Received: 14 August 2023 Revised: 15 December 2023 Accepted: 9 January 2024 IET Renewable Power Generation

DOI: 10.1049/rpg2.12941

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

A low voltage microgrid protection scheme using digital

instrument transformers

Jigyesh Sharma Tarlochan S. Sidhu

Electrical and Computer Engineering, Ontario Tech Abstract

University, Ontario, Canada
Correspondence
Tarlochan S. Sidhu, Electrical and Computer
Engineering, Ontario Tech University, Canada.
Email: tarlochan.sidhu@ontariotechu.ca
Modern power systems have several measurement devices for reliable, safe, and improved
operation and control. Due to the high infiltration of inverter-based resources, protecting
modern power systems has become challenging. This paper proposes a new protection
scheme based on the computation of ‘discrepant impedance’ using real-time protocol ser-
vices for data exchange. The sampled values of voltages and currents are transmitted to a
central processing unit to implement the protection scheme. With the development of dig-
ital instrument transformers (IEC 61869-9), the current and voltage samples are directly
interfaced wired or wirelessly to the IEC 61850-9-2 process bus. The proposed protection
scheme is validated with grid forming and grid following inverters on Consortium for Elec-
tric Reliability Technology Solutions (CERTS) microgrid network using a real-time digital
simulator. The protection scheme is independent of the type of energy sources and their
control philosophy, operation modes and topology of the microgrid network.

1 INTRODUCTION most effective and reliable. As a result, the protective devices

The structure of the power system has changed in the last
few decades. The increase in electricity demand has given
opportunities for developing various low-cost schemes for pro-
ducing electricity while adhering to decarbonization policies.
This change is predominantly observed in the distribution sys-
tem, where the consumers are the electricity producers and
power is produced near the consumers or the load centres. Many
factors should be considered to successfully implement such
a significant change in the traditional power system network;
one of them is protection system design [1]. The microgrid is
one example of a decentralized distribution network. A micro-
grid is an electrical system with loads and generators that can
operate independently or with utilities. The major challenges
for designing a microgrid protection system are dynamic fault
current amplitudes and the bi-direction flow of current [2].
These challenges become more dominant in microgrids with
only inverter-based resources due to issues such as sequence
components of fault current dependencies on inverter con-
trol, limited duration of fault current, and dynamic phase angle
change of fault current [3]. As a microgrid is an asset, the
design of a protection system for a microgrid should be the
presently being manufactured are based on the behaviour of
synchronous generators. It is essential to know the main dif-
ferences between synchronous and inverter-based generators,
including inertial response, frequency response, voltage control
and fault current contribution [4]. Synchronous generators pro-
duce a significant amount of fault current, the foundation of the
current-based protection system. On the other hand, inverter-
based generators do not have the same fault characteristics as
synchronous generators and provide slight changes in current
during a fault, which may limit the ability of protective relays or
fuses to sense the fault [5]. The functionality of a synchronous
generator is based on its physical properties, while that of invert-
ers is dynamic and depends on their control algorithm. The
inverter’s reliance on its control algorithm has influenced how
it behaves in the event of a fault and is highly dependent on
its controller [6]. Many authors have proposed conventional
protection schemes such as current restraint under voltage pro-
tection [7]. But this scheme fails when the inverter operates
as a grid-forming inverter, where the impact of an asymmet-
rical fault on voltage is negligible [8]. In some literature, the
directional overcurrent relaying principle is proposed to pro-
tect microgrids [9]. However, the directional protection relay

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2024 The Authors. IET Renewable Power Generation published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Institution of Engineering and Technology.

IET Renew. Power Gener. 2024;1–12. wileyonlinelibrary.com/iet-rpg 1

 17521424, 0, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/rpg2.12941, Wiley Online Library on [21/04/2024]. 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
2 SHARMA and SIDHU

maloperates due to variations in the reference angle between

voltage and current under different operating modes of
inverter-based resources [10]. Some authors have proposed
non-conventional protection schemes such as: (1) adaptive pro-
tection settings [11], where the network setting is changed based
on its operating mode and depends on network topology to
achieve the desired coordination. Therefore, with the addition
or deletion of a component in the network, the settings need FIGURE 1 Feeder connected at the two ends by inverter-based resources.
to be modified to suit the current operating scenario, which
requires a lot of information. (2) The use of multiple setting
The structure of the paper is as follows: Section 2 explains
groups proposed in [12], which again depends on network
the proposed scheme with mathematical analysis. Section 3 dis-
topology and magnitude of fault current. Each topology has dif-
cusses the application of the protection scheme in a low-voltage
ferent relay settings and is dependent on multiple variables. Such
microgrid. Section 4 explains the experiment setup on RTDS.
schemes are suitable for a type of network and fixed operat-
Section 5 presents the performance results of the proposed pro-
ing conditions; any changes in the network due to contingencies
tection scheme under various conditions. Section 6 discusses
will require new topology identification and new group settings.
various communication aspects of the proposed scheme. Finally,
(3) Data mining models used in [13], which require the train-
Section 7 concludes the paper.
ing of models necessary to adapt to the network situation. Such
models cannot differentiate between a fault and transient events,
such as motor starting or transformer energization. Also, mod-
2 PROTECTION SCHEME
els require a substantial amount of data to identify the pre-fault
and post-fault conditions for different types of faults. (4) The
The sampled values of voltages and currents are provided by the
use of adaptive directional overcurrent relays proposed in [14]
digital instrument transformers conforming to standard IEC
directional overcurrent protection is entirely dependent on the
61869-9. These sampled values are synchronized to a common
magnitude of a fault current, which is insignificant in a network
time reference and are channelled to a central processing unit
with all inverter-based resources. (5) The use of a differential
using an IEC-61850 process bus that can be wired or wireless.
protection scheme is proposed in [15], which suffers from the
In the central processing unit, fundamental frequency phasors
sensitivity issue as the magnitude of fault current in islanded
of positive sequence voltage and current are estimated using
mode and grid-connected mode will be different. Therefore,
the schemes described in [18]. Positive sequence discrepant
a fixed setting is insufficient to protect the microgrid in both
impedances are computed from the estimated positive sequence
operating modes. Further, this scheme depends on the angles of
voltages and current phasors. The detailed principle is described
current measured from two ends of the feeder; in the case of an
in the following sections:
open circuit fault, the currents will not be available to the relay,
and it may not operate. This paper proposes a new unit pro-
tection scheme based on ‘discrepant impedance’ to address the
2.1 No fault condition
above research gap. The proposed scheme utilizes the sampled
values of voltages and currents from digital instrument trans-
To understand the computation of discrepant impedances,
formers conforming to the standard IEC 61869-9 [16]. These
consider a two-node microgrid with inverter-based resources
sampled values are transmitted to a central processing unit using
connected at both ends, as shown in Figure 1. The direction of
the IEC 61850-9-2 standard [17]. The main contributions to this
the current measurement is shown with the dotted arrow. The
paper are outlined below:
fundamental frequency positive sequence voltage and current
phasors estimated at bus A and bus B are VA1 ∠𝜃A1 , IA1 ∠𝛼A1 ,
(1) The mathematical morphology of ‘discrepant impedance’-
VB1 ∠𝜃B1 , and IB1 ∠𝛼B1 , respectively. The voltage at bus A can
based protection is explained with a two-node microgrid
be written as
system for internal and external faults.
(2) The proposed protection scheme is independent of micro-
VA1 ∠𝜃A1 = IA1 ∠𝛼A1 .Z1 ∠𝛽1 + VB1 ∠𝜃B1 . (1)
grid architecture, requiring less complicated calculations
and simpler protection settings.
VA1 ∠𝜃A1 − VB1 ∠𝜃B1
(3) The protection scheme can identify the faulted segment of Z1 ∠𝛽1 = . (2)
the network and also provides protection against all types IA1 ∠𝛼A1
of faults, including open circuit faults and high-resistance
faults. Z1 ∠𝛽1 is the positive sequence impedance of the feeder as esti-
(4) Comparison of the protection technique with the 𝛼-plane mated from bus A using positive sequence voltage and current
differential relay. phasors at buses A and B.
(5) The proposed protection scheme is resilient to the loss of Similarly, the voltage at bus B will be
samples, and the calculation for the bandwidth requirement
is simple. VB1 ∠𝜃B1 = (−IB1 ∠𝛼B1 ).Z1 ∠𝛽1 + VA1 ∠𝜃A1 . (3)
 17521424, 0, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/rpg2.12941, Wiley Online Library on [21/04/2024]. 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
SHARMA and SIDHU 3

FIGURE 2 Feeder connected at the two ends by inverter-based resources

during a shunt fault. FIGURE 4 An external shunt fault FE-1 for feeder between buses A and
B.

FIGURE 3 Sequence impedance diagram for a shunt fault F .

VB1 ∠𝜃B1 − VA1 ∠𝜃A1
−Z1 ∠𝛽1 =
IB1 ∠𝛼B1
− Z1 ∠𝛽1 is the positive sequence impedance of the feeder as
estimated from bus B using positive sequence voltage and cur-
rent phasors at buses B and A. Under the no-fault condition
and when phasors are synchronized, then, IA1 ∠𝛼A1 is equal to
IB1 ∠𝛼B1 . It can be observed from equations (2) and (4) that
when there is no fault, the vector sum of the estimated feeder
impedances Z1 ∠𝛽1 and −Z1 ∠𝛽1 is zero. This vector summation
of impedances is called ‘discrepant impedance (ΔZ ).’
FIGURE 5 Sequence impedance diagram for an external shunt fault
FE-1.
(4)
Where VF 1 ∠𝛾1 is the positive sequence fault voltage at the
fault point F , and ZF is the combination of negative sequence,
zero sequence and fault impedance, depending on the type of
fault. Equations (7) and (8) represent the positive sequence
impedance estimated from buses A and B, respectively. There-
fore, from (7) and (8), it can be observed that the summation
of impedances, that is, ‘discrepant impedances,’ is not zero, as
is the case during no-fault conditions. Its value depends on the
fault location, currents and voltages during a fault.

2.2 Fault condition 2.3 External fault condition

Consider a shunt fault F at a distance x from bus A as shown A fault that occurs outside the feeder under protection is an
in Figure 2. The sequence impedance diagram for the faulted external fault. Assume an external fault FE-1 between buses B
network is shown in Figure 3. Applying KVL in loops-1 and 2, and C , as shown in Figure 4. The sequence impedance diagram
the following equation can be written: for external fault is shown in Figure 5. Applying KVL in loop-1.
The impedance estimated from bus A can be written as,
VA1 ∠𝜃A1 = VF 1 ∠𝛾1 + IA1 ∠𝛼A1 (xZ1 ∠𝛽1 ). (5)
VA1 ∠𝜃A1 − VB1 ∠𝜃B1
Z1 ∠𝛽1 = (9)
IA1 ∠𝛼A1
VB1 ∠𝜃B1 = VF 1 ∠𝛾1 + (−IB1 ∠𝛼B1 )(1-x)Z1 ∠𝛽1 (6)
and the impedance estimated from the bus B can be written as,
Simplifying, (5) and (6),
VA1 ∠𝜃A1 − VB1 ∠𝜃B1 I ∠𝛼 VB1 ∠𝜃B1 − VA1 ∠𝜃A1
= B1 B1 (1 − x)Z1 ∠𝛽1 + xZ1 ∠𝛽1 −Z1 ∠𝛽1 = (10)
IA1 ∠𝛼A1 IA1 ∠𝛼A1 IB1 ∠𝛼B1
(7)
During an external fault, IA1 ∠𝛼A1 is equal to IB1 ∠𝛼B1 .
VB1 ∠𝜃B1 − VA1 ∠𝜃A1 I ∠𝛼 Therefore, from (9) and (10), the discrepant impedances, which
= −(1 − x)Z1 ∠𝛽1 − A1 A1 xZ1 ∠𝛽1
IB1 ∠𝛼B1 IB1 ∠𝛼B1 are the summation of the estimated impedances from both ends
(8) of the feeder, are zero.

4 SHARMA and SIDHU
FIGURE 6 (a) R-X diagram of the protection scheme. (b) Trip logic of
the proposed protection scheme.
2.4 Protection scheme operating criteria,
characteristics and threshold settings
Theoretically, it is proven in Sections 2.1 and 2.3 that the dis-
crepant impedances are zero in no-fault conditions and during
an external fault. However, in practical situations, the errors
encountered during measurements of currents and voltages
need to be considered. Therefore, it is suggested that the
minimum setting for discrepant impedance, ΔZ be
ΔZ ≫ 0.03 ∣ Z1 ∣ . (11)
where; Z1 is the positive sequence impedance of the feeder.
The proposed protection scheme will assume a fault when the
estimated discrepant impedance is greater than 3% of the pos-
itive sequence impedance of the feeder under protection. The
pickup setting is chosen at 3% considering the error in CT and
PT, that is +/− 1% for CT and +/−1.2% for PT, according
to IEEE C57.13 [19]. Figure 6a shows the fault and no-fault
regions on R–X plane. A small un-shaded circle shows the
discrepant impedance ΔZ < 0.03|Z1 | is a no-fault region, and
the shaded region outside the circle is a fault region. A trip
counter is established to add security to the proposed protec-
tion scheme. The trip counter is incremented by one whenever
the discrepant impedance is in the fault region. The trip counter
is decremented by one when discrepant impedance falls in the
no-fault region. The lower limit of the trip counter is zero, and
the upper limit is set to five. Once the trip counter reaches five,
the central processing unit issues a trip command to the associ-
ated breaker(s). This means that a trip command will be issued
17521424, 0, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/rpg2.12941, Wiley Online Library on [21/04/2024]. 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
FIGURE 7 A segment of the test microgrid under study highlighting
communication involved in the proposed protection system architecture.
in 5 × (1/480) s, that is, 10.41 ms. Figure 6b represents the trip
logic of the protection scheme.
3 APPLICATION OF THE PROPOSED
PROTECTION SCHEME
Traditionally, the protection relays are interfaced directly with
the instrument transformers. With the advancement in sen-
sor and communication technology, time-tagged samples of
voltages and currents from digital instrument transformers are
used for various applications in modern power systems. To
understand the application of the proposed protection scheme,
consider a segment of a low voltage microgrid shown in Figure 7
controlled by a circuit breaker CB-1. The digital instrument
transformers are placed at the ends of the feeder. The publish-
ing rate of digital instrument transformers is 4800 Hz on 60
Hz fundamental frequency systems. These sampled values of
voltages and currents from digital instrument transformer are
transmitted to a central processing unit on a fibre optic cable
over the IEC 61850 standard protocol. The sampled values can
also be transmitted on wireless LAN [20]. These samples are
time tagged to a common time reference by the satellite clock
linked to the switch, as shown in Figure 7. The central process-
ing unit down-samples the received voltage and current samples
at a rate of 480 Hz.
In real-time, down-sampled values of voltages and currents
are used to compute the discrepant impedances of each feeder
at regular intervals of 1/480 s. During healthy conditions, the
 17521424, 0, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/rpg2.12941, Wiley Online Library on [21/04/2024]. 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
SHARMA and SIDHU 5

TABLE 1 Faulted feeder identification matrix.

Discrepant Discrepant Discrepant

impedance impedance impedance
(𝚫ZA) (𝚫ZB) (𝚫ZC) Faulted feeder

1 0
0 0
0 1
1 1
1 0
0 1
0 Feeder-A
1 Feeder-C
0 Feeder-B
0 Feeder-A and B
1 Feeder-A and C
1 Feeder-B and C

Note: 1 represents that the discrepant impedances are in the fault region, and 0 represents
that the discrepant impedances are in the no-fault region.

discrepant impedances are in the no-fault region for all the

feeders. However, during a fault on any feeder, the discrepant
impedance of that feeder will lie in the fault region. For any
fault on feeder-A, feeder-B, and feeder-C in Figure 7, circuit
breaker CB-1 will open to clear the fault. To identify the faulted
feeder from the rest of the network, it is important to know the
discrepant impedances of all the feeders in the microgrid. The
computed discrepant impedances of feeders-A, B, and C are
ΔZA, ΔZB and ΔZC , respectively. Assuming a fault F1 on the
feeder-A, the discrepant impedances of the feeder-A will fall in
the fault region, whereas those for the feeders B and C are in the
no-fault region. The faulted segment of the network can then be
identified based on Table 1.
4 TEST SETUP AND REAL-TIME
IMPLEMENTATION
In this section, the laboratory test setup for verification of the
proposed scheme in real-time is described.
4.1 Real-time hardware implementation
FIGURE 8 Real-time test setup for CERTS microgrid protection.
ports. These sampled values are synchronized with the 1 PPS
internal clock of RTDS. The communication protocol between
processors and HMI PC is IEC 61850. The subscribed sam-
ple values of voltages and currents serve as an input for the
proposed protection scheme. The protection scheme is imple-
mented in Rack-2; in case of fault, a trip signal is sent by Rack-2
to Rack-1 for the opening of the breaker(s) in the microgrid.
The sampled values of voltages and currents from both
ends of the feeders are received at 80 samples per cycle rate.
These sampled values are down-sampled by performing a mov-
ing average of ten samples per cycle to compute discrepant
impedances. Fundamental frequency phasors of voltages and
currents are computed using full-cycle DFT. Using the principle
described in Section 2, discrepant impedances of all the feeders
in the network are computed at each sampling interval, that is,
1/480 s. The discrepant impedance and trip counter threshold
are set as discussed in Section 2.4. When the trip counter is equal
to a set value of five, a trip command is issued to the breaker
associated with the faulty feeder over LAN.

Figure 8 represents the real-time test platform for the simulation

of the proposed protection scheme on the CERTS microgrid.
It comprises of two racks; Rack-1 is RTDS (NOVACOR), and
Rack-2 is RTDS (GPC). Two racks are interconnected via a
point-to-point global bus hub cable for synchronizing simu-
lation time steps. Rack-1 processor is used for modelling the
CERTS microgrid, and Rack-2 is used for implementing the
protection scheme. Each rack consists of a gigabit transceiver
network interface (GTNET-SV) card. The GTNET-SV card
is a carrier for publishing and subscribing to the sampled val-
ues of three-phase voltages and currents on LAN as per IEC
61869-9. The publisher GTNET-SV card in Rack-1 sends sam-
pled values of voltages and currents as per IEC-61869-9 at a
sampling rate of 80 samples/cycle. The sampled values of volt-
ages and currents are received by Rack-2 using a GTNET-SV
subscriber card. The GTNET-SV cards are interfaced to the
processors of Rack-1 and two on fibre optic cable via GT fibre
4.2 Microgrid testbed: CERTS low voltage
microgrid
The proposed protection scheme is tested on a low-voltage
CERTS microgrid. The CERTS microgrid operates at 480 V,
60 Hz with four distributed energy resources and four load
banks, as shown in Figure 9. Two inverter-coupled photovoltaic
resources PV-1 and PV-2 of 100 kW each, are connected at
nodes N-6 and N-8, respectively. An inverter-coupled battery
energy source (BESS) capable of generating 90 kW is connected
at node N-3. A diesel generator (DG) of 100 kW is also con-
nected to the network at node N-4. Four load banks of 50
KVA are connected at nodes N-1, N-4, N-7 and N-8, respec-
tively. The network is connected to the utility via a 13.2/0.480
kV transformer. The PV-1 and Pv-2 are grid-following invert-
ers, and BESS is a grid-forming inverter. All the inverters are

6 SHARMA and SIDHU
FIGURE 9 Single line diagram of the CERTS microgrid.
modelled as per the guidelines of IEEE-1547 standard. [21]
Each feeder node is equipped with digital instrument trans-
formers. The sampled values of voltages and currents are trans-
mitted to a central processing unit for computing the discrepant
impedances of each feeder (L1 to L15) in the network.
The circuit breaker CB-1 is an interface breaker with utility,
and it controls the microgrid mode of operation, that is, grid-
connected mode or islanded mode. CB-2 controls the feeders
L2, CB-3 controls the feeders L3, L8. CB-4 controls the feeders
L7, CB-5 controls the feeders L4, L6 and L5. CB-6 controls the
feeders L9, L10 and L11. CB-7 controls the feeders L13, L14
and L15.
5 PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF THE
PROPOSED SCHEME
The proposed protection scheme is tested on the CERTS
microgrid, as shown in Figure 9, for different types of faults,
operating mode of microgrid, and faults involving high resis-
tances. Further, the proposed protection scheme is compared
with differential relays. A total of 144 cases were performed; the
representative test results and analysis for different faults and
operating conditions are presented in this section.
5.1 Performance with various operating
modes
To examine the performance of the proposed protection
scheme, different types of symmetrical and asymmetrical faults
17521424, 0, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/rpg2.12941, Wiley Online Library on [21/04/2024]. 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
FIGURE 10 Discrepant impedances of feeder L7 for fault at F1 during
grid connected mode.
FIGURE 11 Discrepant impedances of feeder L7 for fault at F1 during
islanded mode.
are simulated on the CERTS microgrid. Four different types of
faults are created at the midpoint of feeder L7 at point F1 as
depicted in Figure 9. Figures 10 and 11 represent the R-X plot
of the discrepant impedances for four different types of faults:
line-to-line (AB), three-phase (ABC), line-to-line-to ground
(BCG), and line-to-ground (AG). It can be observed from
Figures 10 and 11 that the trajectory of discrepant impedances
falls in the fault region for all types of faults in grid-connected
mode as well as in islanded mode.
The discrepant impedances of healthy feeders are almost
zero, and as depicted in Figure 12, before and after the fault
is cleared. Several types of faults at different locations were
created to verify the protection scheme, the trajectory of dis-
crepant impedances for all feeders is listed in Table 2. It can
be observed from the outcomes of Table 2 that for any type
of fault on a feeder, the discrepant impedance of that feeder
falls into the fault region whereas the discrepant impedances of
all healthy feeders are in the no-fault region before, during and
after the fault F1 is cleared by the breaker CB-4. This satisfies
 17521424, 0, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/rpg2.12941, Wiley Online Library on [21/04/2024]. 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
SHARMA and SIDHU 7

FIGURE 12 Discrepant impedances of healthy feeders for fault at F1 on FIGURE 13 Discrepant impedances of feeder L13 for fault at F3 during
L7 before, during and after the fault is cleared. grid connected mode.

TABLE 2 Results for different types of faults in grid-connected and

islanded modes.

𝚫Z of feeder 𝚫Z of feeder
Fault location and type (fault region) (no-fault region)

F1 (AG, BG,CG, ABC AB,BC, L7 L1 to L6

CA) ABG,BCG CAG L8 to L15
F2 (AG, BG,CG, ABC AB,BC, L9 L1 to L8
CA) ABG,BCG CAG L10 to L15
F3 (AG, BG,CG, ABC AB,BC, L13 L1 to L12
CA) ABG,BCG CAG L14 & L15
F4 (AG, BG,CG, ABC AB,BC, L5 L1 to L4
CA) ABG,BCG CAG L6 to L15

the proposed protection criteria. Hence, the proposed protec-

tion scheme functions properly for all types of faults and is
FIGURE 14 Discrepant impedances of feeder L13 for fault at F3 during
independent of the mode of operation of the microgrid. islanded mode.

5.2 Performance during high-resistance
faults
The performance of the protection scheme is examined for
high-resistance faults. Since the current magnitude is low in
an islanded mode of operation, and it is further reduced dur-
ing a high-resistance fault. The proposed protection scheme is
examined for such kind of faults. A single-line-to-ground fault
F3 is created at mid-point of feeder L13 with different fault
resistances ranging from R f = 0.0172 Ω (100% of the feeder
impedance), R f = 0.086 Ω (500% of the feeder impedance) and
R f = 0.172 Ω (1000% of the feeder impedance). Figures 13
and 14 represent the results of the AG fault with various fault
resistances in grid-connected and islanded mode, respectively.
It can be observed from Figures 13 and 14 that for differ-
ent fault resistances, the discrepant impedances fall outside the
no-fault region in grid-connected as well as in islanded mode.
This represents the behaviour of the protection scheme for
high-resistance faults with a wide range of fault resistance in
grid-connected and islanded modes of operation. Hence, the
proposed protection scheme works appropriately irrespective of
the presence of fault resistance and its magnitude.
5.3 Effect of broken conductor faults
Broken conductor faults are difficult to detect, and the condi-
tion is worse even when the conductor(s) do not fall to the
ground. The proposed protection scheme is examined for an
open circuit fault on feeder L9 in islanded mode and grid-
connected mode. Consider that phase A of feeder L9 breaks
and does not fall to the ground. The current in phase A will be
zero, but the positive sequence current will still be present due
to the current flowing in the other two phases.
 17521424, 0, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/rpg2.12941, Wiley Online Library on [21/04/2024]. 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
8 SHARMA and SIDHU

FIGURE 15 Discrepant impedances of feeder L9 during an open circuit

fault on phase A.

The trajectory of discrepant impedances computed during FIGURE 16 Discrepant impedances of feeder L13 during a close-in fault
the broken conductor is depicted in Figure 15. It can be on phase A.
observed that the discrepant impedance trajectory moves from
the origin and settles at a specific point, as shown in Figure 15.
The magnitude of the settled value of discrepant impedances
computed during an open circuit fault is 0.019 Ω and that
is 98% of the positive sequence impedance of the feeder
(0.0172 Ω) which is more than setting that is 3% of the positive
sequence feeder impedance (0.000516 Ω). Hence, the proposed
protection scheme acts appropriately for open-circuit faults.

5.4 Effect of change in microgrid topology

Renewable energy is intermittent in nature, as a result, some

of the energy resources may not be available in microgrids.
This results in a change in the topology of the microgrid. Due
to changes in the topology of the microgrid, the fault current
varies, and the available fault current is less when the micro- FIGURE 17 Discrepant impedances of feeder L4 during no-fault with
grid is operating in islanded mode. To validate the effect of a unbalance load.
change in topology on the proposed scheme, testing with differ-
ent combinations of resources is performed while the microgrid
The degree of imbalance in low voltage networks recommended
is in islanded mode. Consider a line-to-ground fault F3 close to
by IEEE std 1250-2018 is 3% of nominal voltage [22]. As
node N7 with a combination of resources such as PV, BESS
a result of this imbalance in voltage, there is always negative
and DG. The R-X plot of discrepant impedances is presented
sequence voltage and current flowing in the system during no-
in Figure 16. It can be seen from Figure 16 that the discrepant
fault conditions. Thus, the protection scheme dependent on
impedance trajectory jumps from a no-fault region to a fault
negative sequence quantities that miss-operates due to unbal-
region for a fault at F3 when the microgrid is operating with PV
ance in the microgrid or their sensitivities needs to be increased
and BESS, PV and DG, and BESS and DG. Thus, from the out-
to avoid false trips. Also, the earth fault protection based on
comes of the result shown in Figure 16, it can be concluded that
residual overcurrent, which is the sum of three phase currents
the proposed protection scheme functions appropriately and is
may produce erroneous results even during no-fault conditions.
independent of changes in microgrid topology and the type of
To analyse the performance of the proposed protection scheme
resources participating in the microgrid.
an unbalanced load, load-2, is connected to the microgrid. Con-
sider a feeder L5 with unbalance load such that phase A is
5.5 Effect of voltage imbalance in the 10 KVA, phase B is 20 kVA and Phase C is 30 kVA, respec-
microgrid tively. During no-fault, the discrepant impedance is shown in
Figure 17 which is less than the set value. This is due to the
A low-voltage distribution system is usually unbalanced. The fact that the protection scheme utilizes positive sequence com-
unbalance is majorly caused by single-phase loads in the net- ponents of voltage and current which is unaffected by the
work and these single-phase loads cause voltage imbalances. unbalance load.

SHARMA and SIDHU
FIGURE 18 Discrepant impedances of feeder L4 during a fault.
FIGURE 19 𝛼-Plane operating characteristic of a differential relay.
Now, during a line-to-ground and line-to-line fault, F4, on
feeder L5, the discrepant impedance falls in the fault region that
is shown in Figure 18. It can be observed from Figures 17 and 18
that despite of unbalanced load the discrepant impedance dur-
ing no-fault condition is less than 3% of the feeder impedance
and during the fault, the discrepant impedance is outside the
no-fault region.
5.6 Comparison with differential protection
A differential relay based on 𝛼-plane characteristic is commer-
cially used for feeder protection. The 𝛼-plane differential relay
computes the ratio of remote current to local current. Dur-
ing no fault condition this ratio lies in the stable region of
Figure 19, while during the fault, this value lies in trip region
[23]. To analyse its performance in a microgrid with inverter-
based resources, a line-to-ground fault is created on phase A of
feeder L13 at F3, with fault resistance R f = 0.0172 Ω (100%
of the feeder impedance) in the islanded mode of operation.
The inputs to the 𝛼-plane differential relay are provided from
the currents measured at each end of feeder L13. It can be
observed from Figure 19 that the trajectory of A phase current
travels from point (−0.025,−0.03) in a stable region of the relay
characteristics and never moves into the trip region.
17521424, 0, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/rpg2.12941, Wiley Online Library on [21/04/2024]. 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
9
FIGURE 20 Discrepant impedances of feeder L13 for fault at F3 during
islanded mode for resistive fault.
This is due to the fact that the phase angle of current during
fault is not constant when the inverter-based resource injects
reactive current to maintain the bus voltage during fault. While
for the same fault, the performance of the proposed protec-
tion technique is evaluated and is shown in Figure 20. Since the
proposed protection technique depends on positive sequence
discrepant impedance, it can detect the fault as depicted in
Figure 20.
The distance relay is another commercially available relay that
works on the principle of measuring the apparent impedance of
the feeder and comparing it to the specified value of the feeder
impedance. However, the use of such relays for microgrid pro-
tection has limits because of variable fault current phase angles
from PV inverters and grid fault current [24]. Distance relays are
also affected by the power swing which causes normal apparent
impedance to appear like a fault impedance. And power swing
is dominant in the distribution system due to variations in load
and generation. This causes distance relays to malfunction [25].
In [26], the distance relay can fairly detect all types of solid faults
but is unable to detect the fault involving resistance. The prob-
lem becomes more severe when the microgrid is operating in
islanded mode and the fault involves resistance.
6 COMMUNICATION ASPECTS
Communication has been a component of numerous protec-
tion schemes since the introduction of IEC 61850 for the power
industry, including the one proposed in this paper. It is worth-
while to consider three major communication aspects while
designing the protection scheme, which are as follows:
6.1 Bandwidth requirements
Bandwidth is an indicator of the capacity of data transmitted in
a network over a given period of time. There are different types
of traffic on a process bus, such as sampled values, GOOSE

10
TABLE 3 Change in discrepant impedance due to loss of samples in
no-fault condition.
Feeder impedance Z1 (𝛀) No. of samples lost |𝚫Z|/Z1 (%)
0.01724 0 0
0.01724 5 0.149
0.01724 6 0.179
0.01724 7 4.18
messages, etc. A sampled value frame consists of sampled value
data, a sampled value identifier, and an Ethernet frame over-
head. The length of the sampled value frame is 120 bytes
(960 bits) that were measured using third-party software, ‘wire
Shark,’ during the testing of the proposed scheme. Engineers
can dimension the network’s bandwidth by knowing the length
of a frame, the number of digital instrument transformers and
the number of samples in a second. The bandwidth (BW) con-
sumed by the sampled value messages in the network is given
by:
L f × S × Nt
BW =
106
Where L f is the length of the sampled value frame in bits, S
is the number of samples per second, N t is the number of
digital instrument transformers, and BW is the bandwidth in
Mbps. With reference to Figure 9, the total number of digital
current and potential transformers required is 38. The samples
published by these instruments are 4800 samples per second.
Substituting these values in (12), the bandwidth arrives at 175.10
Mbps. Therefore, for the CERTS microgrid with the proposed
protection scheme, a network with a bandwidth of 500 Mbps
is required. A similar procedure can be used to determine the
bandwidth requirement for any microgrid.
6.2 Loss of samples
The proposed protection scheme utilizes communication to
transfer sampled value messages from a digital instrument trans-
former to a central processing unit. Due to any contingency,
there is a possibility that sampled packets are lost on the net-
work. It is important to analyse its impact on the proposed
protection scheme.
To study this, the discrepant impedances of feeder L6 were
monitored during no-fault conditions with and without sam-
ple loss. Publisher GTNET-SV suppresses the output sampled
value data stream. Without any loss of samples, the values
of discrepant impedances shall be zero. Initially, five voltages
and currents are suppressed simultaneously, and discrepant
impedance is computed. It can be observed from Table 3
that the computed discrepant impedance is less than 3% of
the feeder impedance. This is because the proposed protec-
tion scheme is inherently resilient to the loss of samples due
to the down-sampling of the received samples. This is also
the case with six consecutive samples being lost. When seven
17521424, 0, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/rpg2.12941, Wiley Online Library on [21/04/2024]. 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
SHARMA and SIDHU
samples are lost consecutively, then the discrepant impedance
falls in the fault region, which means the proposed protection
scheme can tolerate a loss of up to six consecutive samples when
down-sampling is done from 4800 to 480 Hz. If sample loss
is more than six consecutive samples, the lost samples can be
reconstructed by the interpolation method described in [27].
6.3 Loss of synchronization
The proposed protection scheme requires synchronized sam-
ples from both ends of the feeder. The synchronization signal
may be lost. In this case, the digital instrument transformer shall
go into the holdover mode. For the holdover, the digital instru-
ment transformer shall continue to send the sampled values at
the specified sampling rate. The minimum holdover time shall
be five seconds [16], which means the digital instrument trans-
formers shall continue to send the signals for at least 5 s as if the
synchronization signal is still present. Once the synchronization
is resumed, the sampled values shall continue synchronising the
new pulse.
(12)
7 CONCLUSION
The paper presents the new microgrid protection scheme based
on discrepant impedances that utilize positive sequence volt-
ages and currents from the ends of a feeder. The proposed
scheme is implemented on a real-time platform using IEC
61869-9 sampled values in grid-connected and islanded modes.
The results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed pro-
tection scheme. They are independent of the type of resources
in a microgrid, the mode of operation of the microgrid, and the
microgrid topology. The proposed protection scheme is capa-
ble of detecting all types of faults, including open circuit faults
and faults that involve high resistances. A comparison of the
technique with the 𝛼-plane phase comparison differential relay
shows the discrepant impedance protection technique oper-
ates correctly during resistive faults, whereas the 𝛼-plane-based
relay does not operate. Also, the proposed protection scheme
requires a low-bandwidth network and fewer copper wires for
practical implementation. The protection scheme is inherently
resilient to losing a limited number of samples consecutively.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Jigyesh Sharma: Conceptualization; investigation; methodol-
ogy; writing—original draft. Tarlochan Sidhu: Conceptualiza-
tion; formal analysis; writing—review and editing.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Research data are not shared.
ORCID
Jigyesh Sharma https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4479-5859
Tarlochan S. Sidhu https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7812-5303

SHARMA and SIDHU
REFERENCES
1. Power System Relaying and Control Committee (PSRC) Working Group
C30: Microgrid Protection Systems. Technical report PES-TR71. IEEE,
Piscataway, NJ (2019)
2. Blaabjerg, F., Yang, Y., Yang, D., Wang, X.: Distributed Power-Generation
Systems and Protection. Proc. IEEE 105, 1311–1331 (2017)
3. Manson, S., McCullough, E.: Practical Microgrid Protection Solutions:
Promises and Challenges. IEEE Power Energy Mag. 19, 58–69 (2021)
4. Denholm, P., Kroposki, B.: Understanding Power Systems Protection
in the Clean Energy Future. Technical Report NREL/TP-6A40-82269.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Denver West Parkway Golden,
CO (2022)
5. Brahma, S.M., Trejo, J., Stamp, J.: Insight into microgrid protection. In:
Proceedings of IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies, Europe,
pp. 1–6. IEEE, Piscataway, NJ (2014)
6. Shuai, Z., Shen, C., Yin, X., Liu, X., Shen, Z.J.: Fault analysis of inverter-
interfaced distributed generators with different control schemes. IEEE
Trans. Power Delivery 33, 1223–1235 (2018)
7. Mohanty, R., Chen, P., Tuan, L.A.: Current restrained undervoltage pro-
tection scheme of converter dominated microgrids. In: 15th International
Conference on Developments in Power System Protection (DPSP 2020),
pp. 1–6. IEEE, Piscataway, NJ (2020)
8. Mahamedi, B., Fletcher, J.E.: Trends in the protection of inverterbased
microgrids. IET Gener. Transm. Distrib. 13, 4511–4522 (2019)
9. Sharaf, H.M., Zeineldin, H.H., El-Saadany, E.: Protection coordination for
microgrids with grid-connected and islanded capabilities using commu-
nication assisted dual setting directional overcurrent relays. IEEE Trans.
Smart Grid 9, 143–151 (2018)
10. Hooshyar, A., Iravani, R.: A new directional element for microgrid
protection. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 9, 6862–6876 (2018)
11. Laaksonen, H., Ishchenko, D., Oudalov, A.: Adaptive protection and
microgrid control design for Hailuoto island. IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 5,
1486–1493 (2014)
12. Alam, M.N., Chakrabarti, S., Pradhan, A.K.: Protection of networked
microgrids using relays with multiple setting groups. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inf.
18, 3713–3723 (2022)
13. Samal, S., Samantaray, S.R., Sharma, N.K.: Data-mining model-based
enhanced differential relaying scheme for microgrids. IEEE Syst. J. 1–12
(2022)
14. Alam, M.N.: Adaptive protection coordination scheme using numerical
directional overcurrent relays. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inf. 17(3), 3623–3634
(2019)
15. Dua, G.S., Tyagi, B., Kumar, V.: Microgrid differential protection based on
superimposed current angle employing synchrophasors. IEEE Trans. Ind.
Inf. 19(8), 8775–8783 (2022)
16. IEC 61869-9: Instrument Transformer- Part 9: Digital Interface for Instru-
ment Transformers. International Electrochemical Commission, Geneva,
Switzerland (2016)
17. IEC 61850-9-2:2011: Communication Networks and Systems for Power
Utility Automation - Part 9-2. International Electrochemical Commission,
Geneva, Switzerland (2011)
18. Phadke, A.G., Thorp, J.S.: Computer Relaying for Power Systems, 2nd ed.
Wiley, Hoboken, NJ (2009)
19. IEEE Standard Requirements for Instrument Transformers. In: IEEE
Std C57.13-2016 (Revision of IEEE Std C57.13-2008), pp. 1–96. IEEE,
Piscataway, NJ (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2016.7501435
20. Parikh, P.P., Sidhu, T.S., Shami, A.: A comprehensive investigation of wire-
less LAN for IEC 61850–based smart distribution substation applications.
IEEE Trans. Ind. Inf. 9, 1466–1476 (2013)
21. IEEE Standard for Interconnection and Interoperability of Distributed
Energy Resources with Associated Electric Power Systems Interfaces. In:
IEEE Std 1547-2018 (Revision of IEEE Std 1547-2003), pp. 1–138. IEEE,
Piscataway, NJ (2018). https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEESTD.2018.8332112
22. IEEE Std 1250-2018: IEEE Guide for Identifying and Improving Voltage
Quality in Power Systems. IEEE, Piscataway, NJ (2018)
23. Benmouyal, G.: The trajectories of line current differential faults in the
alpha plane. SEL J. Reliable Power, 2(3), (2011)
17521424, 0, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/rpg2.12941, Wiley Online Library on [21/04/2024]. 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
11
24. AlAlamat, F.M., Feilat, E.A., Haj-ahmed, M.A.: New distance protec-
tion scheme for PV microgrids. In: Proceedings of 2020 6th IEEE
International Energy Conference (ENERGYCon), pp. 668–673. IEEE,
Piscataway, NJ (2020). doi:https://doi.org/10.1109/ENERGYCon48941.
2020.9236446
25. Jain, R., Velaga, Y.N., Prabakar, K., Baggu, M., Schneider, K.: Modern
trends in power system protection for distribution grid with high DER
penetration. e-Prime Adv. Electr. Eng. Electron. Energy, 2, 100080 (2022).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prime.2022.100080
26. AlAlamat, F.M., Feilat, E.A., Haj-ahmed, M.: Performance assessment
of distance protection of PV-integrated microgrids. In: Proceedings of
2021 6th International Conference on Renewable Energy: Generation
and Applications (ICREGA), pp. 173–177. IEEE, Piscataway, NJ (2021).
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICREGA50506.2021.9388273
27. Kanabar, M.G., Sidhu, T.S.: Performance of IEC 61850-9-2 process bus
and corrective measure for digital relaying. IEEE Trans. Power Delivery
26(2), 725–735 (2011)
28. Reno, M.J., Brahma, S., Bidram, A., Ropp, M.E.: Influence of inverter-
based resources on microgrid protection: Part 1: Microgrids in radial
distribution systems. IEEE Power Energy Mag. 19(3), 36–46 (2021).
https://doi.org/10.1109/MPE.2021.3057951
How to cite this article: Sharma, J., Sidhu, T.S.: A low
voltage microgrid protection scheme using digital
instrument transformers. IET Renew. Power Gener.
1–12 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1049/rpg2.12941
APPENDIX A
In this section, the setting of the discrepant impedance is
analysed. Figure A1 represents a two-node microgrid with
inverter-based resources connected at both ends. V A1 , IA1 , VB1
and IB1 are the fundamental frequency positive sequence voltage
and current phasors measured at bus A and bus B, respectively.
Z1 is the positive sequence impedance of the feeder.
During no-fault, the impedance computed from bus A is,
VA1 − VB1
Z1 = (A1)
IA1
and the impedance computed from bus B is,
VB1 − VA1
−Z1 = (A2)
IB1
From (A1) and (A2), it can be observed that during no-fault
the discrepant impedance is zero. Now, consider a fault f on
the feeder at distance x from bus A. Assuming no change in
the voltages at the buses during a fault, the positive sequence
FIGURE A1 Feeder connected at the two ends by inverter-based
resources during a shunt fault.
 17521424, 0, Downloaded from https://ietresearch.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/rpg2.12941, Wiley Online Library on [21/04/2024]. 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
12 SHARMA and SIDHU

fault currents measured at bus A and bus B are I A1F and I B1F , it in (A9),
respectively. Using (A1) and (A2), the discrepant impedance ( )
computed from bus A and bus B is, 1 1
0.03 = IL × − (A10)
IA1F k.IA1F
VA1 − VB1
Z1F = (A3) Simplifying (A10),
IA1F
VB1 − VA1 k−1 I
−Z1F = (A4) = A1F (A11)
IB1F k(0.03) IL

Where Z 1F is the impedance of the feeder computed during a Assuming the fault current contributed by the source A is equal
fault. As explained in Section 2 the discrepant impedance, Z 1D , to the load current IL during a fault. Substituting in (A11)
is the summation of (A3) and (A4) which is,
k − 0.03k = 1 (A12)
V − VB1 VB1 − VA1
Z1D = A1 + (A5) Therefore, k = 1.03. This indicates that any fault, that generates
IA1F IB1F
the fault current of 103% of the load current can be detected if
Substituting (A1) and (A2) in (A5), the discrepant impedance setting is 3% of the feeder impedance.
Now, if the setting is considered as 10% of the feeder
IA1 × Z1 IB1 × −Z1 impedance then, (A12) is modified as,
Z1D = + (A6)
IA1F IB1F
( ) k − 0.1k = 1 (A13)
IA1 IB1
Z1D = Z1 × − (A7)
IA1F IB1F Therefore, k = 1.11, This indicates that any fault, that gen-
erates the fault current of 111% of the load current can be
Also, during no-fault, the current at bus A and bus B are equal detected if the discrepant impedance setting is 10% of the
in magnitude and is equal to the load current, IL , of the feeder. feeder impedance.
Therefore (A7) can be written as, The fault current contributed by the inverter-based resources
( ) is generally 1.1–1.5 per unit [28]. Consider the setting of dis-
1 1 crepant impedance as 10%, and a fault current contributed by
Z1D = Z1 × IL − (A8)
IA1F IB1F source A is 1.5 times the load current. Then from (A11),
The proposed set value for the discrepant impedance is 3% k − 1 = 0.15k (A14)
of the feeder impedance. Therefore, (A8) can be written as,
( ) solving (A14), k = 1.17. This indicates that any fault, that gen-
1 1 erates a fault current of 117% of the full load current will be
0.03.Z1 = Z1 × IL − (A9)
IA1F IB1F detected if the discrepant impedance setting is 10% of the feeder
impedance. Hence, any fault current less than 117% of the full
The fault current contributed by the two sources depends on load current cannot be detected. Specifically, when the fault
their short-circuit capacity. Consider that the fault current con- current is further reduced by the presence of fault resistance.
tributed by the source B is ‘k’ times the fault current contributed Therefore as the setting of discrepant impedance increases,
by the source A. Therefore, I A1F equals to k. I B1F . Substituting the sensitivity of the protection scheme decreases.