This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been
fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2019.2923769, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid
Evaluation of a Communication-Assisted
Overcurrent Protection Scheme for Photovoltaic
Based DC Microgrid
Arash Shabani, and Kazem Mazlumi, Member, IEEE
Abstract-- Integration of DG units in distribution systems
affects the amplitude and the direction of fault currents. On the
other hand, DC fault currents have large amplitude and fast
transients. Thus, the setting and coordination of overcurrent
relays in DC microgrids will be a challenging issue. This paper
proposes a new communication-assisted overcurrent protection
scheme for photovoltaic (PV) based DC microgrids. The proposed
scheme has lower cost than the schemes based on the differential
protection and also provides the backup protection for the relays.
Firstly, possibility of using the overcurrent based protection is
evaluated using a comprehensive strategy for every line section of
the system. The strategy determines which relays have to be set for
protection of the microgrid in the grid-connected and islanded
operation modes. Then, the selectivity and coordination problems
of the overcurrent relays in the presence of the PV units are solved
by implementing blocking and intertripping schemes using
communication infrastructures of the smart grids. Finally, the
proposed protection scheme is validated by simulation results on a
DC microgrid test system.
Index Terms-- DC microgrid, overcurrent protection, PV units,
smart grids.
I. INTRODUCTION
N OWADAYS, the structure of the power distribution
systems has been changed by integrating renewable
energy sources and small scale units such as photovoltaic and
wind turbines. This resulted in the emergence of “active”
distribution systems and microgrids. Microgrids are local
networks that involve renewable energy sources and energy
storage systems (ESS). They have the capability to be locally
controlled. Therefore, they can disconnect from the grid when
there is a fault at the main grid, and continue to supply a portion
of their local loads in a so called “islanded mode”[1].
The renewable units may generate DC or AC voltage with
different magnitudes and frequencies. Therefore, they need
power electronic converters to be integrated with the existing
power grid [2]–[4]. On the other hand, most of the consumers
such as telecommunication systems, traction systems,
households, and office equipment are based on the DC systems.
Devices such as computer, TV, fluorescent lamp have a rectifier
The authors are with the Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of
Engineering, University of Zanjan, Zanjan, Iran (e-mail: shabani_a@znu.ac.ir;
kmazlumi@znu.ac.ir)
1949-3053 (c) 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
in their configurations. Therefore, the integration of the low
voltage DC (LVDC) system with the AC distribution system
can reduce the number of converters [5]–[7]. The LVDC
system is a suitable and more cost effective option for existing
medium voltage AC (MVAC) distribution system [8], [9]. To
increase the reliability of the LVDC system, it must be
connected to the AC grid through a controlled voltage source
converter (VSC) which provides bidirectional power flow [10].
A brief review of DC microgrids demonstrated that the fault
characteristics and protection requirements are different for DC
and AC systems. In a DC system, the DC link capacitors of the
converters and short lines/cables cause severe overcurrent
during a fault [11].
DC faults occur in cables of the LVDC system for some
reasons such as failure of cable insulation caused by electrical
stresses, environmental conditions, aging, and physical
damages [12]–[14]. The DC faults can be categorized as pole-
to-ground and pole-pole faults depending on if one line is short-
circuited to the ground or two lines are short-circuited. Faults
on DC lines are usually pole-to-ground faults. A pole-to-pole
fault seldom occurs because it requires a severe insulation
damage of both positive and negative conductors [14]–[16]. DC
fault current has large amplitude and fast transient that can
damage the converter and other equipment close to it [17], [18].
Although there are certain differences between AC and DC
microgrids in the fault characteristics and topologies, the
conventional protection principles are expected to be the main
options available to protect DC microgrids.
The protection strategies based on the differential current
and overcurrent schemes are two main options for the LVDC
system protection. The differential protection strategy has been
successfully applied as a unit protection in DC microgrids [19].
In differential-based schemes, main challenges are the
synchronization of current measurements under high di/dt,
comparison of them, and sending trip signal within required
time frame. Therefore, this method needs advanced and costly
communication and synchronized measuring devices [20], [21].
The overcurrent-based schemes have been used in [22], [23]
for the LVDC system protection. However, the coordination of
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2019.2923769, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid
PV1
DC
Load1
DC
B1
AC/DC Lc
AC Grid
Converter
CB
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of Multiple PV-based DC microgrid with protection zones
overcurrent relays is a challenging issue due to the high raising
rate of DC fault currents. Thus, high-speed measuring and
protective devices are required. Protection of the low voltage
DC microgrid using overcurrent relays has been discussed in
[24] without considering the effects of distributed generations
(DGs) and operation modes of the microgrid on the system
protection. Integration of the DGs in the system affects the
amplitude and the direction of the fault current. This makes the
setting of the overcurrent relays more complex. The overcurrent
based schemes need to be modified in order to consider the
effects of the DGs on the DC microgrids protection.
This paper proposes a communication-based overcurrent
protection scheme for DC microgrids with multiple DG units.
Prior to setting the relays, a new strategy is presented for
evaluating the application of the proposed protection scheme
for the system protection. If the DC microgrid can be protected
using the overcurrent scheme, the method determines which
relays have to be set for protecting the microgrid in the grid-
connected and islanded operation modes. Otherwise, the
differential-based protection scheme is suggested. The
proposed strategy is tested on a typical DC microgrid.
II. PROPOSED PROTECTION SCHEME
For protection of the LVDC distribution systems, the
overcurrent-based protection is the first choice and the
differential protection is the last choice. The differential
protection needs the synchronizing and comparing functions.
Implementing these functions for the LVDC system with high
fault transients is difficult and expensive. Also, the differential
protection does not provide the backup protection. On the other
hand, it does not have complexities of the overcurrent
protection like coordination and setting issues. This paper
proposes an overcurrent protection scheme that is based on the
use of the overcurrent relays for the protection of a radial LVDC
system with PV units. The proposed scheme uses directional
overcurrent relays at both ends of every line section as shown
in Fig. 1. Every relay is represented by the symbol R with the
subscripts which show the forward direction of the relay. The
directional overcurrent relays have a directional element which
distinguishes the fault current direction. The relays can be set
to trip for the fault currents flowing in the forward direction.
For example, the relay R12 trips for a forward fault that its
1949-3053 (c) 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
PV2
PV3
ESS
DC
DC
DC
Load2 Load4
DC
DC
DC
Load3
B2 B3 B4
L12 L23 L34
R12 R21 R32
R23 R34 R43
Zone 12
Zone 23
Zone 34
Zone 43
Zone 32
Zone 21
current flows from buses 1 to 2.
Intelligent electronic devices (IEDs) relays in combination
with solid-state circuit breakers can be used for the
implementation of this scheme. The selectivity and
coordination problems of the overcurrent relays in the presence
of the PV units are solved by implementing blocking and
intertripping schemes using communication infrastructures of
the smart grids. Detailed descriptions of the proposed scheme
are given in the next sections. However, before applying the
proposed protection scheme for setting the overcurrent relays,
the possibility of the system protection by the overcurrent relays
needs to be analyzed.
A. Evaluation the possibility of using the overcurrent
protection
This paper proposes a comprehensive strategy as shown in
Fig. 2 for selecting a proper protection scheme for the DC
microgrid protection. The strategy evaluates the possibility of
using the overcurrent protection for every line section of the
system. If a section can be protected using the proposed
overcurrent scheme, the strategy determines which relays
should to be set for the grid-connected and islanded operation
modes of the microgrid. It is assumed that a relay at one end of
the section can send a trip command to the circuit breakers at
both sides of it. Thus, if all the faults inside the section can be
detected by one of the relays, the relay at the other side of the
section does not require to be set. Therefore, the proposed
strategy presents an economical approach to protect the system
with minimum number of the relays.
A line section Lij can be protected using the overcurrent
protection if at least one of the relays installed at both ends of
the section detects all the possible faults occurring inside the
section for every configuration of the PVs. Otherwise, the
differential protection is proposed for the section. Also, the
relay Rij should not trip during the healthy operating condition
of the system. Therefore, the maximum operation current Iopmaxij
sensed by the relay Rij should be calculated. In the normal
operating condition of the grid, the current flowing in the
direction of the relay Rij is obtained for every configuration of
the PVs and its maximum is considered as Iopmaxij. In cases when
the PVs are in front of the relay, the current sensed by the relay
is decreased. Therefore, these cases can be omitted from the
calculation process of the maximum operation current.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2019.2923769, IEEE
No
d=0
Use differential protection Yes No
Is d=0 ?
for the line section Lij
No
No
No
Set R ij & Rji Is Kji=n ? Is Kij=n ?
Yes
Yes
Set R ji Is Kji=n ?
Yes
Set R ij or Rji
Fig. 2. Flowchart of the proposed evaluation strategy for using
overcurrent protection
In the flowchart, n is the number of the PVs configurations.
Two variables Kij and Kji are taken to show the number of
configurations which can be protected by the relays Rij and Rji,
respectively. The variable P varies from 1-n to count the PVs
configurations. A fault is detected by the relay Rij for Kth
configuration of the PVs (P=K) if the fault current is sensed by
the relay (Sijk=1) and it is greater than the maximum operation
current passing through the relay (Ifijk>Iopmaxij). The variable d
is considered to show whether the fault is detected by the relay
Rij (d=1) or not (d=0).
If the relay Rij covers all the possible faults inside the section
Lij for all configurations of the PVs (Kij=n), it should be set and
Rji does not need to be set. If the faults are covered by both
relays, both of them should be set. The relays are set using the
setting algorithm proposed in the following section.
B. Protective Relays setting
Two protection zones are defined for each relay; the primary
and the backup zones as shown in Fig. 1. The primary zone of
the relay Rij covers the line Lij plus a portion of the subsequent
line in the forward direction. Therefore, there is an overlapped
area between primary zones of the relays. In fact, the
overlapping is applied to guarantee the operation of the relay
for whole the line section. The backup zone of the relay Rij
covers the line Li+1, j+1 which is the primary zone of the relay
Ri+1, j+1. For example, R12 should be the backup protection of
R23. In case of R23 does not trip instantaneously, R12 should trip
after a delay time which is defined as the discrimination margin.
A two-stage characteristic is defined for the overcurrent
relays as shown in Fig. 3. At the first-stage element, the relay
Rij should trip for the faults occurring in its primary zone at the
time tset1ij. To cover all the possible faults, the minimum value
of the fault current Ifminij in the forward direction of the relay
1949-3053 (c) 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Transactions on Smart Grid
should be obtained. The relay sends a trip command to the
P=1, Kij=0, and Kji=0 respective circuit breaker when it senses a current greater than
Ifminij flowing in the forward direction.
Is The second-stage element of the relay Rij is defined with the
time tset2ij in the primary zone of its subsequent relay. The relay
Sijk=1 & Ifijk> Iopmaxij
? acts in its backup zone for the forward currents within the range
Yes of Ifmin(i+1, j+1)<I<Ifminij for i<j or Ifmin(i-1, j-1)<I<Ifminij for i>j.
d=1 There is a discrimination margin between tset1ij and tset2ij to
provide the selectivity in the system protection.
Kij=Kij+1
For setting the overcurrent relays, four parameters are
considered. Two time setting parameters (tset1ij, tset2ij) and two
Is current setting parameters ( Iset1ij, Iset2ij). The time parameters are
Sjik=1 & Ifjik> Iopmaxji P=P+1
chosen according to the DC fault current characteristic and the
?
required time to clear the DC faults. The Fault currents in the
Yes
LVDC systems have high transients and large amplitudes that
Kji=Kji+1
can damage sensitive devices such as converters in both source
and load sides. Therefore, because of the time limitation, these
Yes
Is P=n ?
No values for all relays are chosen same as tset1ij=1ms and
tset2ij=2ms, respectively.
Also, an algorithm is proposed to choose the current values
No Iset1ij and Iset2ij for setting the relay Rij as shown in Fig. 4. The
Set Rij
relay is set to operate for the fault currents and does not operate
for normal operation currents. Therefore, the minimum fault
current (Ifminij) and the maximum operation current (Iopmaxij)
sensed by the relay are compared to choose a suitable value for
the setting parameter Iset1ij. If Iopmaxij is less than Ifminij, then Iset1ij
is chosen equal to Ifminij to provide the relay operation for the
fault currents. Otherwise, if the minimum fault current sensed
by the relay is less than the maximum operation current, Iset1ij is
chosen equal to Iopmaxij to avoid the relay operation for normal
operation currents.
The relay Rij can be set as a backup protection of its downstream
relay if Iset2ij could be defined. Otherwise, it acts only for the
faults accruing everywhere inside its primary zone. Iset2ij can be
defined if Iopmaxij is not in the ranges of current defined for the
backup protection zone in the relay characteristic.
C. Protection and communication logic
As described in Section II-B, there is an overlapped area
between the primary zones of the relays to guarantee their
operation for whole the line sections. Also, because of the time
limitation, the setting parameter tset1ij is chosen same for all the
relays. Therefore, the relays coordination is necessary to
prevent their simultaneous operation which causes the
selectivity problems. In this paper, a blocking scheme is
proposed to solve the coordination problems of the overcurrent
t (s)
Iset2ij Iset1ij
tset2ij
tset1ij
Ifmin(i+1, j+1) (i<j) Ifm inij I (A)
or I fmin(i-1, j-1) (i>j)
Fig. 3. Characteristic of the overcurrent relays
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2019.2923769, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid

Select Rij Blocking

Measure line current
from Ri+1, j+1

Calculate Ifm inij & Iopmaxij

No
No Trip Forward
Is
No
Iset1ij= Iopmaxij Ifm inij> Iopmaxij Yes
? No No
Yes I>Iset2ij I>Iset1ij

Iset1ij= Ifm inij Yes Yes

No No
No t>tset2ij t>tset1ij
Is i<j ?

Yes Yes Yes

Is Is
No No
Iopmaxij<Ifm in(i-1, j-1)<Ifm inij Iset2ij cannot be defined Iopmaxij<Ifm in(i+1, j+1)<Ifm inij
? ?

Yes Yes
Block first-stage element
Trip CBij & CBj+1,i+1 Trip CBij & CBji of upstream relays
Iset2ij= Ifm in(i-1, j-1) Iset2ij= Ifm in(i+1, j+1)

Fig.5. Protection and communication logic of the relay Rij

Fig. 4. Flowchart for the overcurrent relays setting

relays. As shown in Fig. 5, for a fault to be detected in the

primary zone of the relay Rij, the necessary condition is that a Upstream relays
fault current greater than Iset1ij passes in the forward direction Rij CBji CBj+1, i+1
of the relay at a time range greater than tset1ij. However, this
current may be sensed by the upstream relays and causes to
Blocking signal Intertripping signal
their undesired operation. In order to prevent this problem, a
blocking signal will be send to first-stage elements of the Fig. 6. Required communication paths for implementing the blocking and
upstream relays once the forward current of the relay Rij intertripping schemes
exceeds Iset1ij. In fact, by applying the blocking scheme, the
relays will not operate in their first-stage element for the faults between the IEDs and CBs is important for appropriate setting
occurring in the primary zones of the downstream relays. of the relays.
As described earlier, the setting parameter tset1ij is chosen The relays should be set with a time delay that is greater than
same for the first-stage elements of all the relays. Therefore, the the communication delay to keep selectivity. The total
relays at both ends of a line can cover all faults occurring inside communication delay consists of four components:
the section for all configurations of the PVs. In cases where the transmission delay, queuing delay, propagation delay, and
relay Rij cannot be set or fails to operate, the relay Rji can send processing delay [25]. Transmission and queuing delays are
a trip command to the circuit breakers at both sides of the line insignificant for advanced communication systems such as
Lij to isolate the faulty section. This scheme is defined as the fiber-optic with high bandwidth. The delay is around 0.1ms
“intertripping” in which operation of a relay in one end causes with bandwidth 100-1000 Mb/s. The propagation delay is small
a tripping signal to be transmitted to a circuit breaker at the for the LVDC systems with short lines (for 1-5miles the delays
other end of the zone. Note that, since the intertripping scheme are 8.2μs-41μs) [26], [27]. The processing delay can be
is applied in the system protection, every line section can be minimised using advanced routing. For example, the delay is
protected by a relay which covers all the faults inside the section 0.35ms for 64bytes Packet size with 1.5Mb/s link, and it can be
for all cases and the opposite side relay has not to be set. It can <5μs with 100Mb/s link size [26], [27]. Therefore, the total
be set as a local backup function in case the intertripping communication delay will be small enough to enable the
scheme fails to operate. This enhances the dependability of the blocking and intertripping signals to be transferred between the
protection scheme. Also, intertripping between CBij and relays within timescale <1ms.
CBj+1,i+1 is considered at a delayed time to isolate the faulty There is experience of using different communication
section where the relay Rij acts as a backup for the main methods in the power systems, which can be helpful for their
protection of the subsequent line. implementation in DC microgrids. In transmission systems,
The intertripping and blocking schemes can be implemented power line carrier (PLC) communications are commonly used
by considering communication paths shown in Fig. 6. The with blocking schemes. Loss of communication channel in
required time to transfer the blocking and intertripping signals blocking schemes could cause a line over-trip for an external
fault as the blocking signal is not received from the remote end

1949-3053 (c) 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2019.2923769, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid
[28]. This problem can be eliminated by installation of an
automatic channel tester which is called “automatic checkback
system”. This system checks the communication channel
periodically to ensure the integrity of the channel and provide
alarm in case of communication failure [28]–[32]. The time
interval of the automatic testing is usually determined by the
experience of the local utility and current practices, which is
typically daily or weekly [28], [31]. Also, backup
communication channels can be used to increase the
effectiveness of the primary channel [33].
D. Fault analysis
As described earlier, minimum of the fault current within the
primary zone of every relay should be calculated for setting the
overcurrent relays. Thus, a detailed fault analysis is required
considering all possible configurations of the PVs and
grounding arrangements of the system. Required characteristics
of the PV units for the analysis are their maximum capacities,
possible connection points, and control modes.
Different types of the DC faults are pole-to-pole and pole-to-
ground faults. The faults in the DC systems are usually pole-to-
ground faults. Pole-to-pole faults occur seldom in these systems
and have larger fault currents than the pole-to-ground faults.
Therefore, pole-to-ground fault is considered as the fault type
for calculation of minimum fault current. If the relays are set to
the calculated value, they will operate for both types of the DC
faults. In the pole-to-ground fault analysis, the grounding of the
DC system is an important issue because it provides the return
pass for the fault current. The fault current in an ungrounded
system does not increase. Thus, the relays cannot detect the
pole-to-ground faults. In this paper, the midpoint of the VSC’s
output capacitors is grounded through a resistor. However,
another grounding point is required for the islanded mode of the
microgrid. It is proposed to install a supercapacitor arrangement
with the schematic shown in Fig. 7 at bus 4. The arrangement
consists of two series equal capacitors (Cg) which their
midpoint is connected to the earth.
The system is modeled and a pole-to-ground fault is placed
at the end of the primary zone of the relay Rij. The fault current
sensed by the relay is obtained for every configuration of PVs
and its minimum is considered as Ifminij. The minimum fault
current is calculated for the grid-connected and the islanded
modes separately. If there is a large difference in the minimum
fault currents of two modes, different setting groups are defined
for the relays. In this case, a communication link is required
between the isolating circuit breaker and the relays to choose an
appropriate setting group based on the microgrid operating
mode.
Capacitor Bank
+ the PV cable resistance and inductance, respectively.
Cg
DC Bus 4
Cg
-
Fig. 7. Schematic of the grounded supercapacitor arrangement
1949-3053 (c) 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
III. SYSTEM MODELING AND CONTROL
This section describes modeling of PV units, energy storage
systems, and the DC loads in the DC microgrid in order to do
the fault analysis.
A. Modeling of PV system
Fig. 8 shows a PV array which is connected to the LVDC
system through a DC/DC boost converter. Modeling of the PV
arrays and control algorithms of the converter depend on the
duration of the study. For long-term studies, especially in the
field of the operation and control of the AC/DC microgrids, a
detailed model of the PV arrays is proposed, which considers
the ambient temperature and solar radiation. In the grid-
connected mode, a maximum power point tracking (MPPT)
algorithm is utilized in the converter to deliver the maximum
available power to the grid. In islanded mode, the converter
works in voltage-mode control to support the balance of power
and regulate the DC voltage [34], [35].
In the literature which studies the protection of microgrids
and power quality issues, The PV arrays are modeled as a
constant DC voltage source interfaced with the grid through a
power-electronic converter. Fast control algorithms are
implemented to the converter to regulate current and voltage in
grid-connected and islanded modes of operation so that the PV
system acts like a constant power source. This assumption is
possible because the system is studied during fault transients
which are fractions of a second. In this short period of time, the
ambient temperature and solar radiation is almost constant
[36]–[40].
This paper considers the PV array as a constant voltage
source because of very fast transients of the DC faults. Also,
fast current and voltage mode control algorithms are applied to
the DC/DC boost converter. The converter is switched between
the two control modes depending on the system operating
modes.
The block diagram of the proposed control modes for the PV
system is shown in Fig. 9. In current-mode control (CMC), the
injected current of the PV is measured and is compared with its
reference value. The error signal is applied to the PI controller
and PWM block generates the gate pulses according to the
output of the PI block. In voltage-mode control (VMC), the
reference value of the PV voltage is calculated by using (1), and
then is compared with the PV measured voltage. The Saturation
block imposes upper and lower bounds on the error signal.
௥௘௙ ௥௘௙ ௗூುೇ
ܸ௉௏ = ܸ௚ + 2ܴ௖௉௏ ‫ܫ‬௉௏ + 2‫ܮ‬௉௏
௖ (1)
ௗ௧
௥௘௙
where ܸ௉௏ is the PV reference voltage, ܸ௚௥௘௙ is the grid
reference voltage, ‫ܫ‬௉௏ is the PV current, and ܴ௖௉௏ and ‫ܮ‬௉௏
௖ are
I PV
L R cPV L PV
c
PV Arrays
+ +
C V PV V g
- -
Fig. 8. A boost DC/DC converter connected to the PV arrays
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2019.2923769, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid

Current Mode Control (CMC) C. Load Modeling

ref
I PV A combination of resistive and constant power loads (CPL)
are considered as the load model in this paper as shown in Fig.
+
- 13. Constant power load is modeled by a resistive load, which
is connected to the DC bus through a tightly regulated buck
I PV converter, an input filter, and a diode. The regulator provides
Voltage Mode Control (VMC) specified voltage and current to the load regardless of voltage
Gate Pulses
2 R cPV PI PWM disturbances on the bus; therefore, the regulator appears as a
I PV load that draws constant power from the bus. The input filter
PID Controller
prevents the switching ripple of the converter from going to the
ref
V DC bus. The diode is needed to prevent reverse current from the
Vgref ∑ PV

+
load to the system in regenerative mode of the load.
I PV K ( Z − 1)
-
The resistive load at the output of the buck converter is given
Saturation
TsZ by
Discrete Derivative
VPV (௏೚ೠ೟ )మ
2 L PVc ܴ௟௢௔ௗ = (3)
௉೎೚೙ೞ೟
Fig. 9. The control system of PV
where Vout and Pconst are the output voltage of the regulator
and the constant power of the load, respectively.
B. Modeling of Energy Storage System
B4
Overall diagram of the energy storage system is shown in ESS Bus
Fig. 10. The energy storage is assumed as a constant DC voltage ESS Cable Controlled
DC
source which is connected to the ESS output bus through a bi- DC Switch
directional DC/DC converter shown in Fig. 11. A control
system similar to the voltage-mode control of the PV converter
Storage
Energy

regulates the output voltage of the ESS. The ESS can operate in Switching
both charging and discharging modes regarding the grid Logic
operating conditions. The ESS bus is connected to bus 4
Fig. 10. Overall diagram of the energy storage system
through a controlled switch. The control logic of the switch
must be able to distinguish two cases; the voltage instability Ls
because of the fault, and the voltage instability because of the
unbalance between the generation and the consumption. For the
ES

Cs
first case, the bus voltage returns inside its standard range after
Rs
isolating the faulty section. Thus, further presence of the energy
storage system in the network is not required. However, in the Fig. 11. Bi-directional converter connected to the ESS
second case, the energy storage must remain connected to the
grid to overcome the unbalance condition and to keep the
voltage in the standard range. A switching logic based on
successive closing and opening operations is proposed as (2) for [Vb4] NOT
T OR Output
the switch to determine whether the ESS must remain Interval Test
0.001 s
Monostable
connected to the grid or be disconnected after a short period of
time.
C-1ms-OC-1ms-OC (2)
Counter >=3
where closing and opening operations of the switch are
denoted by C and O, respectively. The switch closes when the AND
measured voltage exceeds the standard range. OC represents [CB] NOT
opening operation immediately followed by a closing operation
without any intentional time delay. The time interval between
two operations is 1ms. After the second opening operation, if Fig. 12. The proposed switching logic for ESS

the measured voltage still does not meet the standard range, the Constant Power Load (CPL)
unbalance condition is detected. The switch closes for the third
Lf
time and remains in that position. The energy storage
compensates the difference between the generation and the Cf +
DC Bus DC/DC Buck
Vout Rload
consumption and stabilizes the voltage. The block diagram of Rc
Converter
-
the proposed switching logic is shown in Fig. 12.
Input Filter
Rp
Fig. 13. The load model

1949-3053 (c) 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2019.2923769, IEEE
IV. CASE STUDY
A. Test System Description
The proposed protection method is tested on the low voltage
DC distribution system shown in Fig. 1. The system has radial
structure and is connected to the AC network through a
controlled rectifier, which is grounded through a 0.1 ohm
resistor. The output of the rectifier is connected to the main DC
bus B1 through a circuit breaker which its state determines the
operating mode of the microgrid. The DC microgrid is divided
to three line sections with four buses. The total line load is 68
KW. The load 1, added to bus 1, represents the total power of
an identical feeder supplied from the main DC bus. Two PV-
type DG units are assumed, which can be connected to buses 1-
3. The current-control mode is applied to both PV units in the
grid-connected microgrid operation, while in the islanded
microgrid one of the units operates in voltage-mode control.
The nominal injected current of the PV units is considered as
100 A. The ESS and the proposed supercapacitor arrangement
are integrated into bus 4 in the islanded mode. The protective
devices installed on the system are solid-state circuit breakers
and IED directional overcurrent relays. The system parameters
are listed in Table I.
Following assumptions have been made in the analysis.
1) Effects of the loads on the fault currents are neglected:
The standard IEC 60909 suggests to obtain fault
current results for an unloaded network. The most
short-circuit studies ignore the load current since the
magnitude of the fault current is extremely greater
than the load current. On the other hand, the loads
considered here are combination of resistive and
constant power loads. The resistive loads (passive
components) don’t affect the fault current. In the CPL
model, as described earlier, there is a diode on the
input dc bus of the load to prevent reverse current feed
to a line-side fault.
2) The permissible minimum and maximum values of the
buses voltage are assumed to be 300V and 600V,
respectively.
3) The PV current can be increased to 2.5 times its
nominal current during the faults.
TABLE I
LVDC SYSTEM PARAMETERS
Input AC voltage= 240V, 60 Hz , Output DC
AC/DC converter
voltage=400 V Power=100kVA
RL=0.121Ω/km, LL=0.34mH/km
L12 Length=300 m
DC cables
L23 Length=500 m
L34 Length=500 m
Input filter: Lf= 0.2 µH, Cf=225 µF, Rc=0.05 Ω
Load 1
DC loads
Constant power=10 KW
Constant Resistance= 16 Ω
ܴ௖௉௏ =0.5 Ω ‫ܮ‬௉௏
L=5 mH C= 3 mF
PV system converter
Switching Frequency=10 KHz
Ls=5 mH Cs=10 mF
ESS converter
Switching Frequency=10 KHz
Supercapacitor
Cg=50 mF
arrangement
1949-3053 (c) 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Transactions on Smart Grid
B. Simulation results
The system is simulated in the MATLAB software
environment. Possible configurations of the PVs are considered
and the fault analysis described in Section II-D is conducted to
calculate the minimum fault current within the primary zone of
every relay. Tables II and III summarize the maximum
operation currents and the fault currents sensed by the relays for
every configuration of the PVs in both islanded and grid-
connected operation modes of the network. The PVs
configurations are shown by Bi, Bi&Bj, and Bi (2 units). The
symbol Bi means that a PV is integrated in the bus Bi. The
symbol Bi&Bj means that one of the PVs is connected to the
bus Bi and another is integrated in the bus Bj. Bi (2 units) means
that two PV units are connected to the bus Bi.
Minimum values of the fault currents seen by the relays
(Ifminij) have been highlighted in the Tables. In some cases, the
fault current is not sensed by the relays. A relay can see a fault
when it is located either between the power source and the fault
location or between the grounding point and the fault location.
For example, in islanded mode, the relays R21, R32, and R43 see
the faults in their corresponding section for all configurations
of the PVs because they are between the grounding point (B4)
and the fault location. Therefore, selecting a suitable grounding
arrangement affects the performance of the relays.
The proposed strategy in Section II-A is applied to evaluate
the possibility of using the overcurrent protection for every line
section of the system. If a section can be protected using the
overcurrent based protection, the strategy determines which
relays at both ends of the section to be set. In islanded mode of
operation, the relays R21, R32, and R43 sense all the possible
faults in their corresponding section and Ifminij is greater than
Iopmaxij. However, in grid-connected mode, the relays at other
end of the line sections detect the faults.
After selecting the relays by the evaluation strategy, the
setting algorithm proposed in Section II-B is applied to choose
the setting values Iset1ij and Iset2ij for the selected relays. Table IV
shows the relays and their setting values. In the islanded mode
of operation, the relays looking into the AC grid cover all the
possible faults occurring in their corresponding section for all
configurations of the PV units. The relay R32 acts as a backup
protection of the relay R21. Also, the relay R43 is the backup
protection of the relay R32. On the other hand, in the grid-
connected mode, the relays R12, R23, and R34 are selected by the
algorithm to be set. The relay R12 acts as a backup protection of
the relay R23. However, the relay R34 does not have any backup
protection because Ifmin34 is greater than, the minimum fault
current of its upstream relay, Ifmin23. Therefore, two setting
groups are defined for the relays depending on the DC
microgrid operating modes. The state of the isolating circuit
breaker can be considered as an input signal for the relays to
Loads 2-4 switch to the appropriate setting group.
8 KW As described earlier, the operating times of the relays for the
20 Ω protection of the primary and backup zones are chosen as 1ms
and 2ms, respectively. By using the communication-assisted
௖ =0.1mH
blocking and intertripping schemes presented in Section II-C,
the selective operation of the relays will be guaranteed and only
Rs=0.2 Ω the faulty section will be isolated from the system. Performance
of the proposed scheme is explained with an example as
follows:
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2019.2923769, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid

TABLE II
the line L12 at a distance of 90 m far from the bus B2. The fault
FAULT CURRENTS AND MAXIMUM OPERATION CURRENTS SENSED BY THE current and the setting values of the relays R21 and R32 are
RELAYS R12, R23 , AND R34 IN THEIR PRIMARY ZONE shown in Fig. 14. The fault current exceeds the threshold setting
If (A) values of the relays and reaches to 586.2 A within 1ms.
Islanded Operation Grid Connected Operation Therefore, both relays see the fault. However, the blocking
PV at R12 R23 R34 R12 R23 R34 scheme as the applied coordination technique causes that the
None No LF No LF No LF 914 511 335.5
B1 No LF No LF No LF 956.5 520 350 upstream relay is blocked and only the downstream relay
B2 No LF No LF No LF 803 524.7 347 activates. Once the current exceeds 202.86 A, the fault is
B3 No LF No LF No LF 809 377.7 390 detected by the relay R21 and a blocking signal is sent to the
B1 (2 units) 332.4 244.2 151 934.12 504.26 328.8 first-stage element of the upstream relay R32. Therefore, when
B2 (2 units) NS 307.14 173.6 644.63 540.97 352 the fault current exceeds 325.5 A, the relay R32 will not operate
B3 (2 units) NS NS 342.46 699.8 287.2 423.5
B1 & B2 140.45 294.96 169.7 810.89 522.93 340.5
in its primary zone. A trip command is sent by the relay R21
B1 & B3 197.5 119.2 195.9 854.75 381.38 392.6 using intertripping scheme to the circuit breakers at both ends
B2 & B3 NS 141.9 278.1 708.86 403.64 401.7 of the line L12 to isolate the faulty section within 1ms. In cases
Iopmax (A) 128 85.5 43 138.64 96.2 53.75 where the relay R21 fails to operate, the relay R32 acts in its
* ‘No LF’ means that the load flow cannot be solved because of the limitations backup zone and the faulty section is isolated within 2ms.
of the network. The proposed protection scheme can be conducted for a DC
** ‘NS’ means that the fault cannot be sensed by the relays because of its
direction. microgrid with different configurations of the PVs and
grounding arrangements. Different setting groups will be
TABLE III presented and maybe the differential protection scheme is
FAULT CURRENTS AND MAXIMUM OPERATION CURRENTS SENSED BY THE proposed for some sections of the system.
RELAYS R21, R32 , AND R43 IN THEIR PRIMARY ZONE
In this paper, the radial configuration is considered because
If (A)
Islanded Operation Grid Connected Operation it is the most commonly used distribution system configuration.
PV at R21 R32 R43 R21 R32 R43 In a meshed DC network with different circuit loops and DG
None No LF No LF No LF NS NS NS connection points, implementing the proposed protection
B1 No LF No LF No LF NS NS NS scheme for the coordination of the overcurrent relays becomes
B2 No LF No LF No LF NS NS NS highly complex since a large combination of off-line studies is
B3 No LF No LF No LF NS 136 NS
B1 (2 units) 202.86 325.5 631.7 NS NS NS
required. In some cases it may be impossible to find an
B2 (2 units) 573.26 332.6 719.5 159.4 NS NS appropriate relay setting for all network and DG configurations.
B3 (2 units) 464.56 629.5 729.1 93.8 258.5 NS In those cases, the proposed protection scheme must be
B1 & B2 342.5 326.8 701.6 2.6 NS NS developed or the differential protection may be preferred for the
B1 & B3 327.8 498.8 709 NS 135.7 NS network protection. Meshed distribution grids especially from
B2 & B3 491.2 483 689.5 98 110.7 NS
DC type are seldom covered in literature and their Protection is
Iopmax (A) 53.3 95.2 0 74 115.3 0
out of the scope of this paper. It will be investigated in details
TABLE IV in future work.
SETTING PARAMETERS OF THE RELAYS
Islanded Operation Grid-Connected Operation
C. Comparison of the proposed scheme with the
Iset1ij (A) Iset2ij (A) Iset1ij (A) Iset2ij (A) schemes based on local measurements
R12 - - 644.63 287.2 As mentioned earlier, the proposed protection scheme
R23 - - 287.2 -
requires high-speed communication between the relays to
R34 - - 328.8 -
R21 202.86 - - - guarantee the selectivity and the relays coordination. Recently,
R32 325.5 202.86 - - some schemes have been presented in [41]–[44] for the fault
R43 631.7 325.5 - - detection in the DC microgrid which are based on local
measurements. They use first and second order derivatives for
the faults detection. Since they are based on local
measurements, the problems associated with the
communication channel such as delay and dependability are
avoided. However, the relays coordination, backup protection,
and grounding issues are not discussed in these schemes. Also,
first order and second order derivatives of the signal are very
sensitive to noise level and switching of power electronic
devices which may lead to unwanted tripping.
Meanwhile, a detailed analysis is presented to demonstrate
the necessity of the communication for the local measurement
based schemes as follows:
The local measurement based schemes presented in [41]–
Fig. 14. The fault current sensed by the relays R21 and R32 [44] are applied on the multi-terminal DC microgrids which
have a ring configuration. In this configuration, all the faults
occurred inside a cable are sensed by respective relays
It is assumed that the microgrid is operated in islanding mode
connected on both sides of the cable. However, if a radial
and both PV units are integrated in bus B3. A fault is placed on

1949-3053 (c) 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2019.2923769, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid
configuration is considered for the DC microgrid, some faults
are sensed only by a relay at one end of the cable and the relay
at other end doesn’t sense the fault as shown in Tables II and III
(NS states). Thus, each relay should have possibility of sending
the trip command to the circuit breakers located at both sides of
the cable to isolate the faulty section. Therefore, the
intertripping scheme and the related communication paths are
required.
Also, the method presented in [41] is applied on the test
system of this paper to show the blocking scheme importance
for the relays coordination. The fault current is sampled and its
first order derivative is calculated. The sampling frequency is
chosen as 10 KHz and the second sample is utilized for tripping
decision. To simplify the analysis, it is assumed that the DC
microgrid is operated in grid-connected mode and only a PV
can be integrated in buses 1-3. Minimum of the fault current
derivative within the primary zone of every relay should be
calculated. The results are shown in Table V for the relays R23
and R34 and the setting values have been highlighted.
Performance of the protection system is investigated by an
example: The DC microgrid is assumed to be in grid-connected
mode without any PV integration. A fault occurs at 0.3 of the
line L34 far from the bus B3. The fault current derivatives sensed
by the relays R23 and R34 with their samples are shown in Fig.
15. The second sample is compared with the respective
threshold setting. The fault current derivative of the relay R34
(dIf34/dt) is 545.5 KA/s and the derivative of the fault current
sensed by the relay R23 (dIf23/dt) is 575.7 KA/s. Both values are
greater than the setting values of the relays. Thus, both relays
see the fault in their primary zones which it leads to their
simultaneous operation. Therefore, the blocking scheme is
required to overcome this coordination problem. On the other
hand, if the system is considered without the possibility of the
PVs integration, the relays R23 and R34 are set respectively at
581.1 KA/s and 476.1 KA/s as shown in Table V. dIf23/dt is less
than its respective setting value. Thus, the relay R23 doesn’t see
the fault. Therefore, the faulty section is isolated by the relay
R34 operation without any coordination problem.
As a result, in the presence of the DG units, implementing
the blocking scheme is required for the relays coordination.
On the other hand, as described in Section II-C, the required
parameters for the fault detection are measured and analyzed
locally and only the logical signals are exchanged between the
protective devices. Therefore, the communication delay will be
insignificant by utilizing a proper communication technology.
V. CONCLUSION
Overcurrent based protection is commonly applied for
distribution systems with radial structure. In LVDC systems,
the fault current has fast transients which make the coordination
of the overcurrent relays a challenging issue. By utilizing the
communication infrastructures of the modern smart grids, the
blocking scheme is presented to overcome the coordination
problems. On the other hand, integration of the PV units in the
grid affects the amplitude and the direction of the fault currents.
Thus, the directional overcurrent relays are used at both ends of
the lines and their settings are upgraded for islanded and grid-
connected modes of the microgrid. By implementing the
intertripping scheme, each one of the relays at one end of a line
section can send a trip command to the circuit breakers at both
1949-3053 (c) 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
ends of the section. Thus, a line section can be protected using
the overcurrent relays if at least one of the relays at both ends
of the section detects all the possible faults occurring inside the
section for every configuration of the PVs. This is investigated
using a new proposed evaluation strategy. If a section can be
protected using the proposed overcurrent protection, the
strategy determines minimum number of the relays which have
to be set. Otherwise, the differential based protection is
suggested for the section. Therefore, possibility of using the
cost-effective overcurrent protection is firstly analyzed by the
proposed strategy and the differential protection is considered
as the last option for the protection of a section.
A sample DC microgrid is modeled in detail and the
proposed method is validated.
TABLE V
FAULT CURRENT DERIVATIVE SENSED BY THE RELAYS R23 AND R34 IN THEIR
PRIMARY ZONE
dI/dt (KA/s)
Grid Connected Operation
PV at R23 R34
None 581.1 476.1
B1 576.1 461.8
B2 575.3 450.6
B3 567.8 506.3
Fig. 15. The fault current derivative sensed by the relays R23 and R34
VI. REFERENCES
[1] A. T. Elsayed, A. A. Mohamed, and O. A. Mohammed, “DC
microgrids and distribution systems: An overview,” Electr. Power
Syst. Res., vol. 119, pp. 407–417, 2015.
[2] M. E. Baran and N. R. Mahajan, “DC distribution for industrial
systems: opportunities and challenges,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol.
39, no. 6, pp. 1596–1601, 2003.
[3] M. Brenna, G. C. Lazaroiu, G. Superti-Furga, and E. Tironi,
“Bidirectional Front End Converter for DG With Disturbance
Insensitivity and Islanding-Detection Capability,” IEEE Trans.
Power Deliv., vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 907–914, 2008.
[4] D. Georgakis, S. Papathanassiou, N. Hatziargyriou, A. Engler, and C.
Hardt, “Operation of a prototype microgrid system based on micro-
sources quipped with fast-acting power electronics interfaces,” in
2004 IEEE 35th Annual Power Electronics Specialists Conference,
2004, pp. 2521–2526.
[5] K. Mizuguchi, S. Muroyama, Y. Kuwata, and Y. Ohashi, “A new
decentralized DC power system for telecommunications systems,” in
12th International Conference on Telecommunications Energy, 1990,
pp. 55–62.
[6] D. Salomonsson and A. Sannino, “Low-Voltage DC Distribution
System for Commercial Power Systems With Sensitive Electronic
Loads,” IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 1620–1627,
2007.
[7] Y.-S. Oh, J. Han, G.-H. Gwon, D.-U. Kim, and C.-H. Kim,
“Development of Fault Detector for Series Arc Fault in Low Voltage
DC Distribution System using Wavelet Singular Value
Decomposition and State Diagram,” J. Electr. Eng. Technol., vol. 10,
no. 3, pp. 766–776, 2015.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TSG.2019.2923769, IEEE
Transactions on Smart Grid
[8] D. Hur and R. Baldick, “An Economic Analysis of Potential Cost
Savings from the Use of Low Voltage DC (LVDC) Distribution
Network,” J. Electr. Eng. Technol., vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 812–819, 2014.
[9] D. Afamefuna, I.-Y. Chung, D. Hur, J.-Y. Kim, and J. Cho, “A
Techno-Economic Feasibility Analysis on LVDC Distribution
System for Rural Electrification in South Korea,” J. Electr. Eng.
Technol., vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 1501–1510, 2014.
[10] G. Byeon et al., “Complementary Power Control of the Bipolar-type
Low Voltage DC Distribution System,” J. Electr. Eng. Technol., vol.
10, no. 3, pp. 786–794, 2015.
[11] A. Hooshyar and R. Iravani, “Microgrid Protection,” Proc. IEEE, vol.
105, no. 7, pp. 1332–1353, Jul. 2017.
[12] J. Yang, J. E. Fletcher, and J. O’Reilly, “Multiterminal DC Wind
Farm Collection Grid Internal Fault Analysis and Protection Design,”
IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 2308–2318, 2010.
[13] J. Yang, J. E. Fletcher, and J. O’Reilly, “Short-Circuit and Ground
Fault Analyses and Location in VSC-Based DC Network Cables,”
IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 59, no. 10, pp. 3827–3837, 2012.
[14] J. Candelaria and J.-D. Park, “VSC-HVDC system protection: A
review of current methods,” in 2011 IEEE/PES Power Systems
Conference and Exposition, 2011, pp. 1–7.
[15] M. K. Bucher, M. M. Walter, M. Pfeiffer, and C. M. Franck, “Options
for ground fault clearance in HVDC offshore networks,” in 2012
IEEE Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition (ECCE), 2012,
pp. 2880–2887.
[16] P. Kundur, N. J. Balu, and M. G. Lauby, Power system stability and
control. McGraw-Hill, 1994.
[17] R. K. Mallick and R. K. Patnaik, “Fault analysis of voltage-source
converter based multi-terminal HVDC transmission links,” in 2011
International Conference on Energy, Automation and Signal, 2011,
pp. 1–7.
[18] J. Yang, J. Zheng, G. Tang, and Z. He, “Characteristics and Recovery
Performance of VSC-HVDC DC Transmission Line Fault,” in 2010
Asia-Pacific Power and Energy Engineering Conference, 2010, pp.
1–4.
[19] S. Dhar, R. K. Patnaik, and P. K. Dash, “Fault Detection and Location
of Photovoltaic Based DC Microgrid Using Differential Protection
Strategy,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, pp. 1–1, 2017.
[20] S. D. A. Fletcher, P. J. Norman, K. Fong, S. J. Galloway, and G. M.
Burt, “High-Speed Differential Protection for Smart DC Distribution
Systems,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 2610–2617, Sep.
2014.
[21] J.-D. Park and J. Candelaria, “Fault Detection and Isolation in Low-
Voltage DC-Bus Microgrid System,” IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., vol.
28, no. 2, pp. 779–787, Apr. 2013.
[22] M. E. Baran and N. R. Mahajan, “Overcurrent Protection on Voltage-
Source-Converter-Based Multiterminal DC Distribution Systems,”
IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 406–412, Jan. 2007.
[23] S. R. B. Vanteddu, A. Mohamed, and O. Mohammed, “Protection
design and coordination of DC Distributed Power Systems
Architectures,” in 2013 IEEE Power & Energy Society General
Meeting, 2013, pp. 1–5.
[24] D. Salomonsson, L. Soder, and A. Sannino, “Protection of Low-
Voltage DC Microgrids,” IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., vol. 24, no. 3,
pp. 1045–1053, 2009.
[25] P. Kansal and A. Bose, “Smart grid communication requirements for
the high voltage power system,” in 2011 IEEE Power and Energy
Society General Meeting, 2011, pp. 1–6.
[26] “Design Best Practices for Latency Optimization,” White Paper,
CISCO, Financial Services Technical Decision Maker. pp. 1–8, 2007.
[27] A. A. S. Emhemed, K. Fong, S. Fletcher, and G. M. Burt, “Validation
of Fast and Selective Protection Scheme for an LVDC Distribution
Network,” IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 1432–1440,
Jun. 2017.
[28] S. Ji, Y. I. Lu, M. Gregg, and J. Murphy, “Analysis of the
misoperation of DCB scheme for transmission line protection,” in
20th Annual Georgia Tech Fault and Disturbance Analysis
Conference, 2017, pp. 1–9.
[29] D. Lin, G. Gunderson, J. Grimm, M. Weir, and R. Soper, Protection
System Misoperations. MRO Protective Relay Subcommittee, 2016.
[30] M. P. Sanders et al., “Special considerations in applying power line
carrier for protective relaying - IEEE power systems relaying
committee special paper - relaying communications subcommittee,
working group H9, 1-5-04,” in 57th Annual Conference for
Protective Relay Engineers, 2004, 2004, pp. 247–281.
1949-3053 (c) 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
10
[31] R. Patterson, E. Price, and M. Sanders, “Directional comparison
blocking system fundamentals,” in 2014 67th Annual Conference for
Protective Relay Engineers, 2014, pp. 50–71.
[32] R. Moxley and K. Fodero, “High-Speed Distribution Protection Made
Easy: Communications-Assisted Protection Schemes for Distribution
Applications,” in 2006 Power Systems Conference: Advanced
Metering, Protection, Control, Communication, and Distributed
Resources, 2006, pp. 123–138.
[33] Jiapeng Zhang and Yingfei Dong, “Preventing false trips of zone 3
protection relays in Smart Grid,” Tsinghua Sci. Technol., vol. 20, no.
2, pp. 142–154, Apr. 2015.
[34] N. Eghtedarpour and E. Farjah, “Control strategy for distributed
integration of photovoltaic and energy storage systems in DC micro-
grids,” Renew. Energy, vol. 45, pp. 96–110, Sep. 2012.
[35] Duong Minh Bui, Keng-Yu Lien, and Shi-Lin Chen, “Investigate
Dynamic and Transient Characteristics for Islanded/Grid-connected
Operation Modes of Microgrid and Develop a Fast-Scalable-
Adaptable Fault Protection Algorithm,” in 12th IET International
Conference on Developments in Power System Protection (DPSP
2014), 2014, p. 8.1.4-8.1.4.
[36] C. Yuan, M. A. Haj-ahmed, and M. S. Illindala, “Protection Strategies
for Medium-Voltage Direct-Current Microgrid at a Remote Area
Mine Site,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 2846–2853,
Jul. 2015.
[37] M. Carminati, S. Grillo, L. Piegari, E. Ragaini, and E. Tironi, “Fault
protection analysis in low voltage DC microgrids with PV
generators,” in 2015 International Conference on Clean Electrical
Power (ICCEP), 2015, pp. 184–191.
[38] R. Majumder, M. Dewadasa, A. Ghosh, G. Ledwich, and F. Zare,
“Control and protection of a microgrid connected to utility through
back-to-back converters,” Electr. Power Syst. Res., vol. 81, no. 7, pp.
1424–1435, Jul. 2011.
[39] H. Hooshyar and M. E. Baran, “Fault Analysis on Distribution
Feeders With High Penetration of PV Systems,” IEEE Trans. Power
Syst., vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 2890–2896, Aug. 2013.
[40] A. P. Moura, J. A. P. Lopes, A. A. F. de Moura, J. Sumaili, and C. L.
Moreira, “IMICV fault analysis method with multiple PV grid-
connected inverters for distribution systems,” Electr. Power Syst.
Res., vol. 119, pp. 119–125, Feb. 2015.
[41] A. Meghwani, S. C. Srivastava, and S. Chakrabarti, “A Non-unit
Protection Scheme for DC Microgrid Based on Local
Measurements,” IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 172–
181, 2017.
[42] D. D. Patil and S. Bindu, “Real time protection technique for DC
microgrid using local measurements,” in 2018 Technologies for
Smart-City Energy Security and Power (ICSESP), 2018, pp. 1–6.
[43] S. Som and S. R. Samantaray, “Efficient protection scheme for low-
voltage DC micro-grid,” IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., vol. 12, no. 13,
pp. 3322–3329, 2018.
[44] A. Meghwani, S. C. Srivastava, and S. Chakrabarti, “Local
measurement-based technique for estimating fault location in multi-
source DC microgrids,” IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., vol. 12, no. 13,
pp. 3305–3313, 2018.
Arash Shabani received the B.Sc. degree in electrical
engineering from Islamic Azad University, Iran, in
2006, and the M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical
engineering from University of Zanjan, Zanjan, Iran,
in 2008 and 2018, respectively. He is currently an
Assistant Professor with the Department of Electrical
Engineering, Hidaj Branch, Islamic Azad University,
Hidaj, Iran. His research interests include DC grids
protection and smart grids.
KazemMazlumi(M’09) was born in Tehran, Iran, in
1976. He received the B.Sc. degree in Electrical
Engineering from Amirkabir University of
Technology, Tehran, Iran, in 2000, the M.Sc. degree
from Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran,
in 2003, and the Ph.D. degree from Amirkabir
University of Technology, in 2009. He is currently an
Associate Professor with University of Zanjan,
Zanjan, Iran. His research interests include power
system protection and smart power grids.