Thisarticlehasbeenacceptedforpublicationinafutureissueofthisjournal,buthasnotbeenfullyedited.Contentmaychangepriortofinalpublication.

Citationinformation:DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2394448,IEEETransactionsonIndustryApplications

On the Design and Capacity of a Grounding

Configuration for Grid-Connected DGUs
S. A. Saleh
Abstract— Established standards and industrial codes, for inter- several research works, examples of which can be found in [5]–
connecting distributed generation units (DGUs), address voltage [19], and their references. One of the recommended designs for
and frequency changes, levels and quality of injected power, the electrical system in a DGU farm is the collector system,
islanding conditions, and protection. However, these standards
and codes do not clearly address the grounding configurations which facilitates delivering the generated power by DGUs to an
for grid-connected DGUs. One of the challenges related to the interconnection substation as shown in Fig. 1. The employment
grounding configuration for DGUs is the harmonics generated by
power electronic converters employed in DGUs. These harmonics
can raise the ground potentials and disrupt the function of ground
fault protection. This paper develops and tests a frequency selective
grounding configuration for grid-connected DGUs. The developed
grounding configuration offers limiting ground potentials and
ground fault currents, while imposing negligible impacts on the
function of ground fault protective devices. The frequency selective
grounding configuration is designed and tested for two wind energy
conversion systems and a photovoltaic system. Test results show
that the developed grounding configuration achieves its objectives
with negligible impacts on the grounded DGU and its ground fault
protection.
Index Terms— Distributed generation units (DGUs), ground
potentials, grounding configurations, and ground fault protection.

L IST OF ACRONYMS
DFIG Doubly-fed induction generator Fig. 1. A schematic single-line diagram for a DGU farm [5].
DGU Distributed generation system of the collector system has offered more integrable grounding
PCC Point-of-common-coupling systems of DGU farms. One of such layouts is established by
PEC Power electronic converter employing ∆−Y transformers for the grid-connection and DGU
PMG Permanent magnet generator transformers. On one hand, the Y side of the grid-connection
PV Photovoltaic transformer is grounded to offer a neutral grounding for the
WECS Wind energy conversion system collector system. On the other hand, the Y side of the DGU
transformer offers the DGU a solid grounding and an isolation
I. I NTRODUCTION from zero-sequence components [5]–[9].

T HE growing interconnection of distributed generation units

(DGUs), such as wind energy conversion systems, co-
generation units, photovoltaic systems, etc., has created sev-
eral challenges for host utility grids [1]–[9]. These challenges
include variations in voltages and frequency at the point-of-
common-coupling (PCC), quality of injected power, protection
against faults, possible redistributions of load currents, etc. [6]–
[8]. The introduction of the IEEE Standard 1547 has identified
several basic requirements for interconnecting DGUs to utility
grids. However, this standard identifies such requirements on
a fundamental level with limited remedies to some operational
challenges, such as the grounding configurations [8]–[15].
Rising demands for renewable and sustainable electric power
generation have pushed toward increasing the number of DGUs
installed at the same location, which is called a DGU farm
(e.g. wind farms and solar farms) [8]. This trend of operating
DGUs has demonstrated encouraging performance in terms of
good compliance with the grid codes [5], [6]. The operation,
control, and protection of DGU farms have been subjects for
The majority of grounding configurations in grid-connected
DGUs are based on the solid grounding. The solid grounding
configuration offers eliminating ground potentials and isolating
grid-connected DGUs from zero-sequence components. How-
ever, this grounding configuration neither reduces the usage of
the grounding system, nor does it limit ground fault currents.
Other grounding configurations used in grid-connected DGUs
include the open-grounding configuration, which eliminates the
usage of grounding systems, and blocks ground fault currents.
Nonetheless, the open grounding configuration can result in high
ground potentials. High ground potentials pose safety hazards
and can affect the operation of grounded DGUs [1]–[11].
This paper develops a frequency selective grounding con-
figuration for grid-connected DGUs. The developed grounding
configuration is established as a parallel R−C circuit in order to
create a low impedance path for current harmonics, and a low
resistance path for ground fault currents. The components of
the R − C circuit are selected based on the acceptable levels of
ground fault currents and ground potentials, as well as ratings of

0093-9994(c)2015IEEE.Personaluseispermitted,butrepublication/redistributionrequiresIEEEpermission.See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.htmlformoreinformation.
Thisarticlehasbeenacceptedforpublicationinafutureissueofthisjournal,buthasnotbeenfullyedited.Contentmaychangepriortofinalpublication.Citationinformation:DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2394448,IEEETransactionsonIndustryApplications
power electronic converters (PECs) used in the grounded DGU.
The frequency selective grounding configuration is designed and
tested for 2 kW doubly-fed induction generator (DFIG) and
3.5 kW permanent magnet generator (PMG) based wind energy
conversion systems (WECSs), as well as a 1.5 kW photovoltaic
(PV) system. Experimental results demonstrate the ability of the
developed grounding configuration to effectively limit ground
potentials and reduce ground fault currents, without disrupting
the functions of ground protective devices.
II. OVERVIEW OF G ROUNDING S YSTEMS IN
G RID -C ONNECTED DGU S
Similar to other components in a power system, grid-
connected DGUs have to be featured with grounding (equipment
and system), bonding, and protection against lightning. These
features are mandated by the National Electrical Safety Code
(NESC) and National Electrical Code (NEC) to protect equip-
ment and personnel, reduce noise and interference, and facilitate
stable functions of electrical and control devices. The grounding
feature of grid-connected DGUs has to satisfy the constraints
imposed on grounding any generating unit in a power system.
These constraints mainly focus on limiting ground potentials and
ground fault currents without disrupting the function of ground
fault protection [1]–[5], [12], [13].
A. Grounding of Wind Energy Conversion Systems
The fundamental structure of a wind energy conversion sys-
tem (WECS) is composed of the wind turbine, electric generator,
power converters, and transformer. Most of commercial WECSs
are designed to include all components within the nacelle, which
is located at the top of the wind turbine tower. Such a structure
of WECSs makes the lightning protection among the critical
safety and operational requirements. The lightning protection is
realized by installing lightning terminals within each blade, then
connecting these terminals through brushes to the turbine shaft.
These brushes create a bonding of the shaft with the mounting
structure of the nacelle and other electrical components (inside
the nacelle or outside the tower). The mounting structure is
finally bonded to the tower, which has its base connected to a
ground grid that is equipped with ground rods [5]. The ground
grid in a WECS can function as an electrical grounding system,
as well as a connection to earth for the lightning protection
[5]–[10]. Manufacturers of WECSs require the resistance of the
ground grid to be 1−10 Ω. However, several field measurements
show that the resistance of ground grids is close to 1 Ω [1]–[13].
The bonding of a WECS to an interconnection substation
can be established through the collector system. A copper or
a copper-clad ground conductor can be included along with
the main conductors of the collection system. This ground
conductor can also help reducing voltage build-ups in order to
minimize the hazard of electric shocks [5]. In some WECSs,
the collector system is not connected to the grounding system,
where the concentric neutral acts as a bonding conductor, and
as a metallic shield [5]–[19].
0093-9994(c)2015IEEE.Personaluseispermitted,butrepublication/redistributionrequiresIEEEpermission.See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.htmlformoreinformation.
B. Grounding of Photovoltaic Systems
The NEC Section 690.43 mandates the establishment of
grounding systems for any exposed metallic parts, that can
become energized, in PV systems operating at any voltage.
This NEC section applies for PV module frames, enclosures,
metallic mountings, circuit breakers, electrical connections,
metallic conduits, and power electronic converters (PECs). The
compliance with the NEC mandate is typically accomplished
by bonding all metallic frames of PV modules to the mounting
racks, which are also bonded to all metallic enclosures. Specific
types of mounting racks are considered as equipment grounding
conductors, and can be bonded to the grounding system [2]–[4],
[12]–[14]. In addition, this mandate for grounding applies for
the dc elements (PV collecting systems and dc choppers).
The NEC demands that terminals and leads of grid-side dc-ac
PECs (inverters) have to bonded to the system grounding. As
these PECs have dc inputs and ac outputs, both sides should be
bonded on the metallic enclosure of the dc-ac PEC. It should be
noted that the dc terminals and leads can be connected to the
same grounding bus-bar together with ac ones, or dc terminals
and leads can be connected to a separate grounding bus-bar,
which has to be connected to the ac terminal grounding bus-
bar. Due to the latest trends of operating PV systems with
storage units that are typically installed on the collector dc
buses, equipment grounding conductors should be routed with
the dc conductors. This modification is made to ensure that
current harmonics (produced during the charging/discharging
cycles of the storage system) do not interact with the enclosures
of the PV system. [1]–[4], [12]–[16].
C. Grounding of Interconnection Substations
There are several standards for the design, layout, and test-
ing of grounding systems in substations, including substations
that interconnect DGUs. The IEEE Standard 80-2000, IEEE
Standard 142-2007, and IEEE Standard 399-1997 are widely
practiced in designing, establishing, and testing grounding grids
for substations [1]–[5], [20]–[24]. The ground grid in a substa-
tion is laid out as a continuous conductor, which surrounds the
fences of the protected substation and creates a loop around the
substation. This loop has conductors that are made in parallel
lines that run as close as possible to the substation equipment
in order to have short connection between the equipment and
the ground grid. At junction points within the ground grid, the
conductors have to be bonded. Finally, ground rods are installed
at the corners and junction points along the perimeter of the
ground grid. It should be noted that ground rods can be installed
close to major substation equipment, such as surge arresters. The
standards for substation grounding require testing for the soil
resistivity, where acceptable ground resistance range between
1 Ω to 5 Ω. Ground grid conductors are selected to handle
system ground fault currents over their durations [5], [15], [24].
The previous overview of the standards and codes highlights
their focus on the structures of grounding and bonding different
components in grid-connected DGUs, as well as their host
Thisarticlehasbeenacceptedforpublicationinafutureissueofthisjournal,buthasnotbeenfullyedited.Contentmaychangepriortofinalpublication.Citationinformation:DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2394448,IEEETransactionsonIndustryApplications

Fig. 2. Ground currents during steady-state operation of solidly-grounded DGUs: (a) the ground current and its spectrum for a 2 kW DFIG-based WECS, (b)
the ground current and its spectrum for a 3.5 kW PMG-based WECS, and (c) the ground current and its spectrum for 1.5 kW PV system. IG scale: 1 A/Div.,
|IG (f )| scale: 0.3 A/Div., and time scale: 20 msec./Div.
substations. These standards and codes also address required
changes in the grounding and bonding to accommodate new
technologies utilized in grid-connected DGUs [1]–[5], [12],
[13]. Nevertheless, the standards and codes do not clearly
specify the requirements for the grounding configuration in grid-
connected DGUs [15]–[20]. The grounding configuration of any
component in a power system is usually determined based on
the impedance, Z G , of the branch connecting the neutral to the
grounding system. The value of and circuit structure of Z G are
selected based on the desired levels of ground fault current and
ground potential. In case of a grid-connected DGU, the design
of ZG has to consider [14]–[24]:
• the current harmonics generated by power electronic con-
verters (PECs), and their flow to the grounding system.
• the significant capacitance of the cables used for con-
necting DGUs to their transformers and implementing the
collector system.
In order to illustrate the challenges in grounding grid-
connected DGUs, Fig. 2 shows the ground currents and their
spectra for different solidly-grounded DGUs during steady-state
operation (no-fault conditions). Moreover, the ground potentials
and their spectra are shown in Fig. 3 for open-grounded DGUs
during steady-state conditions. It can be seen from Fig. 2 and
Fig. 3 that PECs used in DGUs generate harmonic components
that are continuously flowing to the ground. These steady-state
harmonics are very dependent on the grounding configuration.
III. F REQUENCY S ELECTIVE G ROUNDING C ONFIGURATION
FOR G RID - CONNECTED DGU S
A. Grounding Configurations for Synchronous Generating Units
The grounding of conventional generating units (synchronous
generators) represents a critical requirement for protecting these
units from excessive damages during ground faults. The solid
grounding configuration is rarely used as it offers no limitations
on ground fault currents, which can inflect severe damages to
generating units. Recommended grounding configurations for
synchronous generating units include low resistance and neutral
reactance. These grounding configurations are capable of reduc-
ing ground fault currents and limiting ground potentials, along
with facilitating the implementation of ground fault protection.
However, the design and functions of these grounding configu-
rations are entirely based on the system nominal frequency (i.e.
no harmonic components) [25], [26].
The IEEE Standard 142 specifies the effective grounding of a
generating unit in terms of the ratios between the zero sequence
impedance of the grounding source and the positive sequence
impedance of the grounded generating unit. These ratios are
defined as [4]:
X0 R0
0≤ ≤ 3 and 0 ≤ ≤1 (1)
X1 X1
where X0 and R0 are the zero sequence reactance and resis-
tance, and X1 is the positive sequence reactance. The rela-
tionships in equation (1) are applicable for conventional syn-
chronous generators, where the ratio X/R ranges between 20 to
40. However, for DGUs the ratio X/R is very small (only small
reactances for the grid-side filters and DGU transformers). For
example in PV systems, X/R ranges between 0.015 to 0.062,
and for converter-interfaced WECSs, X/R ranges between 0.2
to 0.7 [27].
B. Frequency Selective Grounding Configuration for DGUs
The main challenge in grounding DGUs is the harmonics
generated by PECs that are employed to facilitate the operation
of DGUs. These harmonics are not allowed to flow through
PCC in compliance with the standards and grid codes. As a
result, harmonics continuously flow through the grounding sys-
tem. This continuous flow of harmonics through the grounding
system can raise the ground potentials and/or adversely impact
the responses of ground fault protective devices [17], [25]–[27].
The challenges in grounding DGUs can be overcome by using
a frequency selective path to the grounding system. Such a
path has to appear as a short circuit for harmonic components,
while it has to appear as a low impedance for the fundamental
component. These constraints on the grounding configuration
can be met by a parallel R − C circuit. The elements of such
an R − C circuit can be selected based on the system nominal
line-to-neutral voltage V P and the maximum current to flow to
the grounding system (I G )max . The values of VP and (IG )max
can be used to specify the ohmic value of the resistance R G in

0093-9994(c)2015IEEE.Personaluseispermitted,butrepublication/redistributionrequiresIEEEpermission.See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.htmlformoreinformation.
Thisarticlehasbeenacceptedforpublicationinafutureissueofthisjournal,buthasnotbeenfullyedited.Contentmaychangepriortofinalpublication.Citationinformation:DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2394448,IEEETransactionsonIndustryApplications

Fig. 3. Ground potentials during steady-state operation of open-grounded DGUs: (a) the ground potential and its spectrum for a 2 kW DFIG-based WECS,
(b) the ground potential and its spectrum for a 3.5 kW PMG-based WECS, and (c) the ground potential and its spectrum for 1.5 kW PV system. VG scale: 25
V/Div., |VG (f )| scale: 10 V/Div., and time scale: 20 msec./Div.
the parallel R − C grounding circuit, that is [17]:
VP
RG =
(IG )max
The complete selection of R G requires its power rating, which
can be specified as:
2
PRG = ((IG )max ) RG
The desired parallel R − C grounding circuit is designed as
a low pass filter to reduce ground potentials across R G due to
steady-state harmonics flowing to the grounding system. This
function can be achieved by selecting the cut-off frequency f c
as the 3rd harmonic component (i.e. f c = 3 × 4fs ; with fs
being the system nominal frequency). The capacitance C G in
the parallel grounding R − C circuit can be selected by setting
the value of R G to be 5 times higher than the impedance of C G
at fc , that is [17]:
5 5
RG = =⇒ CG = (4)
2π × 3 × fs × CG 2π × 3 × fs × RG
The voltage rating for C G is selected as the system nominal
line-to-line voltage V L [26].
IV. E XPERIMENTAL S ETUPS
The performance of the frequency selective grounding con-
figuration was evaluated for 3 grid-connected DGUs that were:
• A 2.0 kW doubly-fed induction generator (DFIG)-based
wind energy conversion system (WECS);
• A 3.5 permanent magnet generator (PMG)-based WECS;
• 1.5 kW photovoltaic (PV) system.
The experimental setups for these DGUs are described in the
following subsections.
A. The 2 kW DFIG-Based WECS
The experimental setup of the DFIG-based WECS was con-
structed from a 3φ, 2.0 kW, 208 V, 4-pole, 60 Hz wound-rotor
induction machine, which had its rotor windings fed from a 1
kW, 3φ, voltage source (VS), 6-pulse, IGBT inverter (generator-
side PEC). The generator-side PEC was supplied from a 1 kW,
3φ diode rectifier (grid-side PEC) through a dc link capacitor of
300 µF. The grid-side PEC and stator windings of the induction
machine were connected to the secondary side of a 5 kVA, 3φ,
(2) 208/360 V, 60 Hz, ∆ − Y transformer (DGU transformer). The
parameters of the 2 kW DFIG-based WECS are listed in Table
I.
TABLE I
(3) T HE PARAMETERS OF THE 2 K W DFIG-B ASED WECS.
Induction Generator
Rated Power [kW] 2.0
Rated Frequency [Hz] 60
Number of Poles 4
Rated Voltage [rms] 208
Stator Resistance [Ω] 0.8243
Stator Inductance [mH] 2.3325
Rotor Resistance [Ω] 0.9642
Rotor Inductance [mH] 2.6441
Inertia Constant [kg.m2 ] 0.0300
Friction Coefficient [N.m/rad/sec.] 0.0010
The PWM switching signals for the generator-side PEC had a
switching frequency of 8 kHz, and were produced as outputs of
the controller for the DFIG-based WECS. The DFIG controller
was designed as a current controller, and was implemented using
a dSPACE ds1104 DSP board with a time step of T s = 150 µsec
[17]. The test DFIG-based WECS was driven by a wind turbine
emulator that was realized by a 2.4 kW, 120 V, shunt DC motor,
which had its armature supplied by a controlled rectifier to
facilitate a variable speed operation. Fig. 4 shows a schematic
diagram for the experimental setup of the DFIG-based WECS.
B. The 3.5 kW PMG-Based WECS
The experimental setup for the test PMG-based WECS was
constructed from a 3.5 kW, 230 V, permanent magnet machine,
which had its stator windings connected to a 5 kW, 3φ diode
rectifier (generator-side PEC). The output of the generator-
side PEC output was fed to a 5 kW, 3φ, VS, 6-pulse, IGBT
inverter (the grid-side PEC) through a dc link capacitor of C =
300 µF. The outputs of the grid-side PEC were connected to a
longitudinal conversion loss (LCL) filter that had its terminals
connected to the secondary side of a 5 kVA, 3φ, 208/360 V,
60 Hz, ∆ − Y transformer (DGU transformer). The PMG was
driven by a wind turbine emulator that was realized by a 3.6
kW, 240 V, shunt dc motor, which had its armature fed from

0093-9994(c)2015IEEE.Personaluseispermitted,butrepublication/redistributionrequiresIEEEpermission.See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.htmlformoreinformation.
Thisarticlehasbeenacceptedforpublicationinafutureissueofthisjournal,buthasnotbeenfullyedited.Contentmaychangepriortofinalpublication.Citationinformation:DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2394448,IEEETransactionsonIndustryApplications

C. The 1.5 kW PV System

The experimental setup for the test PV system was composed
of two dc power supplies, each of which fed a dc buck-
boost PEC. The outputs of the two dc buck-boost PECs were
connected to the input of a 2 kW, 3φ, VS, 6-pulse, IGBT
inverter (the grid-side PEC). The two dc buck-boost PECs were
operated at a switching frequency f c = 8 kHz, for an input
voltage of 80 V, and a maximum output voltage of 180 V at
4 A. The outputs of the controllers for both dc buck-boost
PECs were switching signals to operate both converters [28].
These controllers were realized by using a ds1104 board, which
fed the generated switching signals to two opto-coupler driver
circuits before being applied to the gates of the IBGT switching
elements of both dc buck-boost PECs. The output terminals of
the grid-side PEC were connected through an LCL filter to the
Fig. 4. A schematic diagram for the experimental setup of the 2 kW DFIG- secondary side of a 5 kVA, 3φ, 208/360 V, 60 Hz, ∆ − Y
based WECS. PC and QC denote the command active and reactive powers. transformer. The switching signals for the grid-side PEC were
generated as the output of the PV controller, which was designed
a 3φ controlled rectifier to provide a variable speed operation.
as a current controller. The PV controller was implemented
Table II lists the parameters of the 3.5 kW PMG-based WECS.
by using a dSPACE ds1104 DSP board with a time step of
Ts = 150 µsec. [17]. Fig. 6 shows a schematic diagram for the
TABLE II test 1.5 kW PV system.
T HE PARAMETERS OF THE 3.5 K W PMG-B ASED WECS
PMG
Rated Power [kW] 3.5
Rated Voltage [V] 230
Rated Frequency [Hz] 60
Number of Poles 12
Voltage-Flux Constant [V/rad/sec.] 0.917
Stator Resistance [Ω] 1.164
q-axis Inductance [mH] 33.412
d-axis Inductance [mH] 29.723
Inertia Constant [kg.m2 ] 0.013
Friction Coefficient [N.m/rad/sec.] 0.001
LCL Filter
LI [mH] 1
LG [mH] 2 Fig. 6. A schematic diagram for the experimental setup of the 1.5 kW PV
CF [µF] 16 system. PC and QC denote the command active and reactive powers. The values
RD [Ω] 2 of LCL filter parameters are: LI = 1.5 mH, LG = 2.4 mH, CF = 20 µF,
and RD = 1.47 Ω.

The switching pulses of the grid-side PEC were generated
as PWM with a switching frequency of 8 kHz, and were
produced as the outputs of the PMG controller. This controller
was designed as a current controller, and was implemented using
a dSPACE ds1104 DSP board with a time step T s = 150 µsec.
[17]. A schematic diagram for the test 3.5 kW PMG-based
WECS is shown in Fig. 5.
Fig. 5. A schematic diagram for the experimental setup of the 3.5 kW PMG-
based WECS. PC and QC denote the command active and reactive powers.
For the three test DGUs, the host grid was a 3φ, 208 V, 60 Hz,
15 A power supply that was connected to the primary sides of
the DGU transformers. In addition, the grounding system used
for the test DGUs had a maximum current of (I G )max = 20 A.
D. The Grounding Configurations for the Test DGUs
The test DGUs were grid-connected through ∆−Y transform-
ers, which had their secondary sides connected to the DGUs.
The solid, low-resistance, open-grounding (used in different
grid-connected DGUs), and frequency selective grounding con-
figurations were tested for each DGU. The ohmic value of
the low resistance grounding R GL was calculated so that the
maximum ground fault current was less than 20 A, that is:
VP 208
RGL ≥ =⇒ RGL ≥ =⇒ RGL ≥ 10.4 Ω (5)
(IF )max 20
The value of R GL was selected to be 13 Ω. For the selective
frequency grounding configuration, the value of R G was deter-

0093-9994(c)2015IEEE.Personaluseispermitted,butrepublication/redistributionrequiresIEEEpermission.See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.htmlformoreinformation.
Thisarticlehasbeenacceptedforpublicationinafutureissueofthisjournal,buthasnotbeenfullyedited.Contentmaychangepriortofinalpublication.Citationinformation:DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2394448,IEEETransactionsonIndustryApplications
mined as:
VP 208
RG = = = 8.32 Ω
(IG )max 25
The power rating for R G was selected as PRG = 6 kW. Finally,
the value of CG was calculated using equation (4) as:
5 5
CG = = = 532 µF
2π × 3 × fs × RG 360π × 8.32
The voltage rating for C G was selected to be 400 V.
V. E XPERIMENTAL R ESULTS
The frequency selective grounding configuration was exper-
imentally tested for the 2 kW DFIG and 3.5 kW PMG based
WECSs, and 1.5 kW PV system, for steady-state changes and
ground faults. The improvements in the performance of test
DGUs were highlighted by comparing the frequency selective
grounding configuration with the solid, low-resistance, and
open-grounding configurations under similar steady-state and
ground fault conditions. Several tests were carried out for the
three DGUs when experiencing steady-state transients and fault
conditions. The following three cases are presented in details,
while Table III summarizes the results obtained from all tests.
I- Step changes in P C and QC ;
II- Line-to-ground fault on the AC side of the grid-side PEC;
III- Ground fault across the dc link;
The ground fault protection was established by an inverse
definite minimum time over-current (IDMTOC) relay, with 8
A pick up current and 0.5 sec. time dial [17].
Case I: Step Changes in PC and QC
This test was performed to investigate ground potentials and
ground currents during non-fault transients in different grid-
connected DGUs. Each of the three DGUs was tested separately,
where it was operated with P C = 50% of the rated power at a
power factor of P F = 0.93 lagging. Sudden step changes in P C
and QC were created and lasted for 1.2 sec., during which P C
was increased by 40% and Q C was increased by 25% for each
tested DGU. The response of IDMTOC relay (Trip), ground
potentials, and ground currents for tested ground configurations
for the 2 kW DFIG and 3.5 kW PMG based WECSs, and 1.5
PV system are shown in Fig. 7.
The results in Fig. 7 demonstrate that sudden step changes
in PC and QC did not significantly affect the ground potentials
VG and currents IG in all grounding configurations for each test
DGU. As VG and IG were not significantly affected by the step
changes in PC and QC , the trip signals generated by the tested
relay did not change their status indicating non-fault conditions.
It should be noted that ground currents for the DFIG-based
WECS were higher than those for the PMG-based WECS and
PV system due to the 3φ AC-DC PEC, which was used as the
grid-side PEC in the test DFIG-based WECS. The 3φ AC-DC
PEC created more current harmonics than those generated by
grid-side PECs used in the PMG-based WECS and PV system.
Case II: Line-to-Ground Fault on the AC Side of the Grid-
Side PEC
0093-9994(c)2015IEEE.Personaluseispermitted,butrepublication/redistributionrequiresIEEEpermission.See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.htmlformoreinformation.
This test was performed to demonstrate the ability of the
(6) frequency selective grounding configuration to limit ground fault
currents without affecting the function of a ground fault protec-
tive relay. The line-to-ground fault was created by activating a
solid-state switch that connected phase C to the ground on the
AC side of the grid-side PEC. This fault was performed for each
(7) DGU when grounded through the solid, frequency selective,
low-resistance, and open-grounding configurations. During this
test, each DGU was operated with P C = 70% of its rated power
with P F = 0.88 lagging. The responses of the IDMTOC relay
(ground fault protective device), ground potentials, and ground
currents for this test are shown in Fig. 8.
The results for the line-to-ground fault on the AC side of
the grid-side PEC show that the IMDTOC relay cleared the
fault with different response times, which varied depending on
the grounding configuration and the type of the DGU. For the
DFIG-based WECS (the grid-side PEC is a 3φ ac-dc PEC),
the ground fault was cleared in almost 3 cycles for the solid
and frequency selective grounding configurations as shown in
Fig. 8 (a1) and (a2). However, the line-to-ground fault was
cleared in almost 3.5 cycles for the low-resistance grounding
configuration as shown in Fig. 8 (a3). For the open grounding
in all test DGUs, the phase C-to-ground fault on the AC side of
the grid-side PEC was not detected, and the ground protective
relay did not change the status of its trip signal as shown in
Fig. 8 (a4), (b4), and (c4). For the PMG-based WECS (the
grid-side PEC is a 3φ dc-ac PEC), the phase C-to-ground fault
was cleared in almost 3.6 cycles for the solid and frequency
selective grounding configurations as shown in Fig. 8 (b1) and
(b2). However, the ground fault was cleared in almost 5 cycles
for the low-resistance grounding configuration as shown in Fig.
8 (b3). Finally, for the PV system (the grid-side PEC is a
3φ dc-ac PEC), the phase C-to-ground fault was cleared in
almost 4 cycles for the solid and frequency selective grounding
configurations as shown in Fig. 8 (c1) and (c2). However,
the tested fault was cleared in almost 5.6 cycles for the low-
resistance grounding configuration as shown in Fig. 8 (c3).
The results of the phase C-to-ground fault demonstrated the
ability of the frequency selective grounding to reduce ground
fault currents, while imposing negligible effects on responses of
the ground fault protective relay. This feature could be noticed
as the trip times observed for the solid grounding configuration
were very close to those observed for the frequency selective
grounding configuration. The type of the PEC close to the fault
location also affected the ground fault current, and thus trip
times of the ground protective relay.
Case III: Ground Fault Across the DC Link
The ground fault across the dc link was tested to demonstrate
the ability of the frequency selective grounding configuration to
reduce ground fault currents, when dominated by dc compo-
nents. This test was created by activating a solid-state switch
that connected the positive terminal of the dc link capacitor to
ground. The tested fault was conducted for each DGU when
grounded through the solid, frequency selective, low-resistance,
and open-grounding configurations. The ground fault across
Thisarticlehasbeenacceptedforpublicationinafutureissueofthisjournal,buthasnotbeenfullyedited.Contentmaychangepriortofinalpublication.Citationinformation:DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2394448,IEEETransactionsonIndustryApplications

Fig. 7. Grounding configurations of grid-connected DGUs during step changes in PC (PC = PC → 1.4PC → PC ) and QC (QC = QC → 1.25QC → QC ).
The ground potential VG , ground current IG , and trip signal generated by the IDMTOC relay for the 2 kW DFIG-based WECS: (a1) solid-grounding, (a2)
frequency selective grounding (RG in parallel with CG ), (a3) low-resistance grounding with RGL = 13 Ω, and (a4) open-grounding. The ground potential VG ,
ground current IG , and trip signal generated by the IDMTOC relay for the 3.5 kW PMG-based WECS: (b1) solid-grounding, (b2) frequency selective grounding,
(b3) low-resistance grounding with RGL = 13 Ω, and (b4) open-grounding. The ground potential VG , ground current IG , and trip signal generated by the
IDMTOC relay for the 1.5 kW PV system: (c1) solid-grounding, (c2) frequency selective grounding, (c3) low-resistance grounding with RGL = 13 Ω, and (c4)
open-grounding. VG scale: 10 V/Div., IG scale: 5 A/Div., Trip signal scale: 10 V/Div., and time scale: 0.2 sec./Div.
the dc link was created when each DGU was operated with grounding configurations (see Fig. 9 (c1) and (c2)), while it
PC = 85% of its rated power with P F = 0.80 lagging. Fig. was cleared in almost 3 cycles for the low-resistance grounding
9 shows the responses of the IDMTOC relay (ground fault configuration (see Fig. 9 (c3)).
protective device), ground potentials, and ground currents for
this test case. The results obtained from the ground fault across the dc link
Fig. 9 shows that the IMDTOC relay cleared the ground showed agreement with the results obtained form the phase
fault across the dc link fault with different response times that C-to-ground fault on the AC side of the grid-side PEC. In
depended on the grounding configuration and the type of DGU. both test results, the frequency selective grounding configuration
For the DFIG-based WECS, the fault was cleared in almost 2 managed to reduce the ground fault currents without effecting
cycles for the solid and frequency selective grounding configu- the responses of the ground fault protective relay. Test results
rations (see Fig. 9 (a1) and (a2)), while the fault was cleared in also confirmed the effects of the grounding configuration and
almost 2.5 cycles for the low-resistance grounding configuration the type PEC, close to the fault location, on the ground fault
(see Fig. 9 (a3)). When the grounding configuration was set as currents and trip times of the IDMTOC relay.
an open-grounding, the ground fault across the dc link was not Experimental results obtained from testing the 2 kW DFIG-
detected for all test DGUs, and trip signals remained unchanged based WECS, 3.5 kW PMG-based WECS, and 1.5 kW PV
as shown in Fig. 9 (a4), (b4), and (c4). For the PMG-based system are summarized in Table III. The performance of each
WECS, the ground fault across the dc link was cleared in DGU was evaluated in terms of the ground potentials (V G )peak. ,
almost 2 cycles for the solid and frequency selective grounding ground currents (I G )peak. , and trip times t Trip . For each set of
configurations (see Fig. 9 (b1) and (b2)), and it was cleared in
almost 3 cycles for the low-resistance grounding configuration
 of (VG )peak. were used to determine an average
tests, values

(see Fig. 9 (b3)). In case of the PV system, the tested fault was value ṼG for that set of tests. Furthermore, values of
peak.
cleared in almost 2 cycles for the solid and frequency selective (IG )peak. obtained during each set of tests, were used to calculate

0093-9994(c)2015IEEE.Personaluseispermitted,butrepublication/redistributionrequiresIEEEpermission.See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.htmlformoreinformation.
Thisarticlehasbeenacceptedforpublicationinafutureissueofthisjournal,buthasnotbeenfullyedited.Contentmaychangepriortofinalpublication.Citationinformation:DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2394448,IEEETransactionsonIndustryApplications

Fig. 8. Grounding configurations of grid-connected DGUs during phase C-to-ground fault on AC side of the grid-side PEC. The ground potential VG , ground
current IG , and trip signal generated by the IDMTOC relay for the 2 kW DFIG-based WECS: (a1) solid-grounding, (a2) frequency selective grounding (RG in
parallel with CG ), (a3) low-resistance grounding with RGL = 13 Ω, and (a4) open-grounding. The ground potential VG , ground current IG , and trip signal
generated by the IDMTOC relay for the 3.5 kW PMG-based WECS: (b1) solid-grounding, (b2) frequency selective grounding, (b3) low-resistance grounding
with RGL = 13 Ω, and (b4) open-grounding. The ground potential VG , ground current IG , and trip signal generated by the IDMTOC relay for the 1.5 kW
PV system: (c1) solid-grounding, (c2) frequency selective grounding, (c3) low-resistance grounding with RGL = 13 Ω, and (c4) open-grounding. VG scale: 30

Trip signal scale: 10 V/Div., and time scale: 20 msec./Div.
V/Div., IG scale: 10 A/Div.,
an average value I˜G for that set of tests. Finally, the 4) Ground faults at PCC: This set of tests included ground
peak.
values of t Trip for each set of tests were used to determine an faults for all phases at the point-of-common-coupling
average value t̃ Trip. . It should be noted that the open-grounding (PCC).
configuration was not included in Table III as I G = 0 A and The summary of performance in Table III shows that dif-
tTrip = ∞ in all tests for each DGU. The experimental testing ferent grounding configurations produced different values for
of the three grid-connected DGUs included the following sets ground potentials and currents. The solid grounding configu-
of tests: ration produced the highest ground currents with no ground
1) Non-fault transients: This set of tests included step changes potentials during fault and non-fault conditions. As a result,
in PC and QC , step changes in the voltage at PCC, and ground faults were cleared in the shortest times (relative to other
variations in the generated power by each DGU. grounding configurations). The frequency selective grounding
2) Ground faults in DGU: This set of tests included faults configuration produced grounding currents that were lower than
within each DGU. Ground faults in the stator and rotor those produced by the solid grounding configuration, while
windings were carried out for the DFIG, while ground it produced ground potentials lower than those produced by
faults were conducted for the PMG. For the PV system, the low-resistance grounding configuration. Ground faults for
ground faults at the input side of the dc-dc PECs were the selective frequency grounding configuration were cleared
performed. faster than those for the low resistance grounding. The low
3) Ground faults in PECs: This set of tests included ground resistance grounding configuration yielded the highest ground
faults in PECs used in each DGU. Ground faults in ac-dc potential and lowest ground current during fault and non-fault
and dc-ac PECs were tested for the DFIG and PMG, while conditions. The low ground currents for the low-resistance
ground faults in dc-dc and dc-ac PECs were carried out for grounding configuration caused the ground faults to be cleared
the PV system. in the longest times (relative to other grounding configurations).

0093-9994(c)2015IEEE.Personaluseispermitted,butrepublication/redistributionrequiresIEEEpermission.See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.htmlformoreinformation.
Thisarticlehasbeenacceptedforpublicationinafutureissueofthisjournal,buthasnotbeenfullyedited.Contentmaychangepriortofinalpublication.Citationinformation:DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2394448,IEEETransactionsonIndustryApplications

Fig. 9. Grounding configurations of grid-connected DGUs during a ground fault across the dc link. The ground potential VG , ground current IG , and trip signal
generated by the IDMTOC relay for the 2 kW DFIG-based WECS: (a1) solid-grounding, (a2) frequency selective grounding (RG in parallel with CG ), (a3)
low-resistance grounding with RGL = 13 Ω, and (a4) open-grounding. The ground potential VG , ground current IG , and trip signal generated by the IDMTOC
relay for the 3.5 kW PMG-based WECS: (b1) solid-grounding, (b2) frequency selective grounding, (b3) low-resistance grounding with RGL = 13 Ω, and (b4)
open-grounding. The ground potential VG , ground current IG , and trip signal generated by the IDMTOC relay for the 1.5 kW PV system: (c1) solid-grounding,
(c2) frequency selective grounding, (c3) low-resistance grounding with RGL = 13 Ω, and (c4) open-grounding. VG scale: 30 V/Div., IG scale: 10 A/Div., Trip
signal scale: 10 V/Div., and time scale: 20 msec./Div.
The data in Table III, along with test results, support the DGUs, and continuously flow through the grounding system.
use of the frequency selective grounding configuration in grid- The proposed grounding configuration is designed as a parallel
connected DGUs. This grounding configuration can offer re- R − C circuit to act as a short circuit path for harmonic
ducing ground currents and limiting ground potentials with components (generated by PECs employed in DGUs), and thus
negligible effects on the responses of ground protective relays. eliminate the ground potentials due to these harmonic compo-
Finally, the data in Table III shows that ground potentials and nents. The parallel R − C circuit is also designed to act as a
currents during ground faults can be significantly influenced low-resistance path for fundamental frequency components, and
by the type of power electronic converters (PECs) employed hence limit the ground fault currents. The frequency selective
in a DGU. Such influences can be seen from the differences grounding configuration has been designed and tested for three
between ground potentials and currents observed for DFIG and different DGUs during steady-state and fault conditions. Test
both PMG and PV systems. The main sources for such influ- results show that the developed grounding configuration is able
ences include the operation, control, and input/output dominant to reduce ground fault currents and limit ground potentials,
harmonic components. while imposing minor impacts on the responses of ground
fault protective devices, when compared with the solid, low-
VI. C ONCLUSION resistance, and open-grounding configurations that are com-
monly used in DGUs. Obtained results from different DGUs
This paper has presented the design and application of a
have demonstrated consistent features of the frequency selective
frequency selective grounding configuration for grid-connected
grounding configuration. Test and comparison results support
distributed generation units (DGUs). The main objective of
the employment of the frequency selective grounding in differ-
designing the frequency selective grounding configuration is
ent DGUs to achieve safe, reliable, and stable operation.
to overcome the problems associated with the harmonic com-
ponents generated by power electronic converters (PECs) in

0093-9994(c)2015IEEE.Personaluseispermitted,butrepublication/redistributionrequiresIEEEpermission.See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.htmlformoreinformation.
Thisarticlehasbeenacceptedforpublicationinafutureissueofthisjournal,buthasnotbeenfullyedited.Contentmaychangepriortofinalpublication.Citationinformation:DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2394448,IEEETransactionsonIndustryApplications

10

TABLE III
[6] J. C. Das and E. Perich, “13.8-kV Selective High-Resistance Grounding
S UMMARY OF R ESULTS FOR T ESTING THE 2 K W DFIG-B ASED WECS, 3.5 System for a Geothermal Generating Plant–A Case Study,” IEEE Trans. on
K W PMG-B ASED WECS, AND 1.5 K W PV S YSTEM WITH D IFFERENT Industry Applications, Vol. 49, No. 3, pp. 1234–1243, 2013.
G ROUNDING C ONFIGURATIONS . [7] D. Shipp, P. Pillai, B. Bailey, C. Mozina, D. Love, L. Powell, N. Nichols,


 T. Dionise, T. Locker, S. Panetta, A. Wu, R. Hoerauf, D. Paul, and J.
Ground Config. ṼG I˜G t̃ Trip R. Jones, “Switching Transient Analysis and Specifications for Practical
peak peak
Hybrid High-Resistance Grounded Generator Applications-An IEEE/IAS
DFIG Working Group Report #2,” IEEE Trans. on Industry Applications, Vol. 48,
Non-Fault Transients No. 1, pp. 236–244, 2012.
Solid 0V 1.67 A ∞ [8] C. J. Mozina, “Why Upgrade the Protection and Grounding of Generators
Low-Resistance 18.14 V 0.68 A ∞ at Petroleum and Chemical Plants,” IEEE Trans. on Industry Applications,
Frequency Selective 9.89 V 0.84 A ∞ Vol. 50, No. 1, pp. 155–162, 2014.
Ground Faults in DGU [9] L.J. Powell, “An Industrial View of Utility Cogeneration Protection Re-
Solid 0V 20 A 24.6 msec. quirements,” IEEE Trans. on Industry Applications, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 75-
Low-Resistance 122.6 V 10.9 A 62.1 msec. 81, 1988.
Frequency Selective 88.6 V 13.4 A 32.4 msec. [10] D. Paul, P. E. Sutherland, and S. A. R. Panetta, “A Novel Method of
Ground Faults in PECs Measuring Inherent Power System Charging Current,” IEEE Trans. on
Solid 0V 12.8 A 34.2 msec. Industry Applications, Vol. 47, No. 6, pp. 2330-2342, 2012.
Low-Resistance 69.2 V 7.6 A 73.3 msec. [11] B. Kroposki, P. K. Sen, and K. Malmedal, “Selection of Distribution
Frequency Selective 57.5 V 9.4 A 40.3 msec. Feeders for Implementing Distributed Generation and Renewable Energy
Ground Faults at PCC Applications,” IEEE Trans. on Industry Applications, Vol. 49, No. 6,
Solid 0V 20 A 20.9 msec. pp. 2825–2834, 2013.
Low-Resistance 117.7 V 11.0 A 58.4 msec. [12] National Electrical Safety Code, IEEE C2, 2012.
[13] NFPA 70: National Electrical Code, Nat. Fire Protect. Assoc., Quincy,
Frequency Selective 87.6 V 13.9 A 26.8 msec.
MA, USA, 2011.
PMG [14] R. F. Arritt and R. C. Dugan, “Distribution System Analysis and the
Non-Fault Transients Future Smart Grid,” IEEE Trans. on Industry Applications, Vol. 47, No. 6,
Solid 0V 0.86 A ∞ pp. 2343–2350, 2011.
Low-Resistance 13.54 V 0.58 A ∞ [15] E. Muljadi, N. Samaan, V. Gevorgian, J. Li, and S. Pasupulati, “Different
Frequency Selective 5.36 V 0.70 A ∞ Factors Affecting Short Circuit Behavior of a Wind Power Plant,” IEEE
Ground Faults in DGU Trans. on Industry Applications, Vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 284–292, 2013.
Solid 0V 18.7 A 30.5 msec. [16] F. Freschi, M. Mitolo, and M. Tartaglia, “An Effective Semianalytical
Low-Resistance 108.8 V 9.4 A 68.7 msec. Method for Simulating Grounding Grids,” IEEE Trans. on Industry Appli-
Frequency Selective 77.2 V 11.6 A 37.2 msec. cations, Vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 256–263, 2013.
Ground Faults in PECs [17] S. A. Saleh, A. S. Aljankawey, R. Meng, J. Meng, C. P. Diduch, and
Solid 0V 14.8 A 34.1 msec. L. Chang, “Impacts of Grounding Configurations on Responses of Ground
Low-Resistance 102.6 V 8.2 A 68.7 msec. Protective Relays for DFIG-Based WECSs-Part I: Solid Ground Faults,”
Frequency Selective 74.2 V 11.3 A 41.8 msec. In Proc.of the 50th IEEE IAS Industrial and Commercial Power Systems
Ground Faults at PCC Technical Conference (I&CPS 2014), Fort Worth, TX, May 2014.
Solid 0V 20 A 22.0 msec. [18] J. Matas, M. Castilla, J. miret, L. D. V. Garcia, and R. Guzman, “An
Low-Resistance 123.1 V 12.1 A 56.6 msec. Adaptive Prefiltering Method to Improve the Speed/Accuracy Tradeoff of
Frequency Selective 90.7 V 14.6 A 29.2 msec. Voltage Sequence Detection Methods Under Adverse Grid Conditions,”
IEEE Trans. on Industrial Electronics, Vol. 61, No. 5, pp. 2139–2151, 2014.
PV System [19] B. Badrzadeh and M. Gupta, “Practical Experiences and Mitigation
Non-Fault Transients Methods of Harmonics in Wind Power Plants,” IEEE Trans. on Industry
Solid 0V 0.67 A ∞ Applications, Vol. 49, No. 5, pp. 2279–2289, 2013.
Low-Resistance 11.66 V 0.43 A ∞ [20] F. Blaabjerg, M. Liserre, and K. Ma, “Power Electronics Converters for
Frequency Selective 4.08 V 0.51 A ∞ Wind Turbine Systems,” IEEE Trans. on Industry Applications, Vol. 48,
Ground Faults in DGU No. 2, pp. 708–719, 2012.
Solid 0V 13.6 A 27.4 msec. [21] S. Liang, Q. Hu, and W. J. Lee, “A Survey of Harmonic Emissions of
Low-Resistance 96.4 V 8.8 A 65.9 msec. a Commercially Operated Wind Farm,” IEEE Trans. on Industry Applica-
Frequency Selective 60.8 V 11.4 A 35.9 msec. tions, Vol. 48, No. 3, pp. 1115–1123, 2012.
Ground Faults in PECs [22] C. J. Mozina, “Impact of Smart Grids and Green Power Generation on
Solid 0V 10.2 A 36.7 msec. Distribution Systems,” IEEE Trans. on Industry Applications, Vol. 49,
Low-Resistance 66.3 V 7.1 A 66.3 msec. No. 3, pp. 1079–1090, 2013.
Frequency Selective 48.4 V 8.3 A 44.1 msec. [23] L. Wei, Z. Liu, and G. L. Skibinski, “Investigation of Voltage Stresses
Ground Faults at PCC Inside Adjustable-Speed Drives,” IEEE Trans. on Industry Applications,
Solid 0V 20 A 21.5 msec. Vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 100–108, 2013.
Low-Resistance 117.1 V 13.2 A 51.0 msec. [24] A. Ackerman, P. K. Sen, and C. Oertli, “Designing Safe and Reliable
Frequency Selective 88.8 V 16.3 A 29.3 msec. Grounding in AC Substations With Poor Soil Resistivity: An Interpretation
of IEEE Std. 80,” IEEE Trans. on Industry Applications, Vol. 49, No. 4,
pp. 1883–1889, 2013.
R EFERENCES [25] AIEE Committee Report on the Application Guide for the Grounding of
Synchronous Generator Systems, June, 1953.
[1] IEEE Guide for Safety in AC Substation Grounding, IEEE Std. 80, 2000. [26] IEEE Guide for the Application of Neutral Grounding in Electrical Utility
[2] IEEE Application Guide for IEEE Standard for Interconnecting Distributed Systems Part I-Introduction, ANSI/IEEE C67.92 1987.
Resources With Electric Power Systems, IEEE Std. 1547.2, 2008. [27] Neutral Connections and Effective Grounding: White Paper Report for
[3] Photovoltaic systems-Characteristics of the utility interface, IEC 61727, Solar Energy Advanced Energy Industries, Inc., Raleigh, NC, 2013.
2004. [28] W. Libo, Z. Zhengming, and L. Jianzheng, “A Single-Stage Three-
[4] Recommended Practice for Grounding of Industrial and Commercial Power Phase Grid-Connected Photovoltaic System With Modified MPPT Method
Systems, IEEE STD 142, 2007. and Reactive Power Compensation,” IEEE Trans. on Energy Conversion,
[5] R. Hoerauf, “Considerations in Wind Farm Grounding Designs,” IEEE Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 881–886, 2007.
Trans. on Industry Applications, Vol. 50, No. 2, pp. 1348–1355, 2014.

0093-9994(c)2015IEEE.Personaluseispermitted,butrepublication/redistributionrequiresIEEEpermission.See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.htmlformoreinformation.
Thisarticlehasbeenacceptedforpublicationinafutureissueofthisjournal,buthasnotbeenfullyedited.Contentmaychangepriortofinalpublication.Citationinformation:DOI
10.1109/TIA.2015.2394448,IEEETransactionsonIndustryApplications

11

S. A. Saleh (S’03-M’06-SM’12) received the B.Sc.

degree in electrical engineering from Bir Ziet Univer-
sity, West Bank, Palestine, in 1996, and the M.Eng.
and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering from the
Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. Johns,
NL, Canada, in 2003 and 2007, respectively, with a
scholarship from the Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada (NSERC). He was with
the Palestinian Technical College, West Bank, as an
Electrical Engineer for two years and an Instructor
and a Program Coordinator for three years. In 2007,
he joined the Marine Institute, Memorial University of Newfoundland as a
faculty and a researcher until 2011. Currently, he is an Associate Professor
with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of
New Brunswick, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada. His research interests
include wavelet analysis, power system protection, micro-grid, power electron-
ics, modulation techniques, renewable energy systems, digital signal processing
and its applications in power systems and power electronic converters. Dr. Saleh
research works are supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council and New Brunswick Innovation Foundation-Strategic Projects.
Dr. Saleh is a registered Professional Engineer in the Provinces of Newfound-
land and Labrador and New Brunswick, Canada.

0093-9994(c)2015IEEE.Personaluseispermitted,butrepublication/redistributionrequiresIEEEpermission.See
http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.htmlformoreinformation.