Electrical Power and Energy Systems 125 (2021) 106514

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems

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

Asymmetrical fault analysis on distribution feeders with inverter interfaced

distributed generators
Yingliang Li *, Deming Wang
School of Electronic Engineering, Xi’an Shiyou University, Xi’an 710065, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: As the penetration level of the inverter interfaced distributed generators (IIDGs) increases, it is necessary to
Distribution network consider the effect of the IIDG connection on fault analysis in distribution networks. To extend the conventional
Inverter interfaced distributed generation analysis methods, this paper proposed a sequence component-based method to analyse the asymmetrical short-
Fault analysis
circuit faults. The boundary condition alternation caused by the IIDG connection was presented as well as its
Asymmetrical fault
Boundary condition
effect on the phase components of the feeder fault currents. Moreover, the difference between fault currents
before and after IIDG connection was analysed, considering the boundary condition alternation. The fault current
values obtained in network without IIDG connection were used to calculate fault currents of the feeders con­
nected with IIDGs, which can simplify the calculation process and reduce the calculation time. The proposed
method was programmed and implemented on different cases, and results were compared with the simulation
and conventional analysis method. Comparisons demonstrated the improvements of the proposed method in
accuracy of the results and calculation time. The new method can be conveniently integrated into software
packages for power system analysis and relay protection evaluation.

1. Introduction
Faulty analysis is the foundation of the power system planning,
operation and relay protection [1,2]. Different to synchronous ma­
chines, the inverter interfaced distributed generators (IIDGs) increase
burdens on the fault analysis in distribution networks with the increase
of penetration level [3–6].
The output of IIDG is dominated by its control strategy and low
voltage ride-through (LVRT) capability. The grid-connected IIDG is
generally under the PQ control mode and the coupling point voltage is
used to control its output current [4,7]. Furthermore, LVRT requires
IIDG to provide reactive power during a certain period to maintain the
voltage level of the network [8,9]. The magnitudes and phase angles of
the feeder fault currents are affected due to the IIDG connection, which
complicates the fault analysis in distribution networks.
To estimate the feeder fault currents in networks connected with
IIDGs, researchers have carried out various methods on fault analysis
[10–24]. Some of the approaches worked on investigating the effect of
IIDG transient characteristics on fault analysis [10,11]. The IIDG
contribution during the transient period was analysed and a method
capturing IIDG behaviour was developed by Baran et al. [10]. It was
demonstrated that the fault current contributed by IIDG would be higher
during the first 5–10 cycles under the voltage control mode. He et al.
[11] investigated the transient characteristics of IIDGs during an
asymmetrical fault. The time required to reach the maximum output
current is considered to be within five milliseconds. Other approaches
mainly considered the steady-state fault currents. Bracale et al. [12]
extended the conventional bus-oriented method by developing an
analytical model to calculate the fault currents in the photovoltaic sys­
tem. The method only considered the three-phase short-circuit fault,
while the asymmetrical fault analysis is more complicated.
The asymmetrical fault analysis methods can be categorised into two
main methods [13,14]. One is the phase component-based method
[15–18] and the other is the sequence component-based method
[19–24]. A short-circuit analysis method, proposed by Teng [15], was
based on phase models analysing asymmetrical faults. The method was
developed in weakly meshed distribution systems [17]. Castellanos et al.
[16] proposed a method to calculate the short-circuit currents using a
phase domain representation on a modified IEEE benchmark distribu­
tion system, and Mathur et al. [18] proposed a short-circuit analytical
approach considering different types of loads. Although these phase
component-based methods can obtain more accurate results especially

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: yingliang.li@hotmail.com (Y. Li).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2020.106514
Received 16 January 2020; Received in revised form 20 August 2020; Accepted 7 September 2020
Available online 17 September 2020
0142-0615/© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Y. Li and D. Wang International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 125 (2021) 106514

in unbalanced distribution systems, the sequence component-based Imag Axis

methods can decouple the networks, decrease the calculation scale Id Ud
and simplify the calculation progress. Abdel-Akher et al. [19] proposed
an approach based on the symmetrical components to calculate fault
Real Axis
currents in unbalanced distribution systems. The results were compared
to the phase component-based methods and the accuracy of the pro­ IDG
posed approach was verified. Bui [20] proposed a simplified calculation Iq
method, however, it was mainly used in small-sized and low-voltage
Fig. 1. The d and q components of the output current of IIDG.
microgrids and assisted by the communication system. Kim and Cho
[21] proposed a power flow based fault analysis method to calculate the
steady-state fault currents, while it only focused on the single-to-ground Load 1
fault. A branch-oriented method in sequence domain was proposed by Bus A Bus B Bus C
f3
Strezoski and Prica [22], using backward/forward sweep (BFS) method Load 2
to analyse faults and neglecting the effect of the IIDG connection on the
fault currents at the fault location. Strezoski et al. [23] proposed a ZS f2 Bus D Bus E f1 Bus F f4 Bus G
sequence-domain method to calculate fault currents in active unbal­
Load 6
anced networks. The method extended the canonical model and used The
T1
generalised Δ-circuit and BFS methods. However, as indicated in [24], T2
upstream Load 3 Load 4 Load 5
BFS is not a successful method in heavily loaded distribution networks. network
IIDG 1 IIDG 2
Nonetheless, some researchers pointed out that the errors of
sequence component-based methods should not be neglected [25,26]. Fig. 2. A sample distribution network.
Kim and Harley [26] proposed a method to analyse the single-to-ground
fault, considering the phase angle errors caused by transformers and ⎧ ( ( ) )
DGs. To improve the accuracy of the conventional sequence component- ⎪
⎨ Iq = min α UN − U 1 IN , Imax
based methods, a new method was proposed for asymmetrical faults in ( / √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ ) (3)
⎪
⎩ Id = min P U 1 , I2max − I 2q
this paper. The boundary condition of the upstream fault current was
altered due to the IIDG connection. The difference between the fault
currents before and after IIDG connection was quantified and used to where, U1 is the positive-sequence component of the coupling point
develop a new asymmetrical fault analysis method, considering the voltage, IN is the IIDG rated current, and Imax is the maximum output
boundary condition alternation. The structure of this paper is as the current of IIDG.
following. Section 2 shows the control strategy and LVRT capability of Id and Iq can be coupled to obtain the IIDG output current, which is
IIDGs. The boundary condition alternation is illustrated in Section 3 as shown in Fig. 1 and (4).
well as the quantitative analysis on the fault currents before and after ( ) ( )
IIDG connection. The new calculation method is proposed in Section 4. I˙DG = Id cosθ + Iq sinθ + j Id sinθ − Iq cosθ (4)
Case studies are presented in Section 5 and conclusions in Section 6.
where, θ is the angle between Ud and the reference direction.
It has been seen that the IIDG output current is dominated by its
2. The control strategy and LVRT capability of IIDG
control strategy and it is different from the synchronous DG output.
What’s more, IIDG provides symmetrical currents during an asymmet­
IIDGs connected with the distribution networks are under the PQ
rical fault and the boundary conditions of the fault analysis are altered.
control strategy in most cases. The active and reactive currents of IIDGs
are controlled to track the reference values depending on the active and
reactive power [8], which is presented in (1).
{ I DG
C
1
P = U d Id
(1) C
Q = − Ud Iq
B
I DDG
B
11
where, P and Q are the values of IIDG active and reactive power, A
respectively. Ud is the d-axis voltage of the common coupling point, and
I DDG
A
1

Id and Iq are the active current value and reactive current value,
Zf
respectively. The negative sign denotes the output reactive power.
To make full use of the renewable energy, IIDGs are currently
designed to only produce active power in the normal condition. When a IIDG 1
fault occurs in the distribution network, IIDGs provide reactive power to (a)
maintain the voltage level [2]. The reactive current can be depicted as
I DDG
C
11
C
I DDG 11
ΔIq = α(UN − U) (2) C C
B B B
where, UN and U are the normal voltage and fault voltage of the common I DG 1 I DDG
B
1
coupling point, respectively. α is a constant in terms of the voltage dif­ A A
I DDG
A
11 I DG
A
1
ferences which can be set as two.
It is noted that the positive-sequence control strategy can stabilize Zf Zf
and simplify the control system. As a result, IIDG only provides positive-
sequence current under this control mode. According to the rules for
IIDG 1 IIDG 1
connecting IIDGs to the distribution networks, IIDGs should have the
low voltage ride-through (LVRT) capability [12], as presented in (3). (b) (c)
Fig. 3. IIDG 1 output during (a) line-to-line fault, (b) single line-to-ground
fault, and (c) double line-to-ground fault at f1.

2
Y. Li and D. Wang International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 125 (2021) 106514

In this paper, a method considering the boundary condition alternations 1

is proposed to analyse the asymmetrical short-circuit fault in distribu­ Z AD 1
U DDG 1
1
Z Df1
tion networks with IIDG connection.
1
1
1
I AAD I DDE
3. Analysis on asymmetrical faults Z S Z 1
T1
Since the positive sequence components of the coupling voltages are
used to control the IIDG output, the fault currents fed by IIDG are 1
Z
1
symmetrical during an asymmetrical fault. The boundary conditions S I DG
D 1
during the asymmetrical fault are changed, which is different from the
conventional analysis. A sample distribution network connected with
IIDGs is presented in Fig. 2. It is assumed that an asymmetrical short-
circuit fault occurs at f1, f2, f3, and f4, respectively. Fig. 4. The composite-sequence network with DG 1 connection during an
To illustrate the boundary condition alteration and its effect on fault asymmetrical fault occurring at f1.
analysis, network connected with IIDG 1 is analysed firstly. As the load
impedance is much larger than the feeder impedance, it is reasonable to
neglect the effect of the load current during the fault analysis [27].

3.1. Fault occurs at f1 3Z f

Zf 3Z f
IIDG provides symmetrical currents during an asymmetrical fault. 2
ZSf2 1 ZSf2 1
The none-fault phase current flows into the upstream network, as the Z ZSf0 1
impedance of the upstream network is much lower than the load
Sf1
ZSf0 1
impedance. The IIDG output during an asymmetrical fault is presented
in Fig. 3. It can be seen that the boundary condition of the upstream fault
current is altered due to the IIDG connection. The upstream and
(a) (b) (c)
downstream boundary conditions are given in (5) and (6), respectively. Fig. 5. Z in Fig. 4 during different fault types (a) line-to-line fault, (b) single
The superscript A, B, and C denotes the phase components. line-to-ground fault, and (c) double line-to-ground fault.
⎧
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ ˙A ˙A ˙A ˙B ˙C ⎧
⎪
⎨ I = - I DG 1 , I + I + I = 0 (line - to - line fault)
⎪
⎨ I˙B = − j√̅̅3̅I˙1
⎪
B A C A
I˙ = - a2 I˙DG 1 , I˙ = - aI˙DG 1 (single line - to - ground fault) (5) DE
√̅̅̅ 1
DE
(11)
⎪
⎪ ⎪ C
⎪
⎪ A A ⎩ I˙ = j 3I˙
⎪
⎪
⎩ I˙ = - I˙DG 1 (double line - to - ground fault) DE DE

On the other hand, the conventional fault analysis methods for dis­
⎧ A B C tribution networks are bus-oriented [12,29] or branch-oriented [22,23].
⎨ I˙ = 0, I˙ + I˙ = 0 (line - to - line fault)
⎪
The bus-oriented methods use system bus admittance matrix and its
B C
I˙ = I˙ = 0 (single line - to - ground fault) (6)
⎪
⎩ A
implicit inverse to calculate fault currents, and the calculation time
I˙ = 0 (double line - to - ground fault) depends on the scale of the network. The branch-oriented methods
utilise BFS, which can be affected by the heavily load [24]. Little
where, research has been done in using the fault current values obtained in
a = ej2π/3 (7) networks without DG connection to estimate fault currents. To extend
the fault current calculation method, the difference between the fault
The phase components can be transformed into the sequence com­ currents before and after IIDG connection has been investigated.
ponents according to the symmetrical component transformation [28] When an asymmetrical fault occurs at f1, the composite-sequence
shown as network is shown in Fig. 4. The upstream network is represented as a
Thevenin equivalent of a voltage source ES and a series impedance ZS
(8)
0,1,2 A,B,C
İ = S− 1 İ
[19]. IIDG is denoted as a voltage-controlled current source with its
coupling transformer ZT1 [12]. The feeder is represented as its imped­
where,
ance and the impedance between the IIDG 1 coupling point and the fault
⎡ ⎤
1 1 1 location is denoted as Z1Df1. It is to be noticed that IIDG only provides the
S = ⎣1 a2 a⎦ (9) symmetrical positive current which is depicted as I1DG1. Z in Fig. 4 is
1 a a2 illustrated in Fig. 5, depending on the asymmetrical fault type, Zf de­
notes the fault resistance, and ZSf1 represents the impedance between
The boundary condition alternation affects the phase components of
the upstream network and the fault location f1. The positive components
the upstream fault current. For instance, the phase components of the
of the fault currents flowing along feeder AD and DE can be expressed as
fault current flowing along feeder AD and DE can be expressed as (10)
(12) according to the composite-sequence network.
and (11), respectively, during a line-to-line fault. The superscript 0, 1,
and 2 denotes the sequence components. ⎧ 1 1/
(
1
) [ ( 1 1
)/( )] 1
[ ] ⎪
⎨ İAD = ĖS Z + ZSf 1 − 1 − ZS + ZAD Z + Z1Sf 1 İDG1
⎧ B √̅̅̅ 1 ( )A / (12)
⎪ I˙AD = − j 3 I˙AD + 1 − a2 I˙DG1 3 ( ) [ /( )] 1
⎨ ⎩ İ1 = Ė1 / Z + Z1 + ( Z1 + Z1 ) Z + Z1
⎪
[ ] (10) DE S Sf 1 S AD Sf 1 İDG1
⎩ I˙C = j√̅̅3̅ I˙1 + (1 − a)I˙A /3
⎪
The positive sequence component of the feeder impedance is
AD AD DG1

assumed to be equal as the negative sequence component, and Z2Sf1 and

Z0Sf 1 are denoted as (13).

3
Y. Li and D. Wang International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 125 (2021) 106514

1
Z 1f2 D Z AB
1
Z Af 1
U DG
1
Z Bf
2 D 1 3

1
I AD 1
Z AD 1
Z1S A 1
Z T1 1 I AAB
Z S U 1
DG
D 1
1
1
Z
1
Z T1 Z
S I DDG 1 1
S
1
I DDG 1

Fig. 6. The composite-sequence network with DG 1 connection during an

asymmetrical fault occurring at f2. Fig. 7. The composite-sequence network with DG 1 connection during an
asymmetrical fault occurring at f3.
⎧
⎨ Z 2 + Zf = β Z 1
Sf1 1 Sf1
(13) where,
⎩ ZSf0 + 3Zf = β2 ZSf1 ( )/
{ m = 1 − a2 + j√̅̅3̅ β
1 1
(1 + β2 )
(22)
2
The expression (12) can also be expressed as (14) to simplify the ( √̅̅̅ )/
n = 1 − a − j 3 β2 (1 + β2 )
analysis.
⎧ 1 ( )
1/ 1 1
⎨ İAD = α ĖS ZSf 1 − (1 − αk1 )İDG1
⎪ 3.2. Fault occurs at f2
( ) (14)
⎩ İ1 = α Ė1 /Z1
⎪ 1
DE S Sf 1 + αk 1 İ DG1 The composite-sequence network is shown in Fig. 6 when the
asymmetrical short-circuit fault occurs at f2. The boundary condition of
where, the fault current flowing along feeder AD during the asymmetrical fault
⎧ is changed and it is the same as the ones expressed in (5). The phase
⎨ 1/(1 + β1 ) line - to - ground fault components of the fault current can be expressed as
α= 1/(2 + β2 ) single line - to - ground fault (15) 1) Line-to-line fault (phase B and phase C)
⎩
(1 + β2 )/(1 + 2β2 ) double line - to - ground fault ⎧
⎪ √̅̅̅ [ ( ) ]A
⎨ I˙B = I˙B 1 − a2 /3 I˙DG 1
AD(pre) + j 3 (1 − α) −
k1 = (ZS1 + ZAD
1
)/ZSf1 1 (16) AD
√̅̅̅ (23)
⎪ C C A
⎩ I˙AD = I˙AD(pre) − j 3 [(1 − α) − (1 − a)/3 ]I˙DG 1
Consequently, the phase components of the fault currents can be
expressed as the following, considering the boundary condition 2) Single line-to-ground fault (phase A)
alternations.
1) Line-to-line fault (phase B and phase C) (24)
A A A
I˙AD = I˙AD(pre) + (3α − 1)I˙DG 1
⎧
⎪
⎨ I˙B = I˙B
√̅̅̅ [ ( ) ]A 3) Double line-to-ground fault (phase B and phase C)
AD(pre) + j 3 (1 − αk1 ) − 1 − a2 /3 I˙DG 1
(17)
AD
√ ̅̅
̅ ⎧
⎪ C C A
⎩ I˙AD = I˙AD(pre) − j 3 [(1 − αk1 ) − (1 − a)/3 ]I˙DG 1 ⎪ ( 2 )A
⎨ I˙B = I˙B a + αm I˙DG 1
AD(pre) −
(25)
AD
⎪ C C A
⎧ ⎩ I˙AD = I˙AD(pre) − (a + αn)I˙DG 1
⎪ √̅̅̅
⎨ I˙B = I˙B ˙A
DE(pre) − j 3 αk1 I DG 1
(18)
DE
√̅̅̅
3.3. Fault occurs at f3
⎪ C C A
⎩ I˙DE = I˙DE(pre) + j 3 αk1 I˙DG 1

The composite-sequence network during the asymmetrical short-

where, IAD(pre)
B
, IAD(pre)
C
, IDE(pre)
B
and IDE(pre)
C
are the feeder fault currents in
circuit fault occurring at f3 is presented in Fig. 7. The boundary condi­
the network without DG connection. tion of the fault current flowing along feeder AB is the same as the
2) Single line-to-ground fault (phase A) conventional analysis shown in (6), and the fault current flowing along
⎧ feeder AB can be denoted as
⎪
⎨ I˙A = I˙A ˙A
AD(pre) + (3αk1 − 1)I DG 1 1) Line-to-line fault (phase B and phase C)
(19)
AD
⎪ A A A
⎩ I˙DE = I˙DE(pre) + 3αk1 I˙DG 1 ⎧
⎪ √̅̅̅ A
⎨ I˙B = I˙B ˙
AB(pre) − j 3 αlI DG 1
(26)
AB
√̅̅̅ A
3) Double line-to-ground fault (phase B and phase C) ⎪ ˙C C
⎩ I AB = I AB(pre) + j 3 αlI˙DG 1
˙
⎧
⎪ ( 2 )A
⎨ I˙B = I˙B a + αk1 m I˙DG 1
AD(pre) −
AD
(20) where,
⎪ C C A
⎩ I˙AD = I˙AD(pre) − (a + αk1 n)I˙DG 1
l = ZS1 /ZSf1 3 (27)
⎧ Z1Sf3 represents the impedance between the upstream network and
⎪
⎨ I˙B = I˙B ˙A
DE(pre) − αk1 mI DG 1 the fault location f3.
(21)
DE
⎪ C C A
⎩ I˙DE = I˙DE(pre) − αk1 nI˙DG 1 2) Single line-to-ground fault (phase A)

(28)
A A A
I˙AB = I˙AB(pre) + 3αlI˙DG 1

4
Y. Li and D. Wang International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 125 (2021) 106514

f2 Table 2
Load Coupling voltages during asymmetrical faults.

Source Z
I2 f1 Load f1
S i ∈ [1, n] 1 1(0)
U̇DGi = U̇DGi(pre) − ki Z1Sf1 I˙1
1

i ∈ [n + 1, m] 1 1(0) 1
U̇DGi = U̇DGi(pre) − Z1Sf1 I˙1
I3 I4 I1 f2
i ∈ [1, m] 1 1(0)
U̇DGi = U̇DGi(pre) − lZ1Sf2 I˙2
1

IIDG 1 IIDG p IIDG (p+1) IIDG n IIDG (n+1) IIDG m

Fig. 8. A simplified distribution network. 4. New fault analysis method

Table 1
Phase components of fault currents during asymmetrical faults.
f1

Line-to-line fault (phase B and phase C) Single line-to-ground fault Double line-to-ground fault (phase B and phase C)
(phase A)

I˙3 I3B = I3(pre)

B C C
I˙3 = I˙3(pre) I3A = I3(pre)
A
I3B = I3(pre)
B C C
I˙3 = I˙3(pre)
n [
√̅̅̅ ∑ ( ) ]A n n
∑ n (
∑ )A n
√̅̅̅ ∑ A ∑
+j 3 (1 − αki ) − 1 − a2 /3 I˙DGi − j 3
A
[(1 − αki ) − (1 − a)/3 ]I˙DGi + (3αki − 1)I˙DGi − a2 + αki m I˙DGi −
A
(a + αki n)I˙DGi
i=1 i=1 i=1 i=1 i=1
m [
√̅̅̅ ∑ ( ) ]A m m
∑ m (
∑ )A m
√̅̅̅ ∑ A ∑
+j 3 (1 − α) − 1 − a2 /3 I˙DGi − j 3
A
[(1 − α) − (1 − a)/3 ]I˙DGi +(3α − 1) I˙DGi − a2 + αm I˙DGi − (a + αn)I˙DGi
A

i=n+1 i=n+1 i=n+1 i=n+1 i=n+1

p p p p p
I˙4 B B √̅̅̅ ∑ A C C √̅̅̅ ∑ A A A ∑ A B B ∑ A C C ∑ A
I˙4 = I˙4(pre) − j 3 αki I˙DG i I˙4 = I˙4(pre) + j 3 αki I˙DG i I˙4 = I˙4(pre) + 3 αki I˙DG i I˙4 = I˙4(pre) − αki mI˙DG i I˙4 = I˙4(pre) − αki nI˙DG i
i=1 i=1 i=1 i=1 i=1

√̅̅̅ n
∑ [ ( ) ]A √̅̅̅ n
∑ n
∑ n
∑ ( )A n
∑
A A A
+j 3 (1 − αki ) − 1 − a2 /3 I˙DG i − j 3 [(1 − αki ) − (1 − a)/3 ]I˙DG i + (3αki − 1)I˙DG i − a2 + αki m I˙DGi − (a + αki n)I˙DGi
i=p+1 i=p+1 i=p+1 i=p+1 i=p+1
m [
√̅̅̅ ∑ ( ) ] A∙ m
√̅̅̅ ∑ ∙ m
∑ m (
∑ )A m
∑
A A
+j 3 (1 − α) − 1 − a2 /3 IDGi − j 3 A
[(1 − α) − (1 − a)/3 ] IDGi +(3α − 1) I˙DGi − a2 + αm I˙DGi − (a + αn)I˙DGi
i=n+1 i=n+1 i=n+1 i=n+1 i=n+1
n n n n n
I˙1 B B √̅̅̅ ∑ A C C √̅̅̅ ∑ A A A ∑ A B B ∑ A C C ∑ A
I˙1 = I˙1(pre) − j 3 αki I˙DG i I˙1 = I˙1(pre) +j 3 αki I˙DG i I˙1 = I˙1(pre) + 3 αki I˙DG i I˙1 = I˙1(pre) − αki mI˙DG i I˙1 = I˙1(pre) − αki nI˙DG i
i=1 i=1 i=1 i=1 i=1
m [
√̅̅̅ ∑ ( ) ]A m
√̅̅̅ ∑ m
∑ m (
∑ )A m
∑
A A A
+j 3 (1 − α) − 1 − a2 /3 I˙DG i − j 3 [(1 − α) − (1 − a)/3 ]I˙DG i +(3α − 1) I˙DGi − a2 + αm I˙DGi − (a + αn)I˙DGi
i=n+1 i=n+1 i=n+1 i=n+1 i=n+1
f2
B B √̅̅̅∑ √̅̅̅∑
I˙2 I˙2 = I˙2(pre) − j 3 m ˙A C C
I˙2 = I˙2(pre) + j 3 m ˙A A A ∑
I˙2 = I˙2(pre) + 3 m ˙A B B ∑m ˙A C C ∑m ˙A
i=1 αlIDG i i=1 (l/2)IDG i i=1 αlIDG i I˙2 = I˙2(pre) − i=1 αmlIDG i I˙2 = I˙2(pre) − i=1 αnlIDG i

3) Double line-to-ground fault (phase B and phase C) 4.1. Phase components of the fault currents
⎧
⎪
⎨ I˙B = I˙B − αmlI˙
A
In the previous section, the alternation of the boundary condition
(29)
AB AB(pre) DG 1
⎪ C C A and the quantitative analysis on the fault current before and after IIDG
⎩ I˙AB = I˙AB(pre) − αnlI˙DG 1
have been investigated during asymmetrical faults. To explain the
generality of the analysis, a simplified network connected with
It can be seen that the boundary condition of the upstream feeder numerous IIDGs is presented in Fig. 8. It is to be noted that the topology
current is altered due to the IIDG connection, affecting the phase com­ of the network is representative and radial networks can be equivalently
ponents of the fault current. The difference between the fault currents transformed into the sample network shown in Fig. 8. An asymmetrical
before and after IIDG connection can be quantified by using the fault is assumed to occur at f1 and f2, respectively. The phase compo­
sequence components. To improve the accuracy of the results, the nents of the fault currents are expressed in Table 1.
sequence components are transformed into the phase components, ki and l are newly defined coefficients, which are shown in (30) and
considering the boundary condition alteration during an asymmetrical (31), respectively.
fault. What’s more, the method can simplify the calculation process and
reduce the calculation time, using fault current obtained in network ki = ZS1 - DG i /ZSf1 n (30)
without IIDG connection to analyse faults in network connected with
IIDGs. l = ZS1 /ZSf1 n (31)
When IIDG 1 and IIDG 2 are both integrated into the sample system,
the analysis conclusions can be obtained through the same methodol­ where, Z1S - DG i denotes the positive impedance between the upstream
ogy, based on the superposition theorem. network and IIDG i, ZSf1
denotes the total positive impedance between
n

the upstream network and the fault location. The constant n can be
chosen as one or two according to Fig. 8.

5
Y. Li and D. Wang International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 125 (2021) 106514

Start Table 3
Parameters of the sample distribution network (case 1).
Input the calculation results in System data Value System data Value
networks without DG connection
Voltage level 10.5 kV rms (L- feeder FG length 2 km
L)
Calculate ki and l System 50 Hz IIDG 1 power output 4 MW
according to (30) and (31) frequency
Feeder AB 2 km IIDG 2 power output 2 MW
length
Set the initial value of IDG i Feeder BC 2 km each load power 1 MW
as its rated current (λ=0) length
Feeder AD 2 km load power factor 0.85 lagging
length
Calculate the phase Feeder DE 3 km feeder impedance 0.17 + j0.38
components of the fault length (positive) Ω/km
currents according to Table I Feeder EF 2 km feeder impedance (zero) 0.34 + j0.76
length Ω/km
Convert phase components
into positive sequence
λ=λ+1
components according to (8) On the other hand, the proposed calculation method directly uses the
results obtained in network without DG connection to estimate the
Calculate coupling voltages
according to Table II feeder fault currents connected with IIDGs, which can simplify the
calculation process and reduce the calculation time.
+1
Calculate I DG i according
to (3) and (4) 5. Case study and results

The effectiveness of the proposed analysis method has been inves­

( 1) ( ) ( 1) ( )
max I DG 1 I DG 1 , , I DG i I DG i ε tigated on the sample network, shown in Fig. 3, as well as the thirty-
three-node system. The conventional bus-oriented and branch-oriented
method were extended to include IIDG in [12] and [22], respectively,
Output the calculation results in which were compared with the proposed method in this paper. The
networks with DG connection proposed method and the conventional methods have been programmed
and results were examined by the simulations MATLAB/Simulink. IIDG
Over type is selected as photovoltaic generations.

Fig. 9. A diagram of the proposed fault analysis method. 5.1. Sample system in Fig. 3

4.2. IIDG coupling voltages
The IIDGs coupling point voltages are expressed in Table 2 in which
the positive components can be obtained through the current in phase
domain shown in Table 2.
U1(0)DG i represents the pre-fault voltage of the coupling point with
IIDG connection, which can be obtained through the power flow esti­
mation. It is noted that Z1S-DG i and Z1Sfn is equal to the positive-sequence
Thevenin impedance seen from the coupling point i and the fault loca­
tion fn, respectively. The Thevenin impedance can be calculated by
performing one backward/forward sweep procedure rather than using
the bus impedance matrix in this paper.
4.3. Proposed fault analysis method
The coupling point voltages can be used to calculate the fault current
contributed by IIDGs according to (3) and (4), which can be depicted as
an iterative procedure presented in Fig. 9. To begin with, the fault
current values obtained in network without DG connection are set as the
input. Then the coefficients ki and l are calculated according to the IIDG
coupling point and fault location. The initial value of IDG can be set as its
rated current, the initial iteration number λ is set as zero, and the
convergence precision ε is selected as 0.0001 in this paper. Next, the
phase components of the fault currents and the IIDG coupling point
voltages are calculated using the expressions tabulated in Table 1 and
Table 2, respectively. The IIDG output current can be obtained according
to (3) and (4), which is depicted as I(λ + 1) DG i. This procedure is
terminated when the difference between I(λ)DG i and I(λ+1)DG i is less than
ε, in which the latest results are accepted as the output.
The new method shown in Fig. 9 takes the boundary condition al­
ternations into consideration, improving the accuracy of the calculation.
The distribution network shown in Fig. 3 has been studied and the
parameters of the distribution network are given in Table 3. The base
power is set as 100 MVA and base voltage as 10.5 kV. The upstream
network has a short-circuit rating of 30MVA and the X/R ratio is 10.
When DG 1 and DG 2 are both integrated into the distribution network,
asymmetrical faults with a fault resistance of 0.001 Ω have been
investigated.
f1 is at the sending side of the feeder EF, f2 at the middle of the feeder
AD, f3 at the ending side of the feeder AB, and f4 is at the ending side of
the feeder FG.
Results are presented in Table 4, obtained by using the proposed
method, conventional methods and simulations. The conventional
method 1 and 2 represent the branch-oriented and bus-oriented
methods, respectively. The coefficient ki at different fault locations are
tabulated in Table 5. The error analysis of the proposed method and
conventional methods are shown in Figs. 10–12, with respect to the
simulations. It can be seen that the magnitude and phase angle errors of
the proposed method are within 0.010 p.u. and 4.0◦ , respectively, while
the maximum errors of the conventional methods are 0.020 p.u. and
15.9◦ , respectively. The comparisons demonstrate that the proposed
method can estimate the feeder fault currents, possessing a higher ac­
curacy than the conventional methods proposed in [12] and [22]. The
differences in the calculation results are mainly from two aspects. One is
that the IIDG fault current was assumed to be equal as its pre-fault
current and the IIDG model was less accurate in the method proposed
in [22]. The other is that the boundary condition alternation caused by
the IIDG connection was not considered in the conventional methods.
5.2. Thirty-three-node system
The thirty-three-node system, shown in Fig. 13, has been tested to

6
Y. Li and D. Wang International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 125 (2021) 106514

Table 4
Simulation and calculation results of feeder fault current in the sample distribution network (case 1).
2L SLG 2LG

Simul. New Conventional method Simul. New Conventional method Simul. New Conventional method
results (p. method results (p. method results (p. method
Method 1 Method 2 Method 1 Method 2 Method 1 Method 2
u.) u.) u.)
[22] [12] [22] [12] [22] [12]

f1 I˙AD 0.135 0.130 0.144 0.145 0.165 0.168 0.155 0.156 0.176 0.169 0.179 0.178
∠− 175.8◦ ∠− 179.1◦ ∠− 180.9◦ ∠− 177.4◦ ∠− 83.1◦ ∠− 86.4◦ ∠− 85.2◦ ∠− 76.1◦ ∠161.7◦ ∠160.0◦ ∠149.3◦ ∠173.2◦
0.189 0.194 0.204 0.196 0.181 0.189 0.177 0.178
∠9.0◦ ∠11.4◦ ∠7.6◦ ∠9.2◦ ∠31.6◦ ∠31.3◦ ∠27.7◦ ∠31.4◦
I˙DE 0.163 0.160 0.167 0.168 0.182 0.175 0.167 0.163 0.187 0.181 0.199 0.198
∠− 158.1◦ ∠− 159.2◦ ∠− 169.7◦ ∠− 167.7◦ ∠− 66.6◦ ∠− 69.7◦ ∠− 75.1◦ ∠− 65.7◦ ∠178.2◦ ∠178.2◦ ∠176.0◦ ∠168.3◦
0.169 0.178 0.172 0.168 0.191 0.193 0.199 0.204
∠26.4◦ ∠27.2◦ ∠10.8◦ ∠12.3◦ ∠50.7◦ ∠48.3◦ ∠35.2◦ ∠39.2◦
f2 I˙AD 0.203 0.201 0.225 0.220 0.259 0.260 0.274 0.246 0.261 0.253 0.254 0.248
∠− 175.9◦ ∠− 178.3◦ ∠− 179.4◦ ∠− 170.3◦ ∠− 82.6◦ ∠− 85.9◦ ∠− 86.6◦ ∠− 94.2◦ ∠158.6◦ ∠157.7◦ ∠153.3◦ ∠168.5◦
0.258 0.265 0.265 0.244 0.270 0.275 0.250 0.258
∠9.0◦ ∠10.7◦ ∠6.0◦ ∠9.7◦ ∠35.8◦ ∠34.4◦ ∠31.9◦ ∠26.7◦
f3 I˙AB 0.215 0.211 0.213 0.220 0.223 0.219 0.209 0.222 0.217 0.214 0.225 0.215
∠− 158.0◦ ∠− 157.3◦ ∠− 168.9◦ ∠− 158.6 ∠− 65.6◦ ∠− 67.6◦ ∠− 74.2◦ ∠− 69.8◦ ∠176.1◦ ∠176.8◦ ∠165.8◦ ∠160.2◦
0.201 0.194 0.213 0.209 0.227 0.226 0.225 0.223
∠26.4◦ ∠28.1◦ ∠11.1◦ ∠21.4◦ ∠53.1◦ ∠52.3◦ ∠45.8◦ ∠44.3◦
f4 I˙AD 0.098 0.094 0.106 0.101 0.117 0.125 0.123 0.113 0.129 0.126 0.137 0.138
∠− 178.7◦ ∠− 176.1◦ ∠− 181.9◦ ∠− 192.0◦ ∠− 87.3◦ ∠− 89.8◦ ∠− 84.7◦ ∠− 92.5◦ ∠158.7◦ ∠156.3◦ ∠172.0◦ ∠147.8◦
0.147 0.156 0.166 0.155 0.141 0.145 0.142 0.150
∠6.2◦ ∠9.3◦ ∠8.5◦ ∠− 3.9◦ ∠25.5◦ ∠26.0◦ ∠30.6◦ ∠23.6◦
I˙DE 0.128 0.119 0.139 0.132 0.134 0.128 0.135 0.136 0.142 0.135 0.158 0.152
∠− 158.1◦ ∠− 159.1◦ ∠− 168.3◦ ∠− 166.9◦ ∠− 66.6◦ ∠− 69.5◦ ∠− 73.8◦ ∠− 76.1◦ ∠− 179.1◦ ∠− 179.4◦ ∠− 174.7◦ ∠− 166.9◦
0.134 0.137 0.150 0.146 0.140 0.145 0.159 0.151
∠27.2◦ ∠28.9◦ ∠19.1◦ ∠20.3◦ ∠49.3◦ ∠48.0◦ ∠35.9◦ ∠38.0◦
I˙FG 0.138 0.131 0.142 0.130 0.142 0.134 0.160 0.139 0.143 0.146 0.129 0.138
∠− 147.8◦ ∠− 149.3◦ ∠− 163.7◦ ∠− 163.8◦ ∠− 57.3◦ ∠− 59.3◦ ∠− 71.9◦ ∠− 63.8◦ ∠− 170.5◦ ∠− 168.8◦ ∠− 169.2◦ ∠− 175.9◦
0.132 0.129 0.134 0.130 0.118 0.118 0.129 0.138
∠36.0◦ ∠34.7◦ ∠20.1◦ ∠26.2◦ ∠45.2◦ ∠44.2◦ ∠49.2◦ ∠34.1◦

f2, f3, and f4, respectively. f1 is at the middle of the feeder connecting
Table 5 nodes 12 and 13, f2 at node 18, f3 at the middle of the feeder connecting
KI at different fault locations (case 1). nodes 30 and 31, and f4 at the middle of the feeder connecting nodes 8
Fault f1 f2 f3 f4 and 9. The coefficient ki in different scenarios are tabulated in Table 6
k1 0.785 + j0.045 1.098-j0.029 1.000 0.607 + j0.063
where the subscript denotes the IIDG number.
k2 1.143-j0.030 1.588-j0.175 1.449-j0.121 0.888 + j0.018
Feeder fault currents have been calculated under different fault types
and fault locations, using the proposed method and conventional
branch-oriented and bus-oriented method. The calculation results have
been compared with the time domain simulations, which are shown in
further validate the improvements of the proposed method in accuracy Table 7. Method 1 and method 2 stand for the branch-oriented in [22]
and calculation time. The feeder and load data are tabulated in [30], and and bus-oriented method in [12], respectively. The subscript of the fault
the feeder zero impedance is selected as two times of the positive current represents the node number. It has been seen that the maximum
impedance [31]. The based power and base voltage are 100 MVA and magnitude and phase angle errors of the proposed method are 0.005 p.u.
12.66 kV, respectively. The system has a short circuit capacity of 50MVA and 2.8◦ , respectively, while the maximum errors of the conventional
with a system equivalent impedance of 2.0 p.u. Four IIDGs are inter­ methods are 0.015 p.u. and 15.1◦ , respectively. The comparisons have
connected into the network at different locations. The output powers of validated that the proposed method can reduce the errors in in calcu­
IIDG 1 to IIDG 4 are 1.0, 1.0, 0.5, and 0.5 MW, respectively. The total lating the phase components of the fault current, considering the
capacity of IIDGs is 3.0 MW, which is a suitable value compared to the boundary condition alternation. Furthermore, the new calculation
total load of 3.72 MW. An asymmetrical short-circuit fault occurs at f1, method has also been tested on the thirty-three-node system with fault

Fig. 10. Error analysis of the proposed method with respect to simulations during (a) line-to-line fault, (b) single line-to-ground fault, and (c) double line-to-ground
fault (case 1).

7
Y. Li and D. Wang International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 125 (2021) 106514

Fig. 11. Error analysis of the conventional branch-oriented method (method 1) with respect to simulations during (a) line-to-line fault, (b) single line-to-ground
fault, and (c) double line-to-ground fault (case 1).

Fig. 12. Error analysis of the conventional bus-oriented method (method 2) with respect to simulations during (a) line-to-line fault, (b) single line-to-ground fault,
and (c) double line-to-ground fault (case 1).

resistance existence. For the method proposed in [22] was only designed
for solid faults, it was extended in resistive faults to match the proposed
method in this paper. Comparisons in Table 7 have verified the effec­
tiveness of the proposed method during resistive faults as well.
To validate the effectiveness of the proposed method in calculation
time, the CPU time of the calculation procedure is observed as well as
the time of the conventional methods. The comparisons are shown in
Table 8, tabulating the CPU time. Results have verified the improvement
of the proposed method in calculation time. Moreover, the proposed
method utilises coefficient ki and fault current values obtained in net­
works without IIDG connection, and the calculation time is unaffected
by the IIDG number and network nodal number. The new method can be
considered in calculating fault currents in large scale radial networks.
The convergence of the proposed method was also compared with
the conventional methods [12,22] and the results were presented in
Table 8 as well. It can be seen that the iteration times of the proposed
method is much lower than the conventional method 2 [12], and is
slightly more than the conventional method 1 proposed in [22]. As the
control strategy and LVRT capability of IIDG were not considered and
the IIDG effect on the fault currents was neglected, the iteration numbers
of method 1 in [22] are the least but the calculation results were less
accurate than the method proposed in this paper.
6. Conclusions
Considering the boundary condition alternation of the feeder fault
current during an asymmetrical fault, a new analysis method was pro­
posed. The boundary condition of the upstream feeder fault current was
altered due to the IIDG connection, which was presented in theorical
analysis and case study, respectively. The difference between fault
currents before and after IIDG connection was analysed quantitively and
used to develop a new calculation method, taking the boundary condi­
tion alternation into consideration. The new method used fault current
values obtained in networks without IIDG connection to estimate the
fault currents of the feeders connected with IIDGs, simplifying the
calculation process and improving the calculation time. The proposed
method can be conveniently programmed and integrated into software
packages for power system analysis and relay protection evaluation. The
method proposed in this paper mainly focused on the balanced system
and the fault analysis of the unbalanced distribution network would be
considered in the future work.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Yingliang Li: Conceptualization, Resources, Writing - review &
editing, Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition.
Deming Wang: Methodology, Software, Validation, Formal analysis,
Investigation, Data curation, Writing - original draft.

Table 6
KI at different fault locations (case 2).

Fault k1 k2 k3 k4

f1 0.977 + j0.036 1.522-j0.023 0.683 + j0.077 1.080 + j0.043

f2 0.542 + j0.027 0.959-j0.006 0.421 + j0.051 0.667 + j0.032
f3 0.969–0.000j 1.712-j0.097 0.757 + 0.053j 1.193-j0.002
f4 1.963 + j0.520 3.517 + j0.724 1.006-j0.019 1.576-j0.144
Fig. 13. Thirty-three-node distribution network.

8
 Y. Li and D. Wang
Table 7
Simulation and calculation results of feeder fault current in the sample distribution network during a double line-to-ground fault (case 2).
2LZf = 0.001 Ω Zf = 2.000 Ω
Simulation Calculation results (p.u.) Error (p.u.) Simul. results Calculation results (p.u.) Error (p.u.)
results (p.u.) (p.u.)
New Conventional method New Conventional method New Conventional method New Conventional method
method method method method
Method 1 Method 2 Method 1 Method 2 Method 1 Method 2 Method 1 Method 2
[22] [12] [22] [12] [22] [12] [22] [12]

f1 I˙10 0.119 0.116 0.124 0.117 0.003 0.005 0.002 0.101 0.103 0.110 0.103 0.002 0.009 0.002
∠− 136.5◦ ∠− 136.4◦ ∠− 141.8◦ ∠− 141.8◦ ∠0.1◦ ∠5.3◦ ∠5.3◦ ∠− 127.4◦ ∠− 127.4◦ ∠− 135.4◦ ∠− 135.0 ∠0.0◦ ∠8.0◦ ∠2.6◦
0.139 0.140 0.136 0.133 0.001 0.003 0.006 0.116 0.122 0.122 0.118 0.006 0.006 0.002
∠37.5◦ ∠38.0◦ ∠35.4 ∠32.9◦ ∠0.5◦ ∠2.1◦ ∠4.6◦ ∠43.5◦ ∠43.9◦ ∠41.1◦ ∠38.1◦ ∠0.4◦ ∠2.4◦ ∠6.1◦
I˙12 0.134 0.130 0.131 0.126 0.004 0.003 0.008 0.117 0.118 0.118 0.113 0.001 0.001 0.004
∠− 134.4◦ ∠− 134.2◦ ∠− 140.2◦ ∠− 140.1◦ ∠0.2◦ ∠5.8◦ ∠5.7◦ ∠− 127.1◦ ∠− 126.6◦ ∠− 134.0◦ ∠− 133.7 ∠0.5◦ ∠6.9◦ ∠6.3◦
0.143 0.142 0.137 0.134 0.001 0.006 0.009 0.123 0.127 0.125 0.120 0.004 0.002 0.003
∠43.8◦ ∠44.0◦ ∠38.9◦ ∠37.1◦ ∠0.2◦ ∠4.9◦ ∠6.7◦ ∠49.9◦ ∠50.3◦ ∠44.7◦ ∠42.8 ∠0.4◦ ∠5.2◦ ∠7.1◦
f4 I˙8 0.181 0.180 0.188 0.181 0.001 0.007 0.000 0.149 0.154 0.162 0.155 0.005 0.013 0.006
∠− 144.7◦ ∠− 145.6◦ ∠− 148.7◦ ∠− 149.0◦ ∠0.9◦ ∠4.0◦ ∠8.6◦ ∠− 131.6◦ ∠− 133.3◦ ∠− 138.8◦ ∠− 138.7◦ ∠1.7◦ ∠7.2◦ ∠7.1◦
0.203 0.202 0.201 0.199 0.001 0.006 0.004 0.163 0.172 0.174 0.170 0.009 0.011 0.007
∠32.7◦ ∠33.9◦ ∠30.0◦ ∠28.0◦ ∠1.2◦ ∠2.7◦ ∠4.7◦ ∠42.7◦ ∠44.0◦ ∠39.0◦ ∠36.9◦ ∠1.3◦ ∠3.7◦ ∠5.8◦
SGL Zf = 0.001 Ω Zf = 50.000 Ω
f2 I˙10 0.063 0.065 0.066 0.060 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.008 0.012 0.006 0.006 0.004 0.002 0.002
∠− 51.8◦ ∠− 53.0◦ ∠− 60.9◦ ∠− 61.5 ∠1.2◦ ∠9.1◦ ∠9.7◦ ∠− 22.7◦ ∠− 23.1◦ ∠34.8◦ ∠− 37.6◦ ∠0.4◦ ∠17.0◦ ∠15.1◦
9

I˙16 0.071 0.071 0.067 0.065 0.000 0.004 0.006 0.015 0.018 0.008 0.009 0.003 0.007 0.006
∠− 46.1◦ ∠− 46.5◦ ∠− 55.1◦ ∠− 53.8◦ ∠0.4◦ ∠9.0◦ ∠7.7◦ ∠− 10.9◦ ∠− 12.0◦ ∠− 22.8◦ ∠− 24.0◦ ∠1.1◦ ∠12.8◦ ∠13.1◦
I˙18 0.084 0.080 0.072 0.072 0.004 0.012 0.012 0.026 0.028 0.018 0.018 0.002 0.008 0.008
∠− 40.8◦ ∠− 40.8◦ ∠− 46.9◦ ∠− 47.3◦ ∠0.0◦ ∠6.1◦ ∠6.5◦ ∠− 10.5◦ ∠− 13.3◦ ∠− 10.3◦ ∠− 9.8◦ ∠2.8◦ ∠0.2 ∠0.7◦
f3 I˙27 0.140 0.138 0.147 0.135 0.002 0.007 0.005 0.024 0.026 0.027 0.020 0.002 0.003 0.004

International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 125 (2021) 106514
∠− 48.0◦ ∠− 48.5◦ ∠− 54.4◦ ∠− 55.2◦ ∠0.3◦ ∠6.4◦ ∠7.2◦ ∠− 23.2◦ ∠− 26.5◦ ∠− 35.7◦ ∠− 34.3◦ ∠3.3◦ ∠12.5◦ ∠11.1
I˙30 0.145 0.142 0.132 0.130 0.003 0.013 0.015 0.025 0.027 0.022 0.026 0.002 0.003 0.001
∠− 46.4◦ ∠− 46.6◦ ∠− 47.8◦ ∠− 52.6◦ ∠0.2◦ ∠1.4◦ ∠5.8 ∠− 9.6◦ ∠− 13.4◦ ∠− 12.9◦ ∠− 13.3◦ ∠3.8◦ ∠3.3◦ ∠3.7◦
f4 I˙8 0.182 0.182 0.170 0.162 0.000 0.012 0.020 0.014 0.018 0.007 0.010 0.004 0.007 0.004
∠− 54.4◦ ∠− 55.3◦ ∠− 61.7◦ ∠− 62.1◦ ∠0.9◦ ∠7.3◦ ∠7.7◦ ∠− 31.2◦ ∠− 31.9◦ ∠− 38.7◦ ∠− 33.4◦ ∠0.7◦ ∠7.5◦ ∠2.2◦
2GL Zf = 0.001 Ω Zf = 50.000 Ω
f2 I˙10 0.075 0.075 0.079 0.078 0.000 0.004 0.003 0.069 0.069 0.074 0.064 0.000 0.005 0.005
∠− 160.9◦ ∠− 161.2◦ ∠− 163.9◦ ∠− 165.8◦ ∠0.3◦ ∠3.0◦ ∠4.9◦ ∠− 140.1◦ ∠− 141.8◦ ∠− 145.0◦ ∠− 142.6◦ ∠0.7◦ ∠4.0◦ ∠2.5◦
0.080 0.082 0.083 0.079 0.002 0.003 0.001 0.078 0.080 0.080 0.081 0.002 0.002 0.003
∠56.0◦ ∠56.1◦ ∠52.8◦ ∠49.4◦ ∠0.2◦ ∠3.2◦ ∠6.6◦ ∠37.1◦ ∠39.2◦ ∠35.0◦ ∠28.7◦ ∠2.1◦ ∠2.1◦ ∠8.4◦
I˙16 0.087 0.085 0.082 0.082 0.002 0.005 0.005 0.082 0.081 0.078 0.073 0.001 0.004 0.009
∠− 155.0◦ ∠− 154.8◦ ∠− 160.2 ∠− 160.7◦ ∠0.2◦ ∠5.2◦ ∠5.7 ∠− 136.4◦ ∠− 136.9◦ ∠− 142.0◦ ∠− 139.6◦ ∠0.5◦ ∠5.6◦ ∠3.2◦
0.087 0.087 0.084 0.087 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.083 0.081 0.079 0.081 0.002 0.001 0.002
∠63.0◦ ∠64.1◦ ∠56.7◦ ∠55.9◦ ∠1.1◦ ∠10.3◦ ∠7.1◦ ∠44.0◦ ∠46.3◦ ∠39.0◦ ∠35.8◦ ∠2.3◦ ∠5.0◦ ∠8.2◦
I˙18 0.098 0.097 0.088 0.088 0.001 0.010 0.010 0.096 0.095 0.086 0.085 0.001 0.010 0.011
∠− 149.3◦ ∠− 149.2◦ ∠− 156.2 ∠− 156.4◦ ∠0.1◦ ∠6.9◦ ∠7.1 ∠− 133.2◦ ∠− 133.5◦ ∠− 139.5◦ ∠− 142.2◦ ∠0.3◦ ∠6.3◦ ∠9.0◦
0.095 0.096 0.088 0.088 0.001 0.007 0.07 0.087 0.085 0.080 0.085 0.002 0.007 0.002
∠72.6◦ ∠72.0◦ ∠62.2◦ ∠61.8◦ ∠0.6◦ ∠10.4◦ ∠10.8◦ ∠54.3◦ ∠56.2◦ ∠45.7◦ ∠49.2◦ ∠1.9◦ ∠8.6◦ ∠5.1◦
Y. Li and D. Wang International Journal of Electrical Power and Energy Systems 125 (2021) 106514

Table 8
Comparison of the proposed method and conventional method in calculation time (case 2).
Conventional method 1 [22] Conventional method 2 [12] Proposed method

Calculation time (ms) Iteration times Calculation time (ms) Iteration times Calculation time (ms) Iteration times

f1 2L 36.3 2 82.9 15 10.8 4

SLG 36.8 2 62.4 10 8.6 3
2LG 37.6 2 88.2 17 13.3 3
f2 2L 35.8 2 86.5 15 10.3 3
SLG 36.7 2 63.7 10 5.2 2
2LG 38.0 2 87.0 17 10.8 3
f3 2L 37.7 2 91.9 15 9.5 3
SLG 38.5 2 63.3 10 6.3 2
2LG 36.4 2 85.8 16 7.1 2
f4 2L 36.1 2 83.4 15 9.6 4
SLG 35.5 2 64.0 10 6.0 3
2LG 37.1 2 89.7 17 10.6 4

Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the Talented Scholars Research Scheme
of Shaanxi Provincial Government of China, Xi’an Shiyou University
Research Project, and the Natural Science Basic Research Program of
Shaanxi (No. 2020JM-542).
References
[1] Kersting W, Phillips W. Distribution system short circuit analysis. In: Proceedings
of the 25th intersociety energy conversion engineering conference. IEEE; 1990.
p. 310–5.
[2] Nimpitiwan N, Heydt GT, Ayyanar R, Suryanarayanan S. Fault current contribution
from synchronous machine and inverter based distributed generators. IEEE Trans
Power Deliv 2006;22(1):634–41.
[3] Barker PP, De Mello RW. Determining the impact of distributed generation on
power systems. I. Radial distribution systems. In: 2000 power engineering society
summer meeting (Cat No 00CH37134): IEEE; 2000. p. 1645–56.
[4] Morren J, De Haan S. Impact of distributed generation units with power electronic
converters on distribution network protection. In: IET 9th international conference
on developments in power systems protection (DPSP 2008); 2008. p. 663–8.
[5] Jennett K, Coffele F, Booth C. Comprehensive and quantitative analysis of
protection problems associated with increasing penetration of inverter-interfaced
DG. In: 11th IET international conference on developments in power systems
protection (DPSP 2012); 2012.
[6] Memon AA, Kauhaniemi K. A critical review of AC Microgrid protection issues and
available solutions. Electr Power Syst Res 2015;129:23–31.
[7] Turcotte D, Katiraei F. Fault contribution of grid-connected inverters. In: 2009 IEEE
electrical power & energy conference (EPEC): IEEE; 2009. p. 1–5.
[8] Haj-ahmed MA, Illindala MS. The influence of inverter-based DGs and their
controllers on distribution network protection. IEEE Trans Indus Applic 2014;50
(4):2928–37.
[9] Shuai Z, Shen C, Yin X, Liu X, Shen ZJ. Fault analysis of inverter-interfaced
distributed generators with different control schemes. IEEE Trans Power Deliv
2017;33(3):1223–35.
[10] Baran ME, El-Markaby I. Fault analysis on distribution feeders with distributed
generators. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2005;20(4):1757–64.
[11] He L, Shuai Z, Zhang X, Liu X, Li Z, Shen ZJ. Transient characteristics of
synchronverters subjected to asymmetric faults. IEEE Trans Power Deliv 2019;34
(3):1171–83.
[12] Bracale A, Caramia P, Carpinelli G, Di Fazio A. Modeling the three-phase short-
circuit contribution of photovoltaic systems in balanced power systems. Int J Electr
Power Energy Syst 2017;93:204–15.
[13] Wang Q, Zhou N, Ye L. Fault analysis for distribution networks with current-
controlled three-phase inverter-interfaced distributed generators. IEEE Trans
Power Deliv 2015;30(3):1532–42.
[14] Aljarrah R, Marzooqhi H, Terzija V, Yu J. Issues and challenges of steady-state fault
calculation methods in power systems with a high penetration of non-synchronous
generation. In: 2019 IEEE Milan PowerTech. Milan, Italy, Italy: IEEE; 2019.
[15] Teng JH. Systematic short-circuit-analysis method for unbalanced distribution
systems. IEE Proc-Gen Transm Distrib 2005;152(4):549–55.
[16] Castellanos F, Dillah R. Short circuit analysis in the phase domain for distribution
networks. In: 2008 IEEE/PES transmission and distribution conference and
exposition: Latin America: IEEE; 2008. p. 1–6.
[17] Teng JH. Unsymmetrical short-circuit fault analysis for weakly meshed distribution
systems. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2009;25(1):96–105.
[18] Mathur A, Das B, Pant V. Fault analysis of unbalanced radial and meshed
distribution system with inverter based distributed generation (IBDG). Int J Electr
Power Energy Syst 2017;85:164–77.
[19] Abdel-Akher M, Nor KM. Fault analysis of multiphase distribution systems using
symmetrical components. IEEE Trans Power Deliv 2010;25(4):2931–9.
[20] Bui DM. Simplified and automated fault-current calculation for fault protection
system of grid-connected low-voltage AC microgrids. Int J Emerg Electr Power Syst
2017;18(2).
[21] Kim D-E, Cho N. Power flow based fault analysis method for distribution grid with
inverter-based DER. In: 2017 ninth annual IEEE green technologies conference
(GreenTech): IEEE; 2017. p. 14–9.
[22] Strezoski LV, Prica MD. Short-circuit analysis in large-scale distribution systems
with high penetration of distributed generators. IEEE/CAA J Autom Sin 2017;4(2):
243–51.
[23] Strezoski L, Prica M, Loparo KA. Sequence domain calculation of active unbalanced
distribution systems affected by complex short circuits. IEEE Trans Power Syst
2018;33(2):1891–902.
[24] Ghanaatian M, Lotfifard S. Sparsity-based short-circuit analysis of power
distribution systems with inverter interfaced distributed generators. IEEE Trans
Power Syst 2019;34(6):4857–68.
[25] Gampa K, Vemprala SA, Brahma SM. Errors in fault analysis of power distribution
systems using sequence components approach. In: IEEE PES T&D 2010: IEEE;
2010. p. 1–6.
[26] Kim I, Harley RG. A study on the effect of distributed generation on short-circuit
current. In: 2016 Clemson University Power Systems Conference (PSC): IEEE;
2016. p. 1–5.
[27] Plet CA, Graovac M, Green TC, Iravani R. Fault response of grid-connected inverter
dominated networks. In: IEEE PES general meeting. Providence, RI, USA: IEEE;
2010.
[28] Paap GC. Symmetrical components in the time domain and their application to
power network calculations. IEEE Trans Power Syst 2000;15(2):522–8.
[29] Saadat H. Power system analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1999.
[30] Baran ME, Wu FF. Network reconfiguration in distribution systems for loss
reduction and load balancing. IEEE Trans Power Deliv 1989;4(2):1401–7.
[31] Biswas S, Goswami SK, Chatterjee A. Optimal distributed generation placement in
shunt capacitor compensated distribution systems considering voltage sag and
harmonics distortions. IET Gener Transm & Distrib, 2014; 8(5): 783–97.
Yingliang Li received the B.S. degree in electronics and information engineering from
Sichuan University, China, in 2000 and the Ph.D. degree at the Department of Electrical
and Computer Engineering, Curtin University, Australia, in 2014. He is a professor with
the School of Electronic Engineering, Xi’an Shiyou University. His current research in­
terests include protection of power systems and statistical analysis on electrical networks.
Deming Wang received the B.S. degree in electrical engineering from Xi’an Shiyou Uni­
versity, Xi’an, China, in 2010. From 2010 to 2018, he had been an electrical engineer in
Jinchuan Group Company Limited, China. He is currently pursuing his M.S. degree at the
School of Electronic Engineering, Xi’an Shiyou University. His research interests include
relay protection of distribution networks and microgrids.

10