

25

30

35

0.22

4.5

3.5

20

(b)

Figure 10. The total number of PHEVs entered to the network.

Bus

14.5% PHEVs for Case I

14.5% PHEVs for Case II

0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08

10

20

30

40

50

time (15 min)

60

70

80

90

0.06
0

100

10

20

30

40

50

Time (15 min)

60

70

80

90

100

(c)

Figure 11. Daily apparent power of the distribution network.

At the maximum penetration of PHEVs (14.5%), the

minimum voltage magnitude reaches to 0.9148 per unit at bus
18. Table II compares energy loss for different penetration of

Figure 13. Comparion of case I and case II for 14.5% penetration of PHEVs,
(a): Daily apparent power of the distribution network, (b): Voltage profile at
peak load period, (c): Network active losses.

1595

2015 23rd Iranian Conference on Electrical Engineering (ICEE)

Case II- Results: The same procedure as case I is done, and
the results are presents in Fig. 13-a to 13-c and Table III
considering a 14.5% as the PHEVs penetration. In this case,
bidirectional charger is operated at its maximum apparent
power, and also it is in the capacitive mode while charging the
battery (mode IV in Fig. 4). It could be seen that operation
indices are improved. According to Table III, apparent power
at peak load with a 14.5% as the PHEVs penetration, is
reduced by 2.83% comparing to the results of case I (using
power factor-corrected chargers). In case 2, the maximum
PHEVs penetration reaches to 28.8% (a 98.62% increase
comparing with case I). The daily apparent power and voltage
profile (for the peak load moment) are illustrated in Fig. 14
and 15, respectively.
TABLE III.

bidirectional chargers are more successful to control reactive

power and voltage profile in the network. Obviously, the
lower losses and higher available transfer capability will
result, if PHEVs are equipped with bidirectional chargers are
than power factor- corrected chargers.
REFERENCES
[1]

[2]

[3]

PERCENT IMPROVEMENT OF NETWORK PARAMETERS IN CASE

II FOR PENETRATION OF EVS 14.5%.

Network
parameter

Energy loss
(kWh)

Peak Power
loss (pu)

Minimum
voltage
(pu)

Line
capacity
(pu)

Case I

11782.5

0.2176

0.9148

4.2

Case II

11544.7

0.2087

0.9185

4.081

Percent
improvement

2.02%

4.09%

0.4%

2.83%

[4]
[5]
[6]

[7]

4.5

Apparent Power (pu)

4
3.5

[8]

NO- PHEVs
28.8% PHEVS for Case II
S max

[9]

3
2.5
2

[10]

1.5
1
0

10

20

30

40

50

Time (15 min)

60

70

80

90

100

[11]

Figure 14. Daily apparent power of the distribution network, case II.
1

[12]

Voltage (pu)

0.98

0.96

[13]

0.94

0.92

0.9
0

No- PHEVs
28.8% PHEVs for Case II
V min
5

10

15

Bus

20

25

30

35

Figure 15. Voltage profile at the peak load moment, Case II.

I.

CONCLUSION

In this paper we presented impact of PHEVs penetration into

the voltage profile, losses and congestion of the distribution
networks. Two different types of chargers are used and
discussed in this paper, namely power factor-corrected
chargers and bidirectional chargers. The results show that

1596

G. A. Putrus, P. Suwanapingkarl, D. Johnston, E. C. Bentley, and M.

1DUD\DQD,PSDFWRIHOHFWULFYHKLFOHVRQSRZHUGLVWULEXWLRQQHWZRUNV
Vehicle Power and Propulsion Conference 2009, VPPC '09 IEEE, pp.
827-831, Sept. 2009.
L. Hui-ling, B. Xiao-PLQ DQG 7 :HQ ,PSDFWV RI SOXJ-in hybrid
HOHFWULF YHKLFOHV FKDUJLQJ RQ GLVWULEXWLRQ JULG DQG VPDUW FKDUJLQJ
Power system Technology, 2012 IEEE International Conference, pp. 15, Nov. 2012.
/ <DQ[LD DQG - -LXFKXQ +DUPRQLF-study of electric vehicle
FKDUJHUV SURFHHGLQJV RI WKH (LJKWK ,QWHUQDWLRQDO &RQIHUHQFH RQ
Electrical Machines and systems 2005, ICEMS 2005, pp. 2404-2407,
Sept. 2005.
-&*RPH]DQG000RUFRV,PSDFWRI(9EDWWery chargers on the
SRZHU TXDOLW\ RI GLVWULEXWLRQ V\VWHPV ,((( 7UDQVDFWLRQV RQ SRZHU
delivery, Vol.18, No.3, pp. 975-981, July 2003.
.76KXDQJ*DR&&&KDX/&&KDQDQG':XOptimal control
framework and scheme for integrating plug-in hybrid electric vehicles
into grid,Journal of Asian electric vehicles, Vol. 9, No. 1, June 2011.
0/HYHVTXH'4;X*-RRVDQG00DLHU&R-simulation of PEV
coordination schemes over a wifi smart grid communications
LQIUDVWUXFWXUH ,(&21  - 38th Annual Conference on IEEE
Industrial Electronics Society, pp. 2901-2906, Oct. 2012.
6'HLODPL$60DVRXP360RVHVDQG0$0DVRXP5HDO-time
coordination of plug-in electric vehicle charging in smart grids to
minimize power losses and improve YROWDJHSURILOH,(((WUDQVDFWLRQV
on smart grid, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 456-467, Sept. 2011.
M. C. Kisacikoglu, Vehicle-to-Grid Reactive Power operation Analysis
of the EV/PHEV bidirectional battery charger, University of Tennessee,
May 2013.
M. C. KisacikoJOX % 2]SLQHFL DQG / 0 7ROEHUW  (IIHFWV RI 9*
reactive power compensation on the component selection in an EV or
3+(9 ELGLUHFWLRQDO FKDUJHU (QHUJ\ FRQYHUVLRQ FRQJUHVV DQG
Exposition (ECCE), 2010 IEEE, pp. 870-876, Sept. 2010.
M. C. Kisacikoglu, B 2]SLQHFL DQG / 0 7ROEHUW 5HDFWLYH SRZHU
operation analysis of a single-phase EV/PHEV bidirectional battery
charger, ,((( WK ,QWHUQDWLRQDO &RQIHUHQFH RQ SRZHU HOHFWURQLFV SS
585-592, June 2011.
H. Feshki Farahani, H. A. Shayanfar, and M. S. Ghazizadeh,
,QFRUSRUDWLRQ RI SOXJ LQ K\EULG HOHFWULF YHKLFOH LQ WKH UHDFWLYH SRZHU
PDUNHW-RXUQDORIUHQHZDEOHDQGVXWVDQLDEOHHQHUJ\9RO1R
Dec. 2012.
M. Fotuhi-)LUX]DEDG DQG 0 5DVWHJDU ,QYDVWLJDWLQJ WKH LPSDFWV RI
Plug-in Hybrid Electric VeKLFOHVRQ3RZHU'LVWULEXWLRQ6\VWHP ,(((
TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 1351-1360,
Sept. 2011.
P.R. Babu, C.P. Rakesh, G. Srikanth, M.N. Kumar, and D.P. Reddy, $
QRYHO DSSURDFK IRU VROYLQJ GLVWULEXWLRQ QHWZRUNVIndia Conference
(INDICON), 2009Annual IEEE, pp. 1-5, Dec. 2009.