Performance of Grid-Connected Photovoltaic Systems in Fixed and Sun-Tracking Configurations

Gianfranco Chicco, Jrgen Schlabbach and Filippo Spertino

Abstract This paper deals with the performance of gridconnected photovoltaic (PV) systems with parallel-connected converters. The focus of the paper is twofold. The first part concerns the assessment of the energy production and of the operational characteristics of multiple photovoltaic systems in Sun-tracking configurations, comparing their performance to the one of the corresponding fixed PV systems. The second part refers to assessing the harmonic characteristics of the integration of several converters in PV plants of various size. Different indicators are taken into account, including the individual and total harmonic distortion, the harmonic and interharmonic summation ratios at different harmonic orders, as well as the indicators formulated in the IEC Std. 61000-4-7 for group total harmonic distortion (THDG) and subgroup total harmonic distortion (THDS). Results from PV applications in Germany and Italy are shown and discussed. Index Terms photovoltaic systems, grid-connected plants, harmonics, Sun-tracking configurations, inverters, parallel converters, performance indicators.

Section II of this paper deals with the Sun-tracking PV systems. The energy production is evaluated by simulation models, accounting for the effects of cloudiness in a conventional way, and compared to the results from field measurements. Section III addresses the characterization of the harmonics from the aggregation of multiple inverters. The harmonic assessment is performed by using classical indicators as individual and Total Harmonic Distortion (THD) indicators, suitably defined harmonic and interharmonic summation ratios, as well as the indicators formulated in the IEC Std. 61000-4-7 [15] for calculating the group and subgroup total harmonic distortion and for representing the interharmonics. II. SUN-TRACKING PV SYSTEM PERFORMANCE Conceptually, Sun-tracking systems are more efficient than fixed systems, due to their possibility of following the sun path and capturing a higher amount of incident solar irradiance [16]. This section deals with presenting and discussing experimental results obtained from field measurements on Sun-tracking systems, compared to the results from fixed (non-tracking) systems at the same location and from simulations carried out by using models at nonuniform sky [17-20]. Experimental testing has been carried out on three Suntracking plants, whose characteristics are summarized in Table I. The plants are located at different sites in Germany and Italy. Plant A is composed of 15 individual systems, each of which with one coordinate-controlled tracking. This plant also contains one fixed system near earth, with slightly lower cooling effect. Plant B is composed of 90 individual systems, each of which with separate coordinate-controlled tracking. This plant also contains a fixed system of the same make and arrangement, with tracking deactivated. For Plant C, the fixed system is maintained at a tilt angle of 30, whereas the position of the Sun-tracking system is updated each 15 minutes according to the most convenient angle for receiving the direct solar radiation. The energy production analysis has been carried out during the year 2005. Fig. 1 shows the monthly irradiation at the sites of Plant A and Plant B in 2005, as well as the average monthly irradiation values based on historical data for the years 19812000. Lets consider Plant A. The actual data for the 5.83 kW individual system are complete from January to October. The direct comparison between the total energy produced cannot be carried out for this plant, since the fixed and tracked systems have different power ratings. However, it is possible to compare the specific energy values, in (kWh/kW). From the simulation results [21], the 10-month energy extracted

I. INTRODUCTION The diffusion of distributed generation applications exploiting the use of renewable sources such as photovoltaic (PV), is increasing worldwide. The driving factors of this diffusion are the evolution of the technologies, the growing attention towards the promotion of sustainable energy systems, and various regulatory incentives. Interesting aspects for the PV system evolution include studying the effects of the interconnection of multiple PV plants scattered within close areas in the distribution systems, as well as assessing the improvements in the energy production arising from specific solutions such as Sun-tracking systems [1-11]. This paper presents the results of a set of dedicated investigations carried out by the authors, concerning: a) the assessment of the production of photovoltaic plants in Sun-tracking configurations, compared to the production of corresponding solutions with fixed PV modules; b) the mechanism of harmonic summation occurring with parallel-operated converters in large size PV plants; the specific issue of possible harmonic cancellation, depending on the diversity in the current amplitudes and phase angles at different harmonic orders [12-14], is discussed on the basis of various experimental results.
This work has been partially supported by the Fondazione CRT, Torino, Italy, under the Vittorio Alfieri research grant. G.Chicco and F.Spertino are with the Politecnico di Torino, Dipartimento di Ingegneria Elettrica, corso Duca degli Abruzzi 24, 10129 Torino, Italy (e-mail gianfranco.chicco@polito.it, filippo.spertino@polito.it) J.Schlabbach is with the University of Applied Sciences, Power System Engineering, FB2, POB 10 11 13, 33511 Bielefeld, Germany, e-mail juergen.schlabbach@fh-bielefeld.de.

from the fixed system is 8709 kWh, with a specific 10-month energy of 854 kWh/kW, with respect to the 10-month energy of 6630 kWh from the Sun-tracking system (corresponding to the specific 10-month energy of 1136 kWh/kW). The simulation results obtained for the monitored individual system of Plant A are shown in Fig. 2. The average improvement of using the Sun-tracking system, evaluated on the specific 10-month energy values (referred to the fixed system), is 32.9% from the simulated values and 37.7% from the actual data.
TABLE I DATA OF THE SUN-TRACKING PV PLANTS Plant A B Sun-tracking system longitude 52o02N 48o11N latitude 13o22E 12o26E total installed PV power [kW] 101.6 318.5 number of individual systems 15 90 coordinates of the controlled tracking one separate for all systems individual power [kW] 5.836.16 3.5 inverter power (depending on the 5 or 2.5+3 4.2 installed PV power) [kW] fixed system azimuth 0 0 elevation 36 30 installed PV power [kW] 10.18 3.5 inverter power [kW] 4x2.5 4.2

Considering Plant C, the results of the simulations carried out with the model illustrated in [17] by considering the monthly irradiation from fixed and Sun-tracking systems are shown in Fig. 4. The global improvement is 31.2%. Taking into account the measured energy production over one year, the comparison between the annual energy from the fixed system (14.9 MWh/year) and from the Sun-tracking system (19.6 MWh/year) yields an annual improvement of 31.5% for the Sun-tracking system.
fixed (simulated)
240

fixed (actual) sun-tracking (actual) improvement (actual)

70 60 50

sun-tracking (simulated) improvement (simulated)

C 45o05N 730E 19.8 6 separate 3.3 2.5

200

160

40 120 30 80 20 40 10 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

20 35 19.8 15

month

Fig. 2. Comparison between the simulated and actual specific monthly energy production of fixed and Sun-tracking PV systems (Plant A).
fixed (simulated) sun-tracking (simulated) improvement (simulated) fixed (actual) sun-tracking (actual) improvement (actual)

Concerning Plant B, the actual data for one of the 3.5 kW individual systems refer to 11 months (July excluded). From the simulation results, the 11-month energy extracted from the Sun-tracking system is 2626 kWh, with a specific 11month energy of 1014 kWh/kW, with respect to the 11-month energy of 3547 kWh from the fixed system (corresponding to the specific 11-month energy of 750 kWh/kW). A more direct comparison is possible in this case, since the two systems are similar and the fixed system has the Sun-tracking devices disabled. The simulation results obtained for the monitored individual system of Plant B are shown in Fig. 3. The average improvement of using the Sun-tracking system, evaluated on the specific 11-month energy values (referred to the fixed system), is 35.1% from the simulated values and 30.4% from the actual data.
year 2005 Plant A 200 mean values 1981-2000 Plant A mean values 1981-2000 Plant B year 2005 Plant B

240

70 60 50

200

160

40 120 30 80 20 40 10 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

month

Fig. 3. Comparison between the simulated and actual specific monthly energy production of fixed and Sun-tracking PV systems (Plant B).
fixed (simulated)
300

sun-tracking (simulated)
50

improvement (simulated)

irradiation (kW h/m )

irradiation (kWh/m )

150

250
2

40

200 30 150 20 100 10

100

50

50

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

month

month

Fig. 1. Monthly irradiation in the year 2005 and average values for the period 1981-2000 at the sites of Plant A and Plant B.

Fig. 4. Comparison between the simulated and actual monthly irradiation from fixed and Sun-tracking PV systems (Plant C).

improvement (%)

improvement (%)

kWh/kW

improvement (%)

kWh/kW

III. HARMONICS FROM MULTIPLE INVERTERS A. Harmonic and interharmonic summation Lets consider a photovoltaic plant containing N inverters connected to the same point at the AC side, for which it is possible to obtain, from measurements and subsequent ( Fourier transform, both the RMS current I h1) of a single
( inverter and the total RMS current I hN ) provided by the N

inverters at the harmonic orders h = 1,, H. The value H = 40 is considered in the practical examples of this paper. In order to represent the effect of the presence of a number of inverters connected to the point of common coupling, the harmonic summation ratio at the harmonic order h is defined as I (N ) ( (1) hN ) = h (1) N Ih
( ( with 0 hN ) 1. In particular, values of hN ) close to

with respect to the horizontal axis. Obtaining the probability density function (PDF) of the magnitude of the vector sum is interpreted as a random-walk problem on the Cartesian axes. The resulting PDF depends on and varies from the Rayleigh type for = 2 to the Gaussian type for = 0. However, for PV plants the characteristics of the inverterbased interfaces are quite similar, the location of the PV systems connected to the group of inverters is typically close, and the PV system operation is subject to similar effects of the solar irradiance. Hence, the assumption of statistical independence of the harmonic currents produced by inverters of similar characteristics connected to the same point of common coupling could be conceptually weak. Alternatively, it is possible to resort to semi-empirical approaches [24-26], summarised by the expression
( I hN ) k

I( )
i =1

i h

(3)

unity mean that the corresponding harmonic currents of order h sum up arithmetically, namely, all the current phasors I h for the various inverters are approximately in phase. ( Conversely, values hN ) close to zero represent the maximum dispersion (especially in phase) of the current ( phasors. The extreme case hN ) = 0 could for instance be obtained by summing up a number of phasors with equal amplitudes and regular phase shifts. Similarly, it is possible to define the interharmonic summation ratio, corresponding to the interharmonic order q:
( qN ) = ( N I q1) ( I qN )

(2)

Indicative information on the behaviour of a number of PV inverters operating in parallel can be obtained by plotting the values of (1) or (2) with respect to the harmonic or the interharmonic order. More generally, an interesting aspect consists of establishing sound criteria for addressing the summation of the harmonic vectors, taking into account the cancellation effect that may arise in the specific case of multiple PV inverters. Methodological indications may arise from the result of previous studies referred to the harmonic summation problem, in which it has been shown that the main difficulties in assessing the harmonic distortion of the total current resulting from a group of loads depend on the phase angles of the harmonic vectors. The phase angles are referred to the angle of the supply voltage at fundamental frequency and may generally vary over the full 360 range. In practical applications, very often the phase angle variation increases with increasing the harmonic order. Analytical approaches have been proposed, on the basis of the concepts illustrated in [12-14,22,23], to deal with a large number N of statistically independent random vectors. Relevant results have been shown in [13] when the magnitude of the N initial vectors is distributed in the range [0,A] and the variation of the phase angles is limited in the range 0 2 and is symmetrical

whose earlier formulations [24,25] correspond to k = 1 and to 1 2. In particular, setting = 1 yields the arithmetical sum of the vector magnitudes, while = 2 gives the Euclidean norm. The model was then extended in [26] to obtain the formulation (3), with k 1 and 1 2, where both k and depend on the characteristics (amplitude and phase ranges) of the vectors but not on their number N. Table II shows the dependence of the values of k and on the phase angle variation [-,] and on the range of variation of the current amplitude [amin,1]. The formulation (3) provides a useful framework for the analysis of the harmonics due to the aggregation of a relatively low number N of inverters. In fact, even for large PV plants the number of inverters connected to the same point of the distribution system could be relatively low, due to the adoption of supply structures with single-layered or multi-layered converters.
TABLE II COEFFICIENTS FOR THE MODEL IN [26] WITH N > 2. PHASE RANGE [-,], AMPLITUDE MULTIPLIER RANGE [aMIN,1]

[]
45 90 135 180

values of k amin [p.u.] 0 0.5 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.3

[]
1 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.7 45 90 135 180

values of amin [p.u.] 0 0.5 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.6 1.4 2.0 2.0

1 1.0 1.2 1.4 2.0

B. Harmonic and interharmonic distortion indicators. The current waveforms are characterized by various harmonic distortion indicators. Besides the classical Total Harmonic Distortion (THD) and the individual harmonic distortion at each harmonic order, it is possible to resort to the distortion factors defined in the IEC Std. 61000-4-7 [1,15] for f0 = 50 Hz. For this purpose, the current waveform is recorded for 10 successive periods (Tw = 200 ms) and the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) is performed in order to get a number of spectral lines of width 1/Tw = 5 Hz each. Considering the

value c h f

of the central line of the FFT at the harmonic

order h, the contribution of the generic harmonic group is 4 1 1 2 Ch = c 2 5 + c2 i + c2 5 (4) 2 h f 0 T i = 4 h f 0 + T 2 h f0 + T w w w and the contribution of the generic harmonic subgroup is

current amplitudes) and 45 (low phase angle dispersion), leading to

( ( I hN ) I hi )
i =1 N

(10)

TABLE III DATA OF THE PV PLANTS D AND E

2 Sh =

i = 1

Plant

E
2 20 0.4 7046 283 7 250 405 84 12 283 1.75 112 21.63 LV
1

2 h f0 + i Tw

(5)

The group total harmonic distortion (THDG) is then defined as:

Ch C h =2 1 and the subgroup total harmonic distortion (THDS) is: THDG =

(6)

24

(1 inverter) current [A] harmonic summation ratio (4 inverters)

0.8

ch f0 THD = (8) c1 f h=2 0 Similar expressions are provided for the interharmonics, by defining the contribution of the hth interharmonic subgroup to the RMS current

18

0.6

12

0.4

0.2

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40

2 S h+ 0.5

c
i=2

2 h f0 + i Tw

(9)

harmonic order

Fig. 5. Harmonic currents of the single inverter and of the aggregation of the 4 inverters, and resulting harmonic summation ratio for Plant D (4 inverters).
50 1

C. Experimental results from two large PV plants The results of the calculations reported here refer to two photovoltaic plants, identified as Plant D and Plant E, whose characteristics are summarized in Table III. Both plants are connected through MV/LV transformers to the respective MV distribution system. Plant D is connected to the MV system, with no consumer at the LV side. Plant E is connected to the LV system. In both plants, the currents have been simultaneously measured for one inverter and for the group of inverters. The measurement of the group of inverters has been possible due to their close connections at the AC side. Measurements of current harmonics and interharmonics (with distance of 25 Hz with respect to the harmonics) have been carried out in the frequency range up to 2 kHz. The results for Plant D and Plant E are shown in Fig. 5 and in Fig. 6, respectively. The harmonic summation ratio for the harmonic currents up to the order h 9 of the inverters operated in parallel is close to unity. The corresponding harmonics are approximately added arithmetically. In this case, the parameters from the model (3) are k 1 and 1 , consistent with amin = 1 (very high correlation between the

(7 inverters) current [A]

40

(1 inverter) current [A] harmonic summation ratio (7 inverters)

0.8

30

0.6

20

0.4

10

0.2

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40

harmonic order

Fig. 6. Harmonic summation ratio for Plant E (7 inverters).

The harmonic summation ratio for the harmonics with order h > 17 is close to 1 / N (that is, to 0.5 for Plant D and to 0.378 for Plant E). Then, the corresponding currents are approximately added almost in the Euclidean way. In terms of the model (3), this is consistent with assuming amin 0

harmonic summation ratio

current [A]

harmonic summation ratio

current [A]

Sh (7) S h= 2 1 The use of these factors improves the accuracy of the results and their comparability, mitigating the diversity due to the actual value of the fundamental frequency f0 and to the lack of stationary waveforms. The THDG and THDS incorporate the effects of the variation of the waveforms. The resulting values are greater than the ones of the classical THD expressed in the framework of the IEC Std. 61000-4-7 as THDS =

Total installed PV power PPV,plant [MW] 1.06 Rated voltage at the MV side [kV] 15 Rated voltage at the LV side [kV] 0.4 Number of PV arrays 3200 Single module rated power PPV,mod [W] 330 Number of inverters 4 Single inverter rated AC power Pr,INV,AC [kW] 250 Rated voltage of the single inverter [V] 405 Number of strings for each inverter 50 Number of modules for each string 16 Installed power PINV,DC,ins [kW] 264 Maximum recorded generated power PAC,max [MW] 0.93 Short-circuit power at the MV side Sk,MV [MVA] 76.73 Short-circuit power at the LV side Sk,LV [MVA] --Voltage level of the point of common coupling MV
30

(4 inverters) current [A]

(very poor correlation between the current amplitudes at each harmonic order for the various inverters) and 180 (high phase angle dispersion), thus leading to
( I hN )

(I ( ) )
N i h i =1

(11)

THDS indicators assume similar values in many cases, but increase largely during some measurements. This effect is related to the action of the network impedance measurement circuit, based on the temporary switching of a RC circuit at time cadence of about 5s for islanding detection [8].
TABLE IV DATA OF THE PV PLANT F

For what concerns the interharmonics gathered at 25 Hz distance from the harmonics, the experimental results are presented and discussed for Plant D with 4 inverters. Fig. 7 shows that, in spite of the different amplitude of the various interharmonics, the interharmonic summation ratio is relatively close in all cases and is slightly higher than 0.5, namely, with overall average value (computed from all the interharmonic orders) of 0.569 (i.e., 1.137 times higher than 0.5) and standard deviation of 2.8%. Hence, the Euclidean model for the interharmonic summation could be considered as a first simple approximation to be applied to every interharmonic up to 2 kHz. For the semi-empirical model (3) the situation is consistent, for instance, with the assumptions k 1.3 and 2 (namely, amin 0.5 and 180).
5 1

Plant
Total installed PV power PPV,plant [kW] Rated voltage at the LV side [kV] Number of PV arrays Single module rated power PPV,mod [W] Number of inverters Single inverter rated AC power Pr,INV,AC [kW] Rated voltage of the single inverter [V] Number of strings for each inverter Number of modules for each string Installed power PINV,DC,ins [kW]

F
16.3 0.4 8 102 8 1.5 230 2 10 13

(4 inverters) current [A]

4

(1 inverter) current [A] interharmonic summation ratio (4 inverters)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

interharmonic summation ratio

From the experimental results, it emerges that there is a noncoordinated switching of the RC circuit, that may cause the presence of none, one or more current spikes at phase a within the 10 measured cycles. Fig. 9 shows an example with two current spikes appearing for the inverters A1 and A2. More generally, the transients introduced by the switching of the RC circuit impacts on the presence of relevant interharmonics in the measured waveforms. Fig. 10 provides a detailed view of the interharmonic subgroups during the measurements from #1 to #15, where the effects of the transient disturbances due to the switchings are evident.
70 60

current [A]

THDG_A1 (%) THDS_A1 (%) THD_A1 (%)

distortion indicator (%)

0
9. 5 12 .5 15 .5 18 .5 21 .5 24 .5 27 .5 30 .5 33 .5 36 .5 39 .5 42 .5 45 .5 48 .5 0. 5 3. 5 6. 5

50 40 30 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 50

interharmonic

Fig. 7. Interharmonic currents and interharmonic summation ratio for Plant D (4 inverters).

D. Experimental results from a medium-size PV plant An experimental testing concerning harmonics and interharmonics has been carried out for the medium-size PV plant, whose characteristics are indicated in Table IV (Plant F). The 8 single-phase inverters are connected to the three phases with a group of 3 inverters at phase a, another group of 3 inverters at phase b, and 2 inverters at phase c. The results shown here refer to the three inverters connected to phase a (denoted as A1, A2 and A3). The measurements have been carried out in the afternoon of a cloudy day, starting around 3pm, with 50 measurements of 10 cycles (200 ms) each at almost regular cadence within a total time interval of about 15 min. The solar irradiance was slowly decreasing during the measurements. Slight improvement in the solar irradiance occurred only in a very short time period, corresponding to the measurements #32 and #33. Fig. 8 shows the evolution of the harmonic distortion indicators for the current of inverter A1. The increased solar irradiance at measurements #32 and #33 resulted in lower distortion indicators. The THD, THDG and

measurement

Fig. 8. Distortion indicators recorded inverter A1 connected at phase a.

Fig. 9. Current waveforms recorded in the measurement #6 for the three inverters connected at phase a.

[4]

0.5

[5] [6] [7]

S1 S10

0.4

0.3

0.2 S19 S28 0 1 7 S37 13

[8]

0.1

interharmonic subgroup

[9] [10]

measurement

Fig. 10. Contribution of the inverter A1 to the various interharmonic subgroups.

IV. CONCLUSIONS The increasing diffusion of PV plants of different types (in fixed or Sun-tracking configurations) and sizes (from a few kW to several MW) with inverter connection to the grid is requiring detailed analyses concerning their aggregation and the assessment of their performance. The Sun-tracking configurations are capable to provide significant increase in the energy production over fixed systems of equivalent characteristics, provided that the availability of the moving parts can be guaranteed and that mutual shading conditions are avoided. The harmonic and interharmonic summation ratios have been used to represent the effect of harmonics and interharmonics of different orders to the assessment of the total current of the PV aggregation. The use of a semiempirical approach for harmonic summation seems more suitable than other statistical techniques in order to create a reference model for evaluating the total current. The specific issue concerning the temporary current peaks in the current waveform has to be taken into account in the harmonic studies, since it may significantly alter the 10-cycle waveform and the resulting harmonic and interharmonic distortion indicators. It is however relatively easy to recognize the presence of such peak (or peaks) even without directly recording the current waveform, due to the significant contribution to increasing the distortion indices for the harmonics and especially for the interharmonics. V. REFERENCES
[1] M.Aiello, A.Cataliotti, S.Favuzza and G.Graditi, Theoretical and experimental comparison of total harmonic distortion factors for the evaluation of harmonic and interharmonic pollution of grid-connected photovoltaic systems; IEEE Trans. Power Delivery 21, 3, July 2006, 13901397. J.H.R.Enslin and P.J.M.Heskes, Harmonic interaction between a large number of distributed power inverters and the distribution network, IEEE Trans. Power Electronics 19, 6, Nov. 2004, 15861593. D.G.Infield, P.Onions, A.D.Simmons and G.A.Smith, Power quality from multiple grid-connected single-phase inverters, IEEE Trans. Power Delivery 19, 4, Oct. 2004, 19831989.

[11]

[12] [13] [14] [15]

[16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]

[2] [3]

[26]

F.Batrinu, E.Carpaneto, G.Chicco, S.Gagliano, F.Spertino and G.M.Tina, Assessing the performance of photovoltaic sites and gridconnected plants: a study case, Proc. VI World Energy System Conference, Torino, Italy, 10-12 July 2006, 386-393. J.Schlabbach and L.Kammer, Prediction of harmonic currents of PVinverters using measured solar radiation data, Proc. IEEE Melecon 2006, Benalmdena, Mlaga, Spain, 16-19 May 2006, 857-860. F.Batrinu, G.Chicco, J.Schlabbach and F.Spertino, Impacts of gridconnected photovoltaic plant operation on the harmonic distortion; Proc. IEEE Melecon 2006, 16-19 May 2006, 861864. S.Nishikawa and H.Sugihara, Demonstrative research on gridinterconnection of clustered photovoltaic power generation systems, Proc. 31st IEEE Photovoltaic Specialists Conference, 3-7 Jan. 2005, 17341737. G.Chicco, J.Schlabbach and F.Spertino, Characterisation and assessment of the harmonic emission of grid-connected photovoltaic plants, Proc. IEEE Power Tech 2005, St. Petersburg, Russia, June 2730, 2005, paper no.66. G.Chicco, R.Napoli and F.Spertino, Experimental evaluation of the performance of grid-connected photovoltaic systems, Proc. IEEE Melecon 2004, Dubrovnik, Croatia, 12-15 May 2004, 3, 1011-1016. J.H.R.Enslin, W.T.J.Hulshorst, A.M.S.Atmadji, P.J.M.Heskes, A.Kotsopoulos, J.F.G.Cobben and P.Van der Sluijs, Harmonic interaction between large numbers of photovoltaic inverters and the distribution network; Proc. IEEE Power Tech, Bologna, Italy, 23-26 June 2003. E.Vasanasong, and E.D.Spooner, The prediction of net harmonic currents produced by large numbers of residential PV inverters: Sydney Olympic Village case study, Proc. 9th ICHQP, 1-4 Oct. 2000, 1, 116121. A.Cavallini, G.C.Montanari and M.Cacciari, Stochastic evaluation of harmonics at network buses, IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery 10, 3, July 1995, 1606-1613. L.Pierrat, A unified statistical approach to vectorial summation of random harmonic components, Proc. EPE'91 Conference, Florence, Italy, September 1991, 3, 100-105. A.E.Emanuel and S.R.Kaprielian, Contribution to the theory of stochastically periodic harmonics in power systems, IEEE Trans. on Power Delivery 1, 3, July 1986, 285-293 IEC Std. 61000-4-7, Testing and measurement techniques Section 7: General guide on harmonics and interharmonics measurement and instrumentation for power supply systems and equipment connected thereto, 2002. H.D.Mohring, F.H.Klotz and H.Gabler, Energy yield of PV tracking systems Claims and reality, Proc. 21st European Photovoltaic Solar Energy Conference, Dresden, Germany, 4-8 Sept. 2006, 2691-2694. N.Aste, Il Fotovoltaico in Architettura. L'integrazione dei sistemi per la generazione di elettricit, Sistemi Editoriali, Napoli, Nov. 2005 (in Italian). J.A.Duffie and W.A.Beckman, Solar engineering of thermal processes, Wiley, New York, 1991. J.E.Hay and J.A.Davies, Calculation of the solar radiation incident on an inclined surface, Proc. 1st Canadian Solar Radiation Data Workshop, 1980, 59. UNI Standard 10349, Riscaldamento e raffrescamento degli edifici Dati climatici, April 1994 (in Italian). PVSOL: Simulation Programme for Photovoltaic systems. Demo and Information at www.valentin.de/index_en_page=pvsol. W.G.Sherman, Summation of harmonics with random phase angles, Proceedings of the IEE 119, 11, Nov. 1972, 1643-1648. N.B.Rowe, The summation of randomly varying phasors or vectors with particular reference to harmonic levels, IEE Conf. Publ. 110, 1974, 177-181. M.Lemoine, Quelques aspects de la pollution des rseaux par les distorsions harmoniques de la clientele, RGE 95, 3, Mars 1976, 247255. L.Lagostena and A.Porrino, Prediction of harmonic voltage distortion due to different categories of non-linear loads supplied by the electric network, CIGR International Conference on Large High Voltage Electric Systems, Aug./Sept. 1986, 1-6. J.M.Crucq and A.Robert, Statistical approach for harmonic measurement and calculation, CIRED Report 2-02, 1989, 91-96.

interharmonic subgroup contribution (A)