Voltage Regulation Performance of Smart Inverters:
Power Factor versus Volt-VAR Control
Kaveh Rahimi, Ahmad Tbaileh, Robert Broadwater
ECE Department, Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA, USA
Abstract— Due to the insignificant share of inverter-based
Renewable Energy Resources (RER) as well as the uncertainty
concerning their integration impacts, the capability of RERs to
regulate voltage or frequency has not been widely used. However,
inverter-based voltage/frequency regulation is of interest due to
the fast growth of distributed RERs, especially solar Photovoltaic
(PV) resources. The IEEE 1547a standard relaxed some of the
restrictions on utilization of Distributed Energy Resources (DER)
in voltage/frequency regulation. Smart inverters may employ
different control strategies, such as Fixed Power Factor, Volt-
VAR, Volt-Watt, and Frequency-Watt. In this study, a
comparison between fixed power factor and Volt-VAR control
strategies is performed in terms of voltage regulation capability.
One hour of quasi-steady-state simulation with one-second time
steps is performed, where fast and frequent irradiance variations
are occurring. Parametric studies involving controller settings
are used to compare voltage regulation performance. The IEEE
13-bus test feeder, modified by adding two PV generators, is used
as the case study. Simulation results show that the Volt-VAR
control out performs the fixed power factor control when it comes
to voltage regulation.
Index Terms—Photovoltaic Systems, Reactive Power support,
Smart Inverter, Voltage Regulation
INTRODUCTION
Recent technological advances have resulted in decreased
costs of Renewable Energy Resources (RER). In addition, the
political will to decrease carbon emissions and energy
dependence, and government incentives, are accelerating the
growth of RERs. Over the past decade Solar Photovoltaic (PV)
resources have been growing exponentially. In fact, they had
the greatest global growth rate in 2015 among RERs [1], and
they are expected to continue their rapid growth in the
foreseeable future.
A decade ago, participation of RERs in voltage/frequency
regulation was not permitted. The first version of the IEEE 1547
standard, IEEE Standard for Interconnecting Distributed
Resources with Electric Power Systems [2], issued in 2003, did
not authorize the participation of Distributed Resources (DR) in
voltage regulation, stating “The DR shall not actively regulate
the voltage at the Point of Common Coupling.” However, due
to the steady growth of RERs, and the subsequent issues they
have introduced such as under/over voltage issues, bi-
directional power flows, high-frequency harmonics, and grid
Jeremy Woyak, Murat Dilek
Electrical Distribution Design (EDD)
Blacksburg, VA, USA
instability [3]-[10], the need to employ the voltage/frequency
regulating capability of RERs is of interest.
Germany and France were the first countries, which updated
their grid codes to facilitate the integration of Distributed
Energy Resources (DER) [11]. At a regional level, the state of
California, which possesses the highest penetration of PV
resources in the continental U.S., has updated its
interconnection requirements, allowing utilization of RERs in
reactive power control and providing voltage and frequency
ride-through responses [4]. Moreover, in 2014, the first
amendment of the IEEE 1547 standard allowed the
participation of DERs in voltage regulation [12], stating
“Coordination with and approval of the area EPS and DR
operators, shall be required for the DR to actively participate to
regulate the voltage by changes of real and reactive power.”
Currently, advanced or smart inverters are capable of
implementing different control strategies, including Fixed
Power Factor (FPF), Volt-VAR (VV), Volt-Watt, and
Frequency-Watt [13]. However, due to enforcement of the
IEEE 1547-2003 requirement, unity power factor is the most
common control strategy for PV systems.
Allowing DERs to participate in voltage/frequency
regulation and considering issues rising from high penetration
of inverter-based RERs, investigating different controls of
smart inverters has become a necessity. In [14] the FPF control
is utilized for voltage regulation, and voltage changes are
computed for different power factors. The authors in [15]
pointed out that applying the FPF approach could overheat
inverters by drawing excessive reactive power. In [16] the
capability of VV controllers is utilized to decrease voltage
variations for a real distribution feeder. The authors in [17]
employed a VV control strategy to minimize flicker and voltage
fluctuations. A comparison between VV and FPF controllers in
terms of reactive power support is performed in [18].
In this study, one hour worth of one second, irradiance
measurement data is employed to simulate large irradiance
fluctuations in terms of rate of change and percentage change.
In contrast with some studies, which evaluate the performance
of smart inverters only after one disturbance, either load or
irradiance change [19]-[20], a Quasi-Steady-State (QSS)
simulation employing one second time steps for one hour is
carried out. Using the QSS simulation, a comparison between
FPF and VV controls is performed. Parametric studies
involving the FPF and VV control parameters are conducted. used, and as long as the voltage falls inside of the dead-band,
To quantify the performance of the different controls, a voltage no reactive power injection/absorption occurs. A typical VV
regulation cost function is used. The IEEE 13-bus test feeder, control characteristic is illustrated in Fig. 2 [13]. The voltage
which is an unbalanced system, is used as the case study, and range between V2 and V3 shown in Fig. 2 represents the dead-
two PV systems are added to the 13-bus feeder model. The main band.
objective of this study to evaluate the performance of VV and Considering Fig. 2, when the voltage is less than V1, the
FPF controllers in terms of voltage regulation under severe maximum reactive power is injected. When the voltage is
irradiance fluctuations. The paper is organized as follows. between V2 and V1, reactive power is injected based on the
Section II discusses FPF and VV control strategies. Section III
slope S1 shown in Fig. 2. When voltage falls between V3 and
is devoted to the case study and simulation results, and section
V4, reactive power is absorbed based on the slope S2
IV provides conclusions.
illustrated in Fig. 2. Finally, if the voltage level is greater than
FIXED POWER FACTOR AND VOLT-VAR CONTROLLERS V4, the maximum reactive power is absorbed.
In some cases, it may be desired to employ hysteresis in the
In this section, logic and characteristics of FPF and VV VV control. With hysteresis, different locations can be defined
controllers are briefly discussed. for the points P1-P4 of Fig.2. Thus, the path followed by the
A. Fixed Power Factor (FPF) Control control when voltage is rising is different from the path
followed by the control when voltage is falling. VV control
With FPF control, the power factor at the location of the
with hysteresis is illustrated in Fig. 3 [13].
inverter is kept constant. The power factor range is between -1
and 1. Both -1 and +1 lead to the same result, generating no
reactive power. A positive power factor, or leading power
factor, indicates generating reactive power. A negative power
factor, or lagging power factor, indicates absorbing reactive
power. The regulation of the power factor is usually performed
by producing/curtailing reactive power. However, it can also be
performed by regulation of real power. Different power factor
quadrants and the states of real and reactive power
injection/absorption are illustrated in Fig. 1 [13].

Figure 2. VV control strategy characteristics [13]

Figure 1. Four operating quadrants in FPF control strategy [13]

B. Vol-VAR (VV) Control
The VV control strategy is utilized to control the injection
or absorption of reactive power based on the voltage level at
the inverter’s terminals. The principle underlying VV control
is to inject reactive power when the voltage falls below a
specified level, and to absorb reactive power when the voltage
exceeds a specified level. A voltage dead-band may also be
Figure 3. VV control strategy with a hysteresis incorporated [13]
CASE STUDY AND SIMULATION RESULTS
A. Case study
The IEEE 13-bus test feeder is modified to have PV
generation and is used as the case study here. It is an
unbalanced, 3-phase model, where two 3-phase PV generators
are added at busses 671 and 634, with capacities of 1300 and
500 kVA, respectively. The feeder and PV generator model are
illustrated in Fig 4. In evaluating the voltage regulation
performance of the FPF and VV controls, one second step size
simulations are performed covering one hour of operation. The
simulations occur at noon when PV generation is maximum.
The solar irradiance profile shown in Fig. 5 is used to simulate
solar irradiance fluctuations. In some cases, irradiance drops
from 100% to 20% in a matter of seconds. Note that the
irradiance profile used is based on real solar irradiance
measurements. It is assumed that time constants for smart
inverter dynamics are in the order of a few cycles, and thus
inverter dynamics are neglected.
B. Voltage regulation performance evaluation
To quantify voltage regulation performance of the FPF and
VV controllers, a cost function referred to as the Voltage
Regulation Index (VRI) is employed. The VRI is defined as
∑ | 1| (1)
, where T is 3600 and is the per unit voltage. The VRI
is the sum of the absolute values of voltage deviations from the
per unit voltage over the simulation time, which is 3600
seconds. A smaller VRI indicates a better voltage regulation
performance. The base voltage level is considered to be 120 V.
C. Simulation Results
Different power factors and VV slopes are considered in the
simulations, and the VRI is computed for each simulation. Dead
bands were not used in the VV control, allowing the VV control
to rapidly react to voltage deviations, which resulted in better
voltage regulation performance. The simulation results are
summarized in Tables I and II, which for the parametric studies
present the control strategies, parameter values, and the VRI
values along with the sum of the 3-phase reactive power used
in the control, regardless of injection or absorption, for busses
671 and 634. The lowest value of the VRI index achieved at
each bus is highlighted in Table I. The time varying voltages at
bus 671, which occurred for employing FPF control strategy
with leading power factors of 1, 0.95 and 0.9, are illustrated in
Fig. 6. Similarly, the voltages at bus 671 when various slopes
are used with the VV control are presented in Fig. 7. Reactive
power injections or absorptions at bus 671 are illustrated in
figures 8 and 9 when FPF and VV control strategies are
employed respectively. Note that the simulations were
performed using Distributed Engineering Workstation [21].
TABLE I. VOLTAGE REGULATION INDICES COMPUTED FOR VV AND FPF
CONTROLLERS

VR Index
Control
Bus Phase A Phase B Phase C Total Characteristics
Figure 4. IEEE 13-bus feeder with two added PV systems Strategy
Fixed Power
671 7.38 123.77 79.05 210.20 1.0 (Leading)
Factor
Fixed Power
671 22.68 155.77 27.71 206.16 0.95 (Leading)
Factor
Fixed Power
671 22.49 156.24 19.06 197.79 0.9 (Leading)
Factor
671 4.48 114.08 73.31 191.88 Volt-VAR P1=0.7, P2=1.3
671 3.69 109.92 70.80 184.42 Volt-VAR P1=0.8, P2=1.2
671 3.88 99.38 64.36 167.62 Volt-VAR P1=0.9, P2=1.1
VR Index
Control
Bus Phase A Phase B Phase C Total Characteristics
Strategy
Fixed Power
634 42.92 89.23 40.20 172.35 1.0 (Leading)
Factor
Fixed Power
634 72.88 127.55 91.51 291.93 0.95 (Leading)
Factor
Fixed Power
634 74.46 129.11 100.11 303.68 0.9 (Leading)
Factor
634 42.89 82.00 40.71 165.60 Volt-VAR P1=0.7, P2=1.3
634 42.89 78.92 41.03 162.84 Volt-VAR P1=0.8, P2=1.2
634 42.80 71.15 41.94 155.88 Volt-VAR P1=0.9, P2=1.1
Figure 5. Irradiance fluctuations between 12:00 to 13:00 PM
 TABLE II. SUM OF 3600 ABSOLUTE REACTIVE POWER VALUES DURING QSS SIMULATIONS

Sum of Absolute Reactive Sum of Absolute Reactive

Power Values (kVAR) Power Values (kVAR)
Control Control
Bus Phase A Phase B Phase C 3-Phase Characteristics Bus Phase A Phase B Phase C 3-Phase Characteristics
Strategy Strategy
671 0 0 0 0 FPF 1.0 (Leading) 634 0 0 0 0 FPF 1.0 (Leading)
671 318730 377821 444495 1141046 FPF 0.95 (Leading) 634 129511 149984 172084 451579 FPF 0.95 (Leading)
671 338549 402776 506270 1247595 FPF 0.9 (Leading) 634 137424 160518 198902 496845 FPF 0.9 (Leading)
671 4957 52973 44969 102898 VV P1=0.7, P2=1.3 634 5844 14324 8226 28395 VV P1=0.7, P2=1.3
671 6388 75713 64725 146826 VV P1=0.8, P2=1.2 634 8729 20439 12442 41609 VV P1=0.8, P2=1.2
671 10256 133435 115863 259553 VV P1=0.9, P2=1.1 634 17407 35901 25775 79083 VV P1=0.9, P2=1.1

Figure 6. 3-phase voltages at bus 671 with FPF control

Figure 7. 3-phase voltages at bus 671 with VV control

Figure 8. Reactive power injections/absorptions of FPF controller at bus 671 during one-hour QSS simulation. Negative values indicate reactive power
injection and positive values indicate reactive power absorption.

Figure 9. Reactive power injections/absorptions of VV controller at bus 671 during one-hour QSS simulation. Negative values indicate reactive power
injection and positive values indicate reactive power absorption.

D. Discussions
Based on the results presented in Table I, the VV control
provides better voltage regulation than the FPF control.
Increasing the S1 and S2 slopes of the VV curve of Fig. 2 results
in reducing the VRI. With the FPF controllers, decreasing the
power factor from 1.0 to 0.9 results in improving the voltage
regulation for bus 671. However, it had a reverse effect on the
VRI of bus 634. This is due to the FPF control, which regardless
of voltage deviation either injects or absorbs reactive power,
and in some cases, it can result in unwanted voltages deviations.
For the QSS simulations, the VV controllers inject/absorb
significantly less reactive power than the FPF control. Based on
Table II, the inverter at bus 671 injected/absorbed a total of
259553 kVAR with VV control. However, the same inverter
injected/absorbed a total of 1247595 kVAR with a 0.9 leading
FPF control, which is approximately six times more reactive
power than the VV control. The same trend was observed for
bus 634 in terms of total reactive power injection/absorption.
CONCLUSION
In the work here, voltage regulation performance of Fixed
Power Factor (FPF) and Volt-VAR (VV) control strategies is
investigated using two Photovoltaic (PV) systems added to the
IEEE 13-bus test feeder. A severe, one-hour irradiance profile,
derived from real-world one-second measurement data, is
employed for the performance evaluation. A cost function,
referred to as the Voltage Regulation Index, along with total
inverter reactive power injection/absorption, is computed for
quasi-steady-state, one-second time step simulations that last
for one hour.
Simulation results show that the VV control provides more
effective voltage regulation than FPF control. Furthermore, it is
observed that as much as six times less reactive power
injection/absorption occurs when VV control is used.
Future work will target the evaluation of Volt-Watt control
performance in voltage regulation, as well as an investigation
of optimal control strategies and settings.
Refrences
[1] REN21. 2016. Renewables 2016 Global Status Report (Paris: REN21
Secretariat). ISBN 978-3-9818107-0-7
[2] IEEE Standard for Interconnecting Distributed Resources with Electric
Power Systems," in IEEE Std 1547-2003 , vol., no., pp.1-28, July 28
2003
[3] California Energy Commission, European Renewable Distributed
Generation Infrastructure Study: Lessons Learned from Electricity
Markets in Germany and Spain - Consultant Report, CEC400-2011- 011,
December, 2011.
[4] California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), “Advanced Inverter
Technologies Report, Grid Planning, Reliability, and Energy Division”,
January, 2013.
[5] K. Rahimi, S. Mohajeryami and A. Majzoobi, "Effects of photovoltaic
systems on power quality," 2016 North American Power Symposium
(NAPS), Denver, CO, 2016, pp. 1-6.
[6] K. Rahimi, S. Omran, M. Dilek, R. Broadwater, “Quasi-steady-state
Computation of Voltage Flicker with Cloud Motion Simulator” 2017
IEEE Power and Energy Conference at Illinois (PECI), Urbana, IL, 2017,
pp. 1-6.
[7] A. Parchure; S. J. Tyler; K. Rahimi; R. P. Broadwater; M. Dilek; M. A.
Peskin, "Investigating PV Generation Induced Voltage Volatility for
Customers Sharing a Distribution Service Transformer," in IEEE
Transactions on Industry Applications , vol.PP, no.99, pp.1-1
[8] F. Harirchi, M. G. Simões, M. Babakmehr, A. AlDurra, S. M. Muyeen
and A. Bubshait, "Multi-functional double mode inverter for power
quality enhancement in smart-grid applications," 2016 IEEE Industry
Applications Society Annual Meeting, Portland, OR, 2016, pp. 1-8
[9] Alireza Majzoobi, Amin Khodaei, Application of microgrids in
providing ancillary services to the utility grid, Energy, Volume 123, 15
March 2017, Pages 555-563, ISSN 0360-5442,
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.01.113.
[10] A. Tbaileh, C. Mishra, K. Thomas, “PV Impacts on Dynamic Voltage
Stability,”2017 IEEE SoutheastCon, Charlotte, NC, 2017, pp 1-5.
[11] E. Troester, “New German grid codes for connecting PV systems to the
medium voltage power grid,” Proceedings of the 2nd International
Workshop Concentrating Photovoltaic Power Plants: Opt. Design, Prod.,
Grid Connection, 2009.
[12] IEEE Standard for Interconnecting Distributed Resources with Electric
Power Systems - Amendment 1," in IEEE Std 1547a-2014 (Amendment
to IEEE Std 1547-2003) , vol., no., pp.1-16, May 21 2014
[13] Common Functions for Smart Inverters, Version 3. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA:
2013. 3002002233.
[14] K. Kouno, M. Hirose, T. Nagase, and W. Hashimoto, W.; Hojo, M.;
Ohnishi, T., "Effectiveness of constant power factor control of mega-
solar system for voltage regulation with long distribution line," 2013
IEEE 10th International Conference on Power Electronics and Drive
Systems (PEDS), vol., no., pp.317,322, 22-25 April 2013.
[15] K. Kouno, M. Hirose, T. Nagase, and W. Hashimoto, W.; Hojo, M.;
Ohnishi, T., "Effectiveness of constant power factor control of mega-
solar system for voltage regulation with long distribution line," 2013
IEEE 10th International Conference on Power Electronics and Drive
Systems (PEDS), vol., no., pp.317,322, 22-25 April 2013.
[16] J.W. Smith, W. Sunderman, R. Dugan, and B. Seal, "Smart inverter
volt/var control functions for high penetration of PV on distribution
systems," 2011 IEEE/PES Power Systems Conference and Exposition
(PSCE), vol., no., pp.1,6, 20-23 March 2011.
[17] H. Alatrash, R.A. Amarin, and C. Lam, "Enabling large-Scale PV
integration into the Grid," 2012 IEEE Green Technologies Conference,
vol., no., pp.1,6, 19-20 April 2012.
[18] A. Agrawal, K. Rahimi, R. P. Broadwater and J. Bank, "Performance of
PV generation feedback controllers: Power factor versus Volt-VAR
control strategies," 2015 North American Power Symposium (NAPS),
Charlotte, NC, 2015, pp. 1-6.
[19] M. Davoudi, V. Cecchi and J. R. Agüero, "Effects of stiffness factor on
bus voltage variations in the presence of intermittent distributed
generation," 2015 North American Power Symposium (NAPS),
Charlotte, NC, 2015, pp. 1-6.
[20] M. Chamana, I. Mazhari, B. Parkhideh and B. H. Chowdhury, "Multi-
mode operation of different PV/BESS architectures in a microgrid: Grid-
tied and island mode," 2014 IEEE PES T&D Conference and Exposition,
Chicago, IL, USA, 2014, pp. 1-5.
[21] M. Dilek, F. de Leon, R. Broadwater, and S. Lee, “A Robust Multiphase
Power Flow for General Distribution Networks”, IEEE Trans. Power
Systems, vol. 25, pp. 760-768, May 2010.