17518695, 2020, 24, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-gtd.2019.1652 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [17/11/2022].

See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
IET Generation, Transmission & Distribution

Review Article

Impact of distributed generation on the ISSN 1751-8687

Received on 31st October 2019
Revised 7th August 2020
protection systems of distribution networks: Accepted on 24th August 2020
E-First on 13th November 2020
analysis and remedies – review paper doi: 10.1049/iet-gtd.2019.1652
www.ietdl.org

Matin Meskin1 , Alexander Domijan2, Ilya Grinberg3

1EatonCooper Power Systems, Franksville, WI 53126, USA
2The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Edinburg, TX 78539, USA
3The SUNY Buffalo State, Buffalo, NY 14260, USA

E-mail: matinmes@buffalo.edu

Abstract: Power networks, especially distribution networks, have been undergoing substantial changes since the application of
new technologies. Technology development in the early part of the 21st century has opened up new horizons for automated,
efficient and reliable power grids. New technologies, while enhancing the capability of the electrical networks and providing
opportunities and innovative solutions to the challenges of future networks, can also cause drawbacks that should be
investigated and taken into account. Distributed generation (DG) is one of the new technologies that improves the operation of
power grids. Despite tangible benefits that integration of DG units brings to electrical grids, their notable impacts on protection
systems of power networks raise many challenges and concerns on how a fault should be detected and isolated in active
distribution networks. Many attempts have been made to investigate the downside of the interconnection of DG units and
methods to mitigate their impacts have been proposed. This study reviews the impact of DG integration on protection systems
addressed in other research works and recapitulates suggested methods provided by scholars.

1 Introduction
Development and enhancement of new technologies in power
electronics make the application of small-scale power generators
more feasible than ever. The small-scale generator, also known as a
microsource or distributed energy resource (DER), has been around
for some time, but its utilisation was limited to emergency backup
systems or to feed power into isolated rural areas. These days,
however, small-scale generators are more common contributors to
power generation.
The dispersion of DER throughout the power grid leads to the
concept of distributed generation (DG). Due to different
government regulations and varieties in utility policies, several
definitions for DG have been presented. A survey done by
Congress International des Reseaux Electtriques de Distribution
(CIRED) showed the dissensus in the DG concept among experts
[1]. With this in mind, the International Energy Agency (IEA) and
the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) classify
any source which is connected to the distribution level and which
delivers power to the load as DG [2, 3].
The rate of integration of DG units to the distribution level to
meet the increasing power demand grows as a reasonable
replacement for costly network expansion. While this integration
brings many advantages to consumers and power grids, it also
becomes a challenge from protection and control perspective.
Recent research study has highlighted the negative effects of DG
units on short circuit currents and overcurrent (OC) protection
systems in distribution networks. Change in the direction of fault
current flow, increase or decrease of fault current magnitude, the
blindness of protection, sympathy feeder trip, nuisance trip of the
circuit interrupting devices, and disruption of coordination between
protective devices (PDs) are some of the possible impacts of DG
unit integration.
This paper reviews possible challenges that protection system
faces when a distribution network turns into an active electrical
system, and the benefits and drawbacks of suggested solutions are
investigated.
2 Effect of DG units on fault current
Electrical networks are subjected to short circuit faults that can
damage equipment and cause hazardous conditions to utility crews
and consumers. In these cases, the fault should be detected and
cleared as fast as possible. Usually, a three-phase fault poses the
highest magnitude of short circuit current in networks. Under
certain circumstances, however, other fault types would provide the
highest level. For instance, the current magnitude of a phase-to-
ground fault near a solidly grounded generator is drastically higher
than a three-phase one. The fault current level depends on the
network topology, grounding arrangements, as well as the number
of in-service generators. In addition to the pick-up settings of PDs,
coordination between some types of PDs depends on the fault
current level. Thus, anything that can affect them, should be
considered in the fault calculation.
In power systems with numerous high capacity sources, the
addition of small DG units does not change the short circuit current
magnitude. On the other hand, the integration of many small- and
medium-sized DG units or high-capacity DG units should be taken
into account in the fault calculation as these conditions certainly
impact the fault current level.
The contribution of a DG unit to a fault current is related to the
type of DG unit, which can be characterised as synchronous
generators, induction generators and inverter-based units. However,
the response of each type to a fault and its contribution to the fault
current varies.
Synchronous generators are mostly used in genset and
combined heat and power (CHP) DG units. To see the contribution
of the synchronous generator-based DG unit to the fault current
level, a simple case is studied.
Most of the elements in electrical networks can be modelled as
a series or parallel or series–parallel resistor and inductor (R–L)
circuit, and hence the fault has a resistive–inductive nature [4].
Fig. 1 depicts a circuit model for fault analysis in which the switch
is used to model the short circuit. R + jXL is the summation of the
synchronous generator internal impedance and the transmission
line impedance.
Using the differential equation, the steady-state AC short circuit
current is given in (1).

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 24, pp. 5944-5960 5944
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2020
 17518695, 2020, 24, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-gtd.2019.1652 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [17/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Vs
iac t = 1 − e− t / T (1)
R

where T is the time constant defined in (2):

L XL
T= = (2)
R Rω

In reality, capacitors and inductors in networks store energy. This

energy will discharge during the fault and will increase the short
Fig. 1  Circuit model for fault current analysis [4]
circuit current. The additional short circuit current caused by the
stored energy is called the DC fault component and is shown in
following equation:

idc t = I0e−(t / T ) (3)

Total fault current, also known as asymmetrical fault current is

represented in (4).

Vs V s −(t / T )
if t = iac t + idc t = + I0 − e (4)
R R

According to Fig. 2, the DC component causes the fault current to
increase at the inception of the fault. This component will rapidly
decay. How fast the DC part decays, depends on the time constant
T given in (2).
Such a nature of the fault current is represented by the reactance
of a synchronous generator that varies from the inception of the
fault to the steady-state. Three different reactances are defined:
subtransient X′′d , transient X′d , and synchronous Xd reactance
[5]. Subtransient reactance is used for fault calculation during the
first cycle after fault inception. This condition lasts for ∼0.1 s. This
is followed by the transient condition, which continues for 0.5–2 s.
Finally, synchronous reactance is applied for the steady-state fault
calculation [5].
The contribution of induction machines to a fault current is
quite high at the beginning of the fault and decays quickly. The
fault current gets to zero in the steady-state condition because an
induction machine is a self-excited machine and the flux in the
stator decays rapidly during fault without an external voltage
source. The inertia of the induction machine affects the duration of
the fault. The heavier the induction machine is, the longer the fault
duration lasts [5]. Fig. 3 represents the fault current changes when
a three-phase fault is developed at the terminal of an induction
machine.
From the circuit analysis point of view, transient and
synchronous reactances reach infinity at the steady-state resulting
in the fault current decaying to zero [4, 5]. The behaviour of the
induction motor and generator is identical. It also should be
mentioned that the contribution of wound-rotor and squirrel-cage
induction machines to the fault current are similar [5].
Inverter-based DG units are rather new technologies and their
contribution to the short circuit current has been studied in several
papers. The first attempt to address this issue was in 1985/1986 in
Gardner, Massachusetts. A 13.8 kV feeder was chosen and 30
photovoltaic (PV) sources containing static power inverters with a
capacity of 2 kW, were installed at the end of one phase [6]. The
study showed the small contribution of the inverters to the fault.
The contribution was less than twice the rated inverter peak current
and continued <200 µs because the inverters turned off within one-
half cycle after the fault inception. Therefore, the impact of
inverter-based DG units on the fault current was negligible and did
not affect the fault duration. The study also analysed 3 MW DG
units installed at various places along the feeder. The results
indicated no influence on the fault current and no effect on
coordination between fuses [6].
Another study confirmed that the contribution of an inverter-
based DG unit connected through a low impedance to the grid is so
small that it can be ignored [7]. On the other hand, a higher
impedance between the inverter-based DG unit and the grid
increases the contribution of the DG unit to the fault current
Fig. 2  Asymmetrical fault current [4]
Fig. 3  Three-phase fault at the terminal of an induction machine [4]
substantially, which can deteriorate coordination between fuses.
This might even worsen with a higher DG penetration [7].
In addition, the results of this study indicated that the short
circuit current of a phase-to-ground fault is somewhat higher than a
three-phase fault current when a delta–wye transformer with
grounded wye side delivers power to the grid from DG. The
grounded wye side of the transformer causes the zero-sequence
current to flow [7]. In general, X0 / X1 of the grid affects the
magnitude of the zero-sequence current.
In [8], six different inverters were examined and were
ultimately classified into two categories based on their
disconnection speed. One model is disconnected in less than one
cycle after the fault, and hence its contribution to the fault current
is almost zero. The second model is disconnected after several
cycles (up to 10 cycles) with a small contribution to the fault
current. The other difference is in the waveform of the fault
current. In the first model, a sudden increase in magnitude occurs
at the inception of the fault and then the fault current decreases to a
negligible value while the magnitude of the waveform in the
second model decreases slightly after the fault is developed.
According to the IEEE standard, if inverter terminal voltage is
<0.5 pu, PV unit will be disconnected in <6 cycles and therefore,
PV unit contribution to the fault can be neglected. For inverter
terminal voltage higher than 0.5 pu during the fault, the PV unit
contribution can impact the fault current since it may take up to
120 cycles for the inverter to get disconnected [9].
In addition, it has been concluded that the contribution of the
PV inverter to the fault does not exceed 120% of the rated current
of the inverter although the contribution is completely dependent
on the terminal voltage of the PV inverter [8].
Another investigation has been conducted to determine the
effects of the inverter control method on the fault conditions. Two
current control methods, one based on the synchronously rotating
reference frame and the other using the stationary reference frame,
have been studied [10]. The results concluded that the outer control

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 24, pp. 5944-5960 5945
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2020

Table 1 Contribution of Different DG types to Fault Current
[14]
Type of DG unit Contribution to Fault Current developed
at the Terminal of Generator
Inverter-based 1–2 times the inverter rated current, duration
would be from a half cycle to several cycles
depending on the control method
Synchronous 5–10 times the generator rated current for the
Generator with subtransient and transient cycles, 2–4 times
Separate Exciter the generator rated current for steady-state
Source condition
Induction Generator 5–10 times the generator rated current for the
or Self-excited first few cycles, negligible after 5–10 cycles
Generator
Fig. 4  DG impact on radial distribution network
(a) Typical radial distribution feeder without DG, (b) Typical radial distribution feeder
with DG before recloser and fault at the end of feeder, (c) Typical radial distribution
feeder with DG after recloser and fault at the end of feeder, (d) Typical radial
distribution feeder with DG after recloser and fault before recloser [15]
Fig. 5  Effect of DG unit on the current of recloser and fuse [16]
Fig. 6  Recloser–fuse set with several DG units connected after recloser
[14]
loops, current regulation scheme and synchronising scheme can
impact the fault current. However, the contribution of the inverter
to the short circuit current is insignificant. Moreover, during the
phase-to-ground fault, the synchronously rotating reference frame
provides a considerable negative sequence component while the
5946
17518695, 2020, 24, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-gtd.2019.1652 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [17/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
stationary reference frame contributes significantly to the positive
sequence component [10].
In general, based on the studies it can be stated that the
contribution of inverter-based DG units to the fault current would
not exceed 200% of their rated current [6–8, 10–13]. The
contribution of different types of DG units to the fault current is
summarised in Table 1 [14].
According to the fact that the DG unit, regardless of its type,
will contribute to the fault current even if this contribution is
negligible, the integration of DG units at the distribution level
would cause the short circuit current in other parts of the network
to change.
A study of a simple radial network shows that integration of a
synchronous DG unit with the capacity of 1.5 MW will change the
short circuit current in different parts of the network. The point of
connection of the DG to the grid and location of the fault can affect
the fault level in these parts. Fig. 4 depicts such simple network. As
can be seen, when there is no DG (Fig. 4a), the fault current
through RC1 and RC2 are the same for the fault on the feeder
marked by X. By adding the DG after RC1 (Fig. 4b), IUS decreases
while the fault current through the RC2 rises. Changing DG
connection to the location after RC2 (Fig. 4c) will result in the
reduction of fault current through RC1 and RC2. By placing the DG
after RC2 and fault location on the lateral feeder (Fig. 4d), the fault
current IUS drops and the fault current through RC2 flows in the
opposite direction. If IR exceeds the setting of recloser RC2, the
recloser will trip and terminate the power, which is not acceptable
from protection considerations [15].
Since many DG units can be installed at the distribution level,
the effect of DG units on the recloser–fuse sets has been
investigated in several studies. The connection of a DG unit after
recloser as shown in Fig. 5, can affect the fault current flowing
through the recloser. If a fault is developed on the tapped line and
the capacity of the DG is significant, then the fault current through
the fuse could be greater than the fault current through the recloser
[14, 16–19]. According to Fig. 6, this condition will worsen with
several DG units connected to downstream feeders.
In addition, the distance between the interconnected DG unit
and the fault location would affect the fault current seen by recloser
and fuse. The further the DG unit is from the recloser, the more the
fault current seen by the recloser will decrease [17]. Also, a higher
change in fault level will occur when the DG unit with a
synchronous generator is used. On the other hand, inverter-based
DG units have the least effect on the short circuit current and its
duration [17].
Typically, several distribution feeders are connected in parallel
to sub-transmission substations. In this case, any DG unit on one
feeder would affect the fault current through the upstream circuit
breaker (CB)/recloser as well as fuses on parallel feeders. For
instance, as illustrated in Fig. 7, for a fault on feeder 2, if the size
of DG1 is significant enough, then the fault current seen by CB1/
Fuse1 will be greater than the short circuit current through the main
CB on the grid side. In other words, the introduction of the DG unit
to the feeder 1 will lead to the decrease of the fault current through
CB and increase of the fault current through CB1/Fuse1 [18–22].
The presence of DG2 at the same time on feeder 2 can even
exacerbate the condition causing the fault current through the CB
on the grid side to drop dramatically.
The fault current seen by CB2/Fuse2 in this case depends on
whether there is a DG on feeder 2 or not. In the case of a small size
DG2 on feeder 2, the short circuit current through CB2/Fuse2 is
substantial. On the other hand, a larger DG2 leads to a small fault
current flowing through CB2/Fuse2.
The impact of several DG units connected to a feeder on the
fault current seen by a CB/fuse located on the feeder have been
investigated in [22]. In this study, the DG units are in the form of
PV sources. To calculate the contribution of each PV source to the
CB/fuse short circuit current, a generalised circuit, shown in Fig. 8,
has been proposed. Here, PD is the corresponding CB or fuse of
the feeder, I1 indicates the contribution of the PVs on adjacent
feeders and the grid side, I2 shows the contribution of all the PVs
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 24, pp. 5944-5960
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2020

between the PD and the fault point and I3 represents the
contribution of all the PVs after the fault location.
The fault current seen by the PD can be approximately shown in
(5) [22].
Zs
IPD = IS + I system would affect the operation of PDs. This section reviews the
Zs + Z1 + Z2 + Z3 + Rf 1
Z3 + Rf
− I
Zs + Z1 + Z2 + Z3 + Rf 2
Rf
− I
Zs + Z1 + Z2 + Z3 + Rf 3
Both rising and falling terms contribute to the fault current.
Depending on the size of PV sources at each part of the feeder, the
fault current would increase or decrease. In addition, the duration
of the contribution of each PV source to the fault current is related
to their distance from the fault. The further the PV source is, the
longer its contribution to the fault will be. The reason is that the
terminal voltage of a remote PV source drops lower compared to
the one close to the fault. Since the short circuit current of the PV
source does not exceed twice its rated current, the contribution of
the PV sources will be smaller than the contribution from the grid.
However, any level of contribution to the fault changes the fault
current seen by CBs and fuses which leads to other protective
problems [22].
In the aforementioned cases, only radial distribution networks
have been taken into account. Other studies on looped distribution
systems show that the fault current in the loops will only rise when
DG units are connected to any busbar within the loop [23, 24].
In [25], the effect of different size of asynchronous DG units on
the fault current in a looped distribution network has been
examined. It has been indicated that the sizes of connected DGs
and the location of the fault have a significant impact on the fault
current. For a fault on one feeder, the short circuit current in the
adjacent feeder is higher when more DGs on the adjacent feeder
come into service. The higher fault current on the neighbouring
feeder happens when the fault is developed farther from the
beginning of the other feeder except for the phase-to-ground fault
cases. The study also represents that the phase-to-ground and
Fig. 7  Parallel distribution feeders with their interconnected DG units
Fig. 8  Contribution of different PV sources to the fault current [22]
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 24, pp. 5944-5960
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2020
17518695, 2020, 24, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-gtd.2019.1652 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [17/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
double-phase-to-ground faults will cause the highest fault currents
in the feeder next to the faulty feeder.
3 Effect of DG units on protection systems
Any changes in the fault current level at any point within the power
possible negative effects that the integration of DG units would
have on PDs. These impacts can be classified as follows:
(5)
• Reverse power flow.
• False tripping.
• Blinding of protection.
• Unwanted islanding.
• Unsynchronised reclosing.
• Loss of main power.
3.1 Reversed power flow
In the conventional distribution network, the power flows from the
transmission to the downstream loads on the distribution side,
which causes the unilateral flow of power. The integration of DG
units to the distribution level of the power network would cause the
power flow direction to change depending on the size of the DG
unit [19, 24, 26]. Fig. 7 (ignoring the fault and DG2) illustrates an
example of reverse power flow. Without DG1, the power only
flows from the grid to the loads on feeders 1 and 2 while the
presence of DG1 would change the direction of power flow in part
of feeder 1. The size of the DG should be large enough to provide
the required power for loads on feeder 2. If the reverse current
flowing through CB1/Fuse1 goes beyond the current setting of
CB1 or rated current of Fuse1, CB1/Fuse1 would operate, which is
unacceptable.
3.2 False tripping
False tripping, also known as a nuisance or unwanted tripping, is a
condition in which an inappropriate PD operates or backup PD
functions sooner than the primary one. False tripping can cause a
healthy feeder to become disconnected or an unnecessary outage of
a distribution feeder to occur (this type of false tripping is also
known as sympathetic tripping). For instance, in Figs. 4d, 5 and 6,
the fuse on the lateral feeder should only clear permanent faults.
All temporary faults, which occur most of the time, should be
cleared by the upstream recloser on the substation side. Locating
the DG units at any point after the recloser will increase the fault
current through the fuse and therefore, the fuse would blow up for
a temporary fault and give rise to an unnecessary feeder
disconnection [14–18, 27, 28].
Another example of unwanted tripping is illustrated in Fig. 7, in
which a fault on feeder 2 may cause the CB or the fuse located on
the adjacent healthy feeder to operate incorrectly. In this case,
before DG integration, the fault on feeder 2 is only fed by the grid
while after DG integration, the fault current can also flow through
feeder 1. If the capacity of connected DGs is significant, the fault
current through CB1/Fuse1 can exceed the setting of the CB or the
rated current of the fuse and prompt incorrect operation of CB1/
Fuse1 [18, 19, 22].
It has been shown in several papers that the interconnection of
DG units to downstream feeders in distribution networks would
cause false tripping of PDs on the healthy feeders [15, 16, 19, 21–
26, 29]. In looped distribution networks or networks with multiple
distribution feeders connected to a substation, the situation can get
5947

Fig. 9  MV network with DG unit
(a) Single-line diagram, (b) Thevenin equivalent circuit [30]
Fig. 10  Impact of DG unit on the fault currents of branches in a sample network [31]
complicated and even deteriorate because different PDs can be
falsely affected, and numerous healthy feeders may be taken out of
service due to DG units on these healthy feeders [16, 21–25, 29,
30].
3.3 Blinding of protection
Blinding of protection happens when a PD, which must operate and
clear the fault, is rendered inoperative. For instance, when the fault
current seen by an overcurrent protective device (OCPD) falls
behind its setting due to changes in network configuration, the PD
cannot detect the fault and, consequently, it does not trip.
In Fig. 5, one of the most usual blindings of protection cases is
represented. Most of the faults in transmission and distribution
networks are temporary faults and, therefore, the faulty feeders do
not need to be taken out and checked by the crews for the fault.
Reclosers, in this case, operate two or three times and close the
feeder breaker. If the fault is a self-cleared one, the reclosing action
will be successful. On the other hand, when a permanent fault is
developed on the lateral feeder, the recloser will be blocked after
two or three recloses and other PDs (e.g. the fuse on the lateral
feeder for the fault on it as shown in Fig. 5) will function and
remove the fault. The interconnection of a DG unit after the
recloser, when a temporary fault on the tapped line occurs, will
cause the fault current through the recloser to drop and as a result,
the recloser would not clear the fault before the fuse melts [14–19,
22, 30]. This problem is depicted in Figs. 4b, 6 and 7. The size of
the DG unit, location of the fault, network impedance and fault
resistance can affect the fault current through an OCPD.
The effect of the size of DG units can be described by (5).
According to this formula and Fig. 8, if the sizes of DG units
I2 and I3 are significant, their contribution to the fault will grow,
resulting in a decrease of the fault current seen by PD. In other
words, the high penetration DG units I2 and I3 will reduce the
contribution of the upstream DG units as well as the contribution of
the grid to the fault. On the other hand, if their contributions are
negligible (i.e. their sizes are small), then the PD senses almost the
same fault current as if no DG was connected [22].
In [30], the impact of the DG impedance and the location of the
fault on the blinding of protection have been discussed. Fig. 9
shows a medium voltage (MV) network with a DG unit and its
Thevenin equivalent circuit. An OCPD is installed at the beginning
of the feeder before the DG unit. The fault can be developed at any
location along the feeder.
Presume Ik is the fault current seen by the feeder relay when
there is no DG unit. The relay then measures I1 when the DG unit
5948
17518695, 2020, 24, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-gtd.2019.1652 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [17/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
delivers power to the grid. The ratio between these two currents is
described in (6).
I1 Zg Zs + ZL
= (6)
I k Z s Z g + Z L + Z LZ g
where ZS is the aggregate of the impedances on the grid side, Zg
shows the impedance of the DG and ZL represents the impedance
of the feeder to the fault point. Based on (6), the DG unit might
reduce the contribution of the grid to the fault current with respect
to the impedances of the grid and the DG unit in addition to the
fault location. In other words, the connection of the DG will result
in a reduction of the fault current seen by the relay at the beginning
of the feeder. If the grid impedance is very high and the impedance
of the feeder to the fault point is negligible (e.g. fault occurs at the
very beginning of the feeder), the fault current seen by the feeder
relay before and after the connection of the DG will be somewhat
equal. However, if the size of the DG is high and the impedance to
the fault point is significant, the fault current seen by the relay in
the presence of the DG unit will decrease significantly [30, 31]. It
should be mentioned that for the sake of simplicity, the voltage
magnitude and angle of the DG unit in Fig. 9 is assumed to be
equal to the grid voltage magnitude and angle during the fault. In
reality, these voltages are different, and they have an impact on the
fault current measured by the feeder relay; however, this effect can
be neglected comparing to the effect of impedances.
To define how the impedances of the grid, feeders and DG unit
can cause the blinding of protection, the fault current on a lateral
feeder and the contribution of the grid to the short circuit current
with and without the DG unit are calculated for a sample network
represented in Fig. 10 [31].
For a three-phase fault on the lateral branch, the fault current
through the recloser and the fuse will be identical when no DG unit
is connected to the network.
V
IR without_DG = IF without_DG = (7)
ZS + ZL
With the DG unit in play, the short circuit current seen by each
recloser and fuse are given in (8) and (9), respectively. As evident
from these equations, the current through the recloser decreases in
the presence of the DG unit, while the fault current seen by the fuse
increases [31].
V V
IR with_DG = = (8)
ZS + ZL(ZS + Zg)/Zg ZS + ZL (ZS /Zg) + 1
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 24, pp. 5944-5960
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2020
 17518695, 2020, 24, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-gtd.2019.1652 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [17/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
V The blinding of protection for a radial feeder with different OC
IF with_DG =
ZL + (ZSZg)/(ZS + Zg) relays has been investigated and it has been shown that
V (9) interconnection of the considerable size of DG units between two
=
ZL + ZS /((ZS /Zg) + 1) OC relays, will lead to the reduction of the fault current measured
by the backup relay for a fault in front of the primary relay. The
The amount of increase and reduction in both the currents depends fault current is so low that the backup relay cannot detect the fault
on the network and the DG unit impedances. A small size DG unit at all. In the case of primary relay failure, the backup relay cannot
connected to a strong network will decrease the recloser fault detect and clear the fault [32]. Fig. 12 depicts this case. OC relay R1
current to a lesser extent while a larger size DG unit integrated to a is the backup relay for relay R2 for the fault in front of R2 in this
weak network will reduce it significantly and lead to blinding of sample radial distribution network. The connected DG contributes
protection [31]. to the fault in such a way that the backup relay R1 might not sense
Consider Fig. 11 to find the influence of the fault resistance on the fault depending on the size of the DG unit.
the fault current through the OCPDs in the presence of DG units. In a looped distribution network or radial distribution networks
The fault current through each of PD1 and PD2 are given in (10) with several radial feeders connected to a substation, the
and (11), respectively. connection of any DG unit to any point of the loop or any point on
the parallel feeders will lead to blinding of protection [23–25, 29].
VS Z2 + Rf Connecting passive DG units, such as wind turbines and PV units,
IPD1 = − I (10) in which there is no control over the input (and therefore to the
ZS + Z1 + Z2 + Rf ZS + Z1 + Z2 + Rf 1
output) of the unit makes the problem even more complicated. It is
VS ZS + Z1 shown that the reduction in the wind turbine generation will cause
IPD2 = + I (11) the relay on the nearby feeder not to sense the fault current
ZS + Z1 + Z2 + Rf ZS + Z1 + Z2 + Rf 1
occurring on this feeder [24].
In all the aforementioned works, the blinding of protection in
For a low resistance fault close to the beginning of the second
OCPDs (e.g. OC relay, CB, recloser and fuse) have been discussed.
feeder (Z2 is small), ZS + Z1 ≫ Z2 + Rf and the fault currents
The impact of DG units on the distance relay can appear either in
IPD1 and IPD2 can be approximated the following: the form of under-/over-reach [29, 33–34] or in the form of
blinding of protection [34]. In addition, the impact of a
VS synchronous DG unit on the distance relay is more pronounced
IPD1 ≅ (12)
ZS + Z1 than from an inverter-based DG unit [34].
Distance relay calculates the impedance based on the
VS measurement of the voltage and current at the installation point,
IPD2 ≅ + I1 (13)
ZS + Z1 and therefore any change in the voltage and/or the current can
change the measured impedance. For instance, as shown in Fig. 13,
Regarding the above equations, in a low resistance fault near the a fault at point F2 is in the second zone of relay R1 before
DG unit, the fault current seen by IPD1 remains approximately interconnection of the DG unit.
unchanged while IPD2 rises. When a high resistance fault far from After DG integration, the fault current IF1 decreases and relay R1
the DG unit ZS + Z1 ≪ Z2 + Rf occurs, IPD1 drops and IPD2 is may see the fault in its third zone meaning the DG unit gives rise to
almost constant according to (14) and (15). the under-reach of the distance relay or R1 cannot detect the fault at
all. The same problem can occur for the fault at point F1. This fault
VS is in the first zone of relay R1 before the DG connection. However,
IPD1 ≅ − I1 (14) the presence of the DG unit will cause the fault current through this
Z2 + Rf
relay, IF′ 1, to reduce, resulting in the under-reach phenomenon in
VS distance relay R1.
IPD2 ≅ (15)
Z2 + Rf
3.4 Nuisance islanding
Therefore, the low resistance fault will bring about false tripping Nuisance islanding, also known as unwanted islanding or
while the high resistance fault gives rise to the blinding of unwanted/nuisance tripping of production units, refers to the
protection.

Fig. 11  Effect of fault resistance on the fault current seen by each PD [22]

Fig. 12  Blinding of protection in radial distribution network

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 24, pp. 5944-5960 5949
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2020

Fig. 13  Effect of DG units on distance relays
condition in which a part of distribution system unintentionally,
and with no preplan, becomes isolated from the rest of the power
system.
In conventional distribution networks, when the distribution
network gets disconnected from the rest of the system for any
reason, the network is completely de-energised, and therefore no
problem arises in terms of personnel safety and protection systems.
However, active distribution networks, with several DG units,
would still be energised even though it is isolated from the main
generation source. Aside from the hazards for maintenance crews,
the protection system of distribution networks is not designed to
deal with the islanding conditions. During the islanding, the short
circuit level in the isolated part decreases due to a reduction in
generation. If a fault occurs in the isolated part, the protection
system might not detect it during islanding mode and the fault
would not be cleared. Consequently, in addition to the destructive
damage to equipment, people will be exposed to fatal electrical
hazards.
3.5 Unsynchronised reclosing
Most of the faults throughout power systems are temporary and
self-clearing. Therefore, the application of reclosers for momentary
disconnects is prevalent nowadays, especially with respect to
distribution grids to improve the power quality of the networks [17,
35]. When a fault happens, the PDs detect and initiate a trip to
CBs, and thus the feeding of the short circuit will be interrupted.
After the reclose interval period (dead time), the recloser closes
back the CB. The reclose interval time is usually between 0.2 and
0.5 s depending on the network conditions. This procedure is
typically implemented two to four times. For temporary faults, the
reclosing function will restore power to consumers, while for
permanent faults, the recloser will be blocked after two to four
reclosing attempts and consumers at the distribution level will be
exposed to sustained interruption until maintenance crews detect
and eliminate the root cause of the fault.
The introduction of DG units to distribution networks means
continuous feed to the fault even though the CB at the head of the
feeder is tripped by its corresponding PD. The DG will keep
injecting the current to the fault, and hence the fault is not cleared
and the arc at the fault location is not fully dissipated.
Consequently, the recloser procedure will fail. This condition is
called unsynchronised/out-of-phase reclosing [17, 35].
The damaging of rotating DGs, deterioration of the equipment
insulation, reduction of apparatus service life and increase in
maintenance costs are some impacts of out-of-phase reclosing.
Additionally, power quality issues, such as prolonged power
outages, is another undesirable effect of reclosing failure [35].
Inverter-based DG units would be less vulnerable to
unsynchronised reclosing because they are equipped with current
surge protection [35].
The incompatibility of DG integration and auto reclosing has
been reported in many research works [22, 31, 32, 36].
3.6 Loss of main power
If the main grid is disconnected for any reason, a part of the system
will be in islanding mode. DG units in the islanded part can cause
safety problems. Moreover, the DG units contributing to the fault
current may not trigger the OCPDs in the islanded part because the
5950
17518695, 2020, 24, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-gtd.2019.1652 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [17/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
fault current magnitude could be below the device settings [17, 30,
32].
4 Impact of DG units on the coordination between
PDs
Distribution networks can be classified by voltage level into two
categories: low voltage (LV) distribution systems (voltage range
<600 V) and MV distribution systems with a voltage range
between 600 V and 69 kV. A combination of distance and
directional OC relays is typically used in MV distribution networks
with voltages of 33 kV and above to protect them against faults. In
MV distribution networks with voltage <33 kV, definite time and
inverse time OC relays, reclosers and high voltage fuses are
generally the backbone of protection systems. In LV distribution
networks, fuses are typically applied for protection purposes. A
sample distribution network including a protection system is
represented in Fig. 14. As mentioned above, the integration of DG
units would pose the problem of false tripping and/or the blinding
of protection to the protection system, resulting in disrupted
coordination between PDs.
In conventional radial distribution networks, the OC relays are
non-directional. In addition, reclosers are coordinated with fuses in
a way that reclosers operate and clear temporary faults first. In case
of a permanent fault, fuses will blow up and isolate the faulted
area. Now the protection system of active distribution grids is
investigated in the following.
For a fault on bus 5 as shown in Fig. 14, the contribution of
DG3 to the fault will cause the fuse F22 to be subjected to the
reverse fault current. If this reverse fault current is significant
enough, F22 will blow and all the consumers on this otherwise
healthy feeder will experience an outage. If the contribution of
DG1 is substantial enough, the fault current from the grid flowing
through the recloser RC2 falls while the fault current seen by F2
increases and may go above its rated current. As a result of DG1
and DG3 connections to the grid, F2 would blow and RC2 might
not operate, leading to miscoordination between RC2 and F2.
The same can happen when a fault is developed on branch 1 in
the presence of DG2. In this case, the contribution of DG2 to the
fault can be significant enough to reduce the portion of the current
from the grid, leading to miscoordination between F1 and RC1.
The deterioration of coordination between reclosers and fuses due
to the presence of DG units has been investigated and discussed in
many studies [15–19, 37–40].
The impact of DG units on coordination between fuses is the
subject of many examinations [16, 19, 26, 28, 38, 41]. Each fuse
has two curves: minimum melting (MM) and total clearing (TC).
Two fuses are coordinated if, for any fault along the feeder on
which the main fuse is located, the TC characteristic of the backup
fuse is below the MM characteristic of the main fuse by a secure
margin. Connection of DG units would cause miscoordination
between fuses, depending on the location of the DG units. For
instance, DG2 connected to bus 2, will increase fault current for
any fault located along branch 1. If the coordination between F1
and F11 still exists for higher short circuit current, then it is not
likely affected [16, 38]. For DG4 integrated to branch 2,
miscoordination between F1 and F12 is obvious: for a fault on
branch 2, fuse F12 must blow sooner than fuse F1 while, for a fault
on feeder 1 (between recloser RC1 and bus 2), fuse F1 must
operate faster than fuse F12. Therefore, coordination criteria
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 24, pp. 5944-5960
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2020

Fig. 14  Sample distribution network
cannot be fulfilled since both fuses sense the same fault current
[16, 42].
Miscoordination between reclosers and fuses is another topic of
interest that has been discussed in [16, 19, 43–48]. Reclosers are
used to avoid permanent interruption and save fuses when
temporary faults occur. In case of permanent faults, reclosers
advance to their slow curves and let fuses to blow up and clear the
fault. Studies have demonstrated that the coordination between
recloser and fuse no longer exists when a DG unit with
considerable penetration is located between them. In Fig. 14, for
instance, the fault current seen by recloser RC2 is reduced for a
temporary fault on bus 5 and DG1 in service. In this case, the fuse
F2 may blow faster than recloser RC2 leading to miscoordination
between RC2 and F2.
Another problem appears in the coordination of OC relays. In
Fig. 14, OC relays R2 and R3 are coordinated in a way that R3
initiates first for the faults on branch 5 and R2 operates only when
R2 does not clear the fault. If DG1 is only connected to the grid,
for a fault on branch 5, the fault current through R3 increases while
the fault current seen by R2 drops, and hence the coordination is
still maintained. With the only DG5 integrated to the network, the
fault current through both relays will increase for the fault on
branch 5. In this case, coordination between OC relays R2 and R3
would be lost. So, depending on the type, capacity and location of
connected DG units in addition to the fault location, coordination
between OC relays might no longer exist [13, 16, 21, 23–25, 32,
33, 49–53]. Consequently, for the DG units connected between the
primary and backup OC relays, coordination will still be valid,
while the integration of DG before the backup OC relay would lead
to miscoordination. These concerns cannot be applied to inverter-
based DG units since their contribution to the fault current is
limited to twice the inverter rated current [54, 55].
Finally, the reverse fault current can flow through PDs due to
the connection of DG units to the network. Besides its impact on
fuse–fuse coordination and fuse maloperation discussed above, the
reverse fault current gives rise to the coordination conflict between
OC relays. In Fig. 14, OC relay R2 is a backup for R3, and its
operating time is longer. For a fault on bus 1, while DG6 is
connected to branch 5, relay R2 should be initiated faster than R3
and clear the fault. However, OC relay R2 is the backup relay of
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 24, pp. 5944-5960
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2020
17518695, 2020, 24, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-gtd.2019.1652 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [17/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
R3 for downstream faults and now it should operate faster than R3
for upstream faults, which is infeasible [15, 16, 22, 29, 30, 33, 42,
49, 51].
5 Improvement of protection systems in
distribution networks with DG units
Many attempts have been made to mitigate the impact of DG units
on the power systems to which they are connected. Some solutions
consider protection system reformation while a few of the others
take the capacity and the characteristics of DG units into account.
The suggested methods can be classified as follows.
5.1 Disconnection of DG units
Disconnecting all DG units during the fault is the easiest solution
for this problem [17, 19, 21, 46]. Since most of the faults in
distribution networks are temporary faults, disconnecting all DG
units is not reasonable and prevents the network from taking
advantage of the connection of DG units. Another disadvantage of
this method is the voltage sag issue when high penetration DG
units are disconnected. In addition, utilities do not have access to
DG units installed by customers and therefore, cannot shut them
off. This method needs a fault detection system at the DG location.
The fault detection system should detect the fault at the very
beginning of the fault and should be able to distinguish between the
fault and other disturbances like switching heavy loads. In some
cases, reclosers may clear the fault very fast before the fault
detection system of the DG unit can detect the fault and shut off
DG.
The suggested method in [56] is based on the disconnection of
the DG units from the faulted area and reconnection to the rest of
the network through other paths if any. This method needs to
monitor and control all CBs remotely. Therefore, a costly
communication channel as well as the installation of CBs all over
the grid is required.
5951

5.2 Recalculation and/or resizing of protective devices
DG units will change the fault levels in the grid, resulting in a
deterioration of coordination between OCPDs. To avoid selectivity
disruption, the configuration of the distribution system, which
encompasses DG units, should be investigated and new settings for
reclosers, OC and distance relays should be chosen based on the
fault analyses and coordination studies [18, 23, 27, 33, 38, 39, 43–
45, 55, 57–61]. In addition, fuses should be resized based on new
conditions.
Since fuses and reclosers are the most common PDs in
distribution networks with voltage levels up to 20 kV, several
papers have addressed fuse–recloser miscoordination in the
presence of DG units in these networks [39, 43–45, 58]. Installing
DG unit between the fuse and recloser (for instance DG2 on bus 2
as shown in Fig. 14) would bring about the blinding of protection
in the recloser and false tripping in the fuse. Their solution to avoid
this problem and regain coordination is based on the calculation of
the fault current for the fuse and recloser for the worst-case
scenario. The recloser curves are then scaled down based on the
fuse–recloser ratio (FRR), which is the ratio of the fault current
seen by the fuse to the fault current seen by the recloser. For this
solution to be effective, the recloser should be of the
microprocessor type with a variety of curves [43]. In this solution,
the fuse remains unchanged and only the recloser curves are shifted
to meet new conditions.
Studies have shown that the recalculation of OC relay settings
based on the maximum generation of integrated PV sources solves
the misoperation of OC relays [55, 60, 61]. However, this solution
degrades the sensitivity of the entire protection system, especially
when PV sources do not contribute to power generation [55].
The problem with this method is that the DG units are not
always in service. The output of the renewable-based DG units,
such as PV units or wind turbines, is variable and fluctuates as
weather conditions vary. Therefore, the calculation of optimal
settings for fuses, reclosers and relays is not feasible. Moreover,
higher time settings obtained in this method, result in an increase
of the fault-clearing time, when DG units are not in service. This
longer clearing time would put the equipment and stability of the
network at risk.
5.3 Directional protection
Since the fault current can flow in any direction in the network
with DG units, coordination between OC relays and reclosers no
longer exists. To solve miscoordination, equipping OC relays with
directional element has been proposed in some research studies
[33, 38, 51, 59, 62]. Directional OC relays at both ends of feeders
with DG units can maintain coordination and improve the
selectivity of the protection system.
However, adding directional OC relays to both ends of feeders
in an active distribution network makes the coordination more
complicated since DG units are not always in service [51] and
contribution of inverter-based DG units to the fault current is
negligible [55, 62]. Moreover, such a solution is only applicable to
OC relays and reclosers as fuses cannot be equipped with the
directional element.
5.4 Application of fault current limiter
DG units can increase short circuit current level in distribution
networks leading to the loss of coordination between OCPDs. If the
fault current remains unchanged in the presence of DG,
coordination can be maintained. Considering this fact, some
researchers have proposed the application of fault current limiter
(FCL) or superconducting fault current limiter (SFCL) [63–77].
SFCL is a device, which uses superconductors to limit the
magnitude of current during a fault. Underrated current conditions,
the resistance of the device is low and allows the current to pass
through it. During the fault, the resistance of the device increases
rapidly and reduces the fault current. The current at which SFCL
resistor increases is called SFCL operating current and should be
designed specifically based on network conditions.
5952
17518695, 2020, 24, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-gtd.2019.1652 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [17/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
It is suggested to connect SFCL in series with DG unit to limit
its current during the fault condition [63, 64, 68, 69] while other
potential locations for placement of SFCL have also been
investigated [65, 69, 70]. The installation of SFCL at a specific part
of the network can reduce the contribution of that part to the fault
current. Following the DG unit connection, its adverse effect on
OCPDs located on this part of the grid can be mitigated. This
method, however, results in a rise of operating times of OCPDs
when DG units are out of service and, therefore, the time setting of
PDs should be reduced. Furthermore, other non-fault transients can
cause SFCL to trigger. For instance, the starting current of wind
turbine generators can trigger the SFCL incorrectly and give rise to
a deep voltage drop along downstream distribution feeders [65].
Another disadvantage of SFCLs emerges in relation to
renewable-based DG units due to the uncertainty of the output
generation. Due to the variation in generated power, the
contribution of renewable-based DG units to the fault fluctuates,
making it complicated to find a specific setting for SFCL.
Coordinating reclosers and SFCLs is another issue that has
drawn the attention of researchers [78]. It has been shown, when
the SFCL current setting is greater or equal to the recloser current
setting, the recloser will fail to operate. The setting of the SFCL
must be less than the recloser setting for the recloser to operate
properly [78].
The application of FCL to restore coordination between OCPDs
has been examined in [66, 67]. The FCL is connected in series to
the DG unit to reduce the fault current to the values when no DG is
integrated into the network. The results show that coordination is
restored successfully with no need to any extra cost or change in
PDs [66, 67]. Since the network configuration is subjected to a
variety of changes, coordination might no longer exist with FCL in
service. FCL could negatively impact the coordination between
PDs by reducing the fault current when it is not needed.
Finding the optimal size and/or location of FCL has been
investigated in some research works [71–77]. This method has the
aforementioned issues of using FCL. Additionally, since the
network configuration changes intermittently, the optimal size
and/or location of FCL that works for a given network
configuration, may not work for other network configurations.
5.5 Limiting DG size
The size and location of DG units can aggravate miscoordination in
distribution systems [16, 39]. Thus, the largest possible size of a
DG unit for which the coordination between PDs is still maintained
should be identified [39, 40, 45, 49, 51, 63, 64, 79, 80].
No need to change the existing protection system or to install
new devices are the upsides of this method. However, simply
considering protective issues alone and eliminating other issues,
such as power quality and reliability of the system, is this method's
disadvantage. It also requires restricting the capacity that private
entities can install, which is not practically feasible.
Finding optimal DG size that satisfies loss reduction, voltage
profile improvement and protection coordination retention has been
examined in [81]. The study has demonstrated that the optimal DG
size is dependent on the DG location and by changing the place of
DG across the network, different DG sizes, as well as different
values in loss reduction and voltage magnitude, can be achieved.
5.6 Inverter control methods for inverter-based DG units
The protective problems described in the previous sections are less
likely to occur in the presence of inverter-based DG units due to
their smaller contribution to the fault current. However, an inverter-
based DG unit increases the possibility of recloser failure, or it can
worsen islanding problems. To eliminate the effect of inverter-
based DG units on PDs completely, several solutions have been
proposed in [17, 82–87].
Disconnecting inverter-based DG units from the grid when a
fault or islanding occurs is one of the solutions [17]. Disadvantages
of this method have been discussed in Section 5.1.
Reducing the inverter current during the fault has been
proposed as another solution to maintain coordination. To do so,
different control strategies have been introduced [82–87]. A fast
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 24, pp. 5944-5960
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2020

and reliable fault detection method is required to trigger the
inverter current control procedure.
One of the control strategies is to use the point of common
coupling (PCC) voltage to detect the fault and reduce the inverter
current when the PCC voltage falls behind a predefined value (88%
of the nominal voltage at PCC) [82, 85]. The suggested method in
[86] has used voltages in α–β stationary reference to reduce the
output real power and therefore to decrease the inverter current. To
generate the α–β stationary voltage, the voltage after the inverter
filter has been used. The drawback of these strategies is that some
non-fault disturbances, such as heavy load switching may cause the
voltage at PCC or inverter filter to drop. In cases of short circuit
with very low fault current such as high impedance fault, the
current reduction is not necessary [83]. To address the former
downside, the current of the PD ahead of the DG unit is taken into
account in addition to PCC voltage. If the PCC voltage is lower
than a predefined value and the current of the intended PD is
greater than a preset value, the current reduction control will be
activated to decrease the output current [83]. In some situations,
there is a significant distance between the locations of the PD and
the DG unit. This requires a communication channel between them,
which adds to the cost or it might not be possible at all. If there is
more than one PD ahead of the DG unit, the application of this
method is very complicated if not impossible. DG1 in Fig. 14 with
two PDs (R1 and F1) in front of it is an example of this kind of
network configuration.
Application of phase lock loop (PLL) along with the voltage
drop at the inverter output (the voltage after inverter filter) to detect
the fault and reduce the inverter current is another proposed
method [87]. The inverter output currents are used as the input of
PLL. If the error signal of PLL exceeds a predefined threshold,
then the inverter current is reduced by changing the reference real
power to zero while the reference reactive power is kept above zero
[87]. The predefined threshold of PLL should be set correctly
otherwise other disturbances like inrush current of transformer or
capacitor switching can trigger the inverter current control
procedure.
Application of a flywheel doubly-fed induction machine (FW-
DFIM) energy storage system in parallel with conventional
inverter-based DG unit is suggested in [84]. The DW-DFIM system
improves the power quality of renewable DG units in normal
conditions as well as provides an exponentially decaying current
during the fault in order to trigger PDs. This combination emulates
the synchronous generator response during faults [84]. Such a
control strategy is only appropriate when OC relays are used. In the
case of a fuse–recloser arrangement, this control method can
expedite the operation of the fuse, which is not satisfactory. For
example, in Fig. 14, an inverter-based DG1 with this control
method enhances coordination between R2 and R3, but it
deteriorates coordination between RC2 and F2. Besides, this
method is costly as it needs a three winding transformer and FW-
DFIM energy storage system.
5.7 Adaptive protection
Adaptive protection can be defined as an online modification of
protective settings to address changes in the network by means of
external control signals. Using this concept, some researchers
considered potential advantages of adaptive protection to enhance
protection of distribution networks with high penetration of DG
units [43, 44, 48, 58, 68, 88–95].
To tackle the recloser–fuse miscoordination, online
modification of the recloser curves based on FRR is recommended.
If the FRR < 1, the fault current seen by the recloser is less than the
fault current through the fuse and, hence, the recloser curves
should be scaled down to maintain the recloser–fuse coordination
[43, 44, 58, 88].
Adaptive protection for OC relays can be used in two ways:
pre-calculated (offline) setting and real-time (online) setting [58].
In the pre-calculated scenario, settings of different cases are
calculated and stored in the OC relay and an external signal will
activate the appropriate setting. This external signal is generated
based on changes in current, voltage and/or equipment statuses. In
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 24, pp. 5944-5960
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2020
17518695, 2020, 24, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-gtd.2019.1652 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [17/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
the real-time scenario, the settings of PDs are calculated and
changed online based on the current condition and configuration of
the system.
Using the pre-calculated scenario, a study has been done to
change the setting of OC relays during islanding and grid
connection [89, 90]. The method utilises voltage values to detect
the islanding and OC relay settings are readjusted accordingly.
During the islanding, frequency is monitored to detect re-
energising of the grid. When the grid is back in service, the OC
relay will switch to its previous settings. The settings of OC relays
in the grid connection mode could be different based on the
connection/disconnection of several DG units [89].
Online methods suggest online monitoring of the network and if
any change in the network configuration or DG generation occurs,
load flow and the short circuit should be run based on the new
condition [68, 92–94]. The pickup current and/or time setting of
relays and reclosers then should be updated according to new load
flow and short circuit results.
The combination of offline and online methods has been
investigated to overcome miscoordination between OC devices in
the distribution networks [48, 91, 95]. In this method, several
network configurations and different DG generations are
considered to obtain different settings of OC relays and reclosers.
Those values are set on the relays and reclosers. Then network
conditions are monitored online and when a change occurs, a signal
will be sent to PDs to change their settings and adjust them with
the new conditions.
In [91] a comprehensive adaptive protection system has been
designed by combining offline and online methods. In the offline
segment, short circuit currents, as well as load flow for different
scenarios (DG connections or changes in the network
configuration), are calculated. The results are then stored in the
adaptive protection system. During network operation, if the sum
of the phase currents is equal to the total load current, the system is
in the normal condition. Otherwise, if the sum is zero, then a fault
is developed at a DG unit terminal. After clearing the fault, the
system should be updated, and load flow and short circuit analyses
should be run again. If the sum is significantly greater than the total
load current, then the greatest phase current is compared with the
short circuit currents stored in the adaptive protection system to
detect the faulted area. A trip will be initiated then to open the
corresponding CBs and to isolate the faulted area. After that,
reclosers will reclose back the CBs to restore the network in case
of a temporary fault. For a permanent fault, the CBs remain open
and the network information will be updated. The load flow and
short circuit will be run, and new results will be stored in the
adaptive protection system.
The offline adaptive protection system needs a very complex
calculation to consider all the conditions and the system can fail if
unforeseen circumstances occur. The online methods should be
fast, and a large amount of data is required to make the decision. If
the fault and the change in network configuration or DG generation
occur at the same time, the online method will fail. Additionally, a
fast communication system should be installed in the distribution
networks along with a full monitoring and control system, which
are costly.
5.8 Multiagent-based method
The multiagent-based adaptive protection scheme to enhance the
OC protection in active distribution networks has been introduced
in [24, 96–100]. A multiagent scheme is a structure, in which all
objects (also known as agents) involved in a problem deal with
each other and share the data to resolve the problem [96]. Relays,
CBs, current transformers, voltage transformers (PT/VT) or
capacitor voltage transformers, PD coordination, configurator and
DG units form the agents. Agents are independent functioning
without any human control. They can communicate with each other
and react to any changes in the system. The relay agents report
their fault currents to the coordination agent, and it shares the data
with the configurator. The configurator defines the fault location
and provides a list of relays to trip or block and sends back the list
to the coordination agent, from where the relay agents get either
5953

trip or block signal [24, 96, 97]. Some schemes suggest data
exchange between relay agents, which enables each relay to make
decision autonomously based on the neighbours' data [98–100].
In [98], each relay agent sends out the wavelet coefficients of
the current it senses to the nearby relay agents, while in other
research works, phasor values are used to detect the faulted section.
This method requires fast communication system for
transferring data between agents and when the communication
channel is down, or the data is distorted, the performance of the
method is in doubt.
5.9 Application of distance protection
Distance protection is applied to the transmission and sub-
transmission levels and due to its high price, it is not used at the
distribution level. Nowadays, the integration of DG units to the
distribution level has raised several protection issues for the
OCPDs, especially OC relays. Consequently, the application of
distance protection at the distribution level has caught the attention
of some researchers [58, 101–103]. Distance protection is
fundamentally directional and can cope with the bilateral fault
current flow caused by the connection of DG units. Likewise,
coordinating distance relays is much easier than OC relays because
the change of the fault current has a little impact on distance
protection. However, the over-reach and under-reach of distance
relay, the effect of the resistive fault on its reach and coordination
with recloser are challenging issues that should be addressed.
Adaptive distance protection has been suggested in [103] to
mitigate the impact of DG unit on the distance relay, which appears
in the form of under-reach or over-reach of its zones.
5.10 Application of differential protection
Partial line differential protection [58, 104], phase differential
protection [105, 106], amplitude difference [107] and differential
current ratio [108] are other solutions investigated in research
studies.
In partial differential protection, the subtraction and summation
of the currents at both ends of the line or feeder are compared
against each other. If the subtraction is greater than the summation,
there is a fault on the feeder. Otherwise, the fault is out of the
protection zone or the network is under normal condition [58]. In
[104] the application of positive sequence current in the differential
scheme for feeders without lateral branches has been suggested.
For feeders with lateral branches, the voltage should be considered
in addition to differential current to detect the internal fault
accurately. If the voltage is below the threshold while the
differential current is above the setting value, there is an internal
fault [104].
In the phase differential, the differences between current phases
at both ends are compared. If the phase difference is in the range of
−90°, 90° , there is a fault on the feeder. If the phase difference is
equal to −180°, the fault is out of the intended feeder or there is no
fault in the network [105, 106]. This kind of protection can provide
precise protection in the network with DG units and changes in the
fault current caused by DG units turning on and off cannot affect it.
It does not need to be coordinated with other PDs in the network
since it is unit-type protection and its protection zone is limited to
both ends of the feeder. However, this protection system requires a
fast, reliable communication channel to exchange current
information.
The proposed methods in [107, 108], which work based on
finding the largest fault current, are very restrictive since they
cannot detect the fault properly if more than one fault occurs
simultaneously in the network. If the DG contribution to the fault
current is smaller than what is supplied by the grid, these methods
cannot find the faulted section. Additionally, these methods need
the feeder terminal unit (FTU) to be installed with all the switches
in the distribution network.
5.11 Voltage-dependent OC protection
This protection is based on the fact that the voltage drops during
the fault while the current rises. The current and voltage are used
5954
17518695, 2020, 24, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-gtd.2019.1652 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [17/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
together to differentiate between normal and fault conditions [62].
Additionally, this protection scheme must be equipped with a
directional relay to properly detect the fault direction [62]. This
protection scheme can effectively detect the fault in the presence of
a DG unit as well as maintains the coordination between OC relays
[109–111]. Voltage dependency is the downside of this method, in
which the installation of PT/VT is costly and, in some cases, not
feasible due to the lack of room.
5.12 Network matrix algorithm
Network matrix and fault direction matrix can be used to determine
the faulted section [112]. The network matrix demonstrating the
network structure has rows equal to the number of feeders and
columns equal to the number of nodes and shows how feeders are
connected to nodes. This matrix should be developed before the
fault inception. The fault direction matrix is another required
matrix, which is created after the fault initiation based on the data
received from FTUs. The disadvantage of this method is
requirement for large memory capacity to store the network matrix
and updating this matrix after each change in the network topology.
Distortion of data from FTU affecting the fault direction matrix
also causes incorrect fault detection.
To reduce the size of the network matrix, it is suggested to use
the network fault-related matrix, with only feeders and nodes that
get involved in the fault [113]. In this approach, both fault-related
and fault direction matrix rely on the data coming from FTUs and
are negatively affected by possible data distortion.
5.13 Artificial neural network (ANN) and optimisation method
ANNs application to protection has drawn the attention of
researchers [114, 115]. Although it can accurately detect the faulted
segment, it has many disadvantages. First, it requires training for
different fault types and fault locations. Secondly, if the network
configuration changes, the method is more likely to detect the
faulted section incorrectly. Finally, the results indicate that ANN
suffers from inaccuracy when a high impedance fault is developed,
in which case the impedance fault cannot be predicted before the
fault [115].
The iterative optimisation methods have been investigated in
[116–120]. They use the fault data collected by FTUs to structure
an objective function. The objective function shows whether a
switch senses the fault current or not. An optimal method is then
applied to solve the objective function and to detect the faulted
section. Although the optimisation method tolerates data distortion,
it must be run iteratively to get the result and the solution may not
converge in the real distribution networks with hundreds of
switches. Even if the method converges in the real distribution
network, the possible long convergence time makes this method
slow and ineffective since the fault must be detected and isolated
quickly. Additionally, this method needs FTU to be installed at all
switches as well as a communication network to transfer data.
The method proposed in [121] applies the shortest path
optimisation to locate the fault. This method is only practical for
smaller networks with a few dozen nodes. For larger distribution
networks, this method needs a longer time to detect the faulted
section or may not converge at all.
5.14 Other methods
Replacing the fuse with a sectionaliser to have better control and to
maintain coordination [19] and finding the best location for the DG
connection to maintain coordination between PDs [44] have been
proposed in some research papers. However, these methods are
very expensive, and the latter may not be feasible for all networks
and customers.
Using the magnitude of fault current contributed by all power
sources, including the DG unit, to determine the faulted line is
another suggested solution [122]. This method needs a matching
table that can be obtained by running the short circuit program
offline to calculate and store the maximum and minimum fault
currents of each bus for different fault types. When a fault occurs,
the contributed fault currents’ magnitudes are collected and
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 24, pp. 5944-5960
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2020

compared to the matching table. If the current is between the
minimum and maximum magnitudes, that feeder could be a faulted
line. The method requires very large memory capacity to store
short circuit currents, is dependent on the network topology, calls
for the matching table to be updated after each change, and
depends on prefault conditions. Moreover, for the feeders with no
DG connected at their end (also known as passive branches), the
fault current magnitude of that line is required as well to
distinguish the faulted feeder.
Four-way circuit switches with OC relays are another possible
solution for active distribution networks with renewable-based DG
units [123]. In this scheme, two load break switches (LBS) and two
CBs are used to connect renewable-based DG units to the
distribution network. The renewable-based DG unit is connected to
either LBS or CB while the other LBS and CB are connected to the
feeder. The OC relay of this four-way circuit switches should be
coordinated with the other OC relays on the feeder.
6 Fault location
6.1 Impact of DG units
Finding the location of temporary and permanent faults in the
distribution networks is very important to improve power
reliability and quality. It helps the maintenance crew to inspect the
faulted segment for possible damage after a transient fault or to
repair the faulted section and restore the service in the shortest time
possible after a permanent fault. Traditional fault location methods
known as a distance-based method, are mostly based on the
impedance calculation using the measured currents and voltages at
the main substation. These methods are subjected to substantial
errors in the distribution networks with DG units. Studies indicate
that the position of loads, the location of the fault, the fault
resistance, the point at which DG unit is connected to the
distribution network and the type and capacity of the DG unit have
the significant impacts on the error of fault location identification
[124–127].
For the fault located upstream of DG unit, the calculated fault
location is fairly close to the real fault location. The fault location
is estimated farther than it actually is when the fault occurs at the
downstream of the DG unit due to the decrease of contribution of
the main substation to the fault current [124, 126].
Comparing synchronous-based and induction-based DG units,
the internal voltage of induction machines collapses few cycles
after the inception of the fault while the internal voltage of the
synchronous machines maintains almost unchanged during the
fault. Consequently, the contribution of induction machines to the
fault current decays after few cycles while synchronous generators
keep contributing to the fault current for fault duration. Therefore,
synchronous machines significantly degrade the accuracy of the
fault location [124]. Generally, if the DG unit capacity is
significant or the network behind the DG unit is weak (i.e. the short
circuit capacity of the network is smaller than the DG unit), the
impedance-based fault location algorithms undergo considerable
error for the faults located downstream of the DG unit [126].
Studies have confirmed that distance-based methods are
exposed to errors in the presence of high penetration of DG units
[125, 127]. The fault location is overestimated in the presence of
DG units.
Another problem of the distance-based methods is the effect of
the load. Loads in distribution systems are distributed along the
feeders resulting in significant errors when the distributed loads
between the main substation and the DG unit are large [125–127].
The impact of the load can be relieved to a large extent by utilising
load compensation methods [125, 127].
6.2 Solutions
Using a travelling wave to estimate the fault is proposed in [98].
The method extracts the wavelet coefficients first and then
calculates the time difference between transients. The wavelet-
based method finds the accurate fault distance, but it needs to find
the faulted section first and then uses the appropriate current to
estimate the fault location. To do so, the extracted wavelet
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 24, pp. 5944-5960
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2020
17518695, 2020, 24, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-gtd.2019.1652 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [17/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
coefficients of other currents from neighbour relays are used to
detect the faulted section.
Several improved impedance-based methods have been
suggested, in which voltages and currents of several nodes are used
to increase the accuracy [128–133]. These methods assume that
impedance of distribution feeders is available. The results indicate
that the proposed methods are more accurate than traditional
methods for active distribution networks. Distribution feeders are
exposed to damages and therefore must be replaced or repaired in
case of any damage. Any changes in the feeder or its conductors
result in the feeder impedance change, which can impact the
outcome of these methods. The impedance matrix in these methods
must be updated after each maintenance in order to accurately
estimate the fault location.
These approaches are very complicated since they are iterative
methods and require all the network data to calculate the fault
location. In some cases, the prefault [130] and/or the postfault
[128] currents and voltages are required, which increase the
complexity and calculation time and may result in degrading the
accuracy in case of lacking the valid updated data.
To avoid using voltages and currents of several nodes, a method
described in [134] suggests the application of feeder positive
sequence impedance and the prefault load current as well as the
fault current of one node, where the fault locator is installed. These
data are used to estimate preliminary fault location and then the
distance to the fault and load current are modified iteratively to
find the final fault location [134]. This model simplifies the
distribution network as the inherent unbalance in distribution
systems and mutual coupling between phases are eliminated. A
revised approach to consider both network unbalanced nature and
mutual coupling is presented in [135]. Both techniques rely on the
impedance database. If the impedance database is not up-to-date,
significant error in estimating the fault location will occur.
Methods to estimate fault location in active distribution
networks with the application of ANN are presented in [136–138].
An offline simulation for different types and locations of the faults
should be run to create a database for ANN training. Since their
training is restricted, estimates of the real conditions would not be
accurate enough especially when the network configuration
changes. As it is not possible to train an ANN before changes
happen, it is more likely to have a considerable fault distance error
for any possible untrained topology. Additionally, data distortion
can negatively impact ANN functionality, which has not been
discussed.
7 Summary
Tables 2 and 3 summarise the methods to improve protection
systems and enhance the estimation of fault location in active
distribution networks, respectively.
8 Conclusion
DG integration has become more prevalent since it adds flexibility
to the network. Such integration, however, brings about challenges
and complexity to the protection and control system of the
network. Network operation and planning benefit from DG
connection, while protection and control systems suffer from this
integration. This paper has reviewed possible issues when DG units
are introduced to distribution networks and has critically portrayed
all the efforts that the researchers have undertaken to address these
issues.
This critical review indicates that many suggested workarounds
cannot be generalised for all distribution networks. Without
modernising distribution systems and introducing more smart
detection means, an effective approach to determine and isolate
faults would be out of the reach.
5955
 17518695, 2020, 24, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-gtd.2019.1652 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [17/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Table 2 Suggested methods to improve protection systems in active distribution networks
Method Advantage Disadvantage
disconnecting all DGs during fault – easy to apply – not reasonable for temporary faults
– no need to install new – cannot be applied to DGs installed by private sector
devices or change current
protective system

disconnecting DGs from faulted area – needs to monitor and control all CBs remotely
and connecting to other unfaulted – needs a communication channel
parts – difficult, if not impossible, to be implemented

recalculation/resizing of protective easy to apply – finding optimal settings for fuses, reclosers and relays is not feasible
devices since DG units are not always in service or their outputs (in case of PV
units or wind turbines) fluctuate
– using higher time settings in this method, results in increase of the
fault-clearing time, when DG units are not in service

directional protection maintains coordination – needs PT to be installed

– needs directional OC relays on both ends of feeders
– coordination is more complicated due to increase in number of OC
devices
– only applicable to reclosers and OC relays and not fuses

fault current limiter maintains coordination – reduces the contribution of other part of network to the fault current.
OC protective devices in those parts are affected
– prolongs the operating time of OC protective devices when no DG is in
service
– other non-fault transients such as the starting current of wind turbine
generators can trigger SFCL incorrectly
– when SFCL current setting is greater or equal to the recloser current
setting, the recloser will fail to operate
– network configuration changes, may result in miscoordination with FCL
in service

limiting DG size maintains coordination – restricts customers

– other factors such as power quality and reliability of the system are not
considered to calculate DG size

disconnection of inverter-based DG maintain coordination – eliminating the advantages of DG units during islanding
units – not reasonable for temporary faults
– cannot be applied to inverter-based DGs installed by private sector

reducing the inverter current during maintain coordination in high – non-fault disturbances, such as load increase may cause the voltage
the fault fault current drop at PCC
– current reduction is not necessary in case of very low fault current
(e.g. high impedance fault)

application of FW-DFIM energy – improves the power quality of – only appropriate for OC relays
storage renewable DG units in normal
conditions
– emulates the synchronous – worsens coordination between fuse–recloser
generator response during – it is costly
faults

pre-calculated (offline) – maintains coordination – needs accurate network data

– high flexibility – needs very complex calculation to consider all conditions
– very likely to fail if unforeseen circumstances occur
– inapplicable to fuses

real-time (online) – maintains coordination – needs accurate network data

– high flexibility – after any change in network, new load flow and short circuit currents
should be recalculated
– needs a fast communication system
– inapplicable to fuses

5956 IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 24, pp. 5944-5960
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2020
 17518695, 2020, 24, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-gtd.2019.1652 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [17/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
 
Method Advantage Disadvantage
multiagent-based method – maintains coordination – needs a fast communication system to share data between
agents and the control center
– high flexibility - data distortion impacts the method performance
– high accuracy

regular distance protection – inherently directional – subjected to over-/under-reach in the presence of DGs
– can be coordinated easier than OC – fault resistance impacts its reach
relays – coordination of distance relays and reclosers is challenging
– it is costly

adaptive distance protection – inherently directional – coordination of distance relays and reclosers is challenging
– can be coordinated easier than OC – it is costly
relays
– less subjected to over-/under-reach
– less impact of resistive fault

partial line differential protection – high accuracy – needs communication channel to transfer data between two
– detects the fault very fast ends
– does not need to be coordinated
with other protective devices

phase differential protection the same advantages as partial line the same disadvantages as partial line differential protection
differential protection method method

amplitude difference – cannot detect the fault properly if more than one fault occurs
simultaneously
– cannot find the faulted section if DG contribution to the fault
current is smaller than grid contribution
– needs the feeder terminal unit (FTU) to be installed with all
switches in network

differential current ratio the same disadvantages as amplitude difference method

voltage dependent overcurrent maintains coordination – needs directional element

protection – needs PT to be installed

network matrix algorithm high accuracy – needs pre-fault calculation

– needs precise network data
– needs bulk memory capacity to store network matrix
– data distortion impacts the method performance

ANN high accuracy for trained cases – training for different fault types and fault locations is required
– the method is more likely to misoperate if the network
configuration changes
– the method operates inaccurately when a high impedance fault
occurs

replacing fuses with sectionalisers – enhances controllability it is costly

– maintains coordination

finding the best location for the DG – easy to apply is not feasible for all networks and customers
connection – no need to install new devices or
change current protective system

using the contribution of all sources to – needs bulk memory capacity to store short circuit currents
the fault – depends on the network topology
– matching table to be updated after each change in network
– depends on pre-fault conditions
– needs fault current of feeders with no DG connected at their
end

four-way circuit switches with OC – maintains coordination – it is costly

relays

IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 24, pp. 5944-5960 5957
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2020

Table 3 Proposed methods to enhance estimation of fault location
Method Advantage
travelling wave high accuracy – needs to find the faulted section first and then uses the appropriate current to
improved impedance- more accurate than traditional
based methods methods
– some proposed methods require pre-fault and/or post-fault currents and
– some methods eliminate inherent unbalance in distribution systems and
ANN high accuracy for trained cases
– the method is more likely to miscalculate the fault distance if the network
9 References
[1] CIRED.: ‘Dispersed generation; preliminary report of CIRED’. Int. Conf. on
Electricity Distribution, Working Group WG04, Brussels, Belgium, June 1999
[2] International Energy Agency (IEA).: ‘Distributed generation in liberalized
electricity market’ (IEA Publications, 2002)
[3] IEEE.: ‘IEEE standard for interconnecting distributed resources with electric
power systems’, IEEE Std 1547–2003, July 28 2003, pp. 1–28
[4] Keller, J., Kroposki, B.D.: ‘Understanding Fault Characteristics of Inverter-
Based Distributed Energy Resources’, National Renewable Energy
Laboratory, January 2010
[5] IEEE Std 141-1993.: ‘IEEE recommended practice for electric power
distribution for industrial plants’, April 1994, pp. 109–184
[6] Gulachenski, E.M., Kern, E.C.Jr., Feero, W.E, et al.: ‘Photovoltaic Generation
Effects on Distribution Feeders (No. EPRI-EL-6754-Vol. 2)’, Electric Power
Research Inst., Palo Alto, CA (United States); New England Power Service
Co., Westborough, MA (United States), Ascension Technology, Lincoln
Center, MA (United States); Electric Research and Management, Inc., State
College, PA (United States); Worcester Polytechnic Inst., MA (United States),
September 1991
[7] Kroposki, B., Vaughn, A.: ‘DG Power Quality, Protection, and Reliability
Case Studies Report’, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, August 2003
Available at http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy03osti/34635.pdf
[8] Katiraei, F., et al.: ‘Investigation of solar PV inverters current contributions
during faults on distribution and transmission systems interruption capacity’.
Proc. 39th Annual Western Protective Relay Conf., Spokane, WA, 2012
[9] IEEE 929: ‘IEEE recommended practice for utility interface of photovoltaic
(PV) systems’, 2000
[10] Behnke, M., Ellis, A.: ‘Contribution of photovoltaic power generation
systems to AC short circuits – a survey of current modeling practices and
challenges’. IEEE 39th Photovoltaic Specialists Conf. (PVSC), Tampa, FL,
2013, pp. 3128–3133
[11] Turcotte, D., Katiraei, F.: ‘Fault contribution of grid-connected inverters’.
IEEE Electrical Power & Energy Conf. (EPEC), Montreal, QC, 2009, pp. 1–5
[12] Ball, G.J., Blackburn, D.C., Gish, W., et al.: ‘Static power converters of 500  Conf. (UPEC), 1–4 September 2015, pp. 1–6
kW or less serving as the relay interface package for non-conventional
generators’, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., 1994, 9, (3), pp. 1325–1331
[13] Firouz, Y., Farhadkhani, S., Lobry, J., et al.: ‘Numerical comparison of the
effects of different types of distributed generation units on overcurrent
protection systems in MV distribution grids’, Renew. Energy, 2014, 69, pp.
271–283
[14] Barker, P.P., De Mello, R.W.: ‘Determining the impact of distributed
generation on power systems: part I. Radial distribution systems’. IEEE
Power Engineering Society Summer Meeting, Seattle, WA, 2000, vol. 3, pp.
1645–1656
[15] Doyle, M.T.: ‘Reviewing the impacts of distributed generation on distribution
system protection’. IEEE Power Engineering Society Summer Meeting,
Chicago, IL, 2002, vol. 1, pp. 103–105
[16] Girgis, A., Brahma, S.: ‘Effect of distributed generation on protective device
coordination in distribution system’. Large Engineering Systems Conf. on
Power Engineering (LESCOPE ‘01), Halifax, NS, 2001, pp. 115–119
[17] Morren, J., Haan, S.W.H.D.: ‘Impact of distributed generation units with
power electronic converters on distribution network protection’. IET 9th Int.
Conf. on Developments in Power System Protection (DPSP 2008), Glasgow,
2008, pp. 664–669
[18] Hadjsaid, N., Canard, J.F., Dumas, F.: ‘Dispersed generation impact on
distribution networks’, IEEE Comput. Appl. Power, 1999, 12, (2), pp. 22–28
[19] IEEE Power System Relay Committee.: ‘Impact of distributed resources on
distribution relay protection’. IEEE, August 2004
[20] Driesen, J., Belmans, R.: ‘Distributed generation: challenges and possible
solutions’. IEEE Power Engineering Society General Meeting, Montreal,
Canada, 2006, pp. 1–8
[21] Vijitha, K., Selvan, M.P., Raja, P.: ‘Short circuit analysis and adaptive zonal
protection of distribution system with distributed generators’. Int. Conf. on
Energy, Power and Environment: Towards Sustainable Growth (ICEPE),
Shillong, 2015, pp. 1–6
5958
17518695, 2020, 24, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-gtd.2019.1652 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [17/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Disadvantage
estimate the fault location
– needs accurate impedance of distribution feeders
– very complicated since they are iterative methods
voltages
mutual coupling between phases
– training for different fault types and fault locations is required
configuration changes
[22] Baran, M.E., Hooshyar, H., Shen, Z., et al.: ‘Accommodating high PV
penetration on distribution feeders’, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid, 2012, 3, (2), pp.
1039–1046
[23] Maki, K., Repo, S., Jarventausta, P.: ‘Effect of wind power based distributed
generation on protection of distribution network’. Eighth IEE Int. Conf. on
Developments in Power System Protection, 2004, vol. 1, pp. 327–330
[24] George, S.P., Ashok, S.: ‘Multiagent based adaptive relaying for distribution
network with distributed generation’. Int. Conf. on Energy, Power and
Environment: Towards Sustainable Growth (ICEPE), Shillong, 2015, pp. 1–6
[25] Driesen, J., Vermeyen, P., Belmans, R.: ‘Protection issues in microgrids with
multiple distributed generation units’. Power Conversion Conf. (PCC ‘07),
Nagoya, 2007, pp. 646–653
[26] de Britto, T.M., Morais, D.R., Marin, M.A., et al.: ‘Distributed generation
impacts on the coordination of protection systems in distribution networks’.
IEEE/PES Transmission and Distribution Conf. and Exposition: Latin
America, 2004, pp. 623–628
[27] Jennett, K.I., Booth, C.D., Coffele, F., et al.: ‘Investigation of the sympathetic
tripping problem in power systems with large penetrations of distributed
generation’, IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2015, 9, (4), pp. 379–385
[28] Walling, R.A., Saint, R., Dugan, R.C., et al.: ‘Summary of distributed
resources impact on power delivery systems’, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv.,
2008, 23, (3), pp. 1636–1644
[29] Hussain, B., Sharkh, S.M., Hussain, S.: ‘Impact studies of distributed
generation on power quality and protection setup of an existing distribution
network’. Int. Symp. on Power Electronics, Electrical Drives, Automation and
Motion (SPEEDAM 2010), Pisa, France, 2010, pp. 1243–1246
[30] Kauhaniemi, K., Kumpulainen, L.: ‘Impact of distributed generation on the
protection of distribution networks’. Eighth IEE Int. Conf. on Developments
in Power System Protection, 5–8 April 2004, Vol. 1, pp. 315–318
[31] Dai, F.T.: ‘Impacts of distributed generation on protection and autoreclosing
of distribution networks’. 10th IET Int. Conf. on Developments in Power
System Protection (DPSP 2010), Manchester, UK, 2010, pp. 1–5
[32] Ogden, R., Yang, J.: ‘Impacts of distributed generation on low-voltage
distribution network protection’. 50th Int. Universities Power Engineering
[33] Cheung, H., Hamlyn, A., Wang, L., et al.: ‘Investigations of impacts of
distributed generations on feeder protections’. IEEE Power & Energy Society
General Meeting, Calgary, Canada, 2009, pp. 1–7
[34] Nimpitiwan, N., Heydt, G.T., Ayyanar, R., et al.: ‘Fault current contribution
from synchronous machine and inverter based distributed generators’, IEEE
Trans. Power Deliv., 2007, 22, (1), pp. 634–641
[35] Dugan, R.C., McDermott, T.E.: ‘Operating conflicts for distributed generation
on distribution systems’. Rural Electric Power Conf., Little Rock, AR, 2001,
pp. A3/1–A3/6
[36] Katiraei, F., Iravani, M.R., Lehn, P.W.: ‘Micro-grid autonomous operation
during and subsequent to islanding process’, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., 2005,
20, (1), pp. 248–257
[37] Silva, J.A., Funmilayo, H.B., Bulter-Purry, K.L.: ‘Impact of distributed
generation on the IEEE 34 node radial test feeder with overcurrent
protection’. 39th North American Power Symp. (NAPS ‘07), Las Cruces,
NM, 2007, pp. 49–57
[38] Zamani, A., Sidhu, T., Yazdani, A.: ‘A strategy for protection coordination in
radial distribution networks with distributed generators’. IEEE PES General
Meeting, Minneapolis, MN, 2010, pp. 1–8
[39] Habibabadi, R.A.: ‘New method on the relays protective coordination due to
presence of distributed generation’. IEEE Power Engineering and Automation
Conf. (PEAM), Wuhan, China, 2012, pp. 1–4
[40] Chaitusaney, S., Yokoyama, A.: ‘Impact of protection coordination on sizes of
several distributed generation sources’. Int. Power Engineering Conf.,
Singapore, 2005, Vol. 2, pp. 669–674
[41] Dugan, R.C., Rizy, D.T.: ‘Electric distribution protection problems associated
with the interconnection of small, dispersed generation devices’, IEEE Trans.
Power Appar. Syst., 1984, PAS-103, (6), pp. 1121–1127
[42] Koumba, P.M., Chériti, A., Doumbia, M.L.: ‘Impacts of distributed generation
on the coordination of protective devices in distribution network’. IEEE 28th
Canadian Conf. on Electrical and Computer Engineering (CCECE), Halifax,
NS, 2015, pp. 460–465
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 24, pp. 5944-5960
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2020

[43] Brahma, S.M., Girgis, A.A.: ‘Microprocessor-based reclosing to coordinate
fuse and recloser in a system with high penetration of distributed generation’.
IEEE Power Engineering Society Winter Meeting, New York, NY, vol. 1,
2002, pp. 453–458
[44] Naiem, A.F., Hegazy, Y., Abdelaziz, A.Y., et al.: ‘A classification technique
for recloser-fuse coordination in distribution systems with distributed
generation’, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., 2012, 27, (1), pp. 176–185
[45] Chaitusaney, S., Yokoyama, A.: ‘Prevention of reliability degradation from
recloser–fuse miscoordination due to distributed generation’, IEEE Trans.
Power Deliv., 2008, 23, (4), pp. 2545–2554
[46] Tailor, J.K., Osman, A.H.: ‘Restoration of fuse-recloser coordination in
distribution system with high DG penetration’. IEEE Power and Energy
Society General Meeting – Conversion and Delivery of Electrical Energy in
the 21st Century, Pittsburgh, PA, 2008, pp. 1–8
[47] Pan, Y., Ren, W., Ray, S., et al.: ‘Impact of inverter interfaced distributed
generation on overcurrent protection in distribution systems’. IEEE Power
Engineering and Automation Conf., Wuhan, China, 2011, pp. 371–376
[48] Hussain, B., Sharkh, S.M., Hussain, S., et al.: ‘An adaptive relaying scheme
for fuse saving in distribution networks with distributed generation’, IEEE
Trans. Power Deliv., 2013, 28, (2), pp. 669–677
[49] Lu, Y., Hua, L., Wu, J., et al.: ‘A study on effect of dispersed generator
capacity on power system protection’. IEEE Power Engineering Society
General Meeting, Tampa, FL, 2007, pp. 1–6
[50] Jennett, K., Coffele, F., Booth, C.: ‘Comprehensive and quantitative analysis
of protection problems associated with increasing penetration of inverter-
interfaced DG’. 11th Int. Conf. on Developments in Power Systems
Protection (DPSP), Birmingham, UK, 2012, pp. 1–6
[51] Mashayekhi, M., Meskin, M., Farahbakhsh, A.: ‘Impact of size and location
of distributed generation on overcurrent relays in active distribution
networks’. North American Power Symp. (NAPS), Morgantown, WV, 2017,
pp. 1–6
[52] Conti, S.: ‘Analysis of distribution network protection issues in presence of
dispersed generation’, Electr. Power Syst. Res., 2009, 79, (1), pp. 49–56
[53] Mashau, T., Kibaara, S., Chowdhury, S., et al.: ‘Impact of distributed
generation on protection coordination in a radial distribution feeder’. 46th Int.
Universities’ Power Engineering Conf. (UPEC), Soest, Germany, 2011, pp. 1–
5 on the coordination of protection system of distribution network’. IEEE/PES
[54] Ravindra, H., Faruque, M.O., McLaren, P., et al.: ‘Impact of PV on
distribution protection system’. 2012 North American Power Symp. (NAPS),
Champaign, IL, 2012, pp. 1–6
[55] Meskin, M., Iyer, P., Domijan, A.: ‘Impact of PV sources on the overcurrent
relays in medium voltage distribution networks’. Ninth Annual IEEE Green
Technologies Conf. (GreenTech), Denver, Co., 29–31 March 2017, pp. 271–
275
[56] Viawan, F.A., Karlsson, D., Sannino, A., et al.: ‘Protection scheme for
meshed distribution systems with high penetration of distributed generation’.
Power Systems Advanced Metering, Protection, Control, Communication,
and Distributed Resources, Clemson, SC, 2006, pp. 99–104
[57] Sherbilla, N.F., Kawady, T.A., Elkalashy, N.I., et al.: ‘Modified setting of
overcurrent protection for distribution feeders with distributed generation’.
IET Conf. on Renewable Power Generation (RPG 2011), Edinburgh,
Scotland, 2011, pp. 1–6
[58] Pan, Y., Voloh, I., Ren, W.: ‘Protection issues and solutions for protecting
feeder with distributed generation’. 66th Annual Conf. for Protective Relay
Engineers, College Station, TX, 2013, pp. 92–111
[59] Kamel, A., Alaam, M.A., Azmy, A.M., et al.: ‘Protection coordination for
distribution systems in presence of distributed generators’, Electr. Power
Compon. Syst., 2013, 41, (15), pp. 1555–1566
[60] Tekpeti, B.S., Kang, X., Huang, X.: ‘Fault analysis of solar photovoltaic
penetrated distribution systems including overcurrent relays in presence of
fluctuations’, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst., 2018, 100, pp. 517–530
[61] Fani, B., Bisheh, H., Karami-Horestani, A.: ‘An offline penetration-free
protection scheme for PV-dominated distribution systems’, Electr. Power Syst.
Res., 2018, 157, pp. 1–9
[62] Meskin, M., Iyer, P., Domijan, A., et al.: ‘Enhancement of overcurrent
protection in active medium voltage distribution networks’. IEEE 6th Int.
Conf. on Renewable Energy Research and Applications (ICRERA), San
Diego, CA, 2017, pp. 937–942
[63] Hemmati, S., Sadeh, J.: ‘Applying superconductive fault current limiter to
minimize the impacts of distributed generation on the distribution protection
systems’. 11th Int. Conf. on Environment and Electrical Engineering
(EEEIC), Venice, Italy, 2012, pp. 808–813
[64] Lee, H.J., Son, G., Park, J.W.: ‘A study on wind-turbine generator system
sizing considering overcurrent relay coordination with SFCL’, IEEE Trans.
Appl. Supercond., 2011, 21, (3), pp. 2140–2143
[65] Kincaid, J., Abdulhadi, I., Emhemed, A.S., et al.: ‘Evaluating the impact of
superconducting fault current limiters on distribution network protection
schemes’. Proc. 46th Int. Universities’ Power Engineering Conf. (UPEC),
Soest, Germany, 2011, pp. 1–5
[66] El-Khattam, W., Sidhu, T.S.: ‘Restoration of directional overcurrent relay
coordination in distributed generation systems utilizing fault current limiter’,
IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., 2008, 23, (2), pp. 576–585
[67] Tang, G., Iravani, M.R.: ‘Application of a fault current limiter to minimize
distributed generation impact on coordinated relay protection’. Int. Conf. on
Power Systems Transients (IPST'05), Montreal, Canada, June 19–23 2005,
pp. 1–6
[68] El-Khattam, W., Sidhu, T.S.: ‘Resolving the impact of distributed renewable
generation on directional overcurrent relay coordination: a case study’, IET
Renew. Power Gener., 2009, 3, (4), pp. 415–425
[69] Zhang, Y., Dougal, R.A.: ‘Novel dual-FCL connection for adding distributed
generation to a power distribution utility’, IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond.,
2011, 21, (3), pp. 2179–2183
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 24, pp. 5944-5960
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2020
17518695, 2020, 24, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-gtd.2019.1652 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [17/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
[70] Zeineldin, H.H., El-Saadany, E.F.: ‘Fault current limiters to mitigate recloser-
fuse miscoordination with distributed generation’. 10th IET Int. Conf. on
Developments in Power System Protection (DPSP 2010), Manchester, UK,
2010, pp. 1–4
[71] Hongesombut, K., Mitani, Y., Tsuji, K.: ‘Optimal location assignment and
design of superconducting fault current limiters applied to loop power
systems’, IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., 2003, 13, (2), pp. 1828–1831
[72] Teng, J.H., Lu, C.N.: ‘Optimum fault current limiter placement with search
space reduction technique’, IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2010, 4, (4), pp.
485–494
[73] Jo, H., Joo, S., Lee, K.: ‘Optimal placement of superconducting fault current
limiters (SFCLs) for protection of an electric power system with distributed
generations (DGs)’, IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., 2013, 23, (3), pp.
5600304–5600304
[74] Zhao, Y., Krause, O., Saha, T.K.: ‘A new approach for optimal allocation of
multiple SFCLs in a power system with distributed generation’. IEEE PES
Asia-Pacific Power and Energy Engineering Conf. (APPEEC), Brisbane
Australia, 2015, pp. 1–5
[75] Elmitwally, A, Gouda, E, Eladawy, S.: ‘Optimal allocation of fault current
limiters for sustaining overcurrent relays coordination in a power system with
distributed generation’, Alexandria Eng. J., 2015, 54, (4), pp. 1077–1089
[76] Elmitwally, A., Gouda, E., Eladawy, S.: ‘Restoring recloser-fuse coordination
by optimal fault current limiters planning in DG-integrated distribution
systems’, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst., 2016, 77, pp. 9–18
[77] Ibrahim, D.K., Zahab, E.E.D.A.E., Mostafa, S.A.E.A.: ‘New coordination
approach to minimize the number of re-adjusted relays when adding DGs in
interconnected power systems with a minimum value of fault current limiter’,
Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst., 2017, 85, pp. 32–41
[78] Rhee, S.B., Lee, J.K., Lee, B.W.: ‘Impacts of superconducting fault current
limiters on the recloser operation in distribution electric power systems’,
IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercond., 2011, 21, (3), pp. 2197–2200
[79] Chaitusaney, S., Yokoyama, A.: ‘An appropriate distributed generation sizing
considering recloser-fuse coordination’. IEEE/PES Transmission &
Distribution Conf. & Exposition: Asia and Pacific, Dalian, China, 2005, pp.
1–6
[80] Sadeh, J., Bashir, M., Kamyab, E.: ‘Effect of distributed generation capacity
Transmission and Distribution Conf. and Exposition: Latin America (T&D-
LA), Sao Paulo, Brazil, 2010, pp. 110–115
[81] Abdel-Ghany, H.A., Azmy, A.M., Elkalashy, N.I., et al.: ‘Optimizing DG
penetration in distribution networks concerning protection schemes and
technical impact’, Electr. Power Syst. Res., 2015, 128, pp. 113–122
[82] Yazdanpanahi, H., Li, Y.W., Xu, W.: ‘A new control strategy to mitigate the
impact of inverter-based DGs on protection system’, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid,
2012, 3, (3), pp. 1427–1436
[83] Su, C., Liu, Z., Chen, Z., et al.: ‘An adaptive control strategy of converter
based DG to maintain protection coordination in distribution system’. IEEE
PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies, Istanbul, Turkey, 2014, pp. 1–6
[84] Abdel-Khalik, A.S., Elserougi, A.A., Massoud, A.M., et al.: ‘Fault current
contribution of medium voltage inverter and doubly-fed induction-machine-
based flywheel energy storage system’, IEEE Trans. Sust. Energy, 2013, 4,
(1), pp. 58–67
[85] Fani, B., Hajimohammadi, F., Moazzami, M., et al.: ‘An adaptive current
limiting strategy to prevent fuse-recloser miscoordination in PV-dominated
distribution feeders’, Electr. Power Syst. Res., 2018, 157, pp. 177–186
[86] Salem, M.M., Elkalashy, N.I., Atia, Y., et al.: ‘Modified inverter control of
distributed generation for enhanced relaying coordination in distribution
networks’, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., 2017, 32, (1), pp. 78–87
[87] Ebrahimi, E., Sanjari, M.J., Gharehpetian, G.B.: ‘Control of three-phase
inverter-based DG system during fault condition without changing protection
coordination’, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst., 2014, 63, pp. 814–823
[88] Shah, P.H., Bhalja, B.R.: ‘New adaptive digital relaying scheme to tackle
recloser-fuse miscoordination during distributed generation interconnections’,
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2014, 8, (4), pp. 682–688
[89] Mahat, P., Chen, Z., Bak-Jensen, B., et al.: ‘A simple adaptive overcurrent
protection of distribution systems with distributed generation’, IEEE Trans.
Smart Grid, 2011, 2, (3), pp. 428–437
[90] Maki, K., Repo, S., Jarventausta, P.: ‘Methods for assessing the protection
impacts of distributed generation in network planning activities’. 9th Int.
Conf. on Developments in Power System Protection (DPSP 2008), Glasgow,
Scotland, 2008, pp. 484–489
[91] Brahma, S.M., Girgis, A.A.: ‘Development of adaptive protection scheme for
distribution systems with high penetration of distributed generation’, IEEE
Trans. Power Deliv., 2004, 19, (1), pp. 56–63
[92] Baran, M., El-Markabi, I.: ‘Adaptive over current protection for distribution
feeders with distributed generators’. IEEE PES Power Systems Conf. and
Exposition, New York, NY, 2004, Vol 2, pp. 715–719
[93] Gaber, S., Hassan, K., Megahed, A.: ‘A novel adaptive wide area protection
scheme for smart grids with distributed generation’. Nineteenth Int. Middle
East Power Systems Conf. (MEPCON), Cairo, 2017, pp. 802–810
[94] Shih, M.Y., Conde, A., Leonowicz, Z., et al.: ‘An adaptive overcurrent
coordination scheme to improve relay sensitivity and overcome drawbacks
due to distributed generation in smart grids’, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., 2017,
53, (6), pp. 5217–5228
[95] Schaefer, N., Degner, T., Shustov, A., et al.: ‘Adaptive protection system for
distribution networks with distributed energy resources’. 10th IET Int. Conf.
on Developments in Power System Protection (DPSP 2010), Manchester, UK,
2010, pp. 1–5
[96] Maiola, P.C., Rolim, J.G.: ‘A multi-agent system for protection coordination
of radial systems in the presence of distributed generation’. 11th IET Int.
Conf. on Developments in Power Systems Protection (DPSP 2012),
Birmingham, UK, 2012, pp. 1–6
5959

[97] Wan, H., Li, K.K., Wong, K.P.: ‘An adaptive multiagent approach to
protection relay coordination with distributed generators in industrial power
distribution system’, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl., 2010, 46, (5), pp. 2118–2124
[98] Perera, N., Rajapakse, A.D., Gole, A.M.: ‘Wavelet-based relay agent for
isolating faulty sections in distribution grids with distributed generators’. The
8th IEE Int. Conf. on AC and DC Power Transmission, London, UK, 2006,
pp. 162–166
[99] Ghorbani, J., Choudhry, M.A., Feliachi, A.: ‘Fault location and isolation using
multi agent systems in power distribution systems with distributed generation
sources’. 2013 IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conf. (ISGT),
Washington, DC, 2013, pp. 1–6
[100] Hoang, T.T., Tuan Tran, Q., Besanger, Y.: ‘A multiagent and IEC 61850-based
fault location and isolation system for distribution network with high PV
integration – a CHIL implementation’. 2019 IEEE Int. Conf. on Environment
and Electrical Engineering and 2019 IEEE Industrial and Commercial Power
Systems Europe (EEEIC/I&CPS Europe), Genova, Italy, 2019, pp. 1–6
[101] Sinclair, A., Finney, D., Martin, D., et al.: ‘Distance protection in distribution
systems: how it assists with integrating distributed resources’, IEEE Trans.
Ind. Appl., 2014, 50, (3), pp. 2186–2196
[102] Chilvers, I., Jenkins, N., Crossley, P.: ‘Distance relaying of 11 kV circuits to
increase the installed capacity of distributed generation’, IEE Proc. – Gener.,
Transm. Distrib., 2005, 152, (1), pp. 40–46
[103] Ma, J., Li, J., Wang, Z.: ‘An adaptive distance protection scheme for
distribution system with distributed generation’. 5th Int. Conf. on Critical
Infrastructure (CRIS), Beijing, China, 2010, pp. 1–4
[104] Gao, H., Li, J., Xu, B., ‘Principle and implementation of current differential
protection in distribution networks with high penetration of DGs’, IEEE
Trans. Power Deliv., 2017, 32, (1), pp. 565–574
[105] Zhang, F., Mu, L.: ‘Wide-area protection scheme for active distribution
networks based on phase comparison’. 5th Int. Conf. on Electric Utility
Deregulation and Restructuring and Power Technologies (DRPT), Changsha,
China, 2015, pp. 927–932
[106] Alvin, T.G.M., Abidin, I.Z., Hashim, H., et al.: ‘Phase comparison protection
for distribution networks with high PV penetration’. IEEE Innovative Smart
Grid Technologies – Asia (ISGT ASIA), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2014, pp.
216–221
[107] Guo-fang, Z., Yu-ping, L.: ‘A fault location algorithm for urban distribution
network with DG’. Third Int. Conf. on Electric Utility Deregulation and
Restructuring and Power Technologies, Nanjing, China, 2008, pp. 2615–2619
[108] Guo-fang, Z., Yu-ping, L.: ‘Development of fault location algorithm for
distribution networks with DG’. 2008 IEEE Int. Conf. on Sustainable Energy
Technologies, Singapore, 2008, pp. 164–168
[109] Saleh, K.A., Zeineldin, H.H., Al-Hinai, A., et al.: ‘Optimal coordination of
directional overcurrent relays using a new time–current–voltage
characteristic’, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., 2015, 30, (2), pp. 537–544
[110] Agrawal, A., Singh, M., Tejeswini, M.V.: ‘Voltage current based time inverse
relay coordination for PV feed distribution systems’. National Power Systems
Conf. (NPSC), Bhubaneswar, India, 2016, pp. 1–6
[111] Jamali, S., Borhani-Bahabadi, H.: ‘Recloser time–current–voltage
characteristic for fuse saving in distribution networks with DG’, IET Gener.
Transm. Distrib., 2017, 11, (1), pp. 272–279
[112] Chao, Y., Zeng, X., Xia, Y.: ‘Improved algorithm for fault location in
distribution network with distributed generations’. 2008 Int. Conf. on
Intelligent Computation Technology and Automation (ICICTA), Hunan,
China, 2008, pp. 893–896
[113] Wu, N.: ‘A new fault location algorithm for distribution network with DG’.
CICED 2010 Proc., Nanjing, China, 2010, pp. 1–7
[114] Calderaro, V., Piccolo, A., Galdi, V., et al.: ‘Identifying fault location in
distribution systems with high distributed generation penetration’. AFRICON
2009, Nairobi, 2009, pp. 1–6
[115] Mesbah Maruf, H.M., Müller, F., Hassan, M.S., et al.: ‘Locating faults in
distribution systems in the presence of distributed generation using machine
learning techniques’. 9th IEEE Int. Symp. on Power Electronics for
Distributed Generation Systems (PEDG), Charlotte, NC, 2018, pp. 1–6
[116] Yue, Y., Zhao, H., Zhao, Y., et al.: ‘A study of distribution network fault
location including distributed generator based on improved genetic
algorithm’. 3rd Int. Conf. on System Science, Engineering Design and
Manufacturing Informatization, Chengdu, China, 2012, pp. 103–106
[117] Tao, W., Yang, G., Zhang, J.: ‘Fault section locating for distribution network
with DG based on improved ant colony algorithm’. IEEE 8th Int. Power
Electronics and Motion Control Conf. (IPEMC-ECCE Asia), Hefei, China,
2016, pp. 1985–1989
[118] Kong, T., Jia, M., Sun, G.: ‘Application of bacterial foraging algorithm for
fault location in distribution networks with DG’. 2016 China Int. Conf. on
Electricity Distribution (CICED), Xi'an, China, 2016, pp. 1–4
5960
17518695, 2020, 24, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/iet-gtd.2019.1652 by CAPES, Wiley Online Library on [17/11/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
[119] Gong, M., Xu, Z., Xie, Y., et al.: ‘Fault-section location of distribution
network containing distributed generation based on the multiple-population
genetic algorithm of chaotic optimization’. 2017 Chinese Automation
Congress (CAC), Jinan, China, 2017, pp. 4984–4988
[120] Wu, F., Zhao, J., Zhu, B., et al.: ‘A MOPSO based faulty section location
method for distribution networks with PVs’. 2017 IEEE PES Asia-Pacific
Power and Energy Engineering Conf. (APPEEC), Bangalore, India, 2017, pp.
1–5
[121] Contreras, A.F., Ramos, G.A.: ‘Fault location algorithm based on shortest
path optimization problem for distribution networks with DG’. 2014 IEEE
PES T&D Conf. and Exposition, Chicago, IL, 2014, pp. 1–5
[122] Ma, J., Lu, Y., Du, J., et al.: ‘A new fault location scheme based on distributed
short-circuit current in distribution system with DGs’. 2008 IEEE Int. Conf.
on Sustainable Energy Technologies, Singapore, 2008, pp. 1189–1194
[123] Chen, L.H.: ‘Overcurrent protection for distribution feeders with renewable
generation’, Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst., 2017, 84, pp. 202–213
[124] EL-Fouly, T.H.M., Abbey, C.: ‘On the compatibility of fault location
approaches and distributed generation’. 2009 CIGRE/IEEE PES Joint Symp.
Integration of Wide-Scale Renewable Resources into the Power Delivery
System, Calgary, Canada, 2009, pp. 1–5
[125] Marvik, J.I., Petterteig, A., Hoidalen, H.K.: ‘Analysis of fault detection and
location in medium voltage radial networks with distributed generation’. 2007
IEEE Lausanne Power Tech, Lausanne, Switzerland, 2007, pp. 1191–1196
[126] Das, S., Santoso, S., Maitra, A.: ‘Effects of distributed generators on
impedance-based fault location algorithms’. 2014 IEEE PES General Meeting
Conf. & Exposition, National Harbor, MD, 2014, pp. 1–5
[127] José, B.D.S., Cavalcante, P.A.H., Trindade, F.C.L., et al.: ‘Analysis of
distance based fault location methods for smart grids with distributed
generation’. IEEE PES ISGT Europe 2013, Lyngby, Denmark, 2013, pp. 1–5
[128] Brahma, S.M.: ‘Fault location in power distribution system with penetration
of distributed generation’, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., 2011, 26, (3), pp. 1545–
1553
[129] Orozco-Henao, C., Mora-Flórez, J., Pérez-Londoño, S.: ‘A robust method for
single phase fault location considering distributed generation and current
compensation’. Sixth IEEE/PES Transmission and Distribution: Latin
America Conf. and Exposition (T&D-LA), Montevideo, Uruguay, 2012, pp.
1–7
[130] Alwash, S.F., Ramachandaramurthy, V.K., Mithulananthan, N.: ‘Fault-
location scheme for power distribution system with distributed generation’,
IEEE Trans. Power Deliv., 2015, 30, (3), pp. 1187–1195
[131] Menchafou, Y., Markhi, H.E., Zahri, M., et al.: ‘Impact of distributed
generation integration in electric power distribution systems on fault location
methods’. 3rd Int. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Conf. (IRSEC),
Marrakech, Morocco, 2015, pp. 1–5
[132] de Nunes, J.U.N., Bretas, A.S.: ‘Extended impedance-based fault location
formulation for active distribution systems’. 2016 IEEE Power and Energy
Society General Meeting (PESGM), Boston, MA, 2016, pp. 1–5
[133] Naidu, O., Gore, R., George, N., et al.: ‘A new approach for fault location on
modern distribution systems with integrated DER’. Biennial Int. Conf. on
Power and Energy Systems: Towards Sustainable Energy (PESTSE),
Bangalore, India, 2016, pp. 1–6
[134] Bretas, A.S., Salim, R.H.: ‘Fault location in unbalanced DG systems using the
positive sequence apparent impedance’. 2006 IEEE/PES Transmission &
Distribution Conf. and Exposition: Latin America, Caracas, Venezuela, 2006,
pp. 1–6
[135] Hagh, M.T., Hosseini, M.M., Asgarifar, S.: ‘A novel phase to phase fault
location algorithm for distribution network with distributed generation’.
CIRED 2012 Workshop: Integration of Renewables into the Distribution Grid,
Lisbon, Portugal, 2012, pp. 1–4
[136] Javadian, S.A.M., Haghifam, M.R., Rezaei, N.: ‘A fault location and
protection scheme for distribution systems in presence of DG using MLP
neural networks’. 2009 IEEE Power & Energy Society General Meeting,
Calgary, Canada, 2009, pp. 1–8
[137] Zayandehroodi, H., Mohamed, A., Shareef, H., et al.: ‘Performance
comparison of MLP and RBF neural networks for fault location in
distribution networks with DGs’. IEEE Int. Conf. on Power and Energy,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2010, pp. 341–345
[138] Agrawal, R., Thukaram, D.: ‘Identification of fault location in power
distribution system with distributed generation using support vector
machines’. IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Conf. (ISGT),
Washington, DC, 2013, pp. 1–6
IET Gener. Transm. Distrib., 2020, Vol. 14 Iss. 24, pp. 5944-5960
© The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2020