Electrical Power and Energy Systems 123 (2020) 106209

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Electrical Power and Energy Systems

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijepes

Overvoltage analysis and protection of lightning arresters in distribution T

systems with distributed generation
⁎
Jonathan Snodgrassa, , Le Xieb
a
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI USA
b
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The objective of this paper is to address an issue that arises from the increasing penetration of distributed energy
Distributed generation resources in power systems: the design and analysis of protective devices with more complex topology and
Microgrids power flow patterns. In particular, this paper investigates lightning arrester overloading and failure from fault-
Renewable energy resources induced overvoltages. Currently, the length of time from the fault inception until the lightning arrester’s failure
Lightning arresters
is unknown, forcing utility companies to assume the worst-case scenario and install more costly and complex
protection schemes than might otherwise be needed.
In this paper, the Thevenin Equivalent Impedance method is proposed to analyze a distributed generation
(DG) source’s effect on the transformer high side voltage. After examining the voltage transients and determining
the magnitude of the overvoltage, an optimal and cost-effective protective relaying strategy is developed and
implemented. To complete this study, various types of DG sources were modeled and simulated using two test
systems. Finally, the implementation of the suggested solution of intentional islanding operation of the dis-
tribution system is discussed. This solution allows the DG source to continue to supply a portion of the dis-
tribution system’s load, thereby increasing the reliability of the system.

1. Introduction
One of the major challenges facing the world today is that of global
climate change and the resulting effects on the environment. In re-
sponse, there have been efforts to decrease greenhouse gas emissions by
installing new renewable energy sources to eventually replace fossil-
fuel based generation [1]. Many of these renewable energy sources,
such as photovoltaic panels or wind turbines, are integrated directly
into distribution systems and are thus termed distributed generation
(DG) resources. DG resources pose fundamental challenges in today’s
control and protection framework of distribution systems, since the
traditional design philosophy is based on the premise of unidirectional
power flow from transmission down to the distribution systems [2,3].
While there are numerous additional challenges to overcome when
integrating DG into future or existing energy systems [4–6], the focus of
this paper is on updating distribution system protection schemes to
account for potential damage caused to surge arresters (also termed
lightning arresters) by DG sources.
If a distribution system with adequate distributed generation ca-
pacity is connected to the transmission or sub-transmission grid
through a delta-wye substation transformer, a persistent line-to-ground
fault that causes the distribution grid to inadvertently island will cause
at worst a line-to-line voltage drop across the line-to-ground connected
lightning arresters, thus overloading the arresters. Without an analysis
method to determine the possibility and severity of these overvoltages,
utility companies are forced to assume the worst-case scenario, and
must implement a distribution system protection scheme that is po-
tentially much more complex and costlier than otherwise required.
Thus, a tractable yet sufficiently accurate method to analyze the voltage
profile of a distribution system with integrated DG is of great need.
This paper presents an analysis method that uses a Thevenin
equivalent circuit to calculate the magnitude of the overvoltage seen by
the lightning arresters. By using the overvoltage magnitude to de-
termine the time to failure for the lightning arresters, a more appro-
priate protective relaying scheme may be utilized. This prevents a
distribution system operator (DSO) or utility company from im-
plementing an overly conservative and costly protection scheme.
Additionally, if intentional islanding schemes are utilized, the DG
source can continue to operate during a transmission-level fault, in-
creasing the reliability of the distribution grid by supplying a portion of
the distribution system load.
A brief summary of the paper is provided. Section 2 explains how a

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jsnodgrass2@wisc.edu (J. Snodgrass).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2020.106209
Received 23 December 2019; Received in revised form 6 May 2020; Accepted 20 May 2020
0142-0615/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Snodgrass and L. Xie
DG source can cause a fault-induced overvoltage that can damage the
lightning arresters. Section 3.1 summarizes work in the existing lit-
erature regarding overvoltages caused by DG in an ungrounded or
delta-connected distribution system. Section 3.2 summarizes other
analysis methods used to calculate distribution system voltages and
compares them to the proposed method of using Thevenin’s equivalent
circuit. Section 3.3 explores proposed modifications that distribution
system operators (DSOs) or utility companies can make to existing
distribution system protection schemes to prevent overvoltage damage
to lightning arresters. Section 4 presents an analysis method using
Thevenin’s equivalent circuit to determine distribution system voltages,
and includes a description of how the DG source, loads, and distribution
system were modeled. Section 5 shows simulations of distribution
systems with DG and demonstrates the existence of a 1.73 per unit
overvoltage caused by a permanent line-to-ground fault as well as the
effectiveness of Thevenin’s equivalent circuit in determining the dis-
tribution system voltage. Finally, Section 6 shows the time to failure for
lightning arresters for given overvoltage magnitudes. Section 6 also
presents modifications to a distribution system protection scheme that
prevent damage to the lightning arresters, which are selected based on
the time to failure.
2. Lightning arrester operation and temporary overvoltage
2.1. Problem overview
An increasing amount of distributed generation is being integrated
into distributions systems. Though there are many challenges that such
installations pose, one such difficulty is the occurrence of a line-to-line
(1.73 per unit) overvoltage on the high side of a delta-wye transformer
caused by inadvertent islanding of the distribution system. This issue is
illustrated in Fig. 1 and explained below.
In the case of a persistent line-to-ground fault (shown as an x in
Fig. 1), the transmission level line-end breaker(s) will open within 1–3
cycles. Once the line-end breakers have opened, the DG source will be
connected to the transmission grid via an ungrounded delta trans-
former. During this period until the DG breaker or distribution sub-
station breaker trips, the lightning arresters on the non-faulted phases
will experience up to a line-to-line voltage drop instead of the cus-
tomary line-to-neutral voltage drop, as explained in [7]. If the over-
voltage is severe enough, and the DG source isn’t tripped within 1–2
cycles, then this overvoltage condition will cause semiconductor-based
lightning arresters to fail [8]. As explained in [7], the delta transformer
creates a break in the zero-sequence transformer impedance, thus no
fault current flows, making fault detection much more difficult since
traditional overcurrent relays cannot be used.
Fig. 1. One-line of distribution system showing transmisison- or subtransmis-
sion-level breakers, 3 single-phase lightning arresters, fault location (marked
with an x), delta-wye transformer, and connected DG source.
2
Electrical Power and Energy Systems 123 (2020) 106209
3. Review of existing analysis
3.1. Existing analyses regarding fault-induced overvoltage damage to
litghtning arresters
Several other sources have theorized about the line-to-line over-
voltage created across the lightning arresters and documented the po-
tential problems that this overvoltage condition would create. The
analysis done in [9] shows how the loss of a ground source in a wind
turbine collector system can cause ferroresonance-induced overvoltage
failure of lightning arresters. In [10], it is shown that an ungrounded
wye system could experience up to a 1.73 per unit overvoltage on the
unfaulted phases for a single line-to-ground fault. The analysis in [11]
indicates that a 1.73 overvoltage can also occur from an open phase
fault. The authors in [12] introduce the idea of cogeneration (DG)
connected to a distribution system, and present the same problem as
addressed in this paper: a distribution-level DG source is interconnected
to the transmission grid through a delta-wye transformer. According to
[12], during a ground fault, the line-end breakers will open, but the DG
breaker will not open due to the delta connection preventing fault
current from flowing. Until the DG breaker trips on underfrequency or
undervoltage, the line section between the transformer and the line-end
breakers will operate as an ungrounded 3-wire system, and the un-
faulted phases “may reach 1.73P.U. This overvoltage may have no ef-
fect on gapped arresters, but the metal oxide arresters on this feeder
will conduct current on the overvoltage. If the overvoltage is high, the
metal oxide arresters will fail unless the duration of the overvoltage is
short.” [12]
While all of these papers explain that neutral shift overvoltages can
occur in theory, none of them conducted simulations to illustrate or
prove this point. Thus, in Section 5.1 the effect of a line-to-ground fault
on an ungrounded (delta) system is examined. It is shown that the re-
sulting neutral shift overvoltage does indeed result in an overvoltage of
approximately 1.73 pu voltage on the unfaulted phases.
Additionally, existing work suggests replacing semiconductor-based
arresters with gapped arresters [11] or upgrading the arresters so they
are rated for line-to-line voltage instead of the customary line-to-neu-
tral voltage [8,10]. However, replacing or upgrading the arresters in-
curs significant cost to the distribution system operator (DSO) or utility
company, in addition to reducing the effectiveness of the arresters in
protecting against transient overvoltages and switching surges [10].
Additionally, the authors in [9] suggest closing a ground switch 20 ms
after the feeder breaker opens, thus causing the wind turbines in the
collector system to trip to avoid overvoltage damage to the lightning
arresters. Unfortunately, this solution also has the disadvantage of in-
creased wear on the wind turbine breakers, as well as eliminating the
potential for intentional islanding to continue serving any connected
load.
Instead of following the previously suggested recommendations in
the existing literature, this paper proposes calculating the voltage
magnitude at the distribution system substation and appropriately
modifying the protection scheme to avoid damage to the lightning ar-
resters. Specifically, Section 4 presents a method using Thevenin’s
equivalent circuit to calculate the resulting voltage profile of the dis-
tribution system after the substation breaker opens. The resulting
magnitude of the substation voltage will determine the duration until
the failure of the lightning arresters, which informs the decision about
which modification should be implemented to the distribution system
protection scheme. This analysis and potential modifications are ex-
plored in Section 6.
3.2. Previously proposed voltage calculation methods
There are currently three methods available for calculating the
distribution system voltages to determine the magnitude of the over-
voltage at the substation: unbalanced 3-phase distribution power flow,
J. Snodgrass and L. Xie
calculations utilizing symmetrical components and general circuit
analysis techniques. However, the first two methods have difficulties in
calculating the fault-induced overvoltage as explained below. The
general circuit analysis techniques are utilized to determine the effec-
tiveness of the proposed method of utilizing Thevenin’s equivalent
circuit.
Power flow is a solution technique that utilizes numerical methods
to solve equations describing the real and reactive power flow on a
network in terms of bus voltage magnitude and phase angle [13]. Un-
balanced power flow models the mutual coupling between phases in a
power system in addition to unbalanced loads [14]. DG resources can
be modeled as either PV busses [15] or both PV and PQ buses [16].
The benefits of 3-phase unbalanced power flow are the readily
available open-source software for modeling and solving the problem
[17,18]. The disadvantages of distribution power flow are that the so-
lution method requires a slack (or distributed slack) bus that provides
the necessary real and reactive power injections to balance load and
losses with generation. Normally, the distribution substation, or point
of interconnection (POI), is set as the reference or slack bus [16], but
once the transmission-level breakers open and the distribution system is
(at least temporarily) islanded, the transmission grid can no longer be
used as the reference bus. If the DG source(s) can be re-dispatched to
supply the entire load of the distribution system, the power flow can be
solved. However, if the DG source(s) are inadequate to supply the entire
load, unbalanced power flow can no longer be used. However, the
proposed Thevenin equivalent circuit analysis technique overcomes this
difficulty by modeling constant power or current limited sources as
explained in Section 5.3
Another approach used to determine the magnitude of the fault-
induced overvoltage is the method of symmetrical components.
Originally proposed by Fortescue in 1918 [19], symmetrical compo-
nents uses a linear transformation to decompose an unbalanced net-
work into three balanced sequence networks: the positive, negative and
zero sequences [20,21]. The advantage of sequence network approach
is the treatment of both the unbalanced power flow in the distribution
network as well as the analysis of the transmission line fault.
However, the fundamental problem with using symmetrical com-
ponents to compute unbalanced distribution load flow is that trans-
forming phase impedances to sequence impedances requires im-
pedances to be finite. This is normally not an issue for three-phase
transmission or distribution system primary feeders, but distribution
systems often contain single- or two-phase laterals that directly supply
loads. The missing phases have zero-entries in their corresponding line
admittance matrices, which results in infinite impedance in the corre-
sponding impedance matrices. Thus, the impedance matrices for single
and two-phase systems cannot be converted to sequence impedances.
This prohibits analysis using symmetrical components from being used
to compute voltages in distribution system with single or two-phase
laterals.
Traditional circuit analysis methods include well-known techniques
such as mesh current or node voltage [22], which can be utilized to
calculate the voltages in a circuit model of a distribution system. Such
methods can be utilized for single-phase or unbalanced three phase
systems, and for systems where the DG source capacity is below the
load capacity. Thus, circuit analysis techniques are utilized as a
benchmarking method to determine the accuracy of Thevenin’s
equivalent circuit method in calculating the distribution system vol-
tages. Additionally, if a complete distribution system model is available,
it can be utilized to compute the worst-case error when utilizing the
Thevenin equivalent method for adaptive on-line calculations of fault-
induced over-voltages, as explained in Section 6.
However, the DSO often does not have a complete model of the
distribution system including the exact locations of loads on the feeder
laterals, as explained in Section 4.3. Instead, approximations are made
for the locations of the loads on the primary and secondary feeders, thus
reducing the accuracy of the model and resulting voltage calculations.
3
Electrical Power and Energy Systems 123 (2020) 106209
In such situations without a complete model of the distribution system,
it is advantageous to utilize the Thevenin equivalent circuit since all
circuit analysis techniques require approximations and estimates for the
distribution system model.
Additionally, using mesh current or node voltage circuit analysis
techniques to calculate the node voltages in a large unbalanced dis-
tribution system is computationally expensive, and thus difficult to
perform on-line. Thus, even if a full distribution system model is
available, the DSO could still utilize the Thevenin equivalent circuit to
calculate the substation voltage using real-time load data to adaptively
update the distribution system protection scheme, as explained more in
Section 6.
3.3. Current utility solutions
Currently, protection engineers mitigate the risk of lightning ar-
rester overloading and failure by installing a transmission-level un-
dervoltage monitoring relay with a direct transfer trip signal to the DG
source’s main breaker [23]. This transfer trip command could initiate
from the remote substation relays, or a relay on the high side of the
local substation transformer. While this approach is robust and reliable,
it causes over-tripping of the DG source for every transmission line
fault, including transient faults. This means the DG source must wait a
set amount of time before reconnecting to the transmission grid and
must go through the resynchronization process before connecting to the
grid. This results in lost revenue for the DG, and increased wear and
tear on the DG interconnection breaker. Also, there is currently no
analysis process to determine if the power output of the DG source is
sufficient to cause overvoltages capable of damaging the lightning ar-
resters, i.e. determining if the distribution system load reduces the
substation voltage enough to mitigate the problem. Therefore, the
worst-case scenario is always assumed, and undervoltage relays with
direct transfer trip are implemented for all capacities of distribution
level interconnected DG. Thus, a simple, but sufficiently accurate
method of determining the overvoltage conditions resulting from a
persistent line-to-ground fault needs to be developed.
4. Analysis using thevinin’s equivalent circuit
Given the drawbacks and inadequacies of the previously proposed
methods to analyze the high-side transformer voltage to determine if
the transmission line lightning arresters will be overloaded, a simpler,
first-order method must be developed and tested. Thus, the distribution
system is modeled using Thevenin’s equivalent impedance with the
substation as the output node. This allows for calculation of the sub-
station voltages using ohm’s law and doesn’t require the use of sequence
networks, unbalanced load flow calculations, in-depth circuit analysis,
or numerical solvers.
4.1. Thevenin’s equivalent circuit overview
As shown in Section 5.1, the voltage transients are negligible after
the transmission breakers open, thus allowing the authors to use a
steady state analysis method to determine the transformer high-side
voltage and determine if the lightning arresters would fail. Therefore,
the distribution system network was modeled using Thevenin’s
equivalent impedance [22], with the DG source modeled as an ideal
voltage source, the primary distribution feeder modeled using an
equivalent network impedance, and the total distribution system load
represented using a constant impedance model of the equivalent load,
as shown below in Fig. 2. As explained in Section 4.3 below, the model
can be adapted to incorporate additional knowledge of the distribution
system from the distribution system operator, and a modified voltage
divider equation is used.
J. Snodgrass and L. Xie
Fig. 2. Thevenin Equivalent Network Model.
4.2. DC source modeling
Since the total load of the IEEE 13 node system is 3.74 kVA [24], a 5
kVA microturbine was connected to node 675. As explained in Section
5.1, the synchronous reactance of the microturbine was used as the
source impedance since the machine would be operating in steady state
after the transmission line breakers opened. Based on typical values
from [25], the reactance X was set to be 0.17 pu and the X/R ratio is 25.
Because the total distribution system load was less than the max-
imum power output of the DG source, the source was modeled as an
ideal voltage source. Although the authors did not fully model power
electronically interfaced generation, if a power electronically interfaced
DG source was used, the equivalent impedance of the DG source as well
as power electronics and any connected transformers would be utilized.
If the power electronically interfaced DG source has a power rating
below the total distribution system load, an iterative approach can be
used to estimate the voltage and current supplied by the DG, as ex-
plained in Section 5.3.
4.3. Load modeling
The system detail level employed using the Thevenin’s equivalent
impedance can vary based on the modeling detail of the distribution
system model available to the distribution system operator. The authors
assumed that the distribution system operator (DSO) only knows the
impedances of the primary distribution feeder(s) and the total kVA of
the distribution system load but does not know the exact placement of
the load in the distribution system model. Following the practice in the
utility industry, the authors modeled the primary distribution feeders
and placed the aggregate load at the substation, which was the furthest
from the DG source. This mirrors the common practice of distribution
protection engineers of modeling the aggregate distribution system load
at the end of the primary feeder for fault calculations.
However, if the distribution system operator has a more detailed
model of the distribution system including impedances of the secondary
feeders, laterals and locations of the loads on the feeders or laterals,
then that information could be included in the model. The DG source
would be placed at the proposed location in the distribution system
model, and the feeder(s) and loads would be modeled according to the
knowledge of the distribution system operator. If a complete distribu-
tion system model is available, circuit analysis techniques such as node
voltage or mesh current could be utilized in addition to Thevenin’s
equivalent circuit for an offline calculation of the voltage at the sub-
station.
4.4. Equivalent system impedance
The authors are modeling the case where the distribution system
operator does not know the precise location of the loads in the dis-
tribution system. Thus, the impedances of the primary feeders are uti-
lized, and the equivalent system load is placed at the substation. To
calculate the Thevenin equivalent impedance of the network, the first
4
Electrical Power and Energy Systems 123 (2020) 106209
and primary method used to measure the equivalent circuit impedance
was injecting a test current and measuring the resulting voltage [22].
The method is as follows: first deactivate the sources by setting their
values to zero. This results in a short (zero voltage) for voltage sources,
and an open circuit (zero current) for current sources. Then, a test
current source is connected to the output node, and the voltage drop
from node one to node two of the current source is measured. Using
ohm’s law, the system impedance is calculated by dividing the mea-
sured voltage by the injected test current.
4.5. Voltage computation
Once the equivalent impedance is calculated, the DG voltage source
and equivalent distribution system load are used to compute the voltage
at the output node, i.e. the substation. Ohm’s law in the form of a
voltage divider equation is utilized to calculate the substation voltage.
5. Numerical examples and results
First, the authors utilized the IEEE 4 node test feeder [26] to test the
authors’ hypothesis that a steady state analysis is sufficient to determine
the fault-induced overvoltage on the transmission system. Then, the
authors employed the IEEE 13 node test feeder [26] to examine the
accuracy of the proposed Thevenin’s equivalent model compared to a
full unbalanced distribution load flow. For the base case, there was a
maximum error of 0.02% between the phase voltages calculated from
the Thevenin’s equivalent impedance and those simulated using a nu-
merical circuit analysis solver in Simulink. Additionally, the load was
increased, and different system topologies were modeled to increase the
effective loading of the system, as explained below in Section 5.2.
5.1. IEEE 4 node test feeder
The first step in testing the validity of the Thevenin equivalent
circuit approach was to examine the transient voltage waveforms to
determine if they had significant impact on the peak voltage seen across
the lightning arresters. The hypothesis is that voltage transients would
be minimal since negligible fault current flows after the transmission
breakers are opened, and thus a steady-state analysis will be sufficient
to determine the magnitude of the fault-induced overvoltages. To test
this hypothesis, the IEEE 4 node test feeder was modeled and simulated
in the EMTP transient program, ATP [27]. This model is shown in
Fig. 3. The IEEE 4 node case [28] is a small distribution system con-
sisting of an infinite bus representing the transmission grid, a delta-wye
transformer, and two short, nearly symmetrical distribution lines. The
primary purpose of this distribution system is to test simulation models
of transformers when there is an unbalanced load on the distribution
system. Thus, this system worked well to examine the transient voltages
caused by a line-to-ground fault on the high side of a delta-wye trans-
former, as well validate the line-to-line overvoltage on the lightning
arresters, as described in Section 2.
First, a base case was established for the balanced load specified in
[20] by simulating a single phase-to-ground fault on the high side of the
transformer. The voltage at the high side of the transformer is shown
below in Fig. 4. To aid in viewing the results, the authors set the peak
voltage value of the DG source to be the nominal line-to-line voltage.
Thus, the pre-fault voltage seen across the lightning arresters (con-
nected line to neutral) is 24.83 kV, and the post fault voltage is 43 kV,
corresponding to the line-to-line voltage of the pre-fault condition. This
validates the assertions from [10,11] that a bolted line-to-ground fault
on an ungrounded (delta) system results in an approximately 1.73 pu
(line-to-line voltage) overvoltage to be seen on the non-faulted phases.
However, the overvoltage is only seen on the high side of the delta-wye
transformer so the DG source will not experience an overvoltage at its
terminals.
Also, the transient voltage spikes in Fig. 4 are noticeably
J. Snodgrass and L. Xie
Fig. 3. ATP Simulation of IEEE 4 Node System Model.
insignificant, thus showing that a steady-state post fault voltage fully
characterizes the behavior of the system. As seen below, there is no
overshoot or significant ramping from the pre-fault to post-fault voltage
levels of the system, thus validating the authors’ hypothesis. This is
most likely because a negligible amount of fault current flows in the
system, as explained in [7].
5.2. IEEE 13 node test feeder
After the transient and steady state voltages were examined using
the IEEE 4 node feeder, a larger system, the IEEE 13 node test feeder,
was utilized to examine the effect of DG placement and load values on
the substation voltage. The characteristics of the IEEE 13 node feeder
[29] are that the system is operated at 4.16 kV, the lines are short and
relatively highly loaded, and the system has unbalanced loads and
shunt capacitor banks. The Simulink model of the IEEE 13 node test
feeder that was included in Matlab 2015b is shown in Fig. 5.
The equivalent system impedance can be calculated by the utility
company using known distribution line parameters and models, and
SCADA load data from the substations or smart meter data for more
Fig. 4. Voltage Transients for Single Line-to-Ground Fault.
5
Electrical Power and Energy Systems 123 (2020) 106209
accurate individual load data. In the IEEE 13 node test feeder, both test
current injection and Voc/Isc methods were used to determine the
equivalent impedance.
Additionally, the system load was increased by connecting two of
the IEEE 13 node systems together in series by connecting the substa-
tion of a second system to node 675 of the first system, and the DG
source to node 675 of the second system. This is the “series” config-
uration below. The “parallel” configuration is achieved by adding a
copy of the IEEE 13 node system to the test distribution system with the
DG at node 675, and connecting substation of the two systems together.
The “series parallel 1” system is the “series” system with an additional
IEEE 13 node system connected in parallel, i.e. by connecting the
substations together. The “series parallel 2” configuration is similar,
except there are two IEEE 13 node systems in parallel with the series
configuration. These configurations were created to compare the effect
of increasing the feeder impedance and composite system load with a
Simulink simulation of a larger and more heavily loaded distribution
system.
Additionally, the load levels were modified as shown below in
Table 1. The different load levels were selected to demonstrate the
J. Snodgrass and L. Xie Electrical Power and Energy Systems 123 (2020) 106209

Fig. 5. Simulink Simulation of the IEEE 13 Node Feeder System.

Table 1 modified configuration of the IEEE system as explained above in

Equivalent Substation Load for Modified Configurations of IEEE 13 Node Section 5.2. Notice that the primary feeder connecting the DG system
System. from node 675 to the substation primarily determines the equivalent
Configuration Phase A Phase B Phase C impedance as “seen” from node 675 to the “output” node of the sub-
station. Notice how the equivalent impedance nearly doubles from the
Base Case 678-240i 600-268i 723-301i base case to the “series” case which connects two IEEE 13 node systems
Parallel 1755-649i 1144-403i 1695-598i
in “series,” which highlights the contribution of the primary feeder to
Series 1357-480i 1200-537i 1446-602i
Series Parallel 1 3111-1129i 2344-940i 3141-1200i the equivalent impedance. The reason the impedance didn’t completely
Series Parallel 2 4866-1778i 3489-1344i 4836-1798i double is due to the connected load in the distribution system.
For each of the load scenarios in Table 1, the equivalent impedance
was calculated using a nominal system line-to-line voltage of 4.16 kV.
effectiveness of the Thevenin equivalent circuit in calculating the sub- V Z
The voltage divider equation, Vsub = Z DG+ Load was utilized to calcu-
Load ZFeeder
station voltages for a range of distribution system load levels. Since the late the substation voltage, Vsub for each load scenario. ZFeeder is the
DG is rated at 5kVA, the first 3 scenarios have a total loading level impedance of each configuration of the IEEE 13 bus system as listed in
below the rating of the DG. The last two load scenarios were created to Table 2. However, if less modeling detail is available for the distribu-
examine the distribution system voltages when the total load was tion system then the impedance of the feeder(s) and/or lateral(s) con-
higher than the DG rating. Finally, the results for the calculations and necting the DG to the distribution system can be used for ZFeeder .
simulations are summarized in the subsequent section. Finally, the resulting substation voltage for each configuration of
the IEEE 13 node feeder system is shown below in Table 3. The re-
5.3. Results and discussion sulting voltages are displayed for the phase with the highest per unit
voltage since it will result in the worst-case overloading of the lightning
Table 2 records the measured equivalent impedance of each
Table 3
Table 2 Calculated Substation Voltages for Each Modified IEEE 13 Node System
Measured Thevenin Equivalent Impedance of Modified Configurations of IEEE Configuration.
13 Node System.
Test Case Voltage using Voltage using Phase % Error
Configuration Phase A Phase B Phase C Configuration Thevenin’s Circuit Simulink

Base Case 0.2353 + 0.4431i 0.2251 + 0.4219i 0.223 + 0.4229i Base Case 0.9693 0.9694 B 0.02%
Parallel 0.2353 + 0.4431i 0.2251 + 0.4219i 0.223 + 0.4229i Parallel 0.958 0.951 B 0.78%
Series 0.473 + 0.9388i 0.4444 + 0.9114i 0.4412 + 0.901i Series 0.904 0.929 B 2.60%
Series Parallel 1 0.5052 + 0.7577i 0.4743 + 0.7886i 0.4755 + 0.7419i Series Parallel 1 0.838 0.889 B 5.74%
Series Parallel 2 0.4994 + 0.619i 0.4809 + 0.6869i 0.4761 + 0.6161i Series Parallel 2 0.786 0.844 B 6.92%

6
J. Snodgrass and L. Xie
arresters on the high side of the transformer. Also, phase B also had the
worst calculation error of the 3 phases for all scenarios.
The calcuation method utilizing Thevenin’s equivalent circuit re-
sulted in lower voltages than the Simulink simulation. This is to be
expected, since placing the load at the substation and the DG source at
node 675 places the load and DG on “opposite” sides of the distribution
system. Thus, there is more current flowing through the main feeder at
the substation in the Thevenin model than there is in the full dis-
tribution system model. This reduces the substation voltage in the
Thevenin equivalent analysis compared to the Simulink simulation.
If additional distribution system modeling detail is available, the
loads can be placed on their corresponding points along the main feeder
(s) to increase the calculation accuracy. Then, a series of voltage divider
equations, or the node voltage method, could be utilized to calculate
the substation voltage. However, as seen in table 3, the largest error is
6.92%, which indicates that the Thevenin equivalent circuit method
provides a good first-order approximation to determine the distribution
system substation voltages. However, if the calculated distribution
system voltage is close to overloading the lightning arresters during a
permanent line-to-ground fault, then either a more comprehensive
analysis method can be utilized, or a more conservative system pro-
tection scheme from Section 6.4 should be implemented.
5.4. Power limited renewable generation models
Once the test systems were established, a simple model for power
electronic interfaced DG sources was developed. Current industry
practice is to model such sources as current-limited (to 1.5 pu) voltage
sources to reflect the regulating effect of the power electronics. Thus, a
simple model of these sources is a constant power source, since the
power electronic interfaces can only supply a maximum amount of
power to the system.
Since the distribution system loads in Simulink are modeled as
constant impedance loads, a constant power source is created using the
following approach: Using the measured current as feedback, a
Simulink controlled voltage source is varied to supply constant power
to the system. A Simulink model of the proposed system is shown below
in Fig. 6. Since two quantities are fixed, the load impedance Z and the
power output of the source, there need to be two degrees of freedom to
satisfy Ohm’s law and the electrical power equation. Thus, these two
equations, P = IV and V = IZ are used to calculate the voltage and
current produced by the power-limited DG source. Then, these voltages
and currents can be used to determine the voltage drop across the
network and thus the voltage at the substation.
The constant power model described above and shown in Fig. 6 can
Fig. 6. Simulink Constant Power Model of Power Electronically Interfaced Generation.
7
Electrical Power and Energy Systems 123 (2020) 106209
Fig. 7. Thevenin Equivalent Network Model Using Current Source.
be utilized until the rated current or temporary overcurrent limit of the
DG source is reached. At which point, the voltage source in Thevenin’s
equivalent circuit in Fig. 1 is replaced with a current source supplying
the DG’s rated current as shown in Fig. 7. For higher load levels, the
equivalent resistance decreases, consequently reducing the voltage at
the substation calculated using Ohm’s law (V = IZ ). If there are a
substantial number of constant current loads in the distribution system,
such as motors, they can be modeled as current sources in series with
the equivalent system load.
6. Suggested solutions
As shown in previous sections, Thevenin’s equivalent circuit can be
utilized to calculate the voltage at the low side of the delta-wye
transformer. This voltage is then multiplied by the 3 voltage increase
caused by the delta connected transformer to determine the per unit
voltage overload at the high side of the transformer. After the high-side
voltage is determined, a mitigation strategy must be determined and
implemented. If the lightning arresters will not overload before the DG
source trips on anti-islanding detection, no further actions must be
taken. But if lightning arrester overloading and damage will occur, one
of the following two strategies must be implemented: either replacing
the lightning arresters with ones with higher maximum continuous
operating voltage (MCOV) ratings, or the distribution system breaker or
DG source must be tripped before the lightning arresters will be da-
maged, as explained in the following 3 sub-sections.
6.1. Lightning arrester sizing considerations
When sizing lightning arresters for distribution systems, several
considerations must be made, as indicated in [30–32]. Per [8], arresters
are selected to have a duty cycle ranging from 0.72 to 1.13 per unit of
the distribution system line-to-line voltage and 0.75 to 0.94 per unit of
the transmission system line-to-line voltage. Since the MCOV rating is
J. Snodgrass and L. Xie
always lower than the duty cycle rating [32], this results in the typical
distribution system arrester having an MCOV rating that is between
1.06 and 0.61 of the line-to-line conductor voltage, and transmission
arresters with MCOV ratings between 0.80 and 0.59 of the line-to-line
voltage. For the most conservative analysis, the lowest rating in this
range can be utilized, but if the DSO or utility company knows the
MCOV ratings of their arresters, they can utilize the exact MCOV ratings
in the analysis that follows.
6.2. Overvoltage induced time to failure for lightning arresters
Per the IEEE 1547–2018 standard, DG sources must remain con-
nected to the distribution system to provide reactive power support
during a fault [33]. Depending on the category of the DG source, the DG
source many not trip until a time ranging from 0.6 s to 10 s has elapsed
for undervoltage levels ranging from 0.7 to 0.5 pu. Additionally, if a DG
source is not configured for unintentional islanding, the DG source must
disconnect within 2 s of detecting an island condition. Thus, based on
this information, the lightning arresters should be able to withstand a
temporary overvoltage caused by the delta-wye transformer of between
1 and 10 s, depending on the category of the DG source.
When subjected to an overvoltage of sufficient duration and mag-
nitude, metal oxide surge (MOS) arresters will fail. These temporary
overvoltage (TOV) ratings and curves are determined using tests spe-
cified in [32]. Utilizing Tables 1–3 in [8], it is determined that dis-
tribution system lightning arresters will overload after 1 s at lower
threshold voltages ranging from 1.51 pu to 1.94 pu, and will overload
within 10 s beginning at 1.44 to 1.86 pu voltage. The minimum over-
load threshold for overloading transmission arresters after 1 s ranged
from 1.48 pu to 2.0 pu voltage and after 10 s transmission arresters will
overload beginning at 1.4 to 1.9 pu voltage, depending on the rating of
the arrester chosen. From this range, it is clear that some arresters,
particularly those with duty cycle ratings at or above the line-to-line
voltage, will not overload after 1 s of being exposed to a 1.73 per unit
overvoltage. However, arresters that are rated closer to the nominal
line-to-neutral distribution or transmission system voltage will overload
and fail within 1 s.
For example, if a 3.0 kV arrester from Table 1 in [8] was installed on
the 4.16 kV IEEE 13 bus system, these arresters would fail in 1 s when
subjected to 1.52 pu voltage, which equates to a transformer secondary
side voltage of 0.88 per unit. Thus, this particular lightning arrester
would be overloaded for the total distribution load scenarios below
8500 MW in Table 1, i.e. the base case, series, and parallel system
configurations. Thus, the distribution system protection scheme must
be modified to island the distribution system or disconnect the DG
before the lightning arresters will be overloaded.
If the MCOV ratings and temporary overvoltage (TOV) curves of the
lightning arresters are known, then the exact time to failure can be
determined using the calculated distribution system voltage. If this in-
formation is not available, the worst case must be assumed, and the
lowest arrester duty cycle rating for the given distribution system vol-
tage in Table 1 in [8] should be utilized. For example, the IEEE 13 node
feeder base case substation voltage of 0.969 pu results in a 3.0 kV
lightning arrester being overloaded in 0.02 s, or slightly over one cycle.
If the computed time to failure results in the arresters overloading
before the DG source trips on anti-islanding detection or undervoltage
protection, then one of the following solutions in the following sub-
sections should be implemented.
6.3. Replacing and upgrading lightning arresters
As proposed by other papers in the existing literature, the gapless
semiconductor-based metal-oxide surge (MOS) arresters can be re-
placed with gapped arresters due to their higher TOV withstand curves.
Another solution involves replacing the MOS arresters with arresters
having a maximum continuous operating voltage (MCOV) equal to the
8
Electrical Power and Energy Systems 123 (2020) 106209
line-to-line voltage of the distribution or transmission system, as sug-
gested in [8,31]. This is practical for a future distribution system with a
delta-wye transformer that is being designed with integrated DG; the
lightning arresters should be selected with an MCOV of at least the line-
to-line system voltage. However, for existing systems with numerous
arresters installed in the distribution or transmission system, this option
is not cost effective compared with the recommendations in the fol-
lowing sub-section.
6.4. Proposed distribution system protection schemes
For a static distribution system protection scheme to protect against
lightning arrester failure, the worst-case (shortest) time to failure for
the lighting arresters should be computed using the lightest distribution
system load and rated DG output. The resulting required modifications
to the distribution system protection scheme depend on whether is-
landing is desired and whether the DG will trip on undervoltage or anti-
islanding detection before the lightning arresters will overload.
If the DG source is connected to the distribution system using a
delta-wye transformer and the permanent line-to-ground fault is on the
distribution system as shown in [7], then the DG source itself must be
tripped to prevent damage to the lightning arresters on the distribution
system. However, if the permanent fault is on the transmission system
that is connected to the distribution system via a delta-wye transformer,
then the distribution system can be islanded to increase the distribution
system reliability. This can be accomplished by tripping the low-side
distribution system breaker that is the closest to the delta-wye substa-
tion transformer.
If the calculated voltage does not result in lightning arrester failure
before the DG source would otherwise trip, an intentional islanding
scheme can be utilized to allow the distribution system to continue
functioning with the DG supplying some or all of the loads. To suc-
cessfully island the distribution system by tripping the substation
breaker, under/over voltage and under/over frequency relays are ty-
pically utilized [7]. If islanding is not desired, no modification to the
distribution system protection scheme is necessary. This saves DG
owners the expense of paying for unnecessary additional protection
equipment described in Section 3.3, and from losing revenue un-
necessarily.
However, if the lightning arresters would fail before the DG breaker
trips on anti-islanding or undervoltage, then either the substation
breaker or DG source breaker need to be tripped, depending on whether
islanding is desired. If the lightning arresters will overload within a few
cycles, then the DG or distribution breaker should be tripped at the
inception of the fault. One such method described in [23] utilizes a
transformer-high side undervoltage relay to detect the phase-to-ground
fault and send a direct transfer trip to the DG source breaker. This is
seen in the base case of the IEEE 13 system, where the lightning ar-
resters would overload in approximately one cycle, which is insufficient
time to trip the DG source breaker after the transmission line-end
breakers have opened.
If the time to overload is greater than a few cycles but still results in
arrester failure, then the time delay for the existing distribution system
anti-islanding protection scheme can be decreased to avoid damage to
the lightning arresters. If islanding is desired, an intentional islanding
scheme can be designed to successfully island the system before the
lightning arresters would be damaged by the fault-induced un-
grounded-delta overvoltage.
After the distribution grid successfully islands, load shedding relays
are used to balance the DG generation capacity and the load. Then, the
DG source is switched to droop control [34] based grid forming mode
[35] in order to match small changes in the load power. After the
transmission level fault has been completely cleared, the distribution
system is resynchronized and reconnected to the transmission grid
following the procedure described in [7].
J. Snodgrass and L. Xie
6.5. On-line voltage calculations and adaptive relaying strategies
Another advantage of utilizing Thevenin’s equivalent method is that
the protection schemes mentioned in the preceding section can be
adaptively updated to reflect the current load level and maximum DG
output. For example, if the current wind speed or incident solar energy
results in the DG output being below its rated value, and the distribu-
tion system load is higher than the worst-case (lowest) value, the time
to failure will be longer than the worst-case calculations descrived in
earlier sections. This time increase could allow a less-aggressive re-
laying scheme to be implemented during low DG output and/or higher
load conditions to avoid unnecessarily over-tripping the DG source.
Without this adaptive methodology, the worst-case scenario must al-
ways be assumed, and the maximum DG output and minimum dis-
tribution system load level must be utilized to determine the worst-case
(shortest) time to failure for the lightning arresters.
For these online calculations, the worst-case error for the Thevenin
equivalent method should be calculated as seen in Table 3. Then, the
Thevenin method could scaled by the maximum error amount and be
utilized in real-time to determine the overvoltage time to failure for the
arresters. This will determine if the DG source breaker or substation
breaker needs to be tripped more quickly, or if the DG can stay con-
nected for a longer duration to participate in LVRT or wait until the
transmission-level breakers try and reclose.
7. Summary and conclusions
This paper examines future design and analysis of protective re-
laying schemes in distribution systems with integrated distributed
generators. Specifically, when examining the impacts of inter-
connecting new distributed generation (DG) sources into an existing or
new distribution grid, studies must be performed to ensure that light-
ning arresters on the high side of a delta-wye distribution transformers
will not fail from a temporary overvoltage. This overvoltage condition
can happen when a persistent single line-to-ground fault occurs on the
high side of the distribution transformer, increasing the voltage of the
unfaulted phases to a maximum of 1.73 pu volts. In this paper, the
Thevenin Equivalent Impedance method was used to calculate the
magnitude of the overvoltage, which determined the proper protective
relaying strategy to be implemented.
As shown in previous sections, there are several proposed methods
of calculating distribution system voltages including unbalanced dis-
tribution load flow, symmetrical components, and circuit analysis
techniques such as mesh current or node voltage. It was established that
symmetrical components cannot be utilized for distribution systems
with single or two-phase laterals, and the remaining methods required
complete detailed models of the distribution system. Additionally, dis-
tribution load flow requires that the DG capacity be adequate to supply
the entire load of the distribution system. Since the distribution system
model is often incomplete and lacks full models of the feeder laterals,
another analysis method utilizing Thevenin’s equivalent circuit was
proposed, which does not require a full model of the distribution
system.
First, an equivalent network impedance was determined for the
feeder containing the DG source. Next, an estimate of the lowest load
level was calculated, which results in the worst-case voltage overload,
and a single equivalent load impedance was modeled. Then, Ohm’s Law
was used to determine the voltage at the substation node of this
equivalent circuit consisting of the DG source, the system impedance,
and the load impedance.
The Thevenin Equivalent Impedance method is beneficial because it
provides a practical and straightforward method to determine whether
a given DG capacity level will overload the lightning arresters before
the substation breaker will trip and inadvertently island the distribution
system. This method is a significant improvement over the current
approach utilized by utility companies and DSOs, which always
9
Electrical Power and Energy Systems 123 (2020) 106209
assumes the lightning arresters will overload for any load level or ca-
pacity of installed DG. Using this current approach, the DG source is
tripped for every single line-to-ground fault on the high side of the
delta-wye transformer, reducing revenue for the DG owners.
As established in this paper, only permanent (or bolted) line-to-
ground faults result in the overvoltage at the high side of the delta-wye
transformer. If calculating the distribution system voltages results in
adequate time until the lightening arresters would fail, a protective
relaying scheme could be adopted that waits until the transmission or
substation feeder breaker tries to reclose before tripping the DG source.
If the transmission or substation breaker recloses successfully, the DG
source can remain online and avoid interruptions of service.
However, if the DG source has sufficient capacity to both damage
the lightning arresters before the transmission breakers lock out, and
supply the majority of the distribution system load, the distribution
system could be islanded to increase system reliability. By intentionally
islanding the distribution grid instead of always tripping the DG source
breaker for all faults, the DG source may supply a portion, or all, of the
distribution system load, thus increasing the reliability of the dis-
tribution grid and reducing lost revenue for the DG owners. Finally,
modeling the distribution system using Thevenin’s Equivalent
Impedance allows the voltage calculations to be performed in real-time,
allowing the distribution system protection scheme to be updated
adaptively based on the system load level and current, forecasted or
scheduled DG output.
This paper provides the initial phase of a full systematic framework
of co-designing transmission and distribution protection systems.
Future research areas include conducting stability studies to analyze the
effects of large mismatches between the DG capacity and load levels
when the system islands, in addition to studies to improve DG and grid
synchronization and reconnection.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Jonathan Snodgrass: Investigation, Methodology, Software,
Writing - original draft. Le Xie: Conceptualization, Supervision.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declared that there is no conflict of interest.
References
[1] ERCOT, “ERCOT Analysis of the Impacts of the Clean Power Plan, Final Rule
Update,” 2015.
[2] K. Kauhaniemi and L. Kumpulainen, “Impact of distributed generation on the pro-
tection of distribution networks,” in 2004 Eighth IEE International Conference on
Developments in Power System Protection, 2004, pp. 315-318 Vol.1.
[3] Le TD, Petit M. Directional relays for distribution networks with Distributed
Generation. 11th IET International Conference on Developments in Power Systems
Protection (DPSP 2012) 2012:1–6.
[4] Conti S. Analysis of distribution network protection issues in presence of dispersed
generation. Electr Power Syst Res 2009;79:49–56.
[5] Doyle MT. Reviewing the impacts of distributed generation on distribution system
protection. IEEE Power Engineering Society Summer Meeting 2002:103–5.
[6] El-Khattam W, Sidhu TS. Resolving the impact of distributed renewable generation
on directional overcurrent relay coordination: a case study. IET Renew Power Gener
2009;3:415.
[7] Behrendt K. Protection for unexpected delta sources. 29th Annual Western
Protective Relay Conference. Washington: Spokane; 2002.
[8] L. Pryor, “The Application and Selection of Lightning Arresters,” General Electric
Company2008.
[9] Schoene J, Pallem C, McDermott T, Walling R. Evaluating the Response of Surge
Arresters to Temporary Overvoltages. presented at the IEEE PES T&D Conference
and Exposition 2014.
[10] A. Mansoor and F. Martzloff, “The dilemma of surge protection vs. overvoltage
scenarios: Implications for low-voltage surge-protective devices,” in 8th
International Conference on Harmonics and Quality of Power. Proceedings (Cat.
No. 98EX227), 1998, pp. 964-969.
[11] Walling R, Hartana R, Ros W. Self-generated overvoltages due to open-phasing of
ungrounded-wye delta transformer banks. IEEE Trans Power Delivery
1995;10:526–33.
J. Snodgrass and L. Xie
[12] Sakshaug E, Burke J, Kresge J. Metal oxide arresters on distribution systems: fun-
damental considerations. IEEE Trans Power Delivery 1989;4:2076–89.
[13] Glover JD, Sarma MS, Overbye T. Power system analysis & design. SI version:
Cengage Learning; 2012.
[14] Chen TH, Chen MS, Hwang KJ, Kotas P, Chebli EA. Distribution system power flow
analysis-a rigid approach. IEEE Trans Power Delivery 1991;6:1146–52.
[15] A. Abur, H. Singh, H. Liu, and W. Klingensmith, “Three phase power flow for dis-
tribution systems with dispersed generation,” 14th PSCC, Sevilla, vol. 11, 2002.
[16] Moghaddas-Tafreshi SM, Mashhour E. Distributed generation modeling for power
flow studies and a three-phase unbalanced power flow solution for radial dis-
tribution systems considering distributed generation. Electr Power Syst Res
2009;79:680–6.
[17] Chassin DP, Schneider K, Gerkensmeyer C. GridLAB-D: An open-source power
systems modeling and simulation environment. IEEE/PES Transmission and
Distribution Conference and Exposition 2008;2008:1–5.
[18] D. M. Fobes, C. Coffrin, F. Geth, and S. Claeys, “PowerModelsDistribution.jl: An
Open-Source Framework for Exploring Distribution Power Flow Formulations,” in
Submitted to 21st Power Systems Computation Conference, Porto, Portugal, 2020.
[19] Fortescue CL. Method of symmetrical co-ordinates applied to the solution of poly-
phase networks. Trans Am Inst Electr Eng 1918;37:1027–140.
[20] Anderson PM. Analysis of faulted power systems. New York: IEEE press; 1995. p.
445.
[21] Schweitzer E, Zocholl SE. Introduction to symmetrical components. in proceedings
of the 58th Annual Georgia Tech Protective Relaying Conference. GA: Atlanta;
2004.
[22] J. W. Nilsson and S. A. Riedel, Electric circuits: Pearson Upper Saddle River, NJ,
2015.
[23] Norshahrani M, Mokhlis H, Abu Bakar A, Jamian J, Sukumar S. Progress on
Protection Strategies to Mitigate the Impact of Renewable Distributed Generation
10
Electrical Power and Energy Systems 123 (2020) 106209
on Distribution Systems. Energies 2017;10:1864.
[24] Kersting WH. Radial distribution test feeders. IEEE Trans Power Syst
1991;6:975–85.
[25] Suni JCP, Ruppert E, Fajoni F. A guide for synchronous generator parameters de-
termination using dynamic simulations based on IEEE standards. The XIX
International Conference on Electrical Machines-ICEM 2010;2010:1–6.
[26] Schneider KP, Mather BA, Pal BC, Ten CW, Shirek GJ, Zhu H, et al. Analytic
Considerations and Design Basis for the IEEE Distribution Test Feeders. IEEE Trans
Power Syst 2018;33:3181–8.
[27] European EMTP-ATP Users Group e.V., “ATP Software,” 2014.
[28] M. L. Baughman, C.-C. Liu, and R. C. Dugan, “IEEE 4 Node Test Feeder,” IEEE Power
Energy Society Distribution System Analysis Subcommittee2006.
[29] M. L. Baughman, C.-C. Liu, and R. C. Dugan, “IEEE 13 Node Test Feeder,” IEEE
Power Energy Society Distribution System Analysis Subcommittee2004.
[30] ABB, “Overvoltage protection: Metal-oxide surge arresters in medium-voltage sys-
tems,” 2018.
[31] IEEE. IEEE Guide for the Application of Metal-Oxide Surge Arresters for Alternating-
Current Systems. IEEE Std C62.22-2009 (Revision of IEEE Std C62.22-1997)
2009:1–142.
[32] IEEE. IEEE Standard for Metal-Oxide Surge Arresters for AC Power Circuits (> 1
kV). Revision of IEEE Std C62.11-2005 2012. p. 1–121.
[33] IEEE, “IEEE Standard for Interconnection and Interoperability of Distributed Energy
Resources with Associated Electric Power Systems Interfaces,” in IEEE Std 1547-
2018 (Revision of IEEE Std 1547-2003), ed, 2018, pp. 1-138.
[34] R. H. Lasseter, “MicroGrids,” in 2002 IEEE Power Engineering Society Winter
Meeting. Conference Proceedings (Cat. No.02CH37309), 2002, pp. 305-308 vol.1.
[35] Rocabert J, Luna A, Blaabjerg F, Rodriguez P. Control of power converters in AC
microgrids. IEEE Trans Power Electron 2012;27:4734–49.