Electric Power Systems Research 157 (2018) 1–9

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Electric Power Systems Research

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

An offline penetration-free protection scheme for PV-dominated

distribution systems
Bahador Fani a,b,∗ , Hadi Bisheh a,b , Alireza Karami-Horestani c
a
Smart Microgrid Research Center, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran
b
Department of Electrical Engineering, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran
c
Department of Electrical Engineering, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The rapid growth of small-scale photovoltaic (PV) units in distribution grids brings new challenges in the
Received 27 May 2017 protection coordination of overcurrent relays. So far, various adaptive techniques have been addressed to
Received in revised form solve DG units’ mis-coordination problem, however, the un-predictable penetration of installed PV units
26 November 2017
highlights the importance of a penetration-free methodology. This study presents a novel offline, quick,
Accepted 29 November 2017
Available online 6 December 2017
applicable and cheap solution which guarantees protection coordination for any penetration and location
of PV units. To do so, first, under different PV penetration levels and locations, the conventional protection
performance is studied to discover the worst mis-coordination cases. Next, according to relays standards,
Keywords:
Overcurrent relay the characteristic curve of the back-up relay is modified such that it can maintain coordination in all
Coordination-saving worst cases. The proposed methodology is applied to a practical power distribution network equipped
Photovoltaic (PV) systems with numerous small-scale PV systems. The results successfully prove the effectiveness of the proposed
Penetration-free method. Since this technique only applies some changes in characteristic curves of the back-up relays,
Offline protection plan lack of programmable relay or adaptive protection requirements cannot decrease its performance. This
fact makes this method an attractive option for distribution systems with PV units.
© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction favorable environmental policies, low greenhouse gas emissions

Distributed Generation (DG) units have been gradually growing
in low/medium voltage networks over the past decades. In case
of proper placement, these resources are able to reduce power
losses, enhance voltage profile, improve reliability and release the
transmission and distribution loading [1,2]. However, DG units
may lead to some serious challenges in distribution networks
like reverse power flow, voltage violation, uncontrolled islanding,
short-circuit current increase and fault contribution [3]. Among the
challenges, the fault contribution may result in some conflicts with
the operation of the existing protection system. Accordingly, the
protection issue has always been one the most important topics
among researchers with respect to increase in DG penetration level
[3–5].
Today’s technology is daily reducing the investment costs of DG
units, such that, the commercial and domestic users are currently
able to install small DG units. Among different technologies, the
∗ Corresponding author at: Smart Microgrid Research Center, Najafabad Branch,
Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran.
E-mail address: b.fani@pel.iaun.ac.ir (B. Fani).
and cheap operation costs have driven the spread of Photo-Voltaic
(PV) systems much faster than others [6,7]. The PV systems range
from small rooftop-mounted or building-integrated systems to
large ground-mounted solar parks or farms.
The output current of PV systems is usually limited during
fault condition to protect semi-conductor elements of inverters.
Accordingly, the PV systems have not been usually considered in
short-circuit analysis of power systems. However, with the grow-
ing small PV systems along distribution feeders which have fault
current contribution up to 2 or 3 times their rated current, it is
not possible to ignore their contributions in fault current [8]. In
general, PV systems are contributing fault currents according to
their penetration levels, locations and protection plans. This fact
will complicate the protection coordination studies in distribution
systems, especially with high penetration level of PV systems [9,10].
As PV systems are changing power flow directions in distribution
grids, the traditional one-way-flow short-circuit analysis cannot
adequately be used for designing protection plans [11,12]. Hence,
the researchers have gradually presented various solutions for this
problem over the time, which can be classified as below:
1 Optimal DG locating with respect to protection issues [13–15]

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2017.11.020
0378-7796/© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
2 B. Fani et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 157 (2018) 1–9
This method uses an optimization algorithm to find the best
places for installing new DG units such that there is no conflict
in traditional protection plans. These kinds of solutions are cheap
and also free of protection adaption, however, they would limit the
penetration level of DG units sooner than others with protection
adaption. Moreover, the distributed nature of small PV systems is
not compatible with this methodology which considers DG units as
concentrated generations in different nodes of the network.
2 Limiting the penetration level of DG units in parallel to adapting
their control functions [16,17]
Although this method can effectively resolve protection prob-
lems, limiting penetration is not a good idea against the significant
growth of PV installation in distribution networks. Moreover, this
solution will increase the complexity of network design and con-
trol.
3 Deploying communication links in protection structure [18–21]
Detecting the fault, this methodology will urgently send the
appropriate orders to different equipment to adapt control func-
tions against fault condition. This methodology can be used either in
wide-area protection systems [18,19] or multi-agent ones [20,21].
However, in addition to extra expenses, the system reliability may
be affected due to communication maloperations.
4 Disconnecting DG units during fault condition [22]
This technique strategically disconnects some DG units from
distribution network to reduce their contributions in fault current.
Although this method will omit DG units’ fault contributions, there
are some disadvantages to DG units’ disconnection. For instance,
because of the timing limits for disconnecting DGs, it is not pos-
sible to use fast curves of relays or fuses. In addition, the power
quality indices may become worse or the efficiency of DG units
may decrease due to their frequent outages.
5 Conditional relays replacement [23–25]
The new-generation directional, distance or programmable
relays can solve mis-coordination problems of conditional relays.
However, this replacement needs a noticeable investment cost.
6 Using fault current limiter (FCL) [26,27]
The FCL can be used to limit fault contributions through the
system. However, due to steady-state switching losses, significant
design and installation costs and the dependency of FCL location
on DG penetration, this method is not common among designers.
In recent years, many similar approaches [17,18,28–30] have
been proposed to solve mis-coordination problems. However, to
the authors’ knowledge, almost all of them impose noticeable
charges on power system owners. Therefore, in this context, the
contribution of this paper is the development of a new approach to
save protection coordination without any replacement, new invest-
ment or online protection adaption. To this end, according to the
penetration level and location of small-scale PV systems, first, the
most problematic scenarios of DG installation are extracted. Next,
using an analytical procedure, the characteristic curves of relays
are modified such that they can properly react against faults with
any penetration or location of PV systems through feeders. In other
word, this methodology is completely independent of PV systems’
penetration and location and hence, there is no need to online adap-
tion. Finally, the modified curve is fitted to a standard curve to be
easily applied on different protection relays, including traditional
un-programmable ones.
The key contributions of this paper compared to the previous
works are as follows:
• The methodology has a penetration and location free nature.
• The proposed method is offline.
• There is no need to any new investment, including replacement,
installing new devices, designing new online control functions.
• The procedure can be applied on different kinds of old or new-
generation relays.
The succeeding sections of this paper are organized as follows:
Section 2 studies the main concept of increasing DG units’ pen-
etration in a typical distribution feeder. The proposed algorithm
for recovering protection coordination is presented in Section 3. In
Section 4, the three-phase, two-phase, two-phase to ground and
single-phase high-impedance faults are simulated on a practical
distribution feeder for both initial protection plan and the pro-
posed algorithm to verify the effectiveness of the proposed method.
Finally, conclusion and future works are given in Section 5.
2. Protection system performance in presence of PV-based
DG units
The fault current contribution of DG units can considerably
affect the performance of the protection system in distribution
feeders. This contribution which can lose or even improve the pro-
tection coordination is mainly dependent on the three following
specifications of DG units:
• Technology:
DG units’ technology can effect on the fault current contribu-
tion; for instance, the PV-based DG units have a limited output
current due to the control function used in the inverters [5], while
synchronous machine DG units have larger output current.
• Location:
The location of DG units with respect to the main and backup
relays makes three kinds of fault contributions. This fact will be
illustrated using the sample following example.
• Penetration:
The penetration is the main factor which can violate the relay
currents from the coordination intervals and make the coordination
to be entirely lost.
The accuracy of this coordination becomes more important
when the small-scale solar PV systems, such as those found on res-
idential and commercial rooftops, have been gradually distributed
in distribution networks. Because, they do not have a constant pen-
etration in distribution systems due to following reasons:
1 The inverters of PV systems are protected against abnormal
conditions of the network. These protection plans affect the pen-
etration of PV units during normal condition [31].
2 The variation in the intensity of the sun’s radiation during the
day results in a variable output power of PV systems [32,33].
3 Given the non-linear power-voltage curve of PV units have a
maximum power at a single point; these units need a controller,
named Maximum Power Point Tracking (MPPT), to maximize
their generation. Accordingly, the common variations in voltage
 B. Fani et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 157 (2018) 1–9
Fig. 1. Single line diagram of a typical feeder.
Fig. 2. The main and back-up relays’ characteristic curves and the line thermal limit curve.
profile will affect this controller and consequently change the
penetration of PV systems.
Given that the penetrations of various distributed PV systems
throughout the network are almost assumed as some probabilistic
terms, the ideal protection system performance should be robust
against different penetrations and also locations of PV-based DG
units in distribution grid. In other words, the high penetration
of small-scale PV-based DGs, despite their less importance with
regard to synchronous DGs, would significantly threaten the pro-
tection coordination. However, what is far more important is the
following fact:
“Because the PV systems have a time-varying and unpredictable
generation, the miscoordination problems of PV units are not
solved as easy as synchronous DGs.” That is, the miscoordination
problems made by synchronous DGs which usually generate a pre-
dictable power can easily be solved with various techniques, but,
the situation would become more problematic while DGs’ penetra-
tion is continuously changing during a short period of time.
To better clarify this fact, the following sample example exam-
ines the impacts of penetration and location factors on conventional
relays coordination.
Fig. 1 shows a sample radial distribution feeder connected to
upstream network. In this feeder, there are two protection relays as
‘PD1’ and ‘PD2’, where PD1 is the back-up relay of ‘PD2’. The timing-
current curves of these two relays are also illustrated in Fig. 2. As
shown, the coordination is fully achieved via different ranges of
fault currents.
3
But, if some PV-based DG units are supposed to be installed in
this network, the coordination is not only dependent on the pene-
tration but also the location of DG units. Thus, three following cases
are studied on this sample network.
1) The PV units are installed between PD1 and PD2:
In such a condition, if a fault occurs downstream of PD2, DG
units’ contribution will respectively decrease and increase the cur-
rent passing through PD1 and PD2. According to what shown in
Fig. 2, if the difference between current flows through PD1 and
PD2 does not exceed the coordination range [IF min , IF max ], PV units
not only will preserve the coordination, but also will improve it by
increasing the timing margin between main and backup protection.
However, with growing PV penetration, this difference will exceed
coordination range and the current passing through backup pro-
tection will be less than IFmin . As a result, PD1 relay will not operate
as backup of PD2. In other word, in such a situation, PD1 operates
when the feeder have previously been heating up too much.
The temperature is a key indicator showing the amount of power
losses due to current flow through conductors. Given the fault
current is usually many times greater than rated current, the tem-
perature of conductors is noticeably increased during a fault. Thus,
for preventing any damage to equipment, the “IEC 60909” Standard
proposed the following equation for thermal limits of conductors
in a network [34].
I 2 · t ≤ K 2 · S2 (1)
4 B. Fani et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 157 (2018) 1–9
Fig. 3. The protection system performance during limit state ‘C’.
where, I represents the rms value of short-circuit current in Ampere,
t denotes the short-circuit period in Second, K is a coefficient which
is dependent on conductor type and S is the cross section of con-
ductor in square millimeters.
According to this standard, the maximum period of short-circuit
current should be less than maximum thermal limit. Thus, as shown
in Fig. 2, the characteristic curves of two relays are below thermal
limit of the conductor with an appropriate distance.
2) The PV units are installed downstream of PD2:
The downstream PV units will equally decrease the fault cur-
rents in PD1 and PD2 relays. As a result, the PD1 and PD2 will
operate later than usual. However, due to less current passing
through the equipment, delayed operation has no damage to equip-
ment and the protection coordination is never compromised.
3) The PV units are installed upstream of PD1:
Meanwhile, installing PV units upstream of PD1 has a different
effect on coordination. Although PV units equally increase the flow-
ing current through PD1 and PD2, the coordination may be lost in
some situations.
Assume Fig. 3 shows the characteristic curves of PD1 and PD2
relays.
As shown in this figure, the increase in penetration of PV units
causes fault current exceed IFmax . As a result, the minimum required
timing margin between two main and backup curves is violated and
the coordination is lost.
In sum, this example shows that the protection coordination
accuracy depends on the location and capacity of PV units. Thus, it is
necessary to present a method for making protection coordination
independent of PV units’ characteristics. To this end, this paper pro-
poses a novel algorithm for modifying relay characteristic curves to
reach an accurate performance for different penetration and loca-
tion of PV units in the distribution system. According to the fact that
the presented quick, applicable and cheap solution only needs some
changes in characteristic curves, lack of programmable relay or
adaptive protection requirements cannot decrease its performance.
3. Proposed protection coordination algorithm
3.1. Proposed algorithm requirement
To preserve the protection coordination against different pen-
etrations of PV systems, the proposed methodology should have a
proper operation in the following limit states:
A. The penetration level is 0%.
B. The penetration level is 100% and PV systems are between PD1
and PD2.
C. The penetration level is 100% and PV systems are upstream of
PD1.
D. The penetration level is 100%, some of PV units are between PD1
and PD2 and the others are upstream of PD1.
To this end, this methodology modifies the characteristic curves
of PD1 such that all of the above states have not only an acceptable
distance from thermal limit curve, but also an appropriate Coor-
dination Time Interval (CTI) for both IFmin and IFmax fault currents.
It is noteworthy that if the CTI were maintained for the minimum
and maximum fault currents, there would be no CTI violation for
any other fault currents.
In the first step, consider limit state ‘A’ applied to Fig. 1 and
there is no PV unit in the network (n = m = 0). In such a condition, if
a fault happens downstream of PD2, the flowing currents through
PD1 and PD2 are calculated as IPD1,2 = IS = VS /ZT , where IPD1 and
IPD2 denote the currents flowing through PD1 and PD2 relays, IS rep-
resents the injected fault current which is related to short-circuit
power of upstream network, VS is the rated voltage and ZT is the
Thevenin impedance seen by main source of the upstream network.
Given that the fault happens in the protective region of PD2,
this relay should operate as soon as possible. Next, if the fault is
not successfully cleared, the backup relay (PD1) should operate to
disconnect the protective region from the network. Due to the equal
currents of PD1 and PD2, this goal is achieved with an appropriate
CTI between PD1 and PD2, according to what shown in Fig. 2.
In the second step, the limit state ‘B’ is simulated on Fig. 1. To
obtain the general equation, first assume that only one PV system
is installed between PD1 and PD2 relays (n = 1 and m = 0). This PV
system will change the flowing currents through PD1 and PD2 as
follows:
IPD1 = (VS − IPV 21 (Z21 + ZF )) /ZT (2)
IPD2 = (VS + IPV 21 (ZT − Z21 − ZF )) /ZT (3)
where, IPV21 represents the PV system injection current, Z21 denotes
the impedance between PV21 and PD2 relay, and ZT and ZF are
the main source and PD2 relay impedances to the location of fault,
respectively.
According to Eqs. (2) and (3), depending upon the capacity (IPV21 )
and location (Z21 ) of PV21 system, it will reinforce and reduce the
fault and upstream currents, respectively. Indeed, the increase in
PD2 current will decrease the operation time of main protection.
On the other hand, with the decrease in PD1 current, the operation
time of back-up relay will increase. As a result, the CTI between PD1
and PD2 may increase such that it threatens the coordination plan.
In general, for a large number of PV systems between PD1 and
PD2 (n = the number of middle PV systems and m = 0), Eqs. (2) and
(3) can be generalized as the following equations.

n

j
IPD1 = VS /ZT − IPV 2j (Z2i + ZF )/ZT (4)
j=1 i=1
 B. Fani et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 157 (2018) 1–9
Fig. 4. Proposed modified curve for PD1 relay.

n 
n 
j For instance, assume common IEC 60255 standard as a sample
IPD2 = VS /ZT + IPV 2j − IPV 2j (Z2i + ZF )/ZT
j=1 j=1 i=1
where, n is the number of PV systems, IPV2j is the injected cur-
rent of jth PV system and Z2i denotes the impedance between two
consecutive PV systems (as shown in Fig. 1).
As the amount of decrease in IPD1 may cause the relay operating
time exceed the maximum allowable thermal limit of conductors,
it is possible to consider PD1 operating time (tPD1 ) as a criterion for
situation of protection coordination.
According to Fig. 2, when there is no PV in the system, the
downstream fault makes the main source to produce IS current and
the PD2 relay to operate at tPD2 . Next, if there is an unsuccessful
operation, passing the minimum time interval required between
operation of primary and backup relay (CTI), PD1 should operate at
tPD1 to prevent any thermal limit violations.
According to this figure, at 100% penetration level of PV systems,
IPD1 decreases to Imin−PV and IPD2 increases to Imax−PV . In such a situ-
ation, although the CTI (t PD1 − t PD2 ) increases, the minimum time
for clearing fault decreases to tmc . In other word, the PD1 should
operate sooner than tmc , whereas this relay operates at t PD1 which
is much longer than tmc . Given that PD1 curve causes this misco-
ordination, modifying PD1 characteristic curve is the best solution
for solving this problem.
Usually, the allowable threshold for operation of backup relay is
considered 1000 ms. That is, both PD1 and PD2 characteristic curves
should be below the thermal limit curve. Therefore, after consider-
ing state ‘B’ as the worst case (Fig. 4) which changes IPD1 to Imin−PV ,
it is necessary to modify PD1 curve such that t PD1 transfers to a
point under thermal limit curve like tmax .
In the third step, it is necessary to consider the limit state
‘C’ where all PV systems are installed upstream of PD1 (n = 0 and
m = the number of upstream PV systems). In this situation, the cur-
rent passing through PD1 and PD2 are calculated as Eq. (6).

m

j
IPD1,2 = VS /ZT + IPV 1j (Z1i + ZF )/ZT
j=1 i=1
where, m is the number of upstream PV systems and Z1i represents
the impedance between two consecutive PV systems.
Considering Eq. (6), the increase in penetration level of PV sys-
tems will increase both IPD1 and IPD2 and it will thereupon force
the fault current to exceed IFmax at limit state ‘C’. Thus, the resulted
CTI, which is less than the minimum allowable threshold (usually
5
350 ms), will cause the coordination be lost. To treat this misco-
ordination, the PD1 curve should be modified such that it has an
acceptable CTI at Imax−PV . Hence, the operation time of PD1 (tmin )
at the 100% penetration level should be equal to the sum of PD2
operation time and the minimum allowable CTI as shown in Eq.
(7).
tmin = t  PD2 + CTI (7)
In the last step, limit state ‘D’ should also be considered. Never-
theless, since upstream and middle PV units counteract each other’s
effect, state ‘D’ would not yield to new miscoordination problems.
3.2. Relay characteristic curve modification
As discussed in the previous part, two limit states of ‘B’ and ‘C’
change two limit points of the PD1 curve to [Imax−PV , tmin ] and
[Imin−PV , tmax ] which are illustrated in Fig. 4 with points b and
a, respectively. According to the common characteristic curves of
relays, these two points can accurately specify the modified curve.
(5) standard for defining characteristic curves of relays. This standard
expresses the relay operation time as a function of fault current
with the following equation [35].
 P

tPD1 = A × T · D/ (IPD1 /Ipickup ) − 1 (8)
where, tPD1 denotes the operation time of the relay, T.D is the time
setting coefficient, Ipickup represents the current setting threshold
and A and P are two constant coefficients related to the curve slope
specification. According to the fact that Ipickup and T.D are depen-
dent on the current passing through the relay, they would vary with
penetration of PV systems, that is, they are not suitable parameters
for modifying the curve and achieving a penetration-free algorithm.
On the other hand, A and P are two independent constants in Eq. (8)
which can be easily used to attain the goal. Therefore, the desired
A and P are calculated based on two following equations made
according to the specifications of points a and b.
logA×T.D+t
Imin −PV
max
− logA×T.D+t
Imax −PV
min = logtmax tmin
Imin −PV − logImax −PV (9)
P = logA×T.D/t
Imin −PV
max +1
(10)
Calculating the desired A and P from Eqs. (9) and (10), it is possi-
ble to modify the PD1 curve just once to be completely sure about
coordination with any penetration of PV systems. In other words,
there is no need to any adaptive control or change in protection
settings in response to variable penetrations and locations of PV
systems.
Finally, the resulted coefficients can be rounded to the nearest
five predefined A and P of Table 1 to find the best-fitting IEC curve
for PD1 relay.
3.3. Proposed algorithm procedure
This procedure is triggered via a significant change in network
(6) layout. Thus, after every change, the back-up relay curves should be
modified offline according to two limit states of ‘B’ and ‘C’ following
the procedure outlines in Fig. 5.
As shown in this figure, first, corresponding to each pair of main
and back-up relays, two limit states ‘B’ and ‘C’ are simulated to
verify the coordination. If the coordination is lost, the back-up relay
curve is modified according to the method proposed in Section 3.1,
else, next pair of relays is examined. This process goes on till all
relays are verified.
6 B. Fani et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 157 (2018) 1–9

Table 1
A and P coefficient according to IEC 60255 [35].

Parameters IEC curves

Short time inverse Normal inverse Very inverse Extremely inverse Long time inverse

A 0.05 0.14 13.5 80 120

P 0.04 0.02 1 2 1

Table 2
Summarized characteristics of the studied system.

Description Subject

Length of feeder 30 km
Feeder type Head way type & not transposed —
radial
Conductor size MVa line = 120 mm2 –LVb
line = cable 4 × 50 + 25 mm2
Line shape Horizontal & distance between
lines = 70, 140, 70 cm
Nominal voltage MV = 20 kVLL , LV = 400 VLL ,
3ph + N + PE
Legs altitude 9m
Transformer 630 kVA, /y grounded –
20 kV/0.4 kV
MVASC of main substation 500 MVA
PV inverter 200 kVA & tied grid without
battery for saving energy
Level of load unit 200 kVA
a
Medium voltage.
b
Low voltage.

residential PV systems. These PV systems are capable of producing

Fig. 5. Proposed characteristic curve modification procedure.
4. Simulation
A radial, 3-wire 20 kV feeder of a practical distribution network
is used to demonstrate the performance of the proposed method
in ETAP software. The details of the system, source, load and PV
data are presented in Table 2. A group of residential customers are
connected to this feeder through several 20/0.4 kV transformers.
As shown in Fig. 6, these customers are equipped with the Tie-Grid
power equal to maximum residual consumption and restricting the
fault currents up to twice their nominal currents.
As shown in this figure, two over-current relays, named PD1 and
PD2, are installed at the beginning and the middle of the feeder to
protect this line. Moreover, the connected branches of this feeder
are protected by a fuse installed at the beginning of the line.
The specification of PD1 and PD2 relays are shown in Table 3.
According to the thermal limits of conductors, the maximum
allowable time for clearing a fault in distribution systems has tra-
ditionally been assumed 1000 milliseconds (ms). Moreover, the
minimum CTI between two relay should not be below 350 ms.

Fig. 6. The practical distribution system with large PV systems.

 B. Fani et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 157 (2018) 1–9
Table 3
The PD1 and PD2 characteristics.
Device Type Curve type T.D
PD1 ALSTOM-P121 IEC-VI 0.03
PD2 ALSTOM-P121 IEC-SI 0.5
Fig. 7. The initial protection plan in presence of PV systems between PD1 and PD2.
According to these initial input data, two case studies are
designed to first validate the proposed method as follows:
4.1. Relay coordination for zero-impedance faults
Since the worst miscoordination usually happens when the
largest fault current is passing through relays, in this case study,
the fault impedance (ZF ) is assumed zero for relations (4)–(6).
Assuming no PV system is installed in the network, the max-
imum current passing through PD2 will occur when there is a
three-phase fault at F point. In this situation, the fault current is
1860 A and PD2 will respond to it within 259 ms. According to the
fact that the passing fault currents through PD1 and PD2 are equal,
the back-up relay will operate in 609 ms which is much higher than
350 ms.
Installing PV units between PD1 and PD2 will change the current
passing through relays. Assume the penetration level is 10 percent,
the fault current at F point will be 1946 A at PD2 and 1798 A at
PD1. As a result, the main and back-up relays will operate at 253
and 676 ms, respectively. It is seen that the CTI is increased with
respect to zero penetration to have a more confident coordination.
Table 4 shows CTI values for different penetrations of PV systems
of Fig. 6.
As shown in this table, when the penetration exceeds 50%, PD2
operates later than tmc . For instance, for 60% penetration, PD1 acts
within 1163 ms which is not acceptable for coordination. The worst
case happens when the back-up relay acts within 1880 ms for 100%
penetration. Fig. 7 illustrates the initial protection plan of PD1 and
PD2.
This figure shows the impact of the middle PV systems on relays
coordination. When the penetration exceeds 50%, the initial plans
loses its coordination. In such a condition, first of all, the current
passing through PD1 is calculated according to relation (5). Next,
7
IPickup
1.1
0.22
Fig. 8. The initial protection plan in presence of PV systems upstream of PD1.
relation (8) is used to specify the operation time of PD1 (t PD1 ).
To make sure of correct back-up relay operation, a safety mar-
gin of 200 ms is considered between PD1 and thermal limit curves.
Therefore, the maximum allowable time for PD1 operation at 100%
penetration of middle PV systems (tmax ) is 800 ms. That is, the back-
up relay for a 1390 A fault current will operate at 800 ms instead of
1880 ms.
The upstream PV systems will increase the fault current passing
through PD1 and PD2. For instance, assume the penetration level is
10%. The fault current will increase to 1910 A. PD2 and PD1 relays
will operate at 255 and 563 ms, respectively. As mentioned, the
penetration level would have a reverse relation with CTI. This fact is
shown in Table 5 for different penetration of upstream PV systems.
As shown, although 10% penetration has decreased CTI, the PD1
relay is still successfully coordinated with PD2. However, the coor-
dination will be lost when the CTI becomes less than 250 ms with
30% penetration of PV units. This trend will continue to reach the
least CTI with 144 ms period at 100% penetration as shown in Fig. 8.
Given that the least unacceptable CTI happens at 100% pene-
tration, it is rational to modify PD1 curve for this point to reach a
proper coordination for any penetration of upstream PV systems.
To do so, first, according to relation (8) the operation time of PD2 is
obtained, next, 350 ms as the minimum allowable CTI is added to
it to calculate PD1 minimum timing and create tmin . This modifica-
tion will change the PD1 operation time from 144 ms to 350 ms for
100% upstream PV penetration with a 2188 A fault current. Draw-
ing a new curve by connecting the tmin to the tmax points will create
the modified curve for PD1 relay. The new curve is coordinated with
PD2 for any penetration and location of PV systems. Furthermore,
it is completely below the thermal limit curve with a predefined
safety margin.
Finally, the new curve should be fitted to a standard curve. For
this reason, when the range of changes in fault current and oper-
ation time for PD1 relay is obtained according to the relations (9)
and (10), it is possible to calculate all unknown parameters of the
modified characteristic curve. Nevertheless, due to the changing
configuration of PV systems in distribution networks, it is better
to fix two parameters like T.D and Ipickup to their initial values,
which are 0.03 and 1.1 respectively. To avoid repetitive setting for
these parameters, only two parameters as A and P should change to
8 B. Fani et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 157 (2018) 1–9

Table 4
The simulated operation time of PD1 in limit state ‘B’.

PV level (%) Fault type

3 L-L-G L-L

Conventional Proposed Conventional Proposed Conventional Proposed

0 609 652 661 648 674 675

10 676 666 725 662 757 693
20 756 681 796 676 854 713
30 845 696 878 690 964 732
40 938 711 971 705 1080 749
50 1043 725 1082 720 1216 767
60 1163 739 1213 737 1375 786
70 1300 754 1372 754 1564 805
80 1461 768 1598 774 1795 824
90 1651 783 1910 796 2084 844
100 1880 799 2337 820 2454 864

Table 5
The simulated CTI for different fault types in limit state ‘C’.

PV level (%) Fault type

3 L-L-G L-L

tPD2 t tPD2 t tPD2 t

Conventional Proposed Conventional Proposed Conventional Proposed

0 259 350 393 262 342 365 293 318 345

10 255 308 386 261 324 361 292 301 342
20 253 273 379 260 307 358 291 285 338
30 250 245 374 259 292 355 289 271 336
40 248 222 369 258 278 352 288 257 333
50 247 202 364 257 265 349 287 244 331
60 245 186 361 256 253 346 286 232 328
70 244 172 357 255 242 344 285 221 325
80 242 162 355 254 232 342 284 211 323
90 241 153 353 253 224 360 283 202 321
100 241 144 350 253 216 338 282 195 320

reach the new curve. As a result, for this case study the A and P are
calculated which are compatible with “short time- inverse” curve.
The validity of the proposed method for different penetrations
of middle and upstream PV systems is presented in Tables 4 and 5,
respectively. Fig. 9 also illustrates the impact of PV systems on oper-
ation times of PD1 and PD2 relays when the proposed algorithm is
applied on the network.
As shown in this figure, none of limit states, presented in Section
3, could cause any miscoordination for PD1 relay. Therefore, other
probable penetration and locations of PV systems would rationally
have a proper coordinated protection plan.

4.2. High impedance fault impact on the proposed method

validity

The high impdenace faults (HIFs) usually occur when a conduc-

tor breaks or touches a high impedance surface, e.g. tree branch,
building wall, asphalt road, sand or cement [25]. Since the protec-
tion schemes may fail to preserve relay coordination during HIF
conditions, this case study will assess the impact of HIF on the pro-
posed method validity. Accordingly, assuming a 20  L-G fault for
the network shown in Fig. 6, Table 6 will illustrate the relay coor-
dination status for different penetrations of middle and upstream
Fig. 9. The simultaneous illustration of both initial and proposed protection plan in
PV systems. presence of PV systems.
As shown, above 30% penetration of middle-stream PVs, the con-
ventional method violates the maximum thermal limit. Moreover,
it would also fail to preserve coordination when the upstream PVs 5. Conclusion
exceed 50% penetration. That is while, the proposed method would
successfully protect the system for any penetration of middle and The un-predictable nature of the sun’s radiation makes it dif-
upstream PVs. ficult to adapt protection setting upon a change in penetration of
 B. Fani et al. / Electric Power Systems Research 157 (2018) 1–9 9

Table 6 [13] Dheeraj K. Khatod, Vinay Pant, Jaydev Sharma, Evolutionary programming
Proposed method assessment during a HIF condition (a 20  L-G fault). based optimal placement of renewable distributed generators, IEEE Trans.
Power Syst. 28 (2) (2013).
PV level (%) Middle-stream Upstream [14] Hongxia Zhan, Caisheng Wang, Yang Wang, Xiaohua Yang, Xi Zhang,
Changjiang Wu, Yihuai Chen, Relay protection coordination integrated
tPD1 tPD2 t
optimal placement and sizing of distributed generation sources in
Conventional Proposed Conventional Proposed distribution networks, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 7 (2016) 55–65.
[15] Dhivya Sampath Kumar, Dipti Srinivasan, Thomas Reindl, A fast and scalable
0 685 693 307 313 339 protection scheme for distributed network with distributed generation, IEEE
10 778 712 306 296 336 Trans. Power Deliv. 31 (2) (2016) 67–75.
20 886 733 305 280 332 [16] Iman Sadeghkhani, Mohamad Esmail Hamedani Golshan, Josep M. Guerrero,
30 1008 751 303 265 330 Ali Mehrizi-Sani, A current limiting strategy to improve fault ride-through of
40 1137 767 302 251 327 inverter interfaced autonomous microgrids, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 99 (2016)
50 1287 786 301 237 325 1–11.
60 1461 804 300 225 322 [17] Konstantinos O. Oureilidis, Charis S. Demoulias, A fault clearing method in
70 1666 826 299 213 319 converter-dominated microgrids with conventional protection means, IEEE
Trans. Smart Grid 31 (6) (2016) 4628–4640.
80 1914 845 298 203 317
[18] Vassilis C. Nikolaidis, Evangelos Papanikolaou, Anastasia S. Safigianni, A
90 2221 867 297 193 316
communication-assisted overcurrent protection scheme for radial
100 2610 886 296 186 315 distribution systems with distributed generation, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 7
(2016) 114–123.
[19] Edmund O. Schweitzer, Dale Finney, Mangapathirao V. Mynam,
PV systems. Thus, this work presented an offline methodology to Communications-assisted schemes for distributed generation protection, IEEE
save overcurrent relay coordination against any penetration of PV Conference PES T&D (2012).
[20] Z. Liu, C. Su, H.K. Høidalen, Z. Chen, A multiagent system-based protection and
systems in the distribution system. To do so, first, the limit states, control scheme for distribution system with distributed-generation
where the coordination has the worst situation, are determined. integration, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 32 (2017) 536–545.
Next, the back-up relay characteristic curve is modified such that it [21] P.C. Maiola, J.G. Rolim, A multi-agent system for protection coordination of
radial systems in the presence of distributed generation, 11th IET
has a proper coordination in these states. Finally, the resulted curve International Conference on Developments in Power Systems Protection
is fitted to the nearest standard curve (according to IEC 60255) (2012).
to be applied on different kinds of relays. Simulation results on [22] Rajiv K. Varma, Shah Arifur Rahman, Vishwajitsinh Atodaria, Sibin Mohan,
Tim Vanderheide, Technique for fast detection of short circuit current in PV
a practical feeder successfully proved the effectiveness of the pro-
distributed generator, IEEE Power Energy Technol. Syst. J. 3 (4) (2016)
posed method. The approach used in this work can be easily applied 155–165.
on the common-used conventional non-digital relays, making this [23] Abbas Saberi Noghabi, Habib Rajabi Mashhadi, Javad Sadeh, Optimal
coordination of directional overcurrent relays considering different network
method a cheap, quick, reliable and user-friendly technique.
topologies using interval linear programming, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 25 (3)
(2010) 1348–1354.
References [24] Mansour Ojaghi, Zeinab Sudi, Jawad Faiz, Implementation of full adaptive
technique to optimal coordination of overcurrent relays, IEEE Trans. Power
[1] D. Ranamuka, A.P. Agalgaonkar, K.M. Muttaqi, Examining the interactions Deliv. 28 (1) (2013) 235–244.
between DG units and voltage regulating devices for effective voltage control [25] Pragnesh H. Shah, Bhavesh R. Bhalja, New adaptive digital relaying scheme to
in distribution systems, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 53 (2017) 1485–1496. tackle recloser–fuse miscoordination during distributed generation
[2] Kalpesh A. Joshi, Naran M. Pindoriya, Case-specificity and its implications in interconnections, IET Gener. Transm. Distrib. 8 (4) (2014) 682–688.
distribution network analysis with increasing penetration of photovoltaic [26] Min Cheol Ahn, Tae Kuk Ko, Proof-of-concept of a smart fault current
generation, CSEE J. Power Energy Syst. 3 (1) (2017). controller with a superconducting coil for the smart grid, IEEE Trans. Appl.
[3] Hossein Hooshyar, Mesut E. Baran, Fault analysis on distribution feeders with Supercond. 21 (3) (2011).
high penetration of PV systems, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 28 (3) (2013) [27] Hyung-Chul Jo, Sung-Kwan Joo, Kisung Lee, Optimal placement of
2890–2896. superconducting fault current limiters (SFCLs) for protection of an electric
[4] H.H. Zeineldin, Y. Rady, I. Mohamed, V. Khadkikar, V.R. Pandi, A protection power system with distributed generations (DGs), IEEE Trans. Appl.
coordination index for evaluating distributed generation impacts on Supercond. 23 (3) (2013).
protection for meshed distribution systems, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 4 (3) [28] Lukasz Huchel, Hatem H. Zeineldin, Planning the coordination of directional
(2013) 1523–1532. overcurrent relays for distribution systems considering DG, IEEE Trans. Smart
[5] Hesam Yazdanpanahi, Yun Wei Li, Wilsun Xu, A new control strategy to Grid 7 (3) (2016) 1642–1649.
mitigate the impact of inverter-based DGs on protection system, IEEE Trans. [29] Ke Jia, Chenjie Gu, Zhenwen Xuan, Lun Li, Y. Lin, Fault characteristics analysis
Smart Grid 3 (3) (2012) 1427–1436. and line protection design within a large-scale photovoltaic power plant, IEEE
[6] Jian Liu, Hsiao-Dong Chiang, Maximizing available deliv capability of Trans. Smart Grid (99) (2017).
unbalanced distribution networks for high penetration of distributed [30] Iman Sadeghkhani, Mohamad Esmail Hamedani Golshan, Ali Mehrizi-Sani,
generators, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 32 (3) (2017) 1196–1202. Josep M. Guerrero, Abbas Ketabi, Transient monitoring function-based fault
[7] S. Rahman, Green power: what is it and where can we find it? IEEE Power detection for inverter-interfaced microgrids, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid (99)
Energy Mag. 1 (1) (2003) 30–37. (2016).
[8] Mohammed A. Haj-ahmed, Mahesh S. Illindala, The influence of [31] IEEE standard for IEEE recommended practice for utility interface of
inverter-based DGs and their controllers on distribution network protection, photovoltaic (PV) systems IEEE standard 929. (2000).
IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 50 (4) (2014). [32] Chanaka Keerthisinghe, Gregor Verbic, Archie C. Chapman, A fast technique
[9] S.A. Saleh, A.S. Aljankawey, B. Alsayid, M.S. Abu-Khaizaran, Influences of for smart home management: ADP with temporal difference learning, IEEE
power electronic converters on voltage-current behaviors during faults in Trans. Smart Grid (99) (2016).
DGUs-part II: photovoltaic systems, IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 51 (4) (2015) [33] Michelangelo Ceci, Roberto Corizzo, Fabio Fumarola, Donato Malerba,
2832–2845. Aleksandra Rashkovska, Predictive modeling of PV energy production: how to
[10] Ahmed E.B. Abu-Elanien, Faculty of Engineering, Alexandria University, set up the learning task for a better prediction? IEEE Trans. Ind. Inf. (99)
Increasing the penetration level of distributed generation without violating (2016).
overcurrent based protection system coordination, IEEE PES Innovative Smart [34] IEC standard for short-circuit currents in three-phase a.c. systems, IEC
Grid Technologies Europe (2014). Standard 60909.
[11] Taha Selim Ustun, Cagil Ozansoy, Aladin Zayegh, Fault current coefficient and [35] IEC standard for single input energizing quantity measuring relays with
time delay assignment for microgrid protection system with central dependent or independent time, IEC standard 60255.
protection unit, IEEE Trans. Power Syst. 28 (2) (2013) 598–606.
[12] Eric Sortomme, S.S. Venkata, Joydeep Mitra, Microgrid protection using
communication-assisted digital relays, IEEE Trans. Power Deliv. 25 (4) (2010)
2789–2796.