See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/307938030

Assessment of the behavior of protection systems in radial networks with

distributed generation

Conference Paper · September 2016

DOI: 10.1109/UPEC.2016.8114120

CITATIONS READS

2 225

2 authors:

Patrícia Isabel Santos e Abreu Antonio Gomes Martins

Instituto Superior de Engenharia de Coimbra University of Coimbra
8 PUBLICATIONS   14 CITATIONS    124 PUBLICATIONS   1,276 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Energy environment economy model View project

EMSURE - Energy and Mobility for SUstainable REgions View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Patrícia Isabel Santos e Abreu on 22 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Assessment of the Behavior of Protection Systems in
Radial Networks with Distributed Generation
P. I. Santos e Abreu
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
FCTUC, Universidade de Coimbra
Coimbra, Portugal
uc2012126383@student.uc.pt
Abstract— This paper evaluates the behavior of electricity
distribution networks protection systems, through a systematic
short-circuit analysis, as a means of characterizing the behaviour
of protective devices in distribution systems. A comparison is
made between two of the most common protection schemes, the
first one using recloser and fuses and the second using
overcurrent relays, with distributed power injections, in one of
the IEEE publicly available radial test feeders. All simulations
are performed using the Power Factory software package from
DigSILENT. From the simulation results, conclusions are drawn
that provide insights into the behavior of protection systems,
highlighting the limitations of the original protections, and
devising strategies to meet quality assurance, coordination and
selectivity of proposed modified protection schemes.
Keywords— distributed generation, power system protection,
protection coordination, overcurrent protection.
I. INTRODUCTION
Traditional electrical distribution systems are based on a
topology in which energy flows radially from the substation to
the loads. Presently, networks are progressively more complex
to operate, since there are distributed power injections, leading
to bidirectional power flows.
With the increase in Distributed Generation (DG) units
protection systems are affected, forcing to reconsider the
methods, assumptions and protection and control strategies.
The protections, as they are in conventional distribution
networks, with their selectivity requirements, sensitivity, speed
and reliability, are not adapted to the existence of injections
distributed in the network lacking, so the essential adjustments
to the implementation of smartgrids.
Therefore, coordination, sensitivity and selectivity of the
protection systems can no longer be taken for granted. It
becomes essential to rethink the protection system in such a
way that the possible multiple paths feeding a fault current do
not jeopardize the system operation. Some typical network
configuration schemes can be found in the literature, either
including combinations of recloser on the upstream feeder and
fuses on the laterals, or solely considering overcurrent relays.
A coordinated strategy of protection and control needs to be
carefully designed for the safe and reliable operation of the
978-1-5090-4650-8/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE
A. Gomes Martins
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
FCTUC, Universidade de Coimbra & INESC Coimbra
Coimbra, Portugal
agmartins@uc.pt
distribution network with the least possible alterations in order
to confine retrofit investments to acceptable and affordable
values.
The aims of this paper is to analyze the behaviour of the
electricity distribution network protection systems when a DG
is placed on the network. The distribution network, at global
level, contains two protection schemes widely used: the
overcurrent relays and recloser and fuse. Taking into account
these protection schemes, short-circuits were simulated on a
radial test network IEEE in order to analyze the impact of DG
on the protections operation, considering two types of
injections, with different capacities. These simulations were
performed using the software package Power Factory of
DigSILENT.
This paper is structured as follows: section 2 presents the
protection schemes coordination features and lists the main
problems pf lack of coordination of overcurrent relays and
recloser and fuses. Section 3 presents the network to analyze,
protection devices and distributed injections. Section 4 sets out
the results obtained for each case study. The conclusions are
reported in section 5.
II. PROTECTION DEVICES COORDINATION
A. Recloser-fuse and fuse-fuse coordination
The fuses have two main characteristics of relevance in
coordination analysis: Minimum Melting (MM) and Total
Clearing (TC). The MM feature corresponds to the time
required to begin melting the fuse for a certain value of current
passing through it. The TC feature corresponds to the fuse total
melting time for a given amount of current flowing through it
[1].
The recloser operates according to two curves: fast and
slow response. If a fault occurs the recloser must act before the
MM of the fuses in order to avoid fuse damage if the fault is
not a true fault. The recloser is usually located at the beginning
of the feeder and fuses protect lateral feeders, showed in Fig. 1.
The coordination range of fuse and recloser for all fault
currents between Ifmin and Ifmax is illustrated in Fig. 2. Within
this range the recloser operates before the fuse, which
corresponds to the required coordination. The fast recloser
curve is under the MM characteristic curve of the fuse within
the range of coordination. Within this range the recloser will
operate before the fuse is damaged. If the fault persists after the
recloser closes the circuit, according to its fast operating
characteristic, the fault is then of permanent nature and the fuse
must operate. If the TC curve is located below the slow
operation characteristic of the recloser, for a permanent fault
the fuse will blow before the recloser operates following its
slow operating curve. If the fuse does not blow, the recloser
will operate following its slow operating characteristic, acting
as a backup protection device and isolating the fault [2], [3].
Recl oser
Main Feeder
Fus e1 Fus e2
Subs tation
Lateral Feeders
Fig. 1. Recloser-Fuses typical radial distribution feeder (modified [4]).
Fig. 2. Recloser-Fuse coordination range [2].
In the fuse-fuse coordination, assuming a fuse F1 is
protecting the main feeder and a fuse F2 protects a lateral
feeder, in such a way that the system has the desired selectivity,
it is necessary that F1 melts before F2 being damaged. This
coordination is achieved when F1's TC curve is located below
F2's MM characteristic by a safety margin for any fault in the
feeder where F1 is installed [2].
B. Overcurrent relay coordination
Overcurrent relays have been widely applied in networks
due to their versatility, that is, each relay allows a wide range
of configurations, providing coordination for the various
possible protections. The major difficulty resides in finding the
optimal parameters for proper selectivity and safety among the
various protections. As the name implies, the operation is
solely based on the current value.
To ensure coordination among overcurrent relays, time lags
have to be defined sequentially. Fig. 3 illustrates inverse time
over-current characteristics of overcurrent relays. It can be seen
that the relay A will have a faster response to faults on line 1
then to faults on line 2 (where the short-circuit current will be
lower). On its turn, relay B will respond faster than relay A to
faults on line 2 [5], [6].
Fig. 3. Coordination of inverse time characteristic overcurrent relays [5].
The characteristics curves for each relay must have
different parameters (pickup current and time dial) to ensure
there is coordination and selectivity, as shown in Fig. 4.
Fig. 4. Inverse time-overcurrent characteristics [1].
H. Zayandehroodi et al. presents the main impacts when a
DG and various DG units are placed on different nodes of a
network, with the overcurrent relay protection system.
Mentions that the connection of DGs to distribution networks
greatly impacts the networks performance and the conflicts
typical with insertion one or more DG network are increase in
short-circuit currents, lack of coordination in the protection
system and temporary faults, affecting protection schemes [7].
C. Possible impacts of distributed generation
The introduction of distributed injections in the distribution
network may lead to loss of coordination between fuses,
reclosers, and fuses and overcurrent relays. When an
overcurrent relay protection scheme is used, namely when the
network operates as a microgrid, DG connection can cause
other problems, as blinding of protection, false tripping, over-
reach of relay automatic reconnection and unintentional
islanding, leading to difficulty in ensuring selectivity and
consequently, to discoordination of the protective devices [8].
The connection of DG to the distribution system causes
many problems of coordination of the various protection
systems, widely treated in the scientific literature. In [9]
proposed solutions are presented to coordinate recloser + fuses
in a radial network through an adaptive process residing in the
microprocessor-based recloser. Directional overcurrent relays phase and two-phase lines and loads were adapted according to
used in mesh networks can be used in radial networks in the [15], shown in Fig. 5. The power flow simulation results
presence of DG, or distance relays may be used, where the obtained were very close to the original. The test network
fault location is determined through a neural network presents a main feeder and four side feeders.
algorithm. Differential protection schemes have also been
tested for microgrids protection. B. Distributed Generation Model
A more complex coordination scheme, using more The introduction of DG can negatively affect the
protection devices, is proposed by Haron et al., which includes distribution systems, through the redistribution of power flows,
non-directional and directional overcurrent protection and changes in short-circuit levels, overvoltage and faults in
differential relays for microgrid, either connected or on protective systems. Most existing distribution systems are
islanded modes [10]. Another author [11], points out that a radial, designed to provide a power flow from the power
stable behavior of a protection scheme based on overcurrent supply to the downstream loads. With the presence of DG a
relays at certain points of the network may require the use of miscoordination of protections may happen, depending on the
directional overcurrent protections. size, type and location of DG.
In addition to the coordination problems with the protection In this paper the model used for DG is a synchronous three
system previously expressed, A. F. Naiem et al. suggest other phase generator, modeled according to the parameters indicated
proposals in [12] and [13], essentially for the schemes using in [16], are presented in TABLE I. Two DG capacity values
recloser and fuses.These authors mention, e.g., the replacement were used in the simulations: 0.406MVA, corresponding to
of reclosers by microprocessor based devices, other approaches 20% of the rated power supply, and 2.5MVA, higher than the
based on appropriately sizing DG units or a method to total load supplied by the substation.
determine the threshold value of the DG capacity, beyond
which recloser+fuse coordination is lost, or a scheme based on TABLE I. DG PARAMETERS
the immediate disconnection of all DG units located upstream DG parameters
the recloser by using semiconductor devices designated gate- Size (MVA) 0.406 2.5
turnoff (GTO) thyristors. xd (pu) 2.900 2.400
xq (pu) 2.440 1.770
III. APPLICATION EXAMPLE xd’(pu) 0.170 0.200
x d’’ (pu) 0.120 0.150
A. IEEE 34-Node Test Feeder
Xq’’ (pu) 0.340 0.260
The network test IEEE 34-Node Test Feeder is part of
H (s) 0.194 0.347
several networks described by a working group designated
Distribution Test Feeder Working Group of the subcommittee RS (pu) 0.003 0.003
IEEE PES Distribution System Analysis Subcommittee, which Td’ (s) 0.080 0.330
can be used as base tests for network simulation software, in Td’’ (s) 0.019 0.030
this case the DigSILENT Power Factory 15.0.
This particular network is an existing network in the state For the interconnection of DG to the distribution network a
of Arizona, United States, and has an unbalanced nature, a transformer with a delta-delta configuration was selected, with
typical characteristic of distribution networks. With a base a 24.9/4.16kVratio and of equal capacity to the DG. The per
power of 2.5MVA, it has two transformers, a 69/24.9kV unit transformer impedances are equal to those of the XFM-1
installed at the substation and another 24.9/4.16kV installed at transformer of the test network. The choice of this type of
a lateral (designated as XFM-1), two voltage regulators transformer is based on [17]. Each model of the synchronous
strategically located on the network, two capacitor banks , six generator presents a rated voltage of 480V, frequency of 50Hz
concentrated loads and nineteen distributed loads of power and a power factor of 0.854.
types, impedance and constant current [14]. The simulations were performed for all possible locations
of DG on the test network buses, placed along the main feeder
and the laterals. The two DG capacity values (0.406 and
2.5 MVA) were used all over, to analyze in each case the
behavior of protection system, to evaluate the limitations of the
original protections to respond to security, coordination and
selectivity criteria, simulating short circuits in all buses, one at
a time.

Fig. 5. IEEE 34-Node Test Feeder modified [15].
For the simulation of the test network some modifications
were made: three phase sections were kept as specified, single-
C. Protection Devices
In order to select the characteristics of the various
protection systems three-phase short circuits were simulated in
Power Factory, using the “complete method” which is based on
the superposition theorem to determine the short-circuit
currents.
 The location of protective devices has been the main feeder C2. Reclosers
bus 800, and in the laterals, as shown in Fig. 6. The reclosers are usually designed with inverse time
848 overcurrent curves, as expressed in (2) [4].
846 Α
t ( Ι ) = TD × +Β (2)
844 p
Μ −1
P1
842
P5 where
802 806 808 812 814 850 816 824 P4 860 836 840
858 t : operation time of device (s)
P2 834 P3 P6
832
I : fault current seen by device (A)
800
XFM-1 888 890 862 TD : time dial setting (s)
M : ratio of I/Ipick-up (A)
852
A, B, р : constants for particular curve characteristics
Protective Device
828 830 854
For the recloser, placed in the main feeder, protection P1
Fig. 6. IEEE 34-Node Test Feeder with protection devices. (Fig. 6), a Cooper Power Systems, model Form 4C was chosen,
Two protection devices were located at the 832-890 lateral with instantaneous and delay trip sequences 103 and 134,
to ensure that the whole lateral was protected, both at 24.9kV respectively. Taking into account the short-circuit currents and
and at 4.16kV. the characteristics of the recloser, the operating range is
between 100 and 12000A, as referred in [19].
The main characteristics of the chosen protection devices
are explained below. They were defined to ensure coordination C3. Fuses
and selectivity without DG, in order to assess the response of a
standard protection system to an unplanned appearance of DG The fuses have two characteristics of primary importance in
on the network. the analysis of this problem: MM and TC. The characteristic
curves of the fuses are based on a log-log curve. The part of
interest on this curve approaches a straight line, given in (3)
C1. Overcurrent Relays
[13].
Protective relays present different characteristics according
to the inclination of their representative curves, defined by log(t) = a ⋅ log(I) + b (3)
various standards. In the present case standard IEC 60225 was
adopted, the most widely used in distribution networks. The where
inverse time characteristic was used, given by (1) [18]. t : fuse operation time (s)
I : fault current seen by fuse (A)
0.14 a, b : fuse constants from curve fitting
t = TD × 0.02 (1)
 I  The fuses selected to protect the lateral feeders were Gould-
  −1
I  Shawmut manufacturer models, adapted to each lateral
 s  characteristics.
where
t : relay operation time (s)
TD : time dial setting (s) IV. RESULTS
I : fault current seen by relay (A) Prior to the connection of any DG unit, the protection
IS : current pick-up (A) systems either using overcurrent relays or recloser and fuses,
The TD configuration of each relay is designed such that verified coordination and selectivity in all cases.
the upstream relay must provide a reserve function for the In general, the placement of 0.406MVA DG units did not
downstream relay. result in loss of protection coordination, for all simulated faults.
The choice of the reverse curve is related to the fact that In the case of recloser and fuses, the variation of the short-
this is widely used in many applications. It is softly tilted, circuit current was between 1 and 27%, computed according to
ensuring a quick response in a large interval of short-circuit equation (4):
currents.
I sDG − I cDG
The selected overcurrent relays were the General Electric ΔΙ(%) = (4)
I sDG
IAC51804A model, available in the software library. For each
case, taking account of short-circuit currents in a first phase it where
was necessary to choose the current transformers, followed by ∆I : current variation
the selection of the relays in each case. An overcurrent relay ISDG : short-circuit current without DG
was placed on top of the main feeder bus, numbered 800, as ICDG : short-circuit current with DG
illustrated in Fig. 6.
Three cases registered the largest variations, occurring on
buses 888 and 890, with short circuits simulated on each same
busbar, with a decrease in grid voltage (24.9kV to 4.16kV).
 In the case of the 2.5MVA DG units, the results of the
simulations will be presented in two parts: Part 1 - simulations
with overcurrent relays and Part 2 - simulations with recloser
and fuses.
Part 1 – Results with overcurrent relays
Without any DG units in place, the overcurrent relay
actuation times ranged between 124ms and 246ms. Table II
shows some the operating times of P1 protection and the
protections of the lateral feeders, for various short-circuit
simulations on multiple nodes.
TABLE II. OPERATION TIMES VS FAULT NODES
Fault node tP1 (ms) tP (ms)
840 168 122
862 168 122
848 168 122
888 196 146
890 246 146
Upon the integration of DG, protections operating times
have changed. For the main feeder relay, P1 protection, there
was an increase in operating time for faults progressively more
distant from the feeding bus 800. When the DG unit was placed
downstream to the fault location the operating times without
DG prevailed.
Fig. 7 illustrates the protection operating times without DG
and the average of the P1 protection, located at the bus 800,
since the clearing time did not vary with the fault location. It
can be seen that P1 protection takes more time to operate when
there is no DG. With the simulation of faults in busbar 888 and
890 the difference is larger because these buses are located at
the same lateral connected to the main feeder through the
XFM-1 transformer.
Fig. 7. Variation of operating time with and without DG.
Simulating short circuits on the lateral feeders, P2 to P6
protections show lower operating times in the presence of DG,
due to larger fault currents.
A short-circuit at bus 890 always verified protection
coordination independently of the specific DG injection
location. However, P1 and P2 protections took longer to
operate than in the situation without DG and P3 protection
cleared faster.
Part 2 – Results with recloser and fuses
Simulations carried out with the 2.5MVA DG unit
correspond to larger short-circuit current values, also leading to
loss of coordination of the protection scheme. A simulated fault
at bus 842 lead to loss of selectivity at the P4 protection for a
DG location at bus 850 and the other locations at buses
downstream the feeder. However, when locating DG at bus 832
and downstream the feeder, and simulating short circuits on all
lateral feeders, loss of coordination was more severe, i.e., there
was a loss of selectivity of fuses P4, P5 and P6, except when
the DG was placed at the feeder where the short-circuit was
simulated.
Fig. 8 illustrates a case of lack of coordination between the
recloser and P4 protection when a fault occurs at bus 842 and
the DG unit is located at bus 834, at the starting point of the
lateral feeder where the fault occurs.
Fig. 8. Clearing time of recloser and fuse (P4) for a simulated fault at bus
842 with DG at bus 834.
P2 and P3 protection, as referred in the previous case,
always ensured protection at their respective lateral where
voltage is 4.16kV and fault currents are large as compared to
those of the original case. Fig. 9 illustrates a simulated fault at
bus 890 with the DG unit at bus 832. The fuse clearing times
show coordination, P3 acting before P2.
In all cases, the operation times of P1 for all the possible
DG locations and for faults on any node, were always lower
than in the reference case without DG. On the other hand, the
clearing times of protections P4 to P6 were lower when there
was loss of coordination.
A possible strategy to ensure the coordination of protection
systems in the presence of DG may involve the change of
configuration parameters of reclosers, namely the time dial of
the fast response characteristic. However the development of
this and other strategies is still under study.

Fig. 9. Fuses P2 and P3 operation for a fault at node 890 and DG at node
832.
V. CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents a comparison of the two protection
schemes behavior widely used in distribution networks,
overcurrent relays and recloser+fuses, when DG is located at
various buses on the network. The aim is to examine the
limitations of the original network protection systems in order
to fit coordination and selectivity requirements. The
simulations carried out for both protection schemes, using a
0.406MVA unit, which corresponds to 20% of the network
load, show that the existence of DG did not negatively affect
protections selectivity and coordination. There were some
problematic situations only when short-circuits were simulated
downstream of the XFM-1 transformer. On the other hand, for
a higher capacity DG there were two different types of results.
With overcurrent relays, coordination and selectivity were
guaranteed throughout the network. By changing the protection
system to a scheme with a recloser and fuses, there was loss of
selectivity in several cases, especially for faults located at
lateral feeders' busbars, for any location of DG from the bus
850 downstream the feeder.
For the analysis of results an exhaustive analysis was
performed, at all points of the network. However, a
methodology is currently being considered to avoid bulk
computational loads for larger networks.
REFERENCES
[1] P. M. Anderson, Power System Protection, vol. 1. Wiley-IEEE Press,
1999.
[2] S. a M. Javadian and S. Member, “Risk Analysis of Protection System ’ s
Operation in Distribution Networks with DG,” no. May, pp. 1–6, 2011.
View publication stats
[3] A. Supannon, P. Jirapong, P. Thararak, and S. Burana, “Recloser-fuse
coordination improvement for distributed generation installed capacity
enhancement in electrical distribution systems,” ECTI-CON 2015 - 2015
12th Int. Conf. Electr. Eng. Comput. Telecommun. Inf. Technol., 2015.
[4] S. Chaitusaney and A. Yokoyama, “Prevention of Reliability Degradation
from Reclloser-Fuse Miscoordination Due To Distributed Generation,”
October, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 2545–2554, 2008.
[5] P. J. F. Quesado, “Coordenação de Relés de Máximo de Intensidade
Homopolares e Homopolares Direccionais utilizando o Algoritmo
Evolucionário EPSO,” Universidade do Porto, 2008.
[6] T. Keil and J. Jäger, “Advanced Coordination Method for Overcurrent
Tripping Characteristics,” IEEE Trans. POWER Deliv., vol. 23, no. 1, pp.
52–57, 2008.
[7] H. Zayandehroodi, A. Mohamed, H. Shareef, and M. Mohammadjafari,
“Impact of distributed generations on power system protection
performance,” Int. J. Phys. Sci., vol. 6, no. 16, pp. 3873–3881, 2011.
[8] A. R. Haron, A. Mohamed, H. Shareef, and H. Zayandehroodi, “Analysis
and solutions of overcurrent protection issues in a microgrid,” PECon
2012 - 2012 IEEE Int. Conf. Power Energy, no. December, pp. 644–649,
2012.
[9] V. C. Nikolaidis, E. Papanikolaou, A. S. Safigianni, and S. Member, “A
Communication-Assisted Overcurrent Protection Scheme for Radial
Distribution Systems With Distributed Generation,” vol. 7, no. 1, pp.
114–123, 2016.
[10] A. R. Haron, A. Mohamed, and H. Shareef, “Coordination of
Overcurrent, Directional and Differential Relays for the Protection of
Microgrid System,” Procedia Technol., vol. 11, no. ICEEI, pp. 366–373,
2013.
[11] M. Delgado, Proteção de instalações de produção elétricas centralizadas
e descentralizadas. Porto: Publindústria, Edições Técnicas, 2014.
[12] A. F. Naiem, Y. Hegazy, A. Y. Abdelaziz, and A. Elsharkawy, “A Novel
Protection Methodology for Distribution Systems Equipped with
Distributed Generation,” vol. 6, no. 10, pp. 2048–2057, 2015.
[13] A. F. Naiem, Y. Hegazy, A. Y. Abdelaziz, and M. A. Elsharkawy, “A
Classification Technique for Recloser-Fuse Coordination in Distribution
Systems With Distributed Generation,” Power Deliv. IEEE Trans., vol.
27, no. 1, pp. 176–185, 2012.
[14] A. J. O. Owuor, J. L. Munda, and A. A. Jimoh, “The IEEE 34 Node
Radial Test Feeder as a Simulation Testbench for Distributed
Generation,” 2011, no. September, pp. 13–15.
[15] N. Mwakabuta and A. Sekar, “Comparative study of the IEEE 34 node
test feeder under practical simplifications,” 2007 39th North Am. Power
Symp. NAPS, pp. 484–491, 2007.
[16] H. B. Funmilayo, “A New Approach to Mitigate the Impact of
Distributed Generation on the Overcurrent Protection Scheme of Radial
Distribution Feeders,” Texas A&M University, 2008.
[17] J. A. Silva, H. B. Funmilayo, and K. L. Bulter-Purry, “Impact of
Distributed Generation on the IEEE 34 Node Radial Test Feeder with
Overcurrent Protection,” 2007, pp. 49–57.
[18] P. Mahat, Z. Chen, B. Bak-Jensen, and C. L. Bak, “A Simple Adaptive
Overcurrent Protection of Distribution Systems With Distributed
Generation,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 428–437, 2011.
[19] H. B. Funmilayo, J. A. Silva, and K. L. Butler-purry, “Overcurrent
Protection for the IEEE 34-Node Radial Test Feeder,” in Power
Symposium, 2007, NAPS ’07, 39th North American, 2012, vol. 27, no. 2,
pp. 459–468.