2170 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID, VOL. 8, NO.

5, SEPTEMBER 2017

Fault Detection, Isolation, and Service Restoration

in Distribution Systems: State-of-the-Art
and Future Trends
Aboelsood Zidan, Mutaz Khairalla, Ahmed M. Abdrabou, Tarek Khalifa, Khaled Shaban, Atef Abdrabou,
Ramadan El Shatshat, and Ahmed M. Gaouda

Abstract—This paper surveys the conceptual aspects, as well DiffServ Differentiated Services
as recent developments in fault detection, isolation, and service DMS Distribution management system
restoration (FDIR) following an outage in an electric distribution DNO Distribution network operator
system. This paper starts with a discussion of the rationale for
FDIR, and then investigates different areas of the FDIR problem. DNP Distributed Network Protocol
Recently reported approaches are compared and related to dis- DRR Distributed renewable resource
cussions on current practices. This paper then addresses some of FAG Facilitator Agent
the often-cited associated technical, environmental, and economic FCBs Feeder circuit breakers
challenges of implementing self-healing for the distribution grid. FDIR Fault detection, isolation and service
The review concludes by pointing toward the need and directions
for future research. restoration
FPI Fault passage indicator
Index Terms—Distribution system, fault allocation, service FRT Fault ride through
restoration, smart grid, multi-agent, distributed control.
GOOSE Generic Object Oriented Substation Events
GSM Global System for Mobile communication
N OMENCLATURE I/O Input/Output
ACSs Automatic controlled switches IEC International Electrotechnical Commission
BAG Bus Agent IEDs Intelligent electronic devices
CAIDI Customer Average Interruption Duration Index IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics
CC Central controller Engineers
CDMA Code Division Multiple Access IntServ Integrated Services
CML Customer minutes lost IP Internet Protocol
CPL Constant power load LPN Low pass notch
CSMA/CA Carrier sense multiple access/collection avoid- LVRT Low voltage ride through
ance MAC Medium Access Control
DAS Distribution automation system MAS Multi agent systems
DFIG Doubly fed induction generator MCSs Manually controlled switches
DG Distributed generation MINLP Mixed integer non-linear problem
MPLS Multi-Protocol Label Switching
Manuscript received May 20, 2015; revised September 11, 2015 NASPI North American Synchro-Phasor Initiative
and December 7, 2015; accepted January 10, 2016. Date of publi- NSGA Non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm
cation February 3, 2016; date of current version August 21, 2017. PAC Programmable Automation Controller
This work was supported by the Qatar National Research
Fund (a member of the Qatar Foundation) under Grant NPRP PDCs Phasor data concentrators
67112295. Paper no. TSG-00567-2015. (Corresponding author: PLC Power line communication
Ramadan El Shatshat.) PMUs Phasor Measurement units
A. Zidan is with the Electrical Engineering Department, Assiut University,
Assiut 71515, Egypt. QoS Quality-of-service
M. Khairalla, A. M. Abdrabou, and A. Abdrabou are with the Electrical RTUs Remote terminal units
Engineering Department, United Arab Emirates University, Alain 15551, SAIDI System Average Interruption Duration Index
United Arab Emirates.
T. Khalifa and K. Shaban are with the Computer Science and Engineering SAIFI System Average Interruption Frequency Index
Department, Qatar University, Doha 2713, Qatar. SCADA Supervisory control and data acquisition
R. El Shatshat is with the Electrical and Computer Engineering SR Service restoration
Department, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada (e-mail:
raelshatshat@uwaterloo.ca). TCP/IP Transmission Control Protocol/Internet
A. M. Gaouda is with the Electrical Engineering Department, American Protocol
University of the Middle East, Al Ain 13034, Kuwait. TDMA Time Division Multiple Access
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available
online at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org. VSC Voltage sourced converter
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TSG.2016.2517620 WAMS Wide-area measurement systems
1949-3053 c 2016 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.
ZIDAN et al.: FDIR IN DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS: STATE-OF-THE-ART AND FUTURE TRENDS
I. I NTRODUCTION
ISTRIBUTION systems present the final link between
D utilities and customers. Practically, a distribution net-
work is operated in radial configuration for a simple design,
low cost, supportive protection scheme, simple protection
coordination, and a minimum of fault currents. However, con-
tinuity of supply requires normal operation for all components
between the supply and the load. Hence, distribution networks
have poor reliability such that a failure of any component will
cause an interruption for all loads downstream of the faulty
zone [1].
Statistics have shown that most failures in distribution
networks occur for reasons such as weather, component
wear and accidents. It has been documented that faults on
a medium voltage (11 kV) network in U.S. were responsi-
ble for 74% of customer minutes lost (CML), on average
20 minutes per customer, per year. Therefore, distribution sys-
tems contribute the most to power supply unavailability to
users [2].
Electricity interruptions cause several economic impacts,
such as production loss, restart costs, equipment damage, and
raw material spoilage [3]. Moreover, electricity interruptions
may have social impacts, for example, uncomfortable tem-
peratures at work and home, loss of leisure time, and risk
to health and safety [3]. As a result, utilities are investing in
solutions that automatically switch and protect the network to
improve SAIDI, SAIFI and CAIDI indices, decrease restora-
tion times, reduce cost of restoration, reduce lost revenues,
and boost utilities’ reputations [4].
Typical distribution systems have normally closed section-
alizing switches and normally open tie switches (i.e., to
interconnect feeders and allow load transfer among them).
When a fault is detected, it has to be located and isolated
as quickly as possible. Then, the restoration plan starts to
restore power delivery to the affected customers beyond the
faulted zone by transferring them to other supporting feeders
using tie switches [5]. To be feasible and speedily imple-
mentable, a restoration plan should satisfy the objectives
of the minimum number of customers interrupted and the
minimum number of switching operations without violating
operating constraints. Fault detection, isolation, and service
restoration (FDIR) are key building blocks for the self-healing
capability of a utility’s future advanced distribution manage-
ment system (DMS) [6]. FDIR enables utilities to significantly
improve their distribution network reliability and gain eco-
nomic benefits via assuring service continuity and encouraging
investors.
As yet, most distribution systems are not fully automated.
Thus, the corrective actions required for the FDIR function
are implemented manually by human operators [7]. This com-
plete reliance on human operators is increasingly problematic
for several reasons, such as [7], [8]: 1) the complexity and
the size of process; 2) the unreliability of human operators
which adds to inefficient, unreliable performance, specially
during harsh weather conditions, nights, and weekends; and
3) a manual process requires much more time than the self-
healing feature of a smart grid, which can detect and isolate
faults and reconfigure the network automatically.
2171
A review of the literature shows that most of the published
work has considered the two stages of FDIR (i.e., the first stage
for fault location detection and isolation, and the second stage
for service restoration) independently [7]. Furthermore, cur-
rent operational practices’ approaches used to solve the FDIR
problem (heuristics, expert system, meta-heuristic and mathe-
matical programming) operate in a centralized way.A central
optimization solver reads all the system data and then pro-
cesses them in order to obtain a solution [7], [9]. However,
distribution systems centralized or decentralized control are
faced with a high degree of complexity and uncertainty due ris-
ing factors such as penetration of renewable energy resources,
new loads (e.g., electric vehicles (EVs)), rise of energy stor-
age devices, variable demand, and demand response programs.
Therefore, implementing centralized control will be challeng-
ing due to the size of the system, the huge amount of data to
be processed, and a large number of control/decision variables
to be determined by the central controller (CC). However,
decentralized and distributed control divide the system into
a number of subsystems and treat them in parallel; hence, the
computational time will be significantly reduced.
Bearing in mind the painful lessons caused by previous
large-scale blackouts, building a smart grid with self-healing
capability is of great urgency. Self-healing can be described
as the ability of a distribution system to, when subjected
to a fault, automatically and intelligently perform corrective
actions to restore itself to the best possible state in order to per-
form its basic functions without violating any constraints [7].
The grid instantly responds to system problems in order to mit-
igate power outages and power quality problems. This will be
achieved by performing continuous self-assessment to detect,
analyze, respond to, and as needed restore the grid compo-
nents and network sections. The grid will act as an immune
system in order to maintain its reliability, security, afford-
ability, power quality, and efficiency. Therefore, self-healing
will minimize disruption of service. The Self-healing func-
tion implements the two stages of FDIR as one package in an
automated manner to minimize the power interruption effect
by locating and isolating the faulty elements, and recovering
the system immediately, without human intervention.
In recent years, renewable-based distributed genera-
tion (DG) units have received wide acceptance because they
are pollution-free and do not depend on limited resources [10].
Conventionally, distribution systems have been designed from
the perspective that the primary substation is the sole source
of power. Hence, power flows directly from the substation to
loads. The incremental penetration of DG units, with their
unpredictable operating parameters due to changes in ambi-
ent environmental conditions, confronts the distributed power
systems with many challenges, including bi-directional power
flow, DGs interaction with Volt/VAR devices, complex protec-
tion coordination, increased fault currents, voltage fluctuation
due to variable output power from renewable-based DGs, and
FDIR [11], [12]. In current operational policies, DG units are
disconnected automatically when any fault occurs in a distri-
bution network [11], [13], [14]. Such disconnection is applied
to cancel out the effects of the DG units on fault currents.
However, automatic disconnection of DG units during faults
2172
reduces the benefits expected from them and increases the
difficulty of service restoration.
The implementation of a smart grid, which provides the
required communication and platform services for facilitating
self-healing, faces many challenges. These challenges can be
categorized as procedural and technical [15]. The procedural
challenges range from the complexity of the smart grid to
the lack of unified smart grid standards. Additionally, due to
the complexity and large scale of real distribution systems, the
employment of the smart grid has to be gradual. Furthermore,
the planned updating should not affect the operation of the
existing system.
A successful FDIR relies on both the hardware (i.e., sensors,
actuators, switches, and the communication network) and the
software (i.e., algorithms to detect the exact fault location,
and to determine the switching actions of sectionalizers and
tie switches during fault isolation and/or system restoration).
The following are the technical challenges considered in this
paper:
 Upgrades of existing components to cope with self-
healing algorithms. Examples include replacing man-
ually controlled switches (MCSs) with automatic
controlled switches (ACSs), the requirement for new
intelligent devices such as remote terminal units (RTUs)
and intelligent electronic devices (IEDs) or at least mod-
ifying and upgrading the currently-used devices to have
the required smart capabilities;
 Adaptive distributed control for facilitating self-healing
operation in real-time;
 Incorporation of available renewable energy resources’
output power in service restoration process;
 Efficient and reliable two-way data communication
links;
 Cost of self-healing implementation versus cost saving.
Most of the research on implementing the smart grid
concept in power distribution systems targets one opera-
tional/control function such as Volt/VAR control, self-healing,
protection, and DG control. Therefore, the success in imple-
menting the self-healing capability strongly depends on the
complete integration of this function within other functions, to
create a unified and adaptive operational/control framework.
This framework can coordinate objectives and constraints
among multiple functions, and flexibly and adaptably respond
to changing conditions, such as in load/generation levels,
distribution network reconfiguration, violation of operational
constraints, or any emergency situation.
II. T HE FDIR P ROBLEM IN D ISTRIBUTION S YSTEMS
The FDIR function is usually solved and implemented under
emergency conditions. Moreover, it is a computationally com-
plex problem [16] because it is 1) combinatorial due to the
large number of switching elements; 2) nonlinear because
of the nonlinear nature of power flow constraints; 3) non-
differentiable because any change in a switch status may
change the values of objectives and/or constraints; 4) con-
strained because of the radiality and the operational voltage
and current restrictions; and 5) multi-objective.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID, VOL. 8, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER 2017
Fig. 1. FDIR stages.
In conventional systems without advanced distribution
automation, once a fault occurs in a distribution network, the
feeder circuit breaker normally shuts down power on the entire
feeder, interrupting the service to many customers, including
industrial, hospital, commercial and residential ones. Then, as
shown in Fig. 1, the following steps of a typical FDIR system
are applied [7], [9], [11]:
A. Fault Location Detection
Distribution systems may be subjected to various types of
faults. Fault detection is to discover that a fault has occurred
even if the root cause is not known yet. Faults may be detected
by alarms based on high currents and/or low voltages. For
example, when a fault occurs, feeder circuit breakers (FCBs)
and Fault Passage Indicators (FPIs) located along the fault
current path operate. FCBs trip when a current exceeds a pre-
determined value, following a time response that depends on
the measured current value [17]. The common operational
point used for the relay of a FCB is close at twice the value of
the maximum feeder load. These devices immediately inform
the distribution automation system (DAS) about fault currents
through their dedicated communication links [18]. After trip-
ping the faulty feeder, the physical location of the fault point
needs to be determined.
B. Fault Isolation
Fault information is automatically analyzed in the DAS
using appropriate applications in order to find the location of
the faulty section. Then the smallest possible part of the sys-
tem is isolated by opening the first upstream and downstream
switches from the fault to isolate the fault from both direc-
tions. As soon as the faulty section is isolated, the upstream
out-of-service loads are restored through closing of the FCB.
C. Capability Estimation
After the faulty section isolation and before restoration
to the downstream out-of-service loads, capability estima-
tion needs to be carried out to determine whether service
restoration from neighbouring healthy feeders is possible.
D. Service Restoration (SR)
After fault isolation, the target for the distribution net-
work operator (DNO) is to restore the maximum possible
ZIDAN et al.: FDIR IN DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS: STATE-OF-THE-ART AND FUTURE TRENDS
out-of-service loads with the minimum number of switching
operations within a very short time. This task is known as ser-
vice restoration, which is defined as finding suitable backup
feeders and laterals to transfer the loads in out-of-service
areas using operational criteria through a series of switching
operations [19]. From capability estimation, DNO determines
whether complete or partial out-of-service loads can be trans-
ferred to the neighboring healthy feeders. Accordingly, the
service restoration plan is achieved through the switching
operations of sectionalizes and tie switches.
Hence, efficient FDIR can enhance system reliability by
maximizing the restored loads and reducing the outage time.
On this basis, it is important to have a fast and effective
FDIR algorithm, especially for critical loads (e.g., hospitals
and airports), where short restoration time is essential.
E. Reverse Sequence
When the faulty section is completely repaired, the reverse
switching sequence is applied so that the distribution system
is returned to its normal pre-fault configuration.
III. D ESIGN C HALLENGES F ROM A P OWER
S YSTEM P ERSPECTIVE
Smart grid was proposed by governments and utilities to
enhance the present DAS and operate its functions in a dis-
tributed manner. In a smart grid, all controllable equipment
and control functions are automated to achieve optimal sys-
tem operation. Fully automated power grids, including every
customer and node, will be the trend of future electric sys-
tems, as presented in the “Grid 2030” vision [20]. Achieving
the vision of a smart grid requires the ability to respond
to disturbances, minimize their impacts, and restore power,
rapidly, for improved stability of the system during distur-
bances, and this will lead to a self-healing-capable smart
grid [21], [22]. This system tends to perform continuous anal-
ysis in the power grid to predict any possible problem and
respond to it immediate [23]. A self-healing grid minimizes
CML, SAIDI and average outage duration [24].
This section provides a brief overview of the technical chal-
lenges associated with the FDIR of a distribution power system
and its economic impact.
A. Existing Components Upgrade for Self-Healing Adoption
Advanced information and communication technology moti-
vates investments to upgrade distribution systems to achieve
the objective of self-healing, whereby faults can be accurately
detected, localized, and isolated, to restore as many parts of
the network as possible [25]. Such a system requires adequate
intelligence, through employing modern technologies that can
acquire data, execute decision-support algorithms, limit inter-
ruptions, dynamically control the flow of power, and restore
service quickly, when problems are caused by storms, catastro-
phes, or human error [26]. Integrating digital signal processing
techniques within wireless sensors will also add value to the
monitoring and diagnostic capability of self-healing systems.
However, deploying a large number of sensors imposes the
challenge of managing large data (Big Data), which in turn
2173
imposes storing capability as well as data transfer bandwidth
requirements [27]–[29].
B. Centralized Versus Distributed FDIR Approaches
Control actions are vital elements in self-healing in order to
change the distribution system state to a better one. According
to the state of the system, the control action is classified
as emergency control during system disturbances and faults,
restorative control to restore disconnected loads/feeders, cor-
rective control to adjust system parameters such as voltage and
reactive power, and preventive control that updates protection
settings according to the new grid configuration [22], [30]. In
general, control approaches can be categorized as centralized,
decentralized, or distributed [7], [24], [25].
Centralized control strategies often require a low
latency communication system to transfer large amounts
of data among field agents and control centers. Thus,
a central controller (CC) must read all the system data and
then process them in order to obtain a solution. Centralized
approaches may be subject to a single-point-of-failure risk
(i.e., when the CC fails, the whole system collapses). The
main advantage of centralized control is that it may confine
the best solution to the problem, especially for small-scale
systems. However, several challenges might impede the
adoption of centralized control in future distribution networks
that require managing a large amount of data and supporting
heavy computing processes. Their operation is time con-
suming and may be perturbed by human error and dynamic
behavior of electrical devices such as a large number of small
DGs and the increased level of uncertainty due to renewable
resources, electric vehicles, and variable demand [7].
Decentralized approaches are based on direct peer-to-peer
communication between monitoring devices [24], [25]. Local
data is acquired via local smart sensors/IEDs, and remote
data is acquired via peer-to-peer communications with other
controllers. In this case, IEDs process data locally, and
no SCADA-based central station is required. Decentralized
control can be achieved between substations where every sub-
station is responsible for controlling and analyzing its own
network. Each substation shares its information with the neigh-
boring substations to reconfigure the network during power
loss or faults [31].
Decentralized approaches focus mostly on parallelizing the
solution of a problem. The control/protection action is taken
within each distribution or primary substation and the whole
system behavior is the collection of these individual actions.
This can be enhanced towards distributed approach where con-
trol/protection action is taken based on data processed locally
within the substation and shared among others. Distributed
agents and additional communications were suggested as
essential elements to take actions in distributed systems with-
out much human intervention. Distributed approaches are more
popular for large networks. Distributed approaches and two-
way data communication links represent the two pillars in
the implementation of the smart grid vision. In the recent
years, multi agent systems (MAS) have emerged as a com-
petitive technology for distributed control strategies in power
2174
systems [7], [32]. MAS are composed of multiple interact-
ing computing elements, known as agents. These agents react
to changes in the environment and are capable of acting
to achieve specified goals. Thus, MAS are considered the
platform of distributed processing, parallel operations, and
autonomous solving.
Decentralized and distributed approaches are designed to be
executed in a distributed manner such that they are executed
on different processors simultaneously. Coordination among
these processors is done using communication. The timing and
contents of the messages among processors are decided by the
programmer, based on the task. The main characteristics of
distributed algorithms are as follows [33]:
 No processor has all the information about the whole
system.
 Processors make decisions based on local information.
 Failure of one processor does not cause the algorithm
to fail.
Therefore, distributed algorithms are superior to centralized
algorithms in the following ways:
 Performance/cost ratio: using many inexpensive
machines provides a better performance/cost ratio than
using one expensive super-machine [33].
 Distributed algorithms provide enhanced reliability (no
single point of failure). If one controller fails, the whole
system will be able to survive, but possibly with reduced
performance [34].
 Incremental expansion (modularity) is possible [32].
On the other hand, centralized algorithms are superior to
distributed algorithms in the following ways:
 Coordination among distributed machines requires sev-
eral communication messages.
 Security of data in distributed algorithms is often
a problem [33].
Distributed approaches can greatly enhance the reliability
and improve the flexibility and efficiency of power system
monitoring and control [35]. Distributed control would first
divide the whole system into several control areas; each
area has its own control center (agent) that is responsible for
its real-time monitoring and control. Any disturbance in an
individual control area will be processed locally to minimize
its impact on other control areas. Even when an area con-
trol center is malfunctioning, its neighboring control centers
in the same hierarchical level can take over the functions of
the faulted center. Thus, less information is required by upper
level control centers. The upper level control centers inter-
vene only to handle disturbances that may affect more than
one control area.
Economically, centralized control requires a complex com-
munication system that is able to cover the entire power
system in order to send all data to the CC, no matter how
far the location of the data collection from the CC. Therefore,
long-distance communication links are required, with large
capital investment in the communication system. The prob-
lem of such a system is that a faulty communication link
can cripple the entire system. However, in distributed con-
trol, the data in each control area are sent to the local
area control center, so each area control center will be much
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID, VOL. 8, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER 2017
simpler, and the data communication distances are much
shorter.
In centralized control, the CC can easily become over-
whelmed by a large number of tasks even if powerful comput-
ers are used. Distributed control divides the task into a number
of subtasks, according to the number of control areas. These
subtasks are processed concurrently in a distributed manner.
The following two subsections present the various
approaches that have been proposed for the FDIR problem
in centralized and distributed ways.
1) Fault Location Detection and Isolation Approaches:
Currently, one main issue that utilities face is the lack for
meters and sensors in distribution networks. Therefore, a lot
of research was done to develop fault location algorithms
based on the limited meters and sensors. Furthermore, many
methods have been proposed for the placement of switches in
distribution systems to determine the optimal number and loca-
tion of switches to be installed [36]–[39]. As more switches
lead to: 1) better DAS operation [36]; 2) reduce the num-
ber of customers not supplied by outages and improve system
reliability [37]; 3) minimize the total cost of achieving a cer-
tain level of reliability in the presence of DGs [38]; and
4) enhance distribution system restoration capability [39].
Different methods have been implemented to localize a fault
in distribution systems, and include sending a repair crew to
localize a fault and then fix the problem [40], measuring the
apparent impedance [25], carrying out three-phase circuit anal-
ysis, or integrating artificial intelligence in analyzing power
quality data or travelling waves of the captured signals dur-
ing fault. Of these, apparent impedance and three-phase circuit
analysis have the drawback of multiple estimations for fault
location. Artificial intelligence requires huge training data and
retraining for every change in the system configuration.
The apparent impedance-based method is the most com-
monly used fault allocation method. Based on the local voltage
and current measurements at the substation, the fault loca-
tion can then be found from an iterative solution of a set of
complicated three-phase circuit equations, which describe the
steady-state fault condition [41], [42]. The weaknesses of this
method can be summarized as follows: 1) it is affected by
many factors other than fault location, such as fault path resis-
tance, line loading, and interconnection to multiple sources;
and 2) its accuracy is limited and consequently has the
drawback of requiring multiple estimations for fault location.
The travelling wave based method represents another com-
mon fault allocation method [43], [44]. Based on the fre-
quency component of traveling waves for faulted voltages, the
authors of [45] proposed a new algorithm to localize faults in
radial distribution systems with different laterals. When a fault
occurs, high frequency transients are generated and propa-
gate outwards into both sides. Thus, this method estimates
the distance to the fault location based on the time inter-
val between the travelling waves and their reflections arriving
from the fault location. Traveling waves may be confused
by the presence of laterals and load taps [25]. Furthermore,
the bandwidth of conventional current transformer & voltage
transformer limits the quality of captured signals and hence
the application of the traveling wave method. Its weaknesses
ZIDAN et al.: FDIR IN DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS: STATE-OF-THE-ART AND FUTURE TRENDS
can be summarized as follows: 1) the method cannot accu-
rately separate the travelling wave revealing the fault position
from other waves of different frequencies that are generated
due to multiple reflections by fault transients; and 2) since
the fault-originated traveling waves propagate along the dis-
tribution paths, in both directions away from the fault point,
and are reflected at line terminations, junctions between feed-
ers, laterals, and the fault location, it is difficult to distinguish
between waves reflected from the fault and the ones coming
from other places.
The artificial intelligence (AI)/knowledge based methods
such as artificial neural network (ANN), fuzzy logic (FL),
expert system (ES) and hybrid methods for fault allocation
have been presented by several researchers [46]–[48]. The
intelligent process utilizes post-fault network status, list of
tripped breakers, protection alarms, and the conventional event
log. In [46], ANN is trained off-line using a training set that
considers several alarm patterns associated with fault occur-
rences. Once trained the ANN can be used for fault allocation.
Whenever a fault occurs, incoming alarms are used as input
variables. Then, the ANN is tested to produce a final diagnosis
based on the analysis of its outputs. Authors in [47] applied
fault allocation by three independent mechanisms, namely the
generic core rule, specific post-fault network matching, and
generic relay inference rules. The generic core rules are imple-
mented through the standard if-then-else statements. These
rules are based on breaker tripping and corresponding bus sta-
tus. A hypothesis is generated to identify a fault location once
a rule is fired. If more breakers tripped, more rules will be
fired and there will be more fault locations being hypothesized.
Ref. [48] proposed fault diagnosis in distribution systems using
hybrid ANN and rule based approach. The weaknesses of
AI/knowledge based methods can be summarized as follows:
1) they are able to produce good results only for those situa-
tions that have been explicitly considered during their design.
Therefore, they may have difficulty in dealing with new and/or
corrupted alarm patterns; and they may fail under certain
circumstances such as changes in network topology and/or
uncoordinated relay settings; and 2) they assume that the pro-
tection system will not fail and that all alarms and messages
will be always available at the control center. Therefore, in
case of protection device failure, the available information may
not be sufficient and an accurate final diagnosis may not be
achieved.
To overcome the mentioned disadvantages of centralized
control based methods, several automatic fault location detec-
tion and isolation algorithms based on MAS have been
proposed to enhance the reliability, survivability, availability,
and efficiency of power systems [7], [49]. A multi-agent based
scheme that locates and isolates faulty zones in distribution
systems with a high penetration of DG has been proposed
in [7]. Each monitoring zone agent observes the current flow at
its location. At fault occurrence, the current flow status (direc-
tion and magnitude) changes suddenly. The zone agent with
the faulty point receives from a direction relay and over-current
relay two types of signals: one indicates that the magnitude of
the current exceeds a certain value; the other indicates the
direction of the current. Then, this zone agent utilizes the
2175
collected state signals together in a logic circuit, and makes
a binary trip signal for its own breaker if it should be tripped.
Phasor Measurement units (PMUs) have been implemented
for monitoring, protection, and control. The data from digi-
tal relays and PMUs’ current and voltage outputs are used by
software based in the SCADA system to create a virtual pro-
tection system. The PMUs’ data can also be used to simulate
power system behavior and, hence, to predict upcoming faults
or abnormal situation [50].
Different communication protocols have been implemented
to share information between different devices from multi-
ple vendors at different levels, including: I/O level, bay level,
station level and control center level. IEC61850 is one mod-
ern communication protocol that can be implemented within
and beyond substations. Unlike conventional protocols, it is
able to perform peer-to-peer communication for fast messaging
between different relays using GOOSE messages. IEDs receive
GOOSE messages from other IEDs and take action without
the need for a centralized controller [51]. Reliable and secure
integrated communication infrastructure plays a key role in
achieving the objective of data sharing between different IEDs
at different levels.
An FPI with wireless capability has been utilized by differ-
ent electricity utilities to send fault information to dispatch-
ers for immediate action [52]. Communicating FPIs through
a GSM with control center reduces the duration of customer
interruption by automatically isolating faulty zones and restor-
ing supply for other regions without human intervention [53].
FPIs and remote controlled ring main units can be employed
to applying self-healing algorithms in the distribution ring
network, by using a DMS as a centralized controller or pro-
grammable RTUs as decentralized controllers to locate and
isolate faulty zones, and then restore supply to other parts of
the ring [24], [54].
In [53] and [55], FPIs are monitored using fiber optics
connected to RTUs with a GSM modem, and any problem
reported to a SCADA system. Collected events are recorded
in a database and reported to the power system control center
through TCP/IP and DNP3 protocols. The system was devel-
oped using the standard IEC60870 protocol and improved the
fault detection time from one hour to 3 minutes.
In [56], sectionalized re-closure, midpoint re-closure, and
tie-point re-closure equipped with IED for metering and pro-
tection are connected to a radio or GSM network through
modems based on IEC61850 protocol capabilities. Based on
local measurements and GOOSE messaging, a logic function
was used to detect and isolate faulty sections and restore
power to the healthy portion of the distribution system.
The authors proposed three different FDIR approaches: using
a loop control scheme, using IEC61850 peer to peer, and using
a decentralized control-based substation.
Centralized monitoring with emergency local logic con-
trol through a SCADA system to detect, localize, and isolate
faults is proposed in [57]. The RTU system is updated with
a Programmable Automation Controller (PAC), which is inte-
grated with the Ethernet, based on IEC61850 and DNP3 stan-
dard protocols. The system uses distributed PAC to acquire
all I/Os from the distribution network. Peer-to-peer GOOSE
2176
messaging is used to transmit data between IED relays and
PAC and from slave to master PAC. The authors in [58]
compared three communication capabilities and showed the
advantages of the IEC61850-based Ethernet using optical fiber
for GOOSE messaging as well as a SCADA system based on
substation centralized automation.
The authors in [59] enhanced network reliability by increas-
ing the number of re-closers and using an advanced loop
scheme. Reclosers are communicating by high-speed Ethernet
communication system through fiber optics combined with
a SCADA system. The proposed method reduces the num-
ber of customers subjected to outage faults and enhances
restoration times for the healthy portion.
The large growth of information technology features
within IED devices and smart metering provide large scale
data retrieval, data storage and real-time data monitoring, man-
agement and analyses. The authors of [60] used advanced
communication technology to manage the retrieved and stored
information from a smart grid, add valuable for system
reliability, and initiate better self-healing features.
2) Service Restoration (SR) Approaches: Many approaches
have been proposed to address SR problems in a central-
ized way, including heuristics, expert systems, meta-heuristics,
and mathematical programming [7]. However, expert algo-
rithms have proven superior to other algorithms for two
reasons [7], [16]:
 While global optimization algorithms may arrive at high
quality solutions in terms of the number of switching
operations and margins for operational constraints, they
demand long running time when applied to large scale
distribution systems.
 Global optimization algorithms propose final configura-
tions only.
Heuristic approaches are intuitively rule of thumb to
limit the search space. An expert’s knowledge and expe-
rience are translated into programming logic to solve
problems [61]–[63]. The authors in [61] proposed a recon-
figuration algorithm for loss reduction and service restora-
tion based on switching indices. These switching indices
were derived by using branch voltage drops, line constants,
and weighting factors. Ref. [63] incorporated load curtail-
ment (LC) of in-service customers in restoration plans. Their
work was based on a heuristic-rules-based algorithm that uses
post-fault power flow calculations. The number and percent-
age of LC candidates was predetermined in advance and then
used as input information. Ref. [64] proposed a service restora-
tion method with minimum number of switching operations.
All available switches in the network are closed first creating
a meshed network. Switches that isolate the affected area and
switches that will create un-openable loops remain open. These
switching operations are only taken in the algorithm and not
in the field. Then, an AC power flow for this meshed network
is performed. The closed switches assumed that they are fully
adjustable ideal current sources that can be used to modify
flows in network branches. A flow pattern that would mini-
mize overall system current overloads for secure flow pattern,
can be reached by adjusting these fictitious current sources.
Once the secure flow pattern is known, the magnitude of the
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID, VOL. 8, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER 2017
fictitious current sources (representing network switches) can
be determined. Using this information, the switch carrying the
least current is opened, eliminating one of the network loops.
The switch to be opened is selected in this fashion to min-
imize disturbance in the secure flow pattern of the network.
The process is repeated until a network of radial feeders with
acceptable operating performance is reached. The weaknesses
of heuristic methods are that 1) optimal solutions are not guar-
anteed; and 2) users have great difficulty in maintaining the
software, since it is large and the algorithm is complex.
Expert system is basically a knowledge-based technique.
It involves the representation of expert knowledge as rules
(IF-THEN statements) and an inference engine to infer from
these rules [65], [66]. The authors in [65] developed an expert
system combined with an object-oriented programming tech-
nique for solving restoration problems. Ref. [67] used strate-
gies such as single grouping, multi-grouping by dividing
the outage region into single or multiple groups based on
feeder margins, branch points and the available tie switches.
Then, an expert system comes up with a restoration plan
with appropriate switching sequence. Authors in [68] proposed
an expert system to solve the service restoration problem.
They constructed a knowledge based system with 180 rules.
Furthermore, group restoration, zone restoration and load
transfer have been applied. The expert system approach is
considered a successful way to solve SR problems; however,
maintenance of large-scale expert systems has turned out to
be costly. Moreover, expert system rules are system-specific,
and changed with system variations.
Many researchers have applied meta-heuristics to solve
restoration problems [69]–[71]. This approach includes neu-
ral networks, genetic algorithm, fuzzy theory, tabu search-
ing, particle swarm optimization, simulated annealing, and
ant colonies. In [70], the authors presented a method based
on non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm-II (NSGA-II) to
solve service restoration problems. The objectives were to min-
imize the out-of-service areas and the number of manually
and automated controlled switch operations and losses. Meta-
heuristic approaches require extensive computational time
when applied for practical distribution systems. Moreover,
a power flow engine is required to estimate the numerical
values of objectives and to check the operational constraints.
Mathematical programming approach determines the tar-
get configuration for restoration plans through formulating
the SR problem as a mixed integer non-linear prob-
lem (MINLP) [72], [73]. The authors in [72] proposed an SR
algorithm for unbalanced distribution systems. The problem
was solved using the LINGO commercial optimization pack-
age. Although mathematical programming approach can obtain
optimal solutions, the computation time often exceeds the
practically allocated time, due to the combinatorial expansion
problem.
To overcome the above-mentioned disadvantages of central-
ized control, the intelligence and control should be distributed
at every component level, as is performed in MAS that con-
tains multiple computing elements as agents. An agent can be
considered as a software entity that can perceive its environ-
ment through sensors and acts upon that environment through
ZIDAN et al.: FDIR IN DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS: STATE-OF-THE-ART AND FUTURE TRENDS
actuators to achieve its organizational objectives [74]. Agency
and autonomy are the two main properties of an agent. Agency
means to represent another organization. The term autonomous
is usually used to refer to an agent whose decision making
relies to a larger extent on its own perception than on prior
knowledge given to it at design time. MAS means collection
of these agents which communicate and coordinate to solve
a particular problem according to their objectives. Recently,
there has been a considerable interest in implementing MAS in
power system applications such as voltage and reactive power
control [75], monitoring [76], protection [77], and electricity
power market [78]. Furthermore, a two-part paper was pub-
lished by the IEEE Power Engineering Society’s Multi-agent
Systems (MAS) Working Group, examined the potential of
MAS for power industry [79], [80].
Recently, some research has been directed to develop MAS
so as to facilitate the self-healing feature of a smart grid
in distribution systems [7], [81]–[88]. In [81]–[88], no stud-
ies have been conducted on presenting a well-defined control
framework for healing the grid.
In [7], the authors developed a two-layer expert-based MAS
framework for monitoring, calculating, and negotiating dur-
ing the self-healing process. The proposed MAS are designed
to locate and isolate faults, then decide and implement the
switching operations to restore the out-of-service loads. Load
variation has been taken into consideration to avoid the need
for further reconfigurations during the restoration period. The
authors of [81] applied MAS to solve the SR problem of
a distribution system. This work did not consider load shed-
ding, customer priorities, or load transfer, in order to provide
extra available capacity through transferring some loads from
the main backup feeders to their neighbors. Furthermore, the
proposed approach was limited to service restoration and did
not include the detection and isolation of faults.
The authors of [82] proposed a MAS system for the restora-
tion problem, using two types of agents: Bus Agent (BAG) and
Facilitator Agent (FAG). BAG is developed to decide a sub-
optimal target configuration after fault occurrence through
interacting with other BAGs based on local information. FAG
acts as a manager in the decision process. The restoration
process is facilitated and completed through simple negoti-
ation among BAGs with the supervision of the FAG. In the
case of having several possible paths for energizing a load
bus, a BAG selects the path with the highest amount of
restorative-available power. This work did not consider cus-
tomer priorities. In [87], the authors proposed an operational
and self-healing strategy for a distribution system with DG
units. This strategy, during normal mode, aims to minimize
operation costs and maximize revenues. However, the self-
healing mode aims to optimally sectionalize the system into
networked self-supplied microgrids so as to provide reliable
power supply to the maximum loads continuously. In [88],
a MAS based distribution automation solution was proposed
to solve the service restoration part of the FDIR problem. The
proposed solution reduces the grid topology to an undirected,
weighted graph. Then a distributed implementation of Prim’s
minimum spanning tree algorithm is executed to solve the
problem.
2177
There is a great deal of research on self-healing; however,
more studies are still needed on presenting a well-defined con-
trol framework for healing the grid. The framework should
include the following:
 An appropriate control structure and computational
mechanism to be implemented in each control agent;
 Appropriate coordination and communication among
control agents in a distributed fashion;
 A general and efficient restoration procedure that is
effective for any distribution network, without system
based rules;
 Consideration of the variable demand, customers’ prior-
ities, DG units, and the operational constraints.
C. Integration of Renewable Energy DG Units
Renewable energy has become an attractive alternative to
fossil fuels in response to the growing concern about the envi-
ronment. Traditionally, utilities disconnect DG units at fault
occurrence, primarily to cancel out their effect on protec-
tion practices, and to restore the typical unidirectional power
flow. However, this disconnection of DG units during faults
drastically reduces the expected benefits from DG units, i.e.,
through unnecessary loss of DG power and increased difficulty
of restoring normal operation. Therefore, with the advance-
ment in techniques for controlling these DG units, several
control and protection schemes are being developed to real-
ize the emergent trend of maintaining DG connections during
fault [89].
The next subsections explore how renewable resources pen-
etration in distribution networks affects SR and protection
system operation [90]. These impacts should be taken into
account when designing FDIR procedures for self-healing.
1) Uncertainties of DG Outputs: One of the main chal-
lenges in incorporating renewable energy DGs in SR plans as
supporting sources is their variable and uncertain environment.
Renewable energy DG units, such as wind energy and pho-
tovoltaic sources, are subject to natural conditions. Variable
natural conditions such as variation in wind speed and solar
irradiance make these energy sources supplies uncertain and
intermittent. This intermittent nature of renewable resources
makes them not suitable to be candidates for the restoration
process without support of the main electrical grid, and/or
energy storage systems, and/or dispatchable DG units.
A review of the literature shows that most of the published
work has considered only dispatchable DG units, with a few
studies including the effect of renewable resources associated
with the restoration problem [11]. In [11], three models are
proposed to include the effect of variable wind generation in
SR plans for distribution systems. Ref. [91] proposed self-
adequate microgrids construction plan to make distribution
systems more resistant to faults so as to increase reliabili-
ties. Self-adequacy refers to generation-load balance within
a microgrid. Refs. [87], [92] assumed that a distribution system
consists of dispatchable DGs such as micro turbines, renew-
able DGs such as wind turbines and photovoltaic generators,
and energy storage systems such as batteries. For self-healing,
a distribution system will be optimally sectionalized into net-
worked self-supplied microgrids in order to provide reliable
2178
power supply to loads continuously. The model takes into
account the uncertainties of renewable DG outputs by applying
a stochastic rolling-horizon optimization concept. Two steps
are designed. The first step is to construct self-supplied micro-
grids and provide reliable power supply to as many customers
as possible. The second step is to redispatch the outputs of dis-
patchable DGs and perform the necessary load shedding since
the demand and generation conditions have been changed due
to the fault. In addition, on-emergency microgrids will receive
power support from other healthy microgrids.
Therefore, studies are still needed to present a well-defined
algorithm for considering the effect of uncertain output power
of renewable resources in SR, in both connected and microgrid
modes of operation.
2) Fault Direction Detection: Conventionally, renewable
energy DGs output varying amounts of power to the power
grid, thus the direction of power flow in the distribution net-
work changes in an unregulated way over time. With these
sources, the direction of the power flow changes based on
the local load and grid configuration. Hence, monitoring flow
direction will be essential in the future tools.
3) Protection Equipment Ratings and High-Impedance
Fault Detection: Increasing integration of DG units across
a power network changes the magnitude of currents flow-
ing throughout the network. When the power network adopts
self-healing processes, the controller reroutes the power flow
autonomously to isolate faults so that the minimum number
of customers are affected. Designing a system with such fea-
tures is a challenging task. The ratings of protection equipment
should be rechecked to ensure that it will operate properly
in all cases. Furthermore, due to the high contribution of
load currents from the DG units, it is very hard for util-
ity’s protection relays to detect and recognize high-impedance
faults [90], [93].
4) Ride Through Capabilities: In electrical systems, low
voltage ride through (LVRT), or fault ride through (FRT), is
a capability of electrical devices to operate during periods of
lower grid voltage (i.e., faults, voltage sag) [94]–[99]. During
grid faults, DGs with ride-through capability, are required to
remain connected to the grid for a certain period of time to
support the grid voltage. Authors in [94] proposed a con-
trol method to ensure that DFIG-based wind turbine DG
continues to operate during severe grid faults and maintains
a constant output voltage, irrespective of the fluctuating wind
speed. Ref. [95] presented a voltage control strategy for DGs
with voltage-sourced converters (VSCs). The control strategy
1) enables operation of a DG unit in both grid-connected
and islanded modes, 2) provides a current-limit capability for
the VSC during the faults, 3) affords an islanding detection
method without non-detection zone, 4) provides smooth tran-
sition capability between grid-connected and islanded modes,
and 5) can accommodate ride-through capability requirements
under a grid-connected mode. In [96] a flexible voltage control
scheme has been proposed for three-phase DG inverters under
grid faults. The voltage support strategy can modify its con-
trol parameters according to the type of voltage sag. Authors
in [97] proposed the use of distributed compensation by con-
stant power loads (CPLs) for asymmetrical fault ride through
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID, VOL. 8, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER 2017
instead of using a centralized STATCOM to avoid possible
voltage collapse at the LV distribution level and improve the
reliability and stability of the wind farm. Fault ride-through
techniques based on a low-pass notch (LPN)-PLL have been
proposed in Ref. [98]. The LPN-PLL has been used because
of its fast and smooth transient responses to a sudden transi-
tion of the grid voltage and its robustness to the distorted and
unbalanced grid conditions. Authors in [99] presented a novel
dc-link scheme for enhancing the fault ride-through capability
of DFIG-based wind turbine DG. The proposed system used
parallel capacitors with a dedicated control strategy.
Therefore, integrating distributed renewable resource (DRR)
into the power grid is very attractive and beneficial, but on the
other hand it is associated with many impacts and challenges.
In adopting self-healing ideologies to adaptively change the
power flow of the power network during faults and so mini-
mize the number of affected loads, these impacts have to be
considered in the self-healing algorithms.
D. Costs Versus Cost Savings
The implementation of self-healing grids will inevitably
involve additional costs in the short term, for upgrading distri-
bution systems and replacing all switching devices with auto-
mated switchgears [100]. However, these initial costs should
be compensated by the long-term savings arising from reduced
repair and maintenance costs. A self-healing grid will result
in both satisfied customers and considerable cost savings as it
minimizes the heavy contractual penalties that must be paid in
case of power outages. In addition, it provides enhanced safety
for particular customers (for example, hospitals). Developing
monetary analysis to show that the benefits added by self-
healing outweigh the required costs is a daunting task [101].
Savings to customers who experience fewer and shorter out-
ages can be very significant. However, the use of customer
outage cost savings only is not accepted as sufficient justifica-
tion in many jurisdictions. A self-healing grid not only leads to
operational cost savings for the utility, it also provides major
economic benefits for a community’s residents and businesses.
For example, improved power supply reliability can help in
attracting new businesses that require dependable power for
their operations.
Electric utilities can help in solving future investment chal-
lenges in facilitating self-healing grids [102] through forward-
looking investments that prepare the grid for future FDIR
deployment. For example, the utility should invest in auto-
matic switches whenever existing manual switches need to be
replaced. They should also guarantee that their communica-
tion infrastructure can handle the requirements of self-healing
systems [102].
IV. D ESIGN C HALLENGES FOR C OMMUNICATION
AND I NFORMATION R EPORTING
The success of smart grid heavily relies on the availability
and efficiency of the underlying communication infrastructure.
Communicating data about power transmission, distribution,
and consumption in real-time enables smart grids to provide
ZIDAN et al.: FDIR IN DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS: STATE-OF-THE-ART AND FUTURE TRENDS
predictive and directive information to power suppliers, oper-
ators, and customers on how power delivery and consumption
can best be managed, optimized, and maintained.
A comprehensive review of all the communication protocols
and services proposed for smart grid networking would take
a separate survey [103]–[105]. Therefore, this section focuses
on two areas that involve research challenges related to achiev-
ing successful self-healing functionalities, namely, reliability
and quality of service. Reliability addresses the availability of
a communication system and its ability to guarantee the deliv-
ery of data packets. Quality of service focuses on the ability
to satisfy timeliness requirements.
A. Reliability
Maintaining a reliable, uninterrupted, and satisfactory-
quality electricity service is strongly coupled with the reliabil-
ity of the communication network. For example, remotely con-
trolling critical grid components such as breakers and switches
necessitates utmost communication reliability to guarantee the
grid’s stability [104], [106]. Moreover, the reliable collection
of real-time information such as faults, voltage levels, power
quality and load levels is important in assessing the grid’s sta-
tus and taking appropriate proactive and reactive self-healing
actions [84], [107].
The U.S. Department of Energy [108] noted that to con-
sider an electricity grid reliable, the communication network
cannot be down for more than a few seconds in a whole
year. Accordingly, the authors of [108] discussed raising the
level of communication reliability through supporting the sys-
tem with backup power to ensure communication availability
during outages. Moreover, they recommend making special
wireless spectrum reservations to be used during emergencies.
The evaluation of reliability has been analytically modeled
in several publications. Ref. [109] provides reliability anal-
ysis for the backbone communication network of the smart
grid wide-area measurement system (WAMS) [110], a system
that is based on networking phasor measurement units (PMUs)
and phasor data concentrators (PDCs) to perform monitoring,
control, and protection functions [111]. The failure of such
a system may lead to major blackouts. Markov modeling and
state enumeration techniques were combined to quantify relia-
bility in terms of failure rate and average failure duration of the
overall WAMS as well as regional PMUs and PDCs. In [112],
influence diagrams [113] were used to analyze the reliability
of a smart grid network combining a variety of performance
factors from communication-related issues, e.g., protocol effi-
ciency and link characteristics, as well as from computing
related issues such as processor, memory capabilities, and
software cohesiveness of power system devices.
A model for the estimation accuracy of power demand
in relation to communication failure is introduced in [114].
The model uses the histogram method to obtain the prob-
ability distribution of power demand under packet losses
occurring at concentrators due to congestion and communi-
cation error. In [115], the authors express reliability in terms
of the availability performance measure, which is defined as
the probability that wireless connectivity between a sensor or
2179
smart meter and a data management center is available. They
show through the model how much reliability can be improved
when considering redundancy in every stage of a multi-tiered
communication network. The significance of these analytical
models is in the ability to involve the factor of communication
problems when designing power grid services, such as esti-
mating the power demand, collecting information about the
loads and feeders status, or performing fault detection and
restoration procedures.
The design of reliable communication protocols required by
the critical self-healing services have been addressed at differ-
ent layers. At medium access control (MAC) layer, the authors
in [116] shows that code division multiple access (CDMA)
achieves satisfactory results in terms of reliability, timeliness,
and security [116]. The key idea here is to let the active sen-
sors transmit their reports in a mixed signal that gets recovered
at an access point. At the routing layer, many researchers have
suggested that geographical routing is more suitable for smart
grids since node locations are fixed [117]–[119]. They show
that such protocols can better deal with node failure and unsta-
ble link qualities. For example, Ref. [117] applied multi-path
geographical routing protocols for a multi-channel wireless
mesh-based smart grid network, in which disjoint routing paths
are formed to reduce the probability of multiple route failure
when a single node fails. Also in [118], a routing protocol is
proposed in the form of a distributed depth-first search tree,
through which packet forwarding takes place. To strengthen
network reliability, the data packets, while being forwarded,
detect route problems and loops through loop detection tables,
and thus routing tables are fixed accordingly.
Collecting information for fault detection and sending con-
trol commands for restoration purposes require guaranteed
delivery of data packets end-to-end between remote devices.
This end-to-end reliability requirement is realized at the trans-
port layer of TCP/IP. A light-weight end-to-end transport
protocol is introduced in [120] in order to achieve delivery
speed and reliability of grid sensors’ data packets. The protocol
is a down-scale of a typical TCP but removes any mechanisms
that introduce overhead, e.g., Nagle’s algorithm and delayed
acknowledgements. Scalability concerns of TCP have been
addressed in [121] given the large number of data sources in
the grid. It is shown that a proxy- like mechanism improves
TCP’s ability to effectively perform congestion control and
thus reduce packet-loss rate. In [122], a study is conducted to
understand the impact of congestion in the North American
Synchro-Phasor Initiative (NASPI) [123] infrastructure. It
is argued that even with path bandwidth reservation, traf-
fic congestion can still occur at times of increased traffic
demand and in transient traffic stress situations [122], [124].
This congestion causes deviations in PMU and IED real-
time traffic, whose timeliness is essential in detecting and
fixing faults.
B. Quality-of-Service (QoS) Support
Providing QoS guarantees is becoming essential in the
design of smart grid communication protocols. For example,
in detecting faults and sending control signals to breakers
2180
and switches, the network should guarantee timely transfer
of packets on a scale of a few milliseconds. Any further delay
may lead to a power restoration failure or even aggravate
the problem. Blackouts start initially with power equipment
failures, but escalate to become major ones because the
right information does not get to the right place within the
right time.
IEEE 1646 standard [125] specifies the time constraints for
communicating information between IEDs for substation inte-
grated protection, control and data acquisition. This standard
classifies messages according to their urgency from low to very
high. Event notification for protection messages, for example,
requires high speed delivery of 2 to 10 msec. Delivery of pro-
tection commands to switchgears and delivery of voltage and
current analog-sampled data require an even stricter latency of
less than 2 msec.
Enforcing QoS is typically achieved through resource reser-
vation and traffic prioritization. Several QoS-based frame-
works have been proposed for smart grids, borrowing
their fundamentals from Integrated Services (IntServ) [126],
Differentiated Services (DiffServ) [127], and Multi-Protocol
Label Switching (MPLS) [128]. For example, the work
in [129] proposed applying a bandwidth reservation mech-
anism at the network level in combination with IP MPLS
services. This bandwidth would be reserved for applications
that require strict timing requirements. However, because of
the unpredictable large bandwidth requirements that happen
during faults, a guard channel throughout the grid is reserved
to serve such critical traffic. Different combination of QoS
techniques were introduced in [130]. The algorithm integrates
DiffServ with MPLS services. It computes multiple MPLS
paths for each class of traffic. Then, it configures those paths
such that QoS requirements are met and network resources are
optimized.
For reduced latency, it is recommended that acknowledge-
ment mechanisms for packet loss recovery be avoided. Instead,
multiple disjoint paths with an admission control mechanism
can be used for critical transmissions, such as fault detec-
tion and control messages [131]. Also, it is recommended to
avoid complex subscription criteria in the process of data col-
lection from PMUs. For example, as done in GridStat [132],
criteria may be as simple as specifying the latency, rate,
and number of paths needed to simultaneously propagate
data through. A restoration experiment is presented in [32]
showing that choosing the right communication technology,
architecture, and protocols is essential. The paper experiments
with Ethernet and wireless CDMA with a distributed restora-
tion system, which is based on a multi agent system. It shows
that fault-section detection and complete restoration time can
be reduced from 48 sec to 10 sec by employing Ethernet and
allowing communication to be concurrent between a central
agent and terminal agents. In fact, with a centralized distribu-
tion automation system architecture, the restoration time could
take up to 5 minutes.
It is worth noting, however, that more research is needed
to compare different QoS approaches and determine which
combination of protocols suits smart grids for effective and
fast fault detection and restoration.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID, VOL. 8, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER 2017
V. S MART FDIR P RODUCTS AND U TILIZATION S YSTEMS
Distribution automation (DA) was introduced in the 1970s
to: 1) increase efficiency, reliability, and quality of elec-
tric service, and 2) facilitate more effective utilization and
life extension of existing distribution system infrastructure.
Advanced DA promotes automatic FDIR (self-healing) for
reducing outage times to a minimum. The performance of the
FDIR algorithm in Ref. [133] has been tested on New England
39-bus system as well as a practical 246-bus Indian sys-
tem. The New England 39-bus system has 10 generators
and 29 load buses with a nominal frequency of 60 Hz.
The 246-bus Indian system consists of 220 and 400 kV
networks with 246 buses, 376 branches (lines/transformers),
42 generating stations with 60 machines, and 40 reactors
connected at the 400 kV buses with a total connected
load of 16.69 GW and 6.23 GVar. The FDIR algorithm in
Ref. [134] involves a distribution system in South Brazil which
has three distribution substations, five feeders, 10 remote
controlled switches, and 14371 consumers. In Ref. [135]
a 13.8 kV real Brazilian distribution system with 964-nodes
was used to test and verify the proposed FDIR method. The
electrical distribution system is radial and has three feed-
ers, 964 nodes, 855 branches, 136 switches, and 106 load
zones.
Furthermore, several FDIR product functionalities for dis-
tribution grids have been offered in the market [136]–[138].
S&C Electric Company offers ‘IntelliTeam SG Automatic
Restoration System’ as a leading solution for implementing
self-healing grids [136]. IntelliTeam SG is the leading auto-
matic restoration system, and can restore power in seconds.
Siemens Industry Inc. offers ‘Siemens Distribution Feeder
Automation (SDFA)’ as a feeder-based distribution automa-
tion solution that improves distribution network reliability
by employing self-healing and smart grid technology [137].
SDFA minimizes the feeder down time by quickly and
automatically restoring the operation to healthy feeder sec-
tions, while isolating those requiring repairs. This results
in minimal outage time, fewer service calls, and reduced
monitoring and management demands. Electric Light &
Power (EL&P) Company offers a Fault Detection, Isolation
& Restoration (FDIR) system for utilities to improve distribu-
tion networks reliability [138]. It detects power system outages
and automatically sectionalizes and reconfigures distribution
networks to restore power to as many customers as possible.
It reduces typical customer outages from hours to less than
a minute and improves a utility’s SAIDI and SAIFI reliability
indices.
VI. F UTURE D IRECTIONS , AND R ECOMMENDATIONS
This section presents recommendations and future research
directions to help utilities in improving the overall system
reliability through facilitating a self-healing grid. Success in
implementing such self-healing algorithms depends strongly
on the complete integration of this function within differ-
ent functions of the advanced DMSs for future smart grids.
A wide-area disturbance monitoring system that supports
ZIDAN et al.: FDIR IN DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS: STATE-OF-THE-ART AND FUTURE TRENDS
the distribution system in different operation modes is
essential.
 During normal operation, this system will be useful
for managing assets, operating control centers, develop-
ing system models, commissioning protection system,
and analyzing power system events. Based on moni-
tored information, automatic continuous self-checking
schemes can be developed, to support system model val-
idation, calculate power system parameters, check state
estimator accuracy, and measure the power system state
in real time.
 During impending faults, this system would be use-
ful in developing a ‘big-picture’ view and in helping
operators to make better operating decisions and take
remedial actions. Hence a full-scale event, such as
a transformer failure, will be prevented by dropping
load or transformers, adjusting system configuration, or
utilizing renewable energy sources.
 During faults, this system will be used to analyze the
scope of the fault; trace the current network model; iden-
tify current relevant safety issues, operational restric-
tions, and sensitive customers; locate the fault and
automatically run load flow studies to identify current
loading, available capacity, and possible weakness. The
system will then attempt to isolate the fault and restore
power to the maximum number of customers, with
a safe load transfer, potentially involving multi-level
feeder reconfiguration to prevent cascading overloads
to adjacent circuits. Once reconfiguration is complete,
the system can alert the operator to the outcome and
dispatch the appropriate crew to the identified faulty
section.
Careful attention should be paid to finding appropriate algo-
rithms with complete integration of different functions of the
advanced DMSs in order to enable the following requirements:
 Enabling the integration of intermittent renewable
energy resources.
 Allowing reliable and secure two-way power and infor-
mation flows.
 Enabling energy efficiency, effective demand manage-
ment, and customer choice.
 Operating resiliently against physical and cyber-attacks.
In order to realize the concept of the self-healing grid, future
research directions should focus on filling the gaps in the
following challenges:
A. Infrastructure for a Self-Healing Grid
Accomplishing a self-healing grid requires researchers to
address a comprehensive set of modeling, control, and oper-
ating concerns related to performance enhancement, adequacy
of resources, and system operating limits, as well as to pri-
mary and back-up protection of system components. Examples
include the functional and architectural specifications of IT
infrastructure that are required for self-healing grid. On-line
analytical capabilities are required in the proposed infrastruc-
ture to address operating concerns. Furthermore, current capa-
bilities such as forecasting, dynamic analysis, data acquisition,
maintenance, monitoring, and control actions will be included.
2181
These functional areas have to provide non-stop service in
terms of: 1) providing situational awareness throughout the
distribution network; 2) predicting, preventing and solving
problems; 3) updating operational plans; and 4) supporting
system restoration.
These smart capabilities require implementation of decision
supporting tools with intensive computational and communica-
tion requirements that operate in real-time. Thus, autonomous
intelligent agents spread throughout distribution systems are
required to realize the required functions and to support
both local and global cooperative processes with timely and
effective information access throughout the system.
B. Developing Decision Support Tools for FDIR
SR following a widespread outage is a highly complex task
for both planners and operators. Decision-making or deci-
sion support tools are therefore in great need for both online
and off-line purposes. The development of such tools has
been slow. Decision support tools must be highly flexible
and adaptive to allow any changes in power grid condi-
tions to be reflected through seamless collaboration between
human operators and computer-based optimization tools. The
decision-making tool should satisfy a reasonable trade-off
between the complexity of the algorithm and its accuracy.
Furthermore, to benefit from the distributed processing and
achieve a reliable control system, the algorithm should work
in a distributed way.
C. Renewable Energy Resources and Microgrids
Enabling the integration of intermittent renewable energy
resources in SR algorithms will be very important. DG units
provide a source of support power during the restoration pro-
cess, decrease the required number of switching operations
and increase the opportunity for restoring additional unrestored
customer loads. Furthermore, microgrids embedded in distri-
bution systems enhance the self-healing capability and allow
distribution systems to recover faster in the event of an out-
age. Therefore, more research is required on how to accurately
capture the intermittency of renewable energy resources in SR
algorithms and to find the optimal control schemes for those
units (i.e., self-controlled devices or ones controlled as a part
of a hierarchal control algorithm).
D. Integrated Forecasting
Load forecasting is a complex nonlinear problem related
to social considerations, economic factors, and weather
variations [139]. It provides an important role in the analysis,
planning, operation, and service restoration of electric distri-
bution systems. With an expanding network grid and increased
system complexity, properly restoring service after an outage
is becoming more difficult. It is no longer feasible or prac-
tical to rely on experience from, hopefully, similar outages.
Hence, accurate on-line methods of reliable bus load and gen-
eration forecasting [140] will be a dominant component in
realizing self-healing grids. Reasonable load and renewable
output power values are required to allow realistic decision
making.
2182
VII. C ONCLUSION
Self-healing or automated FDIR is an important step toward
a smart grid. In the future energy paradigm, with a high pen-
etration of renewable resources and responsive demands, the
dynamic nature of system components such as load variabil-
ity and renewable power uncertainty will affect power system
operating and recovery technologies. Self-healing provides an
adaptive and optimized strategy with which to make fault allo-
cation and service restoration decisions, one that will reduce
restoration time while maintaining system integrity. With the
employment of such decision support tools, the distribution
system will be better prepared and equipped to handle extreme
events.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The statements made herein are solely the responsibility of
the authors.
R EFERENCES
[1] A. Coelho, A. B. Rodrigues, and M. G. Da Silva, “Distribution network
reconfiguration with reliability constraints,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Power
Syst. Technol., vol. 2. Singapore, Nov. 2004, pp. 1600–1606.
[2] A Kavousi-Fard and T. Niknam, “Optimal distribution feeder recon-
figuration for reliability improvement considering uncertainty,” IEEE
Trans. Power Del., vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 1344–1353, Jun. 2014.
[3] P. Linares and L. Rey, “The costs of electricity interruptions in Spain.
Are we sending the right signals?” Energy Policy, vol. 61, pp. 751–760,
Oct. 2013.
[4] C. Angelo and P. Selejan, “Technologies of the self healing grid,” in
Proc. 22nd Int. Conf. Electr. Distrib. (CIRED), Stockholm, Sweden,
Jun. 2013, pp. 1–4.
[5] A. Skoonpong and S. Sirisumrannukul, “Network reconfiguration for
reliability worth enhancement in distribution systems by simulated
annealing,” in Proc. 5th Int. Conf. Elect. Eng./Electron. Comput.
Telecommun. Inf. Technol., Krabi, Thailand, May 2008, pp. 937–940.
[6] M. Kezunovic, “Smart fault location for smart grids,” IEEE Trans.
Smart Grid, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 11–22, Mar. 2011.
[7] A. Zidan and E. F. El-Saadany, “A cooperative multiagent frame-
work for self-healing mechanisms in distribution systems,” IEEE Trans.
Smart Grid, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 1525–1539, Sep. 2012.
[8] M.-Y. Chow, L. S. Taylor, and M.-S. Chow, “Time of outage restoration
analysis in distribution systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 11,
no. 3, pp. 1652–1658, Jul. 1996.
[9] T. Nagata and H. Sasaki, “An efficient algorithm for distribution net-
work restoration,” in Proc. IEEE Power Eng. Soc. Summer Meeting,
vol. 1. Vancouver, BC, Canada, Jul. 2001, pp. 54–59.
[10] A. Zidan, M. F. Shaaban, and E. F. El-Saadany, “Long-term multi-
objective distribution network planning by DG allocation and feed-
ers’ reconfiguration,” Elect. Power Syst. Res., vol. 105, pp. 95–104,
Dec. 2013.
[11] A. Zidan and E. F. El-Saadany, “Incorporating load variation and
variable wind generation in service restoration plans for distribution
systems,” Energy, vol. 57, pp. 682–691, Aug. 2013.
[12] T. Niknam, A. K. Fard, and A. Baziar, “Multi-objective stochastic
distribution feeder reconfiguration problem considering hydrogen and
thermal energy production by fuel cell power plants,” Energy, vol. 42,
no. 1, pp. 563–573, Jun. 2012.
[13] M. Dewadasa, A. Ghosh, and G. Ledwich, “Islanded operation and
system restoration with converter interfaced distributed generation,”
in Proc. IEEE PES Innov. Smart Grid Technol. Conf., Perth, WA,
Australia, Nov. 2011, pp. 1–8.
[14] T. E. McDermott and R. C. Dugan, “PQ, reliability and DG,” IEEE
Ind. Appl. Mag., vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 17–23, Sep./Oct. 2003.
[15] EPRI, “Estimating the costs and benefits of the smart grid: A prelimi-
nary estimate of the investment requirements and the resultant benefits
of a fully functioning smart grid,” Dept. Power Del. Utilization, Elect.
Power Res. Inst., Palo Alto, CA, USA, Tech. Rep. 1022519, Mar. 2011.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID, VOL. 8, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER 2017
[16] D. S. Sanches, J. B. A. London, Jr., and A. C. B. Delbem, “Multi-
objective evolutionary algorithm for single and multiple fault service
restoration in large-scale distribution systems,” Elect. Power Syst. Res.,
vol. 110, pp. 144–153, May 2014.
[17] A. N. Milioudis, G. T. Andreou, and D. P. Labridis, “Enhanced
protection scheme for smart grids using power line communications
techniques—Part I: Detection of high impedance fault occurrence,”
IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 1621–1630, Dec. 2012.
[18] S. Kazemi, R. J. Millar, and M. Lehtonen, “Criticality analysis of fail-
ure to communicate in automated fault-management schemes,” IEEE
Trans. Power Del., vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 1083–1091, Jun. 2014.
[19] J. Li, X.-Y. Ma, C.-C. Liu, and K. P. Schneider, “Distribution system
restoration with microgrids using spanning tree search,” IEEE Trans.
Power Syst., vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 3021–3029, Nov. 2014.
[20] “‘GRID 2030’—A national vision for electricity’s second 100 years,”
Office Elect. Transm. Distrib., U.S. Dept. Energy, Washington, DC,
USA, Tech. Rep., 2003.
[21] “A vision for the smart grid,” Nat. Energy Technol. Lab., U.S. Dept.
Energy, Washington, DC, USA, Tech. Rep., 2009.
[22] S. A. Arefifar, Y. A.-R. I. Mohamed, and T. H. M. El-Fouly,
“Comprehensive operational planning framework for self-healing con-
trol actions in smart distribution grids,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 4192–4200, May 2013.
[23] N. El Halabi, M. Gracía-Gracia, J. Borroy, and J. L. Villa, “Current
phase comparison pilot scheme for distributed generation networks
protection,” Appl. Energy, vol. 88, no. 12, pp. 4563–4569, Dec. 2011.
[24] M. A. Shahin, “Smart grid self-healing implementation for underground
distribution networks,” in Proc. IEEE Innov. Smart Grid Technol. Conf.,
Bengaluru, India, Nov. 2013, pp. 1–5.
[25] M. Kezunovic, “Smart fault location for smart grids,” IEEE Trans.
Smart Grid, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 11–22, Mar. 2011.
[26] “A vision for the modern grid,” Nat. Energy Technol. Lab., U.S. Dept.
Energy, Washington, DC, USA, Tech. Rep., Mar. 2007.
[27] P. C. Baker, M. D. Judd, and S. D. J. McArthur, “A frequency-
based RF partial discharge detector for low-power wireless sensing,”
IEEE Trans. Dielect. Elect. Insul., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 133–140,
Feb. 2010.
[28] P. C. Baker, S. D. J. McArthur, and M. Judd, “Data management of on-
line partial discharge monitoring using wireless sensor nodes integrated
with a multi-agent system,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Intell. Syst. Appl. Power
Syst., Niigata, Japan, Nov. 2007, pp. 1–6.
[29] A. M. Gaouda, F. Sallabi, A. H. El-Hag, and M. M. A. Salama, “Zigbee
performance during severe interruptions in electric power systems,”
in Proc. Int. Conf. Elect. Power Qual. Utilisation, Lisbon, Portugal,
Oct. 2011, pp. 1–6.
[30] L. Haoming, C. Xingying, Y. Kun, and H. Yunhe, “The control and
analysis of self-healing urban power grid,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid,
vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 1119–1129, Sep. 2012.
[31] I. Dzafic, N. Lecek, and T. Donlagic, “Data exchange in self-healing
applications for power distribution networks,” in Proc. IEEE Power
Energy Soc. Gen. Meeting, San Diego, CA, USA, Jul. 2012, pp. 1–7.
[32] I.-H. Lim et al., “Design and implementation of multiagent-based dis-
tributed restoration system in DAS,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 28,
no. 2, pp. 585–593, Apr. 2013.
[33] A. S. Tanenbaum and M. V. Steen, Distributed Systems: Principles and
Paradigms. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall, 2002.
[34] D. A. Cartes and S. K. Srivastava, “Agent applications and their future
in the power industry,” in Proc. IEEE Power Eng. Soc. Gen. Meeting,
Tampa, FL, USA, Jun. 2007, pp. 1–6.
[35] M. Shahidehpour and Y. Wang, Communication and Control in
Electrical Power Systems: Applications of Parallel and Distributed
Processing. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 2003.
[36] I. Lim, T. S Sidhu, M. S. Choi, S. J. Lee, and B. N. Ha, “An opti-
mal composition and placement of automatic switches in DAS,” IEEE
Trans. Power Del., vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 1474–1482, Jul. 2013.
[37] J. R. Bezerra, G. C. Barroso, R. P. S. Leao, and R. F. Sampaio,
“Multiobjective optimization algorithm for switch placement in radial
power distribution networks,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 30, no. 2,
pp. 545–552, Apr. 2015.
[38] A. Heidari, V. G. Agelidis, and M. Kia, “Considerations of section-
alizing switches in distribution networks with distributed generation,”
IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 1401–1409, Jun. 2015.
[39] Y. Xu, C.-C. Liu, K. P. Schneider, and D. T. Ton, “Placement of
remote-controlled switches to enhance distribution system restoration
capability,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., to be published.
ZIDAN et al.: FDIR IN DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS: STATE-OF-THE-ART AND FUTURE TRENDS
[40] J. Vasco, R. Ramlachan, J. Wong, and L. Wang, “An automated fault
location system as a decision support tool for system operators,” in
Proc. 61st Annu. Conf. Protective Relay Eng., College Station, TX,
USA, Apr. 2008, pp. 556–572.
[41] G. D. Ferreira et al., “Impedance-based fault location for overhead and
underground distribution systems,” in Proc. North Amer. Power Symp.,
Champaign, IL, USA, Sep. 2012, pp. 1–6.
[42] M.-S. Choi, S.-J. Lee, S.-I. Lim, D.-S. Lee, and X. Yang, “A direct
three-phase circuit analysis-based fault location for line-to-line fault,”
IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 2541–2547, Oct. 2007.
[43] S. Lin, Z. Y. He, X. P. Li, and Q. Q. Qian, “Travelling wave
time-frequency characteristic-based fault location method for transmis-
sion lines,” IET Gener., Transm. Distrib., vol. 6, no. 8, pp. 764–772,
Aug. 2012.
[44] M. Pourahmadi-Nakhli and A. A. Safavi, “Path characteristic
frequency-based fault locating in radial distribution systems using
wavelets and neural networks,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 26, no. 2,
pp. 772–781, Apr. 2011.
[45] J. Sadeh, E. Bakhshizadeh, and R. Kazemzadeh, “A new fault location
algorithm for radial distribution systems using modal analysis,” Int.
J. Elect. Power Energy Syst., vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 271–278, Feb. 2013.
[46] J. C. S. Souza, M. A. P. Rodrigues, M. T. Schilling, and
M. B. D. C. Filho, “Fault location in electrical power systems using
intelligent systems techniques,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 16, no. 1,
pp. 59–67, Jan. 2001.
[47] C. Y. Teo and H. B. Gooi, “Artificial intelligence in diagnosis and
supply restoration for a distribution network,” IEE Proc. Gener. Transm.
Distrib., vol. 145, no. 4, pp. 444–450, Jul. 1998.
[48] J. A. Momoh, L. G. Dias, and D. N. Laird, “An implementation of
a hybrid intelligent tool for distribution system fault diagnosis,” IEEE
Trans. Power Del., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 1035–1040, Apr. 1997.
[49] T. Ghanbari and E. Farjah, “A multiagent-based fault-current limiting
scheme for the microgrids,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 29, no. 2,
pp. 525–533, Apr. 2014.
[50] V. Salehi and O. Mohammed, “Developing virtual protection system
for control and self-healing of power system,” in Proc. IEEE Ind. Appl.
Soc. Annu. Meeting, Orlando, FL, USA, Oct. 2011, pp. 1–7.
[51] S. Mohagheghi, J. Stoupis, and Z. Wang, “Communication protocols
and networks for power systems-current status and future trends,” in
Proc. IEEE Power Syst. Conf. Expo., Seattle, WA, USA, Mar. 2009,
pp. 1–9.
[52] D. Baranovskis and J. Rozenkrons, “Integration of the universal earth-
fault indicator in to the distribution network SCADA system,” in Proc.
IEEE Russia Power Tech. Conf., St. Petersburg, Russia, Jun. 2005,
pp. 1–5.
[53] S. Hodgson, “The use GSM and Web based SCADA for monitoring
fault passage indicators,” in Proc. IEEE Transm. Distrib. Conf. Expo.,
New Orleans, LA, USA, Apr. 2010, pp. 1–3.
[54] E. Coster, W. Kerstens, and T. Berry, “Self healing distribution net-
works using smart controllers,” in Proc. 22nd Int. Conf. Exhibit. Elect.
Distrib. (CIRED), Stockholm, Sweden, Jun. 2013, pp. 1–4.
[55] A. Varžiû, K. Slivariû, and M. Šporec, “Detecting faults in MV net-
work using GPRS,” in Proc. 22nd Int. Conf. Elect. Distrib., Stockholm,
Sweden, Jun. 2013, pp. 1–3.
[56] F. Mekic, K. Alloway, C. Angelo, and R. Goodin, “Fault detection
isolation and restoration on the feeder (FDIR): Pick your technology,”
in Proc. 21st Int. Conf. Elect. Distrib., Frankfurt, Germany, Jun. 2011,
pp. 1–8.
[57] R. Jenkins and D. Dolezilek, “Case study: Using IEC 61850 methods
for RTU replacement and distributed automation,” in Proc. 10th Annu.
Western Power Del. Autom. Conf., Spokane, WA, USA, Apr. 2008,
pp. 1–17.
[58] D. T. Brown and A. L. Gielink. (Feb. 2015). A Utility’s
Experience in the Implementation of Substation Automation
Projects. [Online]. Available: https://www.gedigitalenergy.com/
smartgrid/Dec07/5-substation_automation.pdf
[59] R. Wernsing et al., “Implementation of an innovative advanced loop
scheme to provide distribution reliability improvement,” in Proc. IEEE
Rural Elect. Power Conf., Orlando, FL, USA, May 2010, pp. B2–B2-8.
[60] S. Rusitschka, K. Eger, and C. Gerdes, “Smart grid data cloud: A model
for utilizing cloud computing in the smart grid domain,” in Proc.
1st IEEE Int. Conf. Smart Grid Commun., Gaithersburg, MD, USA,
Oct. 2010, pp. 483–488.
[61] L. Whei-Min and C. Hong-Chan, “A new approach for distribution
feeder reconfiguration for loss reduction and service restoration,” IEEE
Trans. Power Del., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 870–875, Jul. 1998.
2183
[62] S. P. Singh, G. S. Raju, G. K. Rao, and M. Afsari, “A heuristic
method for feeder reconfiguration and service restoration in distribu-
tion networks,” Int. J. Elect. Power Energy Syst., vol. 31, nos. 7–8,
pp. 309–314, Sep. 2009.
[63] M. R. Kleinberg, K. Miu, and H.-D. Chiang, “Improving service
restoration of power distribution systems through load curtailment
of in-service customers,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 26, no. 3,
pp. 1110–1117, Aug. 2011.
[64] D. Shirmohammadi, “Service restoration in distribution networks
via network reconfiguration,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 7, no. 2,
pp. 952–958, Apr. 1992.
[65] M.-S. Tsai, “Development of an object-oriented service restoration
expert system with load variations,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 23,
no. 1, pp. 219–225, Feb. 2008.
[66] S. Srivastava and K. L. Butler-Burry, “Expert-system method for auto-
matic reconfiguration for restoration of shipboard power systems,” IEE
Proc. Gener., Transm. Distrib., vol. 153, no. 3, pp. 253–260, May 2006.
[67] S. J. Lee, K. H. Kim, H. Y. Kim, J. K. Lee, and K. Y. Nam,
“Expert system-aided service restoration in distribution automation”,
in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Syst. Man Cybern., vol. 1. Chicago, IL, USA,
Oct. 1992, pp. 157–161.
[68] C.-C. Liu, S. J. Lee, and S. S. Venkata, “An expert system operational
aid for restoration and loss reduction of distribution systems,” IEEE
Trans. Power Syst., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 619–626, May 1988.
[69] K. Manjunath and M. R. Mohan, “A new hybrid multi-objective quick
service restoration technique for electric power distribution systems,”
Int. J. Elect. Power Energy Syst., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 51–64, Jan. 2007.
[70] Y. Kumar, B. Das, and J. Sharma, “Multiobjective, multiconstraint
service restoration of electric power distribution system with prior-
ity customers,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 261–270,
Jan. 2008.
[71] Y. Jiang, J. Jiang, and Y. Zhang, “A novel fuzzy multiobjective model
using adaptive genetic algorithm based on cloud theory for service
restoration of shipboard power systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst.,
vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 612–620, May 2012.
[72] S. Khushalani, J. M. Solanki, and N. N. Schulz, “Optimized restoration
of unbalanced distribution systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 22,
no. 2, pp. 624–630, May 2007.
[73] R. M. Ciric and D. S. Popovic, “Multi-objective distribution network
restoration using heuristic approach and mix integer programming
method,” Int. J. Elect. Power Energy Syst., vol. 22, no. 7, pp. 497–505,
Oct. 2000.
[74] N. Vlassis, “A concise introduction to multiagent systems and dis-
tributed artificial intelligence,” Synth. Lectures Artif. Intell. Mach.
Learn., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–71, 2007.
[75] S. R. Islam, K. M. Muttaqi, and D. Sutanto, “A decentralized
multiagent-based voltage control for catastrophic disturbances in
a power system,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 1201–1214,
Mar./Apr. 2015.
[76] A. Vaccaro, V. Loia, G. Formato, P. Wall, and V. Terzija, “A self-
organizing architecture for decentralized smart microgrids synchroniza-
tion, control, and monitoring,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Informat., vol. 11,
no. 1, pp. 289–298, Feb. 2015.
[77] X. Tong et al., “The study of a regional decentralized peer-to-peer
negotiation-based wide-area backup protection multi-agent system,”
IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1197–1206, Jun. 2013.
[78] M. Shafie-Khah and J. P. S. Catalao, “A stochastic multi-layer agent-
based model to study electricity market participants behavior,” IEEE
Trans. Power Syst., vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 867–881, Mar. 2015.
[79] S. D. J. McArthur et al., “Multi-agent systems for power engineering
applications—Part I: Concepts, approaches, and technical challenges,”
IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 1743–1752, Nov. 2007.
[80] S. D. J. McArthur et al., “Multi-agent systems for power engineering
applications—Part II: Technologies, standards, and tools for build-
ing multi-agent systems,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 22, no. 4,
pp. 1753–1759, Nov. 2007.
[81] M.-S. Tsai and Y.-T. Pan, “Application of BDI-based intelligent multi-
agent systems for distribution system service restoration planning,” Eur.
Trans. Elect. Power, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 1783–1801, Jul. 2011.
[82] T. Nagata and H. Sasaki, “A multi-agent approach to power system
restoration,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 457–462,
May 2002.
[83] Y. Xu and W. Liu, “Novel multiagent based load restoration algorithm
for microgrids,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 152–161,
Mar. 2011.
2184
[84] J. M. Solanki, S. Khushalani, and N. N. Schulz, “A multi-agent solution
to distribution systems restoration,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 22,
no. 3, pp. 1026–1034, Aug. 2007.
[85] I. S. Baxevanos and D. P. Labridis, “Implementing multiagent sys-
tems technology for power distribution network control and protection
management,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 433–443,
Jan. 2007.
[86] C. P. Nguyen and A. J. Flueck, “Agent based restoration with dis-
tributed energy storage support in smart grids,” IEEE Trans. Smart
Grid, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 1029–1038, Jun. 2012.
[87] Z. Wang and J. Wang, “Self-healing resilient distribution systems based
on sectionalization into microgrids,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 30,
no. 6, pp. 3139–3149, Nov. 2015.
[88] M. Eriksson, M. Armendariz, O. O. Vasilenko, A. Saleem, and
L. Nordstrom, “Multi-agent based distribution automation solution
for self-healing grids,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 62, no. 4,
pp. 2620–2628, Apr. 2015.
[89] R. M. Kamel, A. Chaouachi, and K. Nagasaka, “RETRACTED: Wind
power smoothing using fuzzy logic pitch controller and energy capac-
itor system for improvement micro-grid performance in islanding
mode,” Energy, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 2119–2129, May 2010.
[90] R. A. Walling, R. Saint, R. C. Dugan, J. Burke, and L. A. Kojovic,
“Summary of distributed resources impact on power delivery systems,”
IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 1636–1644, Jul. 2008.
[91] S. A. Arefifar, Y. A.-R. I. Mohamed, and T. El-Fouly, “Optimized
multiple microgrid-based clustering of active distribution systems con-
sidering communication and control requirements,” IEEE Trans. Ind.
Electron., vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 711–723, Feb. 2015.
[92] Z. Wang, B. Chen, J. Wang, and C. Chen, “Networked microgrids for
self-healing power systems,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 7, no. 1,
pp. 310–319, Jan. 2016.
[93] A. S. Bretas, M. Moreto, R. H. Salem, and L. O. Pires, “A novel
high impedance fault location for distribution systems considering dis-
tributed generation,” in Proc. IEEE/PES Transm. Distrib. Conf. Expo.,
Caracas, Venezuela, Aug. 2006, pp. 1–6.
[94] M. M. Kyaw and V. K. Ramachandaramurthy, “Fault ride through and
voltage regulation for grid connected wind turbine,” Renew. Energy,
vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 206–215, Jan. 2011.
[95] F. Gao and M. R. Iravani, “A control strategy for a distributed gen-
eration unit in grid-connected and autonomous modes of operation,”
IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 850–859, Apr. 2008.
[96] A. Camacho, M. Castilla, J. Miret, J. C. Vasquez, and E. Alarcon-Gallo,
“Flexible voltage support control for three-phase distributed generation
inverters under grid fault,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron., vol. 60, no. 4,
pp. 1429–1441, Apr. 2013.
[97] N. Jelani and M. Molinas, “Asymmetrical fault ride through as ancillary
service by constant power loads in grid-connected wind farm,” IEEE
Trans. Power Electron., vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 1704–1713, Mar. 2015.
[98] D. Shin, K.-J. Lee, J.-P. Lee, D.-W. Yoo, and H.-J. Kim,
“Implementation of fault ride-through techniques of grid-connected
inverter for distributed energy resources with adaptive low-pass notch
PLL,” IEEE Trans. Power Electron., vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 2859–2871,
May 2015.
[99] L. Huchel, M. S. El Moursi, and H. H. Zeineldin, “A parallel capacitor
control strategy for enhanced FRT capability of DFIG,” IEEE Trans.
Sustain. Energy, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 303–312, Apr. 2015.
[100] A. S. Bouhouras, G. T. Andreou, D. P. Labridis, and A. G. Bakirtzis,
“Selective automation upgrade in distribution networks towards
a smarter grid,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 278–285,
Dec. 2010.
[101] (Feb. 2015). Distribution Automation and the Self-Healing
Network. [Online]. Available: http://smartgrid.ieee.org/april-2014/
1070-distribution-automation-and-the-self-healing-network
[102] (Feb. 2015). Smart Grid—Safe, Secure, Self-Healing: Challenges
and Opportunities in Power System Security, Resiliency,
and Privacy. [Online]. Available: http://magazine.ieee-pes.org/
january-february-2012/smart-grid-safe-secure-self-healing/
[103] T. Khalifa, K. Naik, and A. Nayak, “A survey of communication proto-
cols for automatic meter reading applications,” IEEE Commun. Surveys
Tuts., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 168–182, Jun. 2011.
[104] E. Ancillotti, R. Bruno, and M. Conti, “The role of communication
systems in smart grids: Architectures, technical solutions and research
challenges,” Comput. Commun., vol. 36, nos. 17–18, pp. 1665–1697,
Nov./Dec. 2013.
[105] N. Kayastha, D. Niyato, E. Hossain, and Z. Han, “Smart grid sensor
data collection, communication, and networking: A tutorial,” Wireless
Commun. Mobile Comput., vol. 14, no. 11, pp. 1055–1087, Aug. 2014.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SMART GRID, VOL. 8, NO. 5, SEPTEMBER 2017
[106] Smart Metering System Use Cases, document ENA-CR007-002-1.1,
Engage Consulting Ltd., London, U.K., Apr. 2010.
[107] J.-H. Teng, W.-H. Huang, and S.-W. Luan, “Automatic and fast faulted
line-section location method for distribution systems based on fault
indicators,” IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 1653–1662,
Jul. 2014.
[108] “Communication requirements of smart grid technologies,” U.S. Dept.
Energy, Washington, DC, USA, Tech. Rep., 2010.
[109] Y. Wang, W. Li, and J. Lu, “Reliability analysis of wide-area measure-
ment system,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 1483–1491,
Jul. 2010.
[110] A. G. Phadke and R. M. de Moraes, “The wide world of wide-
area measurement,” IEEE Power Energy Mag., vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 52–65,
Sep./Oct. 2008.
[111] M. Begovic, D. Novosel, D. Karlsson, C. Henville, and G. Michel,
“Wide-area protection and emergency control,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 93,
no. 5, pp. 876–891, May 2005.
[112] M. Chenine, L. Nordstrom, and P. Johnson, “Factors in assessing per-
formance of wide area communication networks for distributed control
of power systems,” in Proc. IEEE Power Tech, Lausanne, Lausanne,
Switzerland, Jul. 2007, pp. 1682–1687.
[113] J. Pearl, “Influence diagrams—Historical and personal perspectives,”
Dec. Anal., vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 232–234, Dec. 2005.
[114] D. Niyato, P. Wang, Z. Han, and E. Hossain, “Impact of packet loss
on power demand estimation and power supply cost in smart grid,”
in Proc. Conf. Wireless Commun. Netw., Cancún, Mexico, Mar. 2011,
pp. 2024–2029.
[115] D. Niyato, Q. Dong, P. Wang, and E. Hossain, “Optimizations of power
consumption and supply in the smart grid: Analysis of the impact of
data communication reliability,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 4, no. 1,
pp. 21–35, Mar. 2013.
[116] H. Li, R. Mao, L. Lai, and R. C. Qiu, “Compressed meter reading for
delay-sensitive and secure load report in smart grid,” in Proc. IEEE 1st
Int. Conf. Smart Grid Commun., Gaithersburg, MD, USA, Oct. 2010,
pp. 114–119.
[117] M. Biagi, S. Greco, and L. Lampe, “Neighborhood-knowledge based
geo-routing in PLC,” in Proc. 16th IEEE Int. Symp. Power Line
Commun. Appl., Beijing, China, Mar. 2012, pp. 7–12.
[118] S. Umaa, A. A. Crdenas, and T. Iwao, “Comparison of data forwarding
mechanisms for AMI networks,” in Proc. IEEE PES Innov. Smart Grid
Technol., Washington, DC, USA, Jan. 2012, pp. 1–8.
[119] A. Abdrabou, “A wireless communication architecture for smart grid
distribution networks,” IEEE Syst. J., to be published.
[120] Y.-J. Kim and M. Thottan, “SGTP: Smart grid transport protocol for
secure reliable delivery of periodic real time data,” Bell Labs Tech. J.,
vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 83–99, Dec. 2011.
[121] T. Khalifa et al., “Design and analysis of split- and aggregated-
transport control protocol (SA-TCP) for smart metering infrastructure,”
in Proc. IEEE 3rd Int. Conf. Smart Grid Commun., Tainan City, Taiwan,
Nov. 2012, pp. 139–144.
[122] N. Cherukuri and K. Nahrstedt, “Cooperative congestion control in
power grid communication networks,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Smart
Grid Commun., Brussels, Belgium, Oct. 2011, pp. 587–592.
[123] P. T. Myrda and K. Koellner, “NASPInet—The Internet for synchropha-
sors,” in Proc. 43rd Hawaii Int. Conf. Syst. Sci., Honolulu, HI, USA,
Jan. 2010, pp. 1–6.
[124] L. Li, “An improved congestion control strategy algorithm for hetero-
geneous network,” J. Netw., vol. 8, no. 9, pp. 2107–2113, 2013.
[125] IEEE Standard Communication Delivery Time Performance
Requirements for Electric Power Substation Automation, IEEE
Standard 1646-2004, 2005.
[126] R. Braden, D. Clark, and S. Shenker, Integrated Services in the Internet
Architecture: An Overview, document RFC 1633, Internet Engineering
Task Force (IETF), Fremont, CA, USA, Jun. 1994.
[127] S. Blake et al., An Architecture for Differentiated Service, document
IETF RFC 2475, Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), Fremont,
CA, USA, 1998.
[128] E. Rosen, A. Viswanathan, and R. Callon, Multiprotocol Label
Switching Architecture, document IETF RFC 3031, Internet
Engineering Task Force (IETF), Fremont, CA, USA, Jan. 2001.
[129] K. Hopkinson, G. Roberts, X. Wang, and J. Thorp, “Quality-of-service
considerations in utility communication networks,” IEEE Trans. Power
Del., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 1465–1474, Jul. 2009.
[130] Y. Ting, Z. Zhidong, L. Ang, W. Jiaowen, and W. Ming, “New IP
QoS algorithm applying for communication sub-networks in smart
grid,” in Proc. Power Energy Eng. Conf., Chengdu, China, Mar. 2010,
pp. 1–4.
ZIDAN et al.: FDIR IN DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS: STATE-OF-THE-ART AND FUTURE TRENDS
[131] D. E. Bakken, C. H. Hauser, and H. Gjermundrod, “Delivery require-
ments and implementation guidelines for the naspinet data bus,” in
Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Smart Grid Commun., Gaithersburg, MD, USA,
Oct. 2010, pp. 37–42.
[132] H. Gjermundrod, D. E. Bakken, C. H. Hauser, and A. Bose, “GridStat:
A flexible QoS-managed data dissemination framework for the power
grid,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 136–143, Jan. 2009.
[133] K. Seethalekshmi, S. N. Singh, and S. C. Srivastava, “A synchrophasor
assisted frequency and voltage stability based load shedding scheme for
self-healing of power system,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 2, no. 2,
pp. 221–230, Jun. 2011.
[134] D. P. Bernardon et al., “Smart grid concepts applied to self-healing
in distribution system,” in Proc. 49th Int. Univ. Conf. Power Eng.,
Cluj-Napoca, Romania, Sep. 2014, pp. 1–6.
[135] P. L. Cavalcante et al., “Centralized self-healing scheme for elec-
trical distribution systems,” IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, vol. 7, no. 1,
pp. 145–155, Jan. 2016.
[136] S&C Electric Company. [Online]. Available: http://www.sandc.com/
solutions/self-healing-grids.asp, accessed Dec. 2, 2015.
2185
[137] Siemens Industry Inc. [Online]. Available: http://w3.usa.siemens.com/
smartgrid/us/en/distribution-grid/products/distribution-automation-
systems/Pages/distribution-feeder-automation-systems.aspx, accessed
Dec. 2, 2015.
[138] Electric Light & Power (EL&P) Company. [Online]. Available:
http://www.elp.com/articles/powergrid_international/print/volume-17/
issue-4/departments/products/fdir-flisr-system.htm, accessed
Dec. 2, 2015.
[139] H. Quan, D. Srinivasan, and A. Khosravi, “Short-term load and wind
power forecasting using neural network-based prediction intervals,”
IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst., vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 303–315,
Feb. 2014.
[140] B. Stephen, F. R. Isleifsson, S. Galloway, G. M. Burt, and
H. W. Bindner, “Online AMR domestic load profile characteristic
change monitor to support ancillary demand services,” IEEE Trans.
Smart Grid, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 888–895, Mar. 2014.
Authors’ photographs and biographies not available at the time of publication.