Page - 213 - in Emerging Technologies for Electric and Hybrid Vehicles

Energies 2016,9, 594 weset this limit toX=165kW.Theresultsaresummarized inTable3andfurtherdetailed inFigure4 (power)andFigure5. Table3.ComparisonbetweenDSMapproachesandnocontrol. PEAKS NC PS COORD(ThisPaper) NOCOORD (ThisPaper) Total losses (kWh) 61.31 89.22 33.90 34.36 35.95 Lowestvoltage (V) 209.92 199.77 219.15 219.11 218.88 Highestvoltage (V) 232.28 232.28 231.51 231.51 231.51 Max. peak(kW) 171.04 575.09 175.70 170.82 195.28 Max. cable load(%) 106.87 143.35 57.41 57.41 57.41 12:00 18:00 00:00 07:00 12:00 100 200 300 Time NOCOORD(thispaper) COORD(thispaper) PS NC Figure4.Powerat transformer (incl. losses). 12:00 00:00 12:00 200 210 220 230 240 Time Max. ingrid Min. ingrid (a)NC 12:00 00:00 12:00 Time Max. ingrid Min. ingrid (b)PS 12:00 00:00 12:00 200 210 220 230 240 Time Max. ingrid Min. ingrid (c)COORD 12:00 00:00 12:00 Time Max. ingrid Min. ingrid (d)NOCOORD(thispaper) Figure5.Lowestandhighestobservedvoltages. When no control would be applied, a large peak occurs at the transformer (see Figure 4), cables are overloaded and the voltage does not staywithin the legal bounds that are required in theNetherlands (i.e.,NEN-EN50160:2010 [5], 207V–253V). The transformer load is reducedwith PEAKS;however,Table3showsthat thisapproachstilloverloadscables. In contrast toNC andPEAKS, PS reduces the loadpeak significantly andkeeps the voltage within legal bounds (Figure ??). Although it performswell, this algorithmdepends on hard to 213