1
Comparison of Voltage Control Methods in
Distribution Systems Using Q-V Based PI and
Droop Controls of Solar Inverters
Severin Nowak1, Student Member, IEEE, Malcolm S Metcalfe1, Member, IEEE,
Wilson Eberle1, Member, IEEE and Liwei Wang1, Member, IEEE
1. The University of British Columbia, Okanagan, Canada, liwei.wang@ubc.ca
Abstract—The increasing penetration of photovoltaic power
generation in distribution systems causes serious voltage
management issues. To mitigate the voltage variations due to solar
generation intermittency, this paper introduces a PI-based
reactive power control method of PV inverters. The proposed PI
controller adjusts the reactive power injection of the solar
inverters dynamically to drive the voltage at the Point of Common
Coupling (PCC) to a target value. The simulation studies are
performed to evaluate the proposed PI-based reactive power
control using the IEEE 34 test feeder for a 24-hour period in
OpenDSS and Matlab. The performance of the proposed PI
controller is compared to the conventional PV inverter controls
with no reactive power generation and with the Q-V-based droop
control at different penetration levels. The case studies
demonstrate that the proposed PI-based voltage control method
reduces effectively the voltage deviations at the PCC of the PV
inverters. The voltage profiles under the proposed PI controller
have narrower variation bands compared with the conventional
PV reactive power control methods particularly at high
penetration levels of solar generation.
Index Terms—Reactive power control, Voltage control, Solar
power generation, Distributed power generation, Power
distribution.
I. INTRODUCTION
E lectric utilities have serious concerns about the reliability of
power systems due to the increasing amounts of
photovoltaic (PV) generation directly connected to the
Distribution System (DS) [1]. The Distributed Generation (DG)
at customer sites not only impacts the utilities energy sales, but
also affects the power quality within the DS. The intermittent
and undispatchable real power (P) generation of PV plants leads
to significant voltage variations. Voltage variations are
proportional to the power generation of PV plants. In worst case
scenarios this can lead to violations of the ANSI voltage limits
(+/- 5%) and can also create reverse power flow in the DS [2,
3]. In addition, PV generation can interfere with conventional
voltage control mechanisms such as on-load tap changers, in-
line voltage regulators, and Static Var Compensators (SVC),
causing undesired wear-out of the mechanical switches [2].
Therefore, the use of PV inverters to regulate the DS voltages
locally through appropriate reactive power controls have been
a very active research area. Both IEC (IEC61850-7-420) and
IEEE (IEEE 1547.8.) have introduced standards for the reactive
power control modes [4, 5] of PV inverters. Many
manufacturers of commercial PV inverters have
correspondingly adopted these control methods. For example,
system interoperability has been pursued by the SunSpec
‹,(((
Alliance [6], which consists of the major industry participants
of the sector. Recent PV inverters have the capability of
generating real and reactive power independently as long as the
maximal apparent power rating (ܵ௠௔௫ ) is not exceeded. While
the real power generation is directly linked to the solar
irradiation, there are various strategies to control the reactive
power generation.
The IEC and IEEE standards propose the fixed Power Factor
(PF) mode where the PV inverters operate at a constant PF. In
this mode, the reactive power generation is directly linked to
the real power generation [4]. Alternatively, the constant
reactive power mode can be used in which the reactive power
of the inverter is independent of the real power generation and
the voltage at the PCC, given that the inverter’s ܵ௠௔௫ is not
exceeded. The third reactive power control mode of a PV
inverter is the so-called reactive-power-voltage (Q-V)-based
droop control mode in which the inverter supplies or absorbs Q
with respect to the inverter AC voltage at the PCC (VPCC) [4].
There are several Q-V-based droop control modes: 1) the linear
Q-V droop control, where the Q generation is a linear function
of the inverter voltage at the PCC; 2) the Q-V droop control
with a dead-band at the reference voltage; and 3) the Q-V droop
control with a hysteresis model where the Q generation of the
inverter is different for rising and falling voltages at the PCC.
In addition to the control modes introduced by the standards,
the literature suggests several approaches for the reactive power
control with no communication channels. In [7], a reactive
power control approach is introduced where a PV inverter
regulates its reactive power injection based on the P generation
and the characteristic of the transmission line connected to the
PV inverter. The purpose is not to control the node voltage but
rather to guarantee that active power generation does not cause
voltage rise/drop locally. Voltage becomes almost independent
of P generation. The references [8, 9] present an approach to
implement local control actions for DG units without the use of
communication channels. The DG units are controlled to
operate at an optimal point between active power curtailment
and reactive power generation to maintain the voltage within
the limits.
This paper introduces a new approach to regulate the voltage
of a feeder to a target set point by controlling the Q output of
the PV inverter. A PI-based inverter voltage control method is
proposed to exploit the maximum available reactive power of
PV inverters without curtailing real power generation. The
remainder of this paper first specifies the Q-V droop control and
PV inverter capabilities in Section II, Section III introduces the
proposed method, Section IV describes the case studies that
 2

were performed in order to evaluate the proposed method.
Section V presents the simulation results and the discussion and
finally the paper is concluded in Section VI.
II. Q-V-BASED DROOP CONTROL METHOD
In the Q-V-based droop control mode, the PV inverter
absorbs or supplies reactive power in proportion to the
difference of the inverter voltage at PCC (ܸ௉஼஼ ) and the
reference voltage (ܸ௥௘௙ ሻ, which is generally assumed to be 1.0
pu. The reactive power generated by the inverter (ܳ௢௨௧ ) is a
linear function of the ܸ௉஼஼ in pu as given in (1):
ܸ௉஼஼ ൏ ͲǤͻͷ ‫ܳ ׷‬௢௨௧ ൌ ܳ௠௔௫
ܳ where ݇௣ is the proportional gain and ݇௜ is the integral gain.
൞ͲǤͻͷ ൑ ܸ௉஼஼ ൑ ͳǤͲͷ ‫ܳ ׷‬௢௨௧ ൌ ܳ௠௔௫ െ ௠௔௫ ሺܸ௉஼஼ െ ͲǤͻͷሻ
ͲǤͲͷ
ܸ௉஼஼ ൐ ͳǤͲͷ ‫ܳ ׷‬௢௨௧ ൌ െܳ௠௔௫
(1)
where ܳ௠௔௫ is the maximum available Q of the inverter.
The Q-V droop control is essentially a proportional control
scheme having steady-state error (SSE) between ܸ௉஼஼ and ܸ௥௘௙ .
The real power generation of the PV inverter only uses its full
capacity (i.e. ܵ௠௔௫ ) for a few hours around noon on sunny
days, depending on the PV layout, the weather and the season.
During cloudy days and nights, there is significant reactive
power capacity available from the inverters [10]. The Q
availability (ܳ௔௩௔௜௟௔௕௟௘ ) is related to the apparent power
(ܵ௠௔௫ ) and the actual real power (Pact) of the PV inverter as
ܳ௔௩௔௜௟௔௕௟௘ ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻ ൌ ටܵ௠௔௫ ଶ െ ܲ௔௖௧ ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻଶ
The available reactive power of the PV inverter is also
limited by the maximum PF of the inverter. Most PV inverters
have PF limits around 0.7−0.85 (inductive or capacitive). In this
paper we assume a maximum PF of 0.7 (inductive or capacitive)
proposed voltage control method eliminates the voltage error
between the reference voltage and the actual voltage using an
integral controller in addition to the proportional controller,
forming a PI control scheme. The integral controller of the
proposed approach compensates for the accumulated error
between ܸ௉஼஼ and ܸ௥௘௙ over time and drives the steady-state
error in (3) to zero.
ܸ௘௥௥௢௥ ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻ ൌ ܸ௥௘௙ ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻ െ ܸ௉஼஼ ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻ (3)
The reactive power output of the PV inverter before saturation
(ܳ ᇱ ) is a function of the input voltage error ܸ௘௥௥௢௥ in (4).
௧
ܳ ᇱ ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻ ൌ ݇௣ ቀܸ௘௥௥௢௥ ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻ ൅ ݇௜ ‫׬‬଴ ܸ௘௥௥௢௥ ሺ߬ሻ ή ݀߬ቁ (4)
Clearly, the performance of the proposed PI controller is
constrained by the available reactive power of the PV inverter.
Whenever ܳ ᇱ reaches ܳ௔௩௔௜௟௔௕௟௘ as in (2), the inverter voltage
ܸ௉஼஼ is not able to track ܸ௥௘௙ . Hence ܸ௘௥௥௢௥ does not reduce
towards zero which can result in an integral windup. Therefore,
an anti-windup technique is included in the proposed PI control.
The integrator term is clamped when (5) is activated which is
found to perform well under various conditions [11].
ሺܸ௘௥௥௢௥ ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻ ή ܳ ᇱ ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻ ൐ Ͳሻ‫ܦܰܣ‬൫ܳ ᇱ ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻ ് ܳ௢௨௧ ሺ‫ݐ‬ሻ൯ (5)
The implementation of the proposed Q-V-based PI voltage
control scheme of the PV inverter is illustrated in Figs. 2 and 3.
The PI controller is tuned using the Matlab PID controller
tuning toolbox. For the proposed PI controller, a proportional
gain of ݇௣ = 0.85 and an integral gain of ݇௜ = 200 proved to
(2) offer a fast reaction while providing stability of the closed-loop
system.
Line Line
impedance impedance
Qout
Substation

which leads to the PV inverter’s P-Q diagram shown in Fig. 1. PI AC

Control
Fig. 3 DC
VPCC

Vref
PV
Fig. 2 Single line diagram of radial feeder with PV inverter and PI controller
Vref + Verror Q’ Qout
+
VPCC - kp
+
Fig. 1 a) P/Q capability PV inverter; b) Q-V droop control function 0
1
The PV inverter operates within the shaded area as shown in ki s
0 1
Fig. 1a. Figure 1b illustrates the two commonly used Q-V droop x
controls: linear and deadband droop control modes. The
deadband droop control maintains a unity PF around the
reference voltage of 1pu. The linear Q-V droop control mode is >0
further explained in the next section and will serve as a
reference for the case studies. AND
≠

III. PROPOSED Q-V-BASED PI CONTROL METHOD Fig. 3 Block diagram of Q-V-Based PI Control
The proposed Q-V control method is based on a similar idea The proposed Q-V-based PI voltage control method can be
as the Q-V-based droop control by regulating the VPCC using the conveniently realized in the commercial PV inverters since the
reactive power generation of the PV inverter. However, the Q control option has been embedded into the PV inverters. The

‹,(((

PV inverter with integrated PI voltage control will bring the
advantage of fast reaction to voltage variations by automatic
reactive power generation control. It is also technically possible
to implement the proposed PI voltage control method in a
microcontroller outside the inverter which controls the inverter
through Modbus commands. However, the latency of the
communication protocol between the external microcontroller
and the inverter may lead to communication and control delays.
Therefore, it is desirable to implement the PI controller inside
the PV inverter for better control performance and reliability.
The reference voltage (ܸ௥௘௙ ) can either be set once at
commissioning or controlled remotely based on feeder
measurement.
IV. CASE STUDIES
In order to evaluate the proposed method, a simulation of the
IEEE 34-node test feeder [12] was performed using OpenDSS
and GridPV Toolbox in Matlab, a commonly-used distribution
grid simulation toolset [13]. The single line diagram of the
IEEE 34-node test feeder is shown in Fig. 4 which is an actual
feeder located in Arizona with a nominal voltage of 24.9 kV
and a voltage at the substation of 1.05 pu. The IEEE 34-node
test feeder includes two in-line voltage regulators, an in-line
transformer for a short 4.16 kV section, two shunt capacitors,
and unbalanced three-phase loads. The existing test feeder in
OpenDSS (IEEE34-Mod2 accommodates for the distributed
loads) is modified as follows to facilitate the case studies: 1) a
total of 30 single-phase PV inverters are installed at every
distributed load and 2) the voltage regulators are set to the rated
ratio of 1:1 since the PV inverters are used to control the voltage
instead of the voltage regulators.
822
820
864
818
802 806 808 812 814 850 824 826
858
816
832
800
810
852
828 830 854
Fig. 4 Single line diagram of IEEE 34 test feeder
Commercial and residential load profiles based on real
statistical data from Flagstaff, Arizona are used for each spot
load and distributed loads, respectively [14]. A highly
intermittent solar generation profile based on measured AC
power data with one second resolution is applied to all the PV
systems [15]. The solar generation and load profiles are
normalized based on the maximum capacity of the feeder and
is illustrated in Fig. 5. The OpenDSS simulations over a 24-
hour period with a simulation time step of one second were
performed at different penetration levels and reactive power
control modes of the PV inverters. The penetration level is
defined as the ratio of the total solar generation capacity to the
total load capacity of the feeder.
In the first case study, the PV systems placed within the DS,
were varied in their sizes proportional to the individual loads
from 0 to 100% penetration at three different Q control modes:
‹,(((
3
(1) real power only without reactive power generation (unity
power factor); (2) the linear Q-V-based droop control; and (3)
the proposed Q-V-based PI control. In the second case study,
the same test scenarios are simulated while the ܵ௠௔௫ of the
inverters is over dimensioned by 50% to provide more reactive
power.
1
Commercial load Residential load
0.8
normalized power
0.6
0.4
0.2
Solar generation
0
0 6 12 18 24
Time (hours)
Fig. 5 Normalized load profiles and solar generation over 24 hours
The voltage profiles of the PV inverters at the PCC depend
on their locations within the DS. The feeder voltages reduce
from the substation to the load terminals along the transmission
lines. The target set points of the feeder voltages are obtained
by running a power flow solution at 60% of the rated loads
without PV generation. The resulting voltage set-point for each
PV inverter decreases with respect to the distance between the
PV inverter and the substation. The voltage set points are within
the ANSI limits of 1 ± 0.05 pu as shown in Fig. 6.
848
846
844
842
834 860 836
840
862
888 890
838
Fig. 6 Vref for each PV inverter with respect to the distance from substation
856
V. SIMULATION RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The PV bus voltages, real and reactive power generations of 3
different PV inverters for the three reactive power control
modes at a penetration level of 100% are shown in Figs 7−9.
(blue: close to the substation at bus 810, red: in the middle of
the feeder at bus 820 and yellow: at the end of the feeder at bus
840). It is observed in Fig. 7 that the voltage variations at PV
buses depend on the loads and the solar real power generations.
The reactive power is set to zero and is not used to regulate the
PV bus voltages. Therefore, the voltages vary largely between
the voltage limits of 1 ± 0.05 pu. Fig. 8 shows that the PV
inverters in Q-V droop control mode generate Q with respect to
the voltage at the PV bus. The voltages at PV buses (Fig. 8 a)
are in a narrower band than without Q generation. In Fig. 8 b)
it can be seen that the full Q capabilities of the inverters are not
used as the maximum Q output is not reached.
 4

VPVbus (pu) 1.05 close to sub Fig. 9 a) illustrates that the proposed PI controller provides a
middle of feeder
smoother voltage profile, which is not as much affected by load
1 and solar variations. Fig. 9 b) shows, that for the same inverter
size, there is considerably more Q output of the PV inverters
(a)
0.95 end of feeder compared to the Q-V droop control. The inverters now operate
at their maximum rating during a longer period. At t=0 the total
20
Qinv (kvar)

load on the feeder is low, therefore the PV inverters absorb

0 significant amounts of Q to lower the PV bus voltages to the
reference level ܸ௥௘௙ . It can be observed in Fig. 9 that the
-20 (b) maximum solar generation around noon does affect the PV bus
40 voltages because the inverters saturate.
Pinv (kW)

For the two case studies of the linear droop and the PI control,
20 the maximum standard deviation (SD) of the feeder voltage and
the overall energy loss in the distribution system are compared
(c) over the total simulation time of 24 hours. The SD of the feeder
0
0 6 12 18 24 voltage is calculated as
Time (hours) ଵ ଶ
Fig 7. Real power only without Q generation at 100% penetration, a) voltages ܵ‫ ܦ‬ൌ ට σே
௜ୀଵหܸ௉஼஼௜ െ ܸ௔௩௚ ห (6)
ேିଵ
at PV buses; b) Q generations; and c) P generations of inverters
close to sub
where ܸ௔௩௚ is the average of the respective VPCC; N is the
1.05
VPVbus (pu)

number of samples in the 24-hour simulation period.

middle of feeder The calculation results show that the PV bus voltage at the
1 bus 844 has the highest SD. Therefore, it is the worst case
(a) end of feeder scenario within the entire feeder and is used for the comparison
0.95
of the three voltage control approaches. The max voltage SD is
20 illustrated in Fig. 10 for different penetration levels from 0 to
Qinv (kvar)

0 100%. It is shown in Fig. 10 that the proposed Q-V-based PI

controller decreases the SD significantly at penetration levels
-20 (b)
(b) larger than 50%. It is noted that the PV inverter at bus 844 is
40 relatively small compared to the other inverters and therefore
has limited Q capabilities leading to higher SD of this particular
Pinv (kW)

bus voltage. 50% over-dimensioned PV inverters are used for

20
both linear droop and PI control modes in the second case study.
(c) Over-dimensioning of PV inverters leads to better voltage
0 control and smaller SD as shown in Fig. 10. At higher
0 6 12 18 24 penetration levels, the increased Q capability of PV inverters
Time (hours) allows for voltage values closer to the target set points.
Fig. 8 Q-V droop control at 100% penetration, a) voltages at PV buses; b) Q
generations; and c) P generations of inverters 0.03
close to sub
1.05 no Q 100%
VPVbus (pu)

/ 150%
middle of feeder
max SD (pu)

1 0.02
Q/V dro
op 100%
PI
(a) con
0.95 end of feeder trol
100 Q/V dro
PI % op 150%
20 (b) co
Qinv (kvar)

ntr
ol
15
0 0.01 0%

-20
40 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Penetration
Pinv (kW)

Fig. 10 Largest SD within the feeder for different Q control modes at varying
20 PV penetration.
(c)
0 The total energy loss in the feeder using different control
0 6 12 18 24 approaches is illustrated in Fig. 11. Generally, the total losses
Time (hours) over the 24-hour simulation time decrease at higher penetration
Fig. 9 The proposed Q-V based PI control at 100% penetration, a) voltages at
levels. The more the P and Q are supplied locally, the less
PV buses; b) Q generations; and c) P generations of inverters energy is delivered from the substation through the feeder
which results in lower losses. The proposed PI controller has
slightly higher losses than the Q-V droop control. Particularly

‹,(((

when oversizing the PV inverters, there is increased Q flow to
buses with no PV systems. Hence, the voltage regulation
capability of the proposed method is at the expense of
moderately increased losses in the example feeder. However,
by installing PV systems at every bus, Q consumption could be
compensated locally to reduce the Q flow in the feeder. The
proposed method could ideally be combined with CVR, which
could further reduce energy consumption and losses.
2400
Total energy loss (kWh)
2200
PI control 150%
PI control 100%
2000 no Q 100%
no Q 150%
Q/V droop 100%
Q/V droop 150%
1800
0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Penetration
Fig. 11 Total energy loss in the feeder for different Q control modes at
varying PV penetration
Fig. 12 illustrates the voltages at bus 844 for the PI-based
reactive power control using normal-size inverters (100%) and
50% oversized inverters. It can be observed in Fig. 12 that the
voltage variations for the PI control approach with oversized
inverters are noticeably smaller than for normal-size inverters.
The benefit of oversizing the PV inverter is that there is less
impact of inverter reactive power saturation when the real
power generation is close to ܵ௠௔௫ around noon. This helps to
smoothen the feeder voltage profile. A similar effect could also
be achieved by introducing curtailment of P generation without
oversizing of the inverters. Particularly at higher penetration
levels, the voltages at the PCC become almost independent of
the load and the solar generation. This effect could significantly
decrease the number of mechanical switching operations of
voltage regulators and reduce their wear-out.
1.05
PI control
VPVBus844 (pu)
inv size 100%
1 States
no PV
0.95
0 6 12
Time (hours)
Fig. 12 Voltage at bus 844 for a 24h simulation period at Q-V based PI control
mode with normal sized and 50% over sized inverter
VI. CONCLUSION
A Q-V based PI controller for Q control of PV inverters was
introduced. The proposed voltage control method is capable of
‹,(((
5
driving the voltage at the PCC to target set points. The
performance of the proposed method was studied on the IEEE
34 test feeder at different penetration levels and PV inverter
sizes. Time-domain simulations over a 24-hour period based on
real statistical data in OpenDSS and Matlab show that the
proposed voltage control can regulate the inverter voltages at
PCC to the target set points. The impact of PV generation on
the voltage in the DS can be reduced significantly by the
proposed approach although it leads to slightly higher losses
compared to a standard Q-V droop control method due to
increased Q flow in the feeder.
REFERENCES
[1] S. Blumsack, "Utilities, solar energy and the fight for your roof," The
Conversation, 2016. [Online]. Available:
https://theconversation.com/utilities-solar-energy-and-the-fight-for-your-
roof-54019. Accessed: Nov. 1, 2016.
[2] R. A. Walling, R. Saint, R. C. Dugan, J. Burke and L. A. Kojovic, "Summary
of Distributed Resources Impact on Power Delivery Systems," IEEE
Transactions on Power Delivery, vol. 23, pp. 1636-1644, 2008.
[3] M. A. Mahmud, M. J. Hossain and H. R. Pota, "Voltage Variation on
0.8 1 Distribution Networks With Distributed Generation: Worst Case
Scenario," IEEE Systems Journal, vol. 8, pp. 1096-1103, 2014.
[4] EPRI, “Common Functions for Smart Inverters,” Version 3. EPRI, Palo
Alto, CA: 2013. 3002002233.
[5] S. Gonzalez, F. Hoffmann, M. Mills-Price, M. Ralph and A. Ellis,
"Implementation of advanced inverter interoperability and functionality,"
Photovoltaic Specialists Conference (PVSC), 2012 38th IEEE, 2012, pp.
001362-001367.
[6] SunSpec Alliance, "About the SunSpec Alliance," SunSpec Alliance, 2016.
[Online]. Available: http://sunspec.org/sunspec-about/. Accessed: Nov. 1,
2016.
[7] P. M. S. Carvalho, P. F. Correia and L. A. F. M. Ferreira, "Distributed
Reactive Power Generation Control for Voltage Rise Mitigation in
Distribution Networks," IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 23, pp.
766-772, 2008.
[8] V. Calderaro, G. Conio, V. Galdi, G. Massa and A. Piccolo, "Optimal
decentralized voltage control for distribution systems with inverter-based
distributed generators," IEEE Transactions on Power Systems, vol. 29, pp.
230-241, 2014.
[9] T. Sansawatt, L. F. Ochoa and G. P. Harrison, "Integrating distributed
generation using decentralised voltage regulation," in IEEE PES General
Meeting, 2010, pp. 1-6.
[10] A. Maknouninejad, N. Kutkut, I. Batarseh and Zhihua Qu, "Analysis and
control of PV inverters operating in VAR mode at night," Innovative Smart
Grid Technologies (ISGT), 2011 IEEE PES, 2011, pp. 1-5.
[11] A. Visioli, Practical PID Control. Springer, 2006, pp. 35-60.
[12] W. H. Kersting, "Radial distribution test feeders," Power Engineering
PI control Society Winter Meeting, 2001. IEEE, 2001, pp. 908-912 vol.2.
inv size 150% [13] M. J. Reno and K. Coogan, "Grid Integrated Distributed PV (GridPV)
Version 2," Sandia National Laboratories SAND2013-20141, 2014.
[14] Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (EERE), "Commercial
and residential hourly load profiles for all TMY3 locations in the United
- OpenEI Datasets," [Online]. Available:
http://en.openei.org/datasets/dataset/commercial-and-residential-hourly-
load-profiles-for-all-tmy3-locations-in-the-united-states. Accessed: Nov.
3, 2016.
[15] EPRI, "Distributed PV monitoring and feeder analysis," [Online],
Available: http://dpv.epri.com/measurement_data.html. Accessed: Nov. 3,
2016.
18 24