## 3 Results
### Estimated Absorbed Power for the Considered Architectures
The matrix in Table 13 shows the percentage variation between the average active power required by one architecture (in the rows) versus another (in the columns). In Table 14, a similar comparison is reported for absorbed reactive power, and in Table 15 for the hourly cost of absorbing electricity from the power supply grid. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c l c c c c} \hline \hline
**Configuration** & **Cycle Phase** & **Active Power (kW)** & **Reactive Power (VAr)** & **Mean Active** & **Mean Reactive Power (kW)** & **Power (VAr)** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Standard} & QD & 24.32 & 21.92 & \multirow{4}{*}{40.48} & \multirow{4}{*}{29.06} \\  & B & 93.36 & 52.92 & & \\  & E & 32.69 & 23.44 & & \\  & QR & 32.69 & 23.44 & & \\  & TR & 12.33 & 20.63 & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Regenerative} & QD & 12.4 & 12.44 & \multirow{4}{*}{20.05} & \multirow{4}{*}{15.60} \\  & B & 48.39 & 26.14 & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & E & 16.59 & 13.07 & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & QR & 16.59 & 13.07 & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & TR & 3.07 & 11.97 & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{High–Low} & QD & 12.37 & 9.81 & \multirow{4}{*}{15.77} & \multirow{4}{*}{11.72} \\  & B & 27.82 & 16.97 & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & E & 16.99 & 11.23 & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & QR & 2.99 & 8.52 & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{VDP} & QD & 14.85 & 10.5 & \multirow{4}{*}{16.67} & \multirow{4}{*}{12.71} \\  & B & 33.56 & 21.87 & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & E & 11.53 & 9.62 & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & QR & 19.04 & 12.03 & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & TR & 3.35 & 8.55 & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{DCP Static} & QD & 12.86 & 24.54 & \multirow{4}{*}{14.43} & \multirow{4}{*}{16.49} \\  & B & 29.18 & 22.29 & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & E & 9.83 & 9.29 & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & QR & 16.91 & 28.05 & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & TR & 0.44 & 1.27 & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{DCP Dynamic} & QD Acc1 & 2.34 & 1.6 & \multirow{4}{*}{16.06} & \multirow{4}{*}{21.26} \\  & QD Acc2 & 35.25 & 48.47 & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & QD Unif & 12.9 & 20.63 & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & QD Dec1 & \(-\)25 & 41.62 & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & QD Dec2 & 11.44 & 11.58 & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & QD Acc2 & 35.25 & 48.47 & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & B & 37.58 & 46.75 & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & E & 12.41 & 11.74 & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & QR Acc1 & 21.66 & 16.89 & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & QR Acc2 & 29.9 & 44.49 & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & QR Unif & 16.91 & 22.76 & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & QR Dec1 & \(-\)24.22 & 34.42 & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & QR Dec2 & \(-\)3.19 & 2.15 & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & TR & 0.44 & 1.05 & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 12: Active and reactive power absorbed in the cycle phases. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Standard** & **Regenerative** & **High–Low** & **VDP** & **DCP Static** \\ \hline Regenerative & \(-\)50.5\% & & & & \\ High–Low & \(-\)61.1\% & \(-\)21.3\% & & & \\ VDP & \(-\)58.8\% & \(-\)16.8\% & \(+\)5.7\% & & \\ DCP Static & \(-\)64.3\% & \(-\)28.1\% & \(-\)8.4\% & \(-\)13.4\% & \\ DCP Dynamic & \(-\)60.3\% & \(-\)19.9\% & \(+\)1.8\% & \(-\)3.6\% & \(+\)11.2\% \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 13: Comparison between the different configurations in terms of absorbed active power. Values in the matrix are the percentage saving/increase of the configuration in the row, with respect to the one in the column. Figure 17: Comparison between the different plant architectures in terms of average active electrical power absorption during the work cycle. For the regenerative configuration, the white parts of the bars represent the power saving with respect to the standard configuration. For the other configurations, white parts of the bars represent power savings with respect to the regenerative configuration.