56

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 19, NO. 1, JANUARY 2004

Development of Adaptive Protection Scheme

for Distribution Systems With High Penetration
of Distributed Generation
Sukumar M. Brahma, Student Member, IEEE, and Adly A. Girgis, Fellow, IEEE

AbstractConventional power distribution system is radial

in nature, characterized by a single source feeding a network of
downstream feeders. Protection scheme for distribution system,
primarily consisting of fuses and reclosers and, in some cases,
relays, has traditionally been designed assuming the system to be
radial. After connecting distributed generation (DG), part of the
system may no longer be radial, which means the coordination
might not hold. The effect of DG on coordination will depend
on size, type, and placement of DG. This paper explores the
effect of high DG penetration on protective device coordination
and suggests an adaptive protection scheme as a solution to the
problems identified. Results of implementation of this scheme on
a simulated actual distribution feeder are reported.
Index TermsFuse, phasor measurement unit, power distribution system, protective device coordination, recloser, short-circuit
analysis.

I. INTRODUCTION

HE NATURE of distribution system has traditionally been

radial and unbalanced. It consists of a network of singlephase, two-phase and three-phase line sections. The load at the
bus can also be unbalanced. Hence, all analysis of distribution system has been essentially the analysis of an unbalanced
three-phase network fed by a single three-phase source. The protection system predominantly uses reclosers on main feeder coordinating with fuses on laterals. Each fuse coordinates with the
immediate upstream and/or downstream section-fuse. Reclosers
are necessary in a distribution system since 80% of all faults
taking place in distribution system are temporary. Reclosers give
a temporary fault a chance to clear before letting a fuse to blow.
An inverse overcurrent relay is usually at the substation where
the feeder originates. The coordination between fuses, reclosers
and relays is well established and done assuming the system to
be radial [1][5].
Distributed generation (DG) is by definition generation which
is of limited size (few kilowatts to few megawatts) and interconnected at substation, distribution feeder or customer load level
[6][10]. DG technologies include photovoltaics, wind turbines,
fuel cells, micro turbines, gas turbines and internal combustion
Manuscript received October 7, 2002. This work was supported by The
Clemson University Electric Power Research Association (CUEPRA).
S. Brahma is with the Electrical Engineering Department, Widener University, Chester, PA 19013 USA (e-mail: sukumar.m.brahma@widener.edu).
A. Girgis is with the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634 USA (e-mail:
adly.girgis@ces.clemson.edu).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRD.2003.820204

Transmission system

Load 5
Load 2
Load 1
DG3

DG1

Load 3
Fig. 1.

DG2

DG4

Load 6
Load 4

Distribution system of near future.

engines [7], [8], [10]. Cost of transmission and distribution is

rising, but the costs of DG technologies are falling. This makes
it more economical to meet an increase of load by connecting
DG to distribution feeders rather than expanding tansmission
and distribution (T&D) facilities [9]. Therefore, these technologies are entering a period of rapid expansion and commercialization and studies have predicted that DG may account up to
20% of all new generation going on line by year 2010 [6].
This means that distribution system in the near future would
look something like the one shown in Fig. 1. In such a system,
DG would feed loads around its location, thus relieving the
burden on the source. This clearly suggests that the basic
assumption of distribution system being radial is not likely to
hold in near future. One would then be looking at a multisource
unbalanced system. It is a well-established fact that protection
devices in a multisource system have to be direction sensitive
[3][5]. Fuses and conventional reclosers do not have directional features, whereas relays can be easily made direction
sensitive. It would be economically impractical to replace all
fuses and reclosers by direction-sensitive protective devices
(like relays) all through the distribution system. Therefore, a
detailed analysis is required to identify exactly the problems in
fuse-fuse and fuse-recloser coordination due to high penetration
of DG. Once the problems are identified, solutions need to be
sought which are practically acceptable and independent of
size, number, and placement of DG in the distribution system.
Hadjsaid et al. [11] show through a simple example that
fault currents through protective devices would change after
introduction of DG. They further suggest checking protection
selectivity for each new connection of DG. However, this

0885-8977/04$20.00 2004 IEEE

BRAHMA AND GIRGIS: DEVELOPMENT OF ADAPTIVE PROTECTION SCHEME FOR DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS

1
From Source

57

Z1

Z4

B1-2

B4-5

F1

F2

Flt1

Flt 2

S/S B
S-1

Z2

F3

B2-5
B2-3

B3-5
Z3

DG

Z5
B5-6
Z6

(a)

Main Distribution Line

Source

Recloser
DG

(b)

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3. Distribution system divided in breaker-separated zones.

Tapped
Line
Load
Current

Typical cases affecting fuse-fuse and fuse-recloser coordination.

solution would work only if DG penetration is low. Girgis and

Brahma [12] and Brahma and Girgis [13] look closely at the
coordination problem between fuses. A typical case is shown
and
are coordinated for downstream
in Fig. 2(a). Fuses
faults on feeder 23 without DG. Now, if DG connects to the
system as shown in Fig. 2(a), these fuses will see the same
(downstream) or fault
(upstream).
current for fault
, selectivity requires that
operates before
and for
For
,
should operate before . References [12] and [13]
show through coordination graphs that this cannot be achieved.
Reference [13] analyzes part of an actual distribution system
to identify some more potential cases of malcoordination that
depend on size and placement of DG in system. It concludes
that, in general, if protection scheme is not changed, the only
way to maintain coordination in presence of arbitrary DG
penetration is to disconnect all DG instantaneously in case of
fault. This would enable the system to regain its radial nature
and coordination would withhold. But this would mean that
DG is disconnected even for temporary faults.
Girgis and Brahma [12] and Brahma and Girgis [14] discuss
fuse-recloser coordination in presence of DG. A typical case is
shown in Fig. 2(b). Recloser and fuse are coordinated for a fault
on tapped lateral without DG. Now DG is connected somewhere
between the recloser and the fuse. In such a case, naturally,
for a fault on lateral, fuse will see more current than recloser.
This can result into coordination being lost between these devices. Moreover, the recloser would now see fault current for
upstream faults too. Reference [14] discusses this situation in
detail and concludes that the coordination in the presence of DG
can be achieved with microprocessor-based reclosers available
in the market. This recloser has to be made directional toward
the downstream side of feeder. But in this case too, all DG down-

stream of the recloser has to be disconnected before the first reclose takes place to avoid connection without synchronism.
These solutions are not practical. As mentioned earlier, DG
is getting popular because it can serve the load without adding
to T&D burden. Throwing off all DG from system every time
a temporary fault occurs would make the system very unreliable. This paper offers a comprehensive, system-independent
adaptive protection scheme for distribution systems with high
DG penetration that would not undermine the system reliability
after connecting DG. Sections IIIV describe the scheme and
its implementation in detail.
II. PROPOSED SCHEME
A. Outline of Scheme
The ideal situation for any protection scheme is to isolate only
the faulted section from the system. In this case, this is impossible, since the section-controlling protective device is a fuse
here and as explained in Section I, coordination between fuses
is lost in presence of DG. Moreover, fuses cannot be controlled
by an external signal. Therefore, they will not respond to some
tripping signal generated by say, a relay.
The next best approach is to divide the system into zones as
shown in Fig. 3. A zone should be formed such that it has a
reasonable balance of load and DG, DG capacity being a little
more than the load. In addition to this, at least one DG (usually the biggest in the zone) should have load frequency control capability. As shown in Fig. 3, these zones should be separated by breakers. These breakers should be capable to repeatedly open or close on receiving a signal from a main relay located in the substation. Most manufacturers make breakers and
reclosers with remote communication capability. The breakers
should also be equipped with check-synchronization function.
The main relay would be computer-based, capable of storing
and analyzing large data and able to communicate with other devices like zone breakers and DG relays. The relay would sense
a fault, identify the type of fault and the faulted section (and,
hence, zone) on line, and isolate the faulted zone by tripping
appropriate breakers and DG connected to this zone. This way,
the remaining zones can still function as usual. Reclosing to take
care of temporary faults would be performed by main relay itself as explained later in Section II-F. The following subsections
explain the scheme in detail.

58

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 19, NO. 1, JANUARY 2004

B. Measurements
The first requirement for a protection scheme is the actuating
input. This comes through measurement. The following continuous measurements are recommended for this scheme:
synchronized current vectors for all three phases from
every DG in the system and from the main source;
a signal indicating current direction in every zone-forming
breakers.
Synchronized vector measurement using a synchronizing
clock pulse from global positioning system (GPS) receiver and
phase measurement unit (PMU) is described and used by J.
Jiang et al. [15][17]. It is possible to achieve a synchronization
with this method.
accuracy of better than 1
C. Off Line Calculations and Data Storage
This method requires a load flow study and a complete shortcircuit analysis for all types of faults involving different phases.
In addition to fault current for different types of faults at each
bus, this analysis should also find out fault current contribution
from each DG and from the main source. The method also requires the minimum melting (MM) characteristics of all fuses in
the system to be stored in the relay database. From these characteristics and short-circuit analysis, the time before some fuse in
the system gets damaged in case of fault can be determined. Significance of this time will be mentioned in Section II-F. However, as explained later in section III, this requirement can be
avoided altogether. The load flow and the short-circuit analysis
need to be updated after every significant change in load, DG,
or the system configuration. Whereas a change in load and/or
DG would require to merely run the load flow and the short-circuit analysis again, any change in the system configuration (say,
taking off a line) would require to update the bus admittance and
impedance matrices as well. These are routine procedures supported by software used by utilities. With modern computing
power and memory, the off line calculations and data storage
would not be a concern.
D. Sensing Fault and Determining Fault Type On Line
Current phasors from the main source and all DG are continuously available. In normal operating condition, the sum of
all these phasors would be equal to the total load on system. In
case of a fault on any part of system, this sum would exceed the
total load substantially. This is how the relay would sense a fault
in the distribution system. This in a way is similar to a current
differential scheme. The monitored zone here is the distribution system itself. When there is a fault anywhere in the system,
the sum of the current contributions from all sources (the main
source and all DG) would be equal to the fault current. On the
other hand, if there is a fault in a DG, since the DG is outside
the monitored zone, the sum would be zero. This is how a fault
in DG can be distinguished from a fault in the system.
Once a fault in the system is sensed, total fault current in each
phase can be determined using the following simple equation:

(1)

is the total fault current (phasors) in three phases

where
is the fault current contribution (phasors) in
and
three phases from source .
is the total number of sources (including the main source)
in system.
It should be noted here that this paper will count the main
substation source and every DG simply as source henceforth.
Since fault current magnitude can be found in each phase
from (1), fault type and phases involved in fault can be immediately and easily determined on line.
E. Identifying the Faulted Section On Line
Determining the faulted section of a distribution network on
line has traditionally been done with protective devices (mainly
fuses). In this case, coordination between fuses is lost and there
is a need to find the faulted section (and, hence, zone) before
any fuse is damaged. Abe et al. [18] discuss the determination
of the faulted section and fault location in a multisource transmission line. But this kind of system is only a small subset of
a multisource unbalanced distribution network considered here.
Cardozo et al. [19] and Girgis et al. [20] discuss methods to locate faults in interconnected transmission networks. The nature
of such network is similar (except that transmission networks
are balanced) to the nature of the system being considered here.
But the methods deal with fault location after the protective devices have operated. Hence, these methods cannot be modified
for on line fault location in unbalanced distribution system.
Therefore, a method is required to quickly identify the faulted
section in order for the relay to give tripping signals to appropriate breakers for isolating the faulted zone. It should be mentioned here that identification of the faulted zone is enough for
this scheme to work. However, if the faulted section was not
identified as accurately as possible, it would be a huge burden
for the maintenance staff to locate the fault.
Since the fault contribution from each source is available on
line, it can be used for this purpose. Total fault current is the sum
of fault contributions from all sources in the system. From the
fault point, every source can be represented as a voltage source
behind a Thevnin impedance. If the fault point shifts from one
bus to the adjoining bus, for a given type of fault, Thevnin
impedance to a given source can either increase or decrease.
Thus, as shown in Fig. 4, if the fault point shifts over a section
( ) from one bus ( ) to another ( ), for a given type of fault,
the fault current contribution from any given source can either
continuously increase (IFMIN to IFMAX) or continuously decrease (IFMAX to IFMIN ). Thus, the fault contribution from
source for a given type of fault occurring at any point between bus and bus will always lie between the contributions
from source to the same type of fault on bus and bus .
This means that for a given type of fault on some section, the
fault contribution from each source must lie between contributions from that source for same type of fault on buses connected
to this section. Fault current contribution from each source for
every type of fault for all buses is already known from off line
short-circuit analysis. Using this network property and the results of short-circuit analysis, the faulted section can be identified as the section for which the measured fault contribution
from each source is between the calculated fault contributions

Fault contribution from source k(A)

BRAHMA AND GIRGIS: DEVELOPMENT OF ADAPTIVE PROTECTION SCHEME FOR DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS

59

start

IFMAX

IFMAX

Read System Data

Run Load Flow
Run short circuit analysis
for all types of faults
Involving different phases

IFMIN
IFMIN
0 Length of a line section i-j (PU)
bus i

Form a look-up table containing

contribution form each source
to each type of fault at each
bus. (Select maximum current
of three phases.)

1
bus j

Fig. 4. Nature of fault contribution from a source k to a given type of fault

on a line section between bus i and bus j.

at the two buses connected to this section from that source for a
given type of fault. As will be explained by an example system
in Section III, when the number of DG increases in the system
and system loses its radial nature in most parts, this method is
very effective.

Decide safe time before faulted

zone must be isolated. Use short
circuit results and fuse MM
characteristics for this
stop

Fig. 5.

Off line tasks to be performed by the proposed relay.

F. Clearing and Restoring the Faulted Zone

Once the faulted section is identified, the relay would send a
trip signal to isolate the faulted zone and DG in this zone. The
knowledge about the breakers to be tripped to isolate a particular
zone is already in the database. For example, in Fig. 3, zone
can be isolated by tripping breaker
whereas breakers
,
,
,
would have to be tripped to isolate
zone . This process is desired to be over before any fuse in
the system is damaged. The method of calculating this safe time
was discussed in Section II-C. The complete scheme operation,
which consists of getting measurements, identifying the faulted
section, and tripping the breakers should be complete before this
time. Since scheme operation time can be estimated (explained
in more detail in Section III), relay can implement this check on
itself every time short-circuit analysis is updated.
Once the faulted zone and the DG connected to it are isolated,
the next step is to ensure restoration in case of temporary faults.
The isolated zone is dead, so we can test if the fault persists
or not by making one of the zone-forming breakers on. This
would ensure there is no synchronization problem. One breaker
for each zone should be identified in advance for this job. For
example, let us identify a breaker for each zone that enables the
main source to contribute to that zone. In Fig. 3, this would mean
for ,
for ,
for ,
for ,
for
, and
for . Relay should perform reclosing action on
one of these breakers depending on which zone is faulted. Since
there is no fuse-recloser coordination here, the relay should open
the breaker instantaneously in case the fault persists. Since relay
monitors current contribution from main source continuously, it
would immediately detect, after each reclosing action, whether
fault persists or not (source current would substantially increase
if fault persists). In case the fault disappears, relay would send
closing signals one-by-one to each breaker. These breakers need
to perform synchronized closing. This would be ensured by the
check-synchronizing function incorporated with each breaker.
Relay would sense the closing of each breaker by monitoring

the current direction signal from that breaker. The next closing
signal would be sent only after this confirmation. Finally, DG
breaker would be closed and system restored to normal. In case
of a permanent fault, the fault would have to be cleared by
maintenance personnel before incorporating that zone back to
the system. In such cases, relay will adapt to the new network
configuration by running a load flow and short-circuit analysis
again. There is a possibility here that some part of system may
be islanded after disconnection of one zone. In Fig. 3, this would
or
are faulted. Since load and generhappen when either
ation are balanced in each zone and at least one DG in each zone
has load frequency control capability, such islands can continue
to function.
G. Sources and Handling of Error
The source of error in this scheme can be fault resistance.
Since the short-circuit analysis is made with zero fault resistance
value, a fault with resistance may produce currents which
would lead to the predicted section being adjacent to (or
even farther than) the actual faulted section. If the adjacent
section still lies in the same zone, relay would still operate
correctly. In case this section lies in a different zone, there
is a chance of mal-operation. Therefore, the relay should get
a signal indicating current direction from each zone-forming
breaker as explained in Section II-B. With the help of this
signal, relay can crosscheck before tripping a zone. Flowcharts
given in Figs. 5 and Fig. 6 sum up the off line and on line
calculations, respectively.
There is a reason to believe that the error due to fault resistance would be mostly negligible. Burke [21] reports a four-year
fault study performed in the U.S. on 50 feeders from 13 utilities at various voltage levels. It is concluded by the closeness
of actual and calculated values that there was essentially no
fault resistance observed in the recorded faults. This reference
also states that the readings could be even closer had there been

60

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 19, NO. 1, JANUARY 2004

J=1

start

J=J+1
Select section J

Get three phase current

measurements from all
sources and sum them up

K=1
K=K+1
Select measured contribution (maximum
phase current) from source K. Call it IMK

Is the sum
zero?

Yes
Fault is in
DG.
Let it clear.

From look-up table, find contributions

from source K for this type of fault on
buses connected to section J. Call
these values IFRJ and ITOJ

No

Is the sum
significantly
greater than
total load?

No

No

Is IMK between
IFRJ and ITOJ?

Yes

Yes
This is fault
Determine type of fault

Is K= Total
number of
sources?

Perform reclosing operations on one

breaker and determine if the
fault is temporary or permanent

No

Yes
Faulted section is J

Is fault
temporary?

Yes

Trip breakers to remove

faulted zone and DG in this zone

Open breakers
that isolate
faulted zone

Close zone breakers

one-by one and
connect DG back
Go to Start

Cross-check with current-direction input

No

Update
system data

Do off-line analysis

No

Is fault
still
sensed?

Open
Yes substation
breaker
Stop

Fig. 6. On line tasks to be performed by the proposed relay.

no calculation error due to use of sequence component method

on an essentially unbalanced distribution network. This is why
three-phase fault analysis was used for fault calculations done
on the system analyzed in Section III of this paper.
The error in phasor estimation due to measurement, systemnoise as well as frequency fluctuation resulting from system unbalance and synchronizing would be insignificant with PMU
implementation described in [17].

III. TEST SYSTEM AND SIMULATION RESULTS

As it is clear from discussion in the previous section, this
scheme needs current contributions from all sources for all types
of faults involving different phases. Most conventional software

available in market take system data in terms of sequence impedances. This does not fulfill the requirements of an unbalanced and untransposed distribution network. Therefore, shortcircuit analysis software was developed based on three-phase
analysis. This software was tested first on a 22-bus balanced
multisource system. Results with conventional sequence component techniques matched exactly with results using the threephase algorithm.
Then an actual 60-bus distribution feeder from a utility in
the southeast U.S. was taken as a test system. Fig. 7 shows the
single line diagram, locations of reclosers, fuses, and DG, as
well as DG capacities. Load details are given in the Appendix.
DG shown in Fig. 7 are assumed and their capacities are selected such that they feed some load around their location. The
feeder load is 2.5 MVA and the total load fed by all DG is 45%.

BRAHMA AND GIRGIS: DEVELOPMENT OF ADAPTIVE PROTECTION SCHEME FOR DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS

Co-ordination of 140A Recloser-1 and 30 A Fuse

103

102

TIME (SEC)

61

30A TC
Coordination Range Without DG
Coordination Range With DG

30A MM

101

100

Recloser 'C'
Recloser 'A'

10-1

10-2
101

102

103
CURRENT (A)

104

105

(a)

Fig. 7. Single line diagram of an actual distribution feeder simulated to test

the performance of the adaptive scheme.

102
25A MM
TIME (SEC)

DG were modeled as sources behind reactances and the interconnecting transformers were considered D/YG. DG and transformer reactances were chosen using [6] and [22].
As shown in Fig. 7, this system has two reclosers on main
is 25 A) and laterals are protected
feeder ( is 140 A and
by fuses. In addition to fuses shown in this diagram, load on
each bus is tapped off with a fuse. The section fuses coordinate
coordinates with section fuses downwith these load fuses.
and upstream of .
coordinates with section
stream of
coordinates with
for
fuses downstream of . In addition,
faults downstream of . After connecting DG to this system as
shown, the fuse coordination between fuses protecting sections
5659 and 5960 is clearly lost as explained in Section I. Similar
is the case with sections 3536 and 3637. Fig. 8(a) shows cowith 30-A fuse on section 816 and Fig. 8(b)
ordination of
shows coordination of
with 25-A fuses on sections 3536
and 3542. Curve A is the fast curve and C the slow curve
of reclosers. MM stands for minimum melting and TC for
total clearing characteristics of fuse. Clearly, the coordination
with the fast curve is lost after connecting DG. It is possible to
get this coordination back using microprocessor-based recloser
looking only in downstream direction [14]. But this would mean
that for every temporary fault downstream of , DG1 and DG5
would be cut off and for every temporary fault downstream of
and upstream of , all DG is cut off. This could not be an
acceptable solution as explained in Section I.
Success of implementation of the scheme described in Section II essentially depends on the ability of relay to accurately
identify the faulted section and, hence, the faulted zone. As
mentioned in Section II-E, the proposed method is very effective when the number of sources increases. This can be justified through a simple example on the test system. Thevnin
impedance to main source for fault points on section 78 and
724 can be same. This means that the main source contribution to a given type of fault in these two sections could be
identical. Thus, with only main source in this system, the proposed method would confuse between these sections. However,
Thevnin impedances for such fault points to any of the five DG
cannot be the same. Thus, these sections would be distinguished
by checking contribution from any of the DG. Natural extension

Co-ordination of 25A Recloser-2 and 25A Fuse

103

25A TC

101

Coordination Range Without DG

Coordination Range With DG

Recloser 'C'
100

10-1
Recloser 'A'
10-2
101

102

103
CURRENT (A)

104

105

(b)

Fig. 8.

Coordination between reclosers and fuses with and without DG.

of this argument leads to a conclusion that if a section has fault

current flowing from both the connecting buses, the proposed
method would certainly identify this section correctly as faulted
section. This means that in nonradial parts of the system, this
method will never fail. In the parts of system which still remain
radial despite the connection of DG, if two sections have different Thevnin impedances to at least one source, these two sections cannot be confused. For example, sections between buses
4247 still remain radial. But Thevnin impedances of points in
different sections to any of the sources are different. In other
words, fault current flowing from any of the sources to any
one of these sections would never be the same as that in another section. This means that confusion is possible only if a
part of system is radial and there are taps. For example, points
on sections 5153 and 5152 can have same value of Thevnin
impedance to any source.
The results of application of the proposed scheme to this test
system confirm this reasoning. Test data were obtained by creating all types of faults (namely, LLL, LL, LLG, LG) involving different phases on three equidistant points on each section. Due to unbalance, the same type of fault involving different
phases would give different values of fault currents. These test
data were fed to the relay algorithm. The only sections confused
were 45 with 46; 4951 with 4950; 5153 with 5152 and
5153 with 4344. The confusion between 5153 and 4344

62

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 19, NO. 1, JANUARY 2004

TABLE I
DEPENDENCE OF ACCURACY OF PROPOSED METHOD ON NUMBER OF DG
CONNECTED IN THE SYSTEM

DG
connected
in system
none
one
two
three
four
five

Accuracy
L-L-L
%

Accuracy
L-L
%

Accuracy
L-L-G
%

Accuracy
L-G
%

30.5
61.8
77.8
94.4
95.1
97.9

26.6
52.7
65.5
83.0
86.1
93.9

26.6
52.7
65.5
83.0
86.1
93.9

26.6
52.7
65.5
83.0
86.1
93.9

was observed only for one data sample whereas for the other
pairs, all three data samples gave wrong results. This confusion is not serious from the point of view of the relay scheme
since such confused sections, being radial, cannot be parts of
two different zones. Therefore, the relay would still trip the
right zone. Moreover, such confusions can be predicted beforehand from network topology, thus making the maintenance task
easier. Table I shows how accuracy of this method increased
with more DG being added to the system.
Accuracy in Table I is the successful identifications as percentage of total data samples. Essentially, the confused sections
remain same as mentioned before, but since there is some confusion in two-phase sections where LLL fault data are not
applicable, accuracy in case of LLL fault is higher.
The algorithm to locate the faulted section was also tested
on two more distribution systems with 21 and 47 buses, respectively. The results perfectly conformed to the observations made
in the previous paragraphs. The data of these systems can be
made available upon request.
From the DG capacities given in Fig. 7 and loads given in
the Appendix, this test system can be divided into four zones,
each zone having one/more sources and adjoining buses (The
guidelines followed here are described in Section II-A.) Zone 1
would include DG3, zone2 would have DG2, zone3 would have
DG1 and DG5, and zone 4 would have main source and DG4.
In this case, islands would be formed only when there is a fault
in zone 4.
From short-circuit analysis with DG and the minimum
melting characteristic of fuses in the system, it was found that
in the worst fault case, the time before a fuse can be damaged
in the system was about 55 ms. Phasor identification in PMU
can take between quarter of a cycle [23] to one cycle [17]. Time
taken by the relay to sense a fault using measurements coming
from PMU, identify the faulted section (it just involves referring
to a lookup table) and send trip signal is insignificantly small.
Hence, the zone breaker and DG breakers in the faulted zone
can be tripped well before this time. This applies to opening
the breaker after each reclosing too.
In the above analysis, care is taken to make sure none of the
fuses gets damaged during the operation of scheme. In fact,
since fuses are no longer coordinated in an environment with
DG, it is even possible (and recommended) to remove all fuses
from the area covered by this scheme. This will no longer require the time constraint explained in the previous section and
last step in the flowchart in Fig. 5.

IV. OBSERVATIONS
There is always a chance of malfunction in any scheme. In
this scheme, there is a chance that one of the breakers does
not open after getting a command from the relay to isolate the
faulted zone. In this case, since the fault is not isolated, the relay
will continue to sense the fault. In such a case, the relay should
disconnect the whole feeder by opening the breaker at the substation. The flowchart in Fig. 6 includes this possibility. In case
the substation breaker fails to operate, the breaker on the high
voltage side of the distribution transformer will open.
The scheme covers all types of faults normally occurring in
a distribution system. In case of two simultaneous faults in the
same zone (very rare), the relay will still trip the zone using the
current direction signal from breakers, but will fail to detect the
faulted section. In case the faults occur simultaneously in different zones, after clearing one zone, the relay will still sense a
fault. It will open the substation breaker in such a case. In case of
open conductor fault, if the unbalance created is substantial, the
relay can sense it (though it cannot sense the faulted zone) and
isolate the feeder. Otherwise, such a fault would be undetected,
as is the case in conventional protection schemes for distribution systems.
Hart et al. [24] conclude that considering the operating cost
and the connection speed, wire- or fiber-based systems are viable alternatives (telephone lines are too slow) for communication of data in PMU-based schemes. If such a connection already
exists between DG and substation, part of the bandwidth can be
used for relaying. The installation cost incurred by this scheme
would certainly be higher because it introduces many new components in the system, but once installed, the maintenance cost
would be quite reasonable. The installation of measuring and
processing equipment can certainly be managed by utility engineers after training.
The accuracy of fault sensing and section detection depends
mainly on the accuracy of PMU and on the relay algorithm. The
accuracy of PMU has been practically tested [17]. The relay
algorithm, instead of being based on some heuristic method
(e.g., neural network), is derived from simple and proven circuit fundamentals. Therefore, there is no apparent reason why
the scheme cannot be successfully implemented. It should be
noted here that many utilities model their distribution network
as a single line network (assuming it balanced) for load flow
and short-circuit analysis. This will increase the error in section
identification but will not render the scheme useless.
V. CONCLUSION
Current trend and literature show that distributed generation
is going to increase significantly in the coming years. Coordination between fuses and between fuses and reclosers in a distribution system can be disrupted with substantial penetration of distributed generation. The methods proposed in literature to solve
the problem are not satisfactory from operational point of view.
The adaptive scheme proposed here offers a practically acceptable solution to this problem that is independent of size, number,
and placement of DG in the distribution system. The proposed
scheme is adaptive to temporary as well as permanent changes

BRAHMA AND GIRGIS: DEVELOPMENT OF ADAPTIVE PROTECTION SCHEME FOR DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS

TABLE II
LOAD DATA FOR THE TEST SYSTEM USED

in distribution network and its region of implementation can be

extended to more than one feeder. Loss of load in the distribution system in case of a permanent fault would reduce in most
cases after the implementation of this scheme. The scheme will
not work well for systems with low DG penetration, but coordination in such systems will not be lost in most cases, and even
if it is lost, solutions already reported in the literature could be
used since DG would not be crucial for reliability.
APPENDIX
Table II shows the load data of the test system considered in
this paper. Phase details of the buses can be obtained from Fig. 7.

63

[12] A. A. Girgis and S. M. Brahma, Effect of distributed generation on

protective device coordination in distribution system, in Proc. Large
Eng. Syst. Conf., Halifax, NS, Canada, 2001, pp. 115119.
[13] S. M. Brahma and A. A. Girgis, Impact of distributed generation on
fuse and relay coordination: analysis and remedies, in Proc. Int. Assoc.
Sci. Technol. Develop., Clearwater, FL, 2001, pp. 384389.
[14]
, Microprocessor-based reclosing to coordinate fuse and recloser
in a system with high penetration of distributed generation, in Proc.
IEEE Power Eng. Soc. Winter Meeting, vol. 1, 2002, pp. 453458.
[15] J.-A. Jiang, Y.-H. Liu, C.-W. Liu, J.-Z. Yang, and T.-M. Too, An adaptive fault locator system for transmission lines, in Proc. IEEE Power
Eng. Soc. Summer Meeting, vol. 2, 1999, pp. 930936.
[16] J.-A. Jiang, J.-Z. Yang, Y.-H. Lin, C.-W. Liu, and J.-C. Ma, An adaptive PMU based fault detection/location technique for transmission lines
part I: theory and algorithms, IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 15, pp.
486493, Apr. 2000.
[17] J.-A. Jiang, Y.-H. Lin, J.-Z. Yang, T.-M. Too, and C.-W. Liu, An adaptive PMU based fault detection/location technique for transmission lines
part II: PMU implementation and performance evaluation, IEEE Trans.
Power Delivery, vol. 15, pp. 11361146, Oct. 2000.
[18] M. Abe, N. Otsuzuki, T. Emura, and M. Takeuchi, Development of a
new fault location system for multi-terminal single transmission lines,
IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 10, pp. 159168, Jan. 1995.
[19] E. Cardozo and S. N. Talukdar, A distributed expert system for fault
diagnosis, in Proc. Power Ind. Comput. Applicat., 1987, pp. 101106.
[20] A. A. Girgis and M. B. Jones, A hybrid system for faulted section identification, fault type classification and selection of fault location algorithms, IEEE Trans. Power Delivery, vol. 4-2, pp. 978985, Apr. 1989.
[21] J. J. Burke, Power Distribution Engineering. New York: Marcel
Dekker.
[22] Electric Utility Engineering Reference Book, Vol. 3: Distribution Systems. Pittsburgh, PA: Westinghouse Electric Corporation, 1959.
[23] A. A. Girgis and E. B. Makram, Application of adaptive Kalman filtering in fault classification, distance protection, and fault location using
microprocessors, IEEE Trans. Power Syst., vol. 3-1, pp. 301309, Feb.
1988.
[24] D. G. Hart, D. Novocel, M. Subramanian, and M. Ingram, Real-time
wide area measurement for adaptive protection and control, in Proc.
Nat. Sci. Found./Dept. of Energy/Elect. Power Res. Inst.-Sponsored
Workshop on Future Res. Directions for Complex Interactive Electric
Networks, Washington DC, 2000.

REFERENCES
[1] Overcurrent Protection for Distribution Systems, Application manual
GET-1751A, General Electric Company, 1962.
[2] IEEE Power System Relaying Committee report, Distribution line protection practices: Industry survey analysis, IEEE Trans. Power App.
Syst., vol. PAS-102, pp. 32793287, 1983.
[3] M. A. Anthony, Electric Power System Protection and Coordination. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1995, pp. 109121, 342-346.
[4] J. L. Blackburn, Protective Relaying Principles and Applications. New
York: Marcel Dekker, 1998, pp. 383408.
[5] P. M. Anderson, Power System Protection. New York: IEEE Press,
1999, pp. 201240, 249-257.
[6] P. Barker and R. W. de Mello, Determining the impact of distributed
generation on power systems: Part 1Radial power systems, in Proc.
IEEE Power Eng. Soc. Summer Power Meeting, 2000, pp. 16451658.
[7] U.S. Department of Energys distributed power program homepage, Online Available:, http://www.eren.doe.gov/der/basics.html.
[8] Portfolio of DG Technologies. [Online]http://www.distributed-generation.com/technologies. html
[9] H. L. Willis and W. G. Scott, Distributed Power Generation Planning
and Evaluation. New York: Marcel Dekker, 2000.
[10] Role of distributed generation in competitive energy markets, Gas
Res. Inst., Rep. GRI-99/0054, Chicago, IL, http://griweb.gastechnology.org/pub/solutions/dg/distgen.pdf.
[11] N. Hadjsaid, J. Canard, and F. Dumas, Dispersed generation impact on
distribution networks, IEEE Comput. Appl. Power, vol. 12, pp. 2228,
Apr. 1999.

Sukumar M. Brahma (S00) received the B.Eng.

degree in electrical engineering from Lalbhai Dalpatbhai College of Engineering, Ahmedabad, India,
in 1989, the M.Tech. degree in electrical engineering
from the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, in
1997, and the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering
in 2003 from Clemson University, Clemson, SC.
Currently, he is an Assistant Professor at Widener
University, Chester, PA. From 1990 to 1999, he was
a Lecturer in the Electrical Engineering Department
at Birla Vishvakarma Mahavidyalaya (B.V.M.) Engineering College, Vallabh Vidyanagar, India.

Adly A. Girgis (F92) received the B.Sc. and M.Sc.

degrees in electrical engineering from Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt, and the Ph.D. degree from Iowa
State University, Ames.
Currently, he is Duke Power Distinguished Professor in the Electrical and Computer Engineering
Department and is Director of the Electric Power
Research Association (CUEPRA) at Clemson
University, Clemson, SC.