An Investigation of Protection Devices
Coordination Effects on Distributed Generators
Capacity in Radial Distribution Systems
J. A. Saed, S. Favuzza, M. G. Ippolito, F. Massaro
Universit di Palermo, Palermo, (Italy)
e-mail: jaser.saed@unipa.it
Abstract In the recent years, with the concept of Smart
Grid, there are a great interest in integration of renewable
energy based distributed generation (DG) units at
distribution level. Along with a number of benefits,
penetration of DG units in the distribution system imposes
some serious challenges; protection requirements turns up
as one of the most critical challenge in DG integration. In
this paper the possibility and the potentiality of occurring
mis-coordination between protection devices in radial
distribution network is studied. The impacts of protection
devices coordination on DG capacity are investigated. The
penetration level, number, and location of interconnected
DGs are used as parameters in order to verify the effects of
DG on fault current level. The threshold value of DG
capacity is presented while the existing protection scheme
for distribution network can be maintained. Detailed
simulations using MATLAB and PowerWorld simulators
are inserted in order to explain and verify the results.
Index Terms--Distributed Generation, Fuse, Protection
Coordination, Recloser.
I. INTRODUCTION
In the recent years the electrical power networks are
undergoing rapid restructuring and developing process
worldwide. Advancement in technologies and concern
about the environmental impacts have led to increase
interconnection of renewable energy based distributed
generations (DG) in distribution networks [1-4]. The
increasing penetration of distributed generation, added to
the distribution power system, creates new technical and
economical challenges [5]. This increase has been
supported by economic incentives [6-7] and new
technologies [8-9]. It will be necessary to consider many
issues concerning these challenges [10-11], in terms of
physical integration; protection is one important topic of
these challenges. High penetration of DG will have
unfavorable impact on the traditional protection methods
because the distribution system is no longer radial in
nature and is not supplied by a single main power source
[1]. The impact depends on the number, location and size
of injected DG. When a fault occurs in a distribution
network, it is important to quickly locate the fault by
identifying either a faulty bus or a faulty line section in
the network. To ensure safe and selective protection
This work was funded by the Italian Ministry of University and
Scientific Research as a part of the PRIN 2008 project.
978-1-4673-4430-2/13/$31.00 2013 IEEE
devices coordination, the impact of DG should be taken
into account when planning DG interconnection.
Most of the existing distribution systems are radial
with unidirectional power flows from substation to
customers. Over-current protection is used for such
systems because of its simplicity and low cost [12].
However, once a DG or several DGs are connected
within the main utility system, this pure radial nature is
lost. Thus the protection of distribution networks using
over-current protective devices becomes a challenging
task due to the change in the fault current levels and
direction; the protective devices may not respond in the
way they were initially designed [13].
A typical distribution protection system consists of
relays, re-closers and fuses. An over-current relay is
usually placed at a substation where a feeder originates.
Re-closers are usually installed on main feeders with
fuses on laterals. Re-closers are necessary in a
distribution system as 80% of all faults that take place in
distribution systems are temporary; it gives to a
temporary fault a chance to clear before allowing a fuse
to blow. The coordination between fuses, re-closers and
relays is well established; however, when DG units are
connected to a distribution network, a loss of
coordination among network protection devices may be
occurring. There are two possible ways to overcome this
mis-coordination. One way is to upgrade the protection
system components or to change the whole system
protection if needed; another way is to maintain the old
protective devices coordination unchanged up to a
specific DG penetration level. In this research the impact
of integrating DG on the protective devices coordination
using the second way is studied. The choice of this way
depends on the fact that it is cheaper one when studying
that impact in the developing countries distribution
networks. In order to overcome the mis-coordination
occurred in some cases, modifications will be suggested
to upgrade the conventional protection system.
II. PROTECTION OF DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
A. Protection Coordination Fundamental
In typical distribution systems such as the network
shown in Fig. 1, the general coordination consists of a
circuit breaker, a recloser, and lateral fuse. A lateral fuse
686
is responsible for the permanent fault that occurs in part
of the lateral feeder. However, if the fault is temporary or
the fault occurs on the main feeder in front the recloser, it
will be the device that trips the circuit instead in order to
confine the interrupted area. The operation of the recloser
also includes the function of backup protection when a
fuse fails to blow up. The breaker is responsible for the
fault that occurs behind the recloser. In addition, the
breaker is used as the whole backup protection for the
whole feeder when both the recloser and lateral fuses fail
in their functions. The time coordination between these
protection devices is fulfilled in coordination margin Z3
shown in Fig. 2; the descriptions TC and MM for the fuse
denote total clearing and minimum melting
characteristics, respectively, and the descriptions S and F
for the recloser denote slow and fast operation modes,
respectively [14].
Fig. 1 Schematic diagram for typical radial distribution system with
DGs.
Fig. 2 Sample coordination between protection devices.
The selectivity rules for recloser and fuse coordination
as shown in zone Z3 can be expressed as [15]:
1) For all fault current values through a fuse in
question , the fuse operation time t( )
should be greater than the reclosers fast operation
time t( ).
; protection devices, the recloser F curve must disconnect
the circuit before fuse MM. Hence, the margin for DG
 (1)
 fault current can be calculated from the points that fuse
2) For all fault current values through the fuse in
question , the total clear time of the fuse,
should be less than the reclosers slow
operation time
;
 (2)

B. DG Impact on Distribution Protection
The distributed generations have significant impacts
on the system and equipment operation in terms of
steady-state operation, dynamic operation, reliability,
power quality, stability and safety for both customers and
electricity suppliers. These impacts may be either
positively or negatively, depending on the distribution
system, distributed generators and load characteristics
[16]. Previous studies have shown that the DG causes
several challenges concerning the protection of
distribution networks; the most commonly mentioned
ones are: exceeding the interruption capacity of
protection device from its rating, false tripping of feeders,
relay operation error, and mis-coordination of protection
devices [17].
Comprehensive studies are required to explore the
problems related to the integration of DG in classical
distribution networks. The characteristics of short circuit
current and hence the rating and coordination of the
protection devices are depending on the network
structure. Considering the typical distribution network
shown in Fig 1, the following scenarios cover the most
frequent changes regarding how the connection of DG
units to the distribution networks may impact the
protective devices coordination.
a) Scenario 1
This scenario occurs when the fault current through
the recloser and the fuse is the same; the increasing in the
fault current, due to the presence of DGs, may cause that
the total fault current exceeds the maximum coordination
limit If,max shown in Fig. 2 and hence mis-coordination
will occurred. The mis-coordination can be solved by
selecting another fuse time-current curve and/or having
new setting for recloser to correspond with fault current
from DG. Another solution is to determine the maximum
capacity of the DG in order to keep the existing
protection scheme for distribution network unchanged
[18], [19].
b) Scenario 2
In this scenario, the fault currents still lie within the
allowed range, also, the fault current seen by the fuse is
different and higher than the fault current seen by the
recloser. In order to maintain the coordination between
MM operates at the same time as the recloser F.
Naturally, the disparity between these currents will
depend on the size and type of DG and its placement on
the main feeder. Larger size, more fault injection capacity
687
and shorter distance of DG from load feeder will result in
greater disparity and vice versa. As shown in Fig. 3, for a
given fault current in fuse (IFuse), if the disparity between
IFuse and the corresponding recloser current (IRecloser) is
more than the margin shown (CM2), the coordination
will be lost [20].
Fig. 3 Coordination Margins between protection devices.
c) Scenario 3
As the penetration of DG increases, the value of fault
current flowing from substation will decreases; this
situation may result in recloser or circuit breaker not
responding to the fault. Fig. 4 describes this scenario; it
shows an example of fault current in which the protection
device may not operate in presence of DG. This problem
may be solved by either selecting a new time-current
curve or by installing a smaller generation unit that will
not significantly decrease the short-circuit current
through the recloser or CB [18].
Fig. 4 Short-circuit currents through the recloser or CB with and without
DG Scenario 3.
d) Scenario 4
In this scenario, the resulting current flow due to the
presence of DG may result in an undesirable tripping of
the CB in non faulted feeder. The breaker at the healthy
feeder may trip first, depending on the distribution
system structure, distributed generators, load
688
characteristics, and time-current curves of each feeder.
The possibility of occurrence for this scenario is higher
when the size of DG is very large, determining high fault
currents. Fig. 5 shows a case in which this scenario may
be occur; in this situation the faulted and healthy feeders
have different time-current curves which leads healthy
feeder to trip first, although the current is much smaller
than the fault current at the faulted feeder. This problem
may probably solve by using directional over-current
relays at substation breakers; this suggestion is possible
and does not require a great investment. However, if both
faulted and healthy feeders have similar circuit breakers
and setting, the operating time of the circuit breaker in the
faulted feeder will be faster and the operating sequence of
both circuit breakers can be discriminated [18], [19].
Fig. 5 Short-circuit currents through the breakers of both feeders.
III. PROPOSED SYSTEM STUDIES
The characteristics of short circuit current and the
ratings of the protection devices depend on the network
structures. In this study the feeder 1 of typical radial
distribution power system shown in Fig. 1 is considered.
Detailed analysis for this radial configuration with
different numbers, locations and capacities of distributed
generators are conducted in this study. To analyze the
impact of DG on fault current level and protection
devices coordination, different cases shown in Table I
have been simulated and discussed.
TABLE I
DIFFERENT CASES CONSIDERED IN THIS STUDY
Case No. Case DG location
Description
a Without DG No DG interconnected
b1 A single DG With DG1
b2 interconnected With DG2
b3 With DG3
c1 Two DGs With (DG1+DG2)
c2 interconnected With (DG1+DG3)
c3 With (DG2+DG3)
d Three DGs With (DG1+DG2+DG3)
interconnected
Let us consider the case with three interconnected
DGs (Case d); Table II describes the currents passing
through the circuit breaker, the recloser, and the fuse
during the fault; the different fault positions considered in
this table are shown in Fig. 1. For other cases considered
in Table I, the protection devices fault current can be 1) Coordination Margin 1 (CM1): for the cases where
evaluated using Table II by considering the effect of the IR= IF,     
connected DGs and eliminating the current effects for the 2) Coordination Margin 2 (CM2): for the cases where
unconnected DGs; as an example, for case b1, set IR < IF,     
IDG2=IDG3=0 in Table II and so on.
3) In general:     )
TABLE II
TIMES FAULT CURRENT PASSING THROUGH PD CASE (D) IV. SIMULATION RESULTS
Fault Description
Position A typical 22kV radial distribution system with the
P5 ICB=IS, topology shown in Fig. 1 has been considered. All bus
IR=IS+IDG1+ IDG2, loads are 1 MW with power factor 0.92. The distributed
IFault = IS+IDG1+ IDG2+ IDG3
P4 ICB=IS,
generator buses are modeled as PQ bus with power factor
IR=IS+IDG1+ IDG2, of 0.92. For each feeder segment the following values
IFuse4=IFault = IS+IDG1+ IDG2+ IDG3 have been considered for resistance and reactance:
P3 ICB=IS, R=0.2066 per unit and X=0.64876 per unit. MATLAB
IR=IS+IDG1+ IDG2,
IFuse3=IFault = IS+IDG1+ IDG2+ IDG3 and PowerWorld software has been used to simulate the
P2 ICB=IS, proposed system. The following sections show and
IR=IDG3, discuss the obtained results.
IFuse2=IFault = IS+IDG1+ IDG2+ IDG3
P1 ICB=IS, A. Without DG Case- Result Analysis
IR=IDG3,
IFuse1=IFault = IS+IDG1+ IDG2+ IDG3 The system is simulated in normal case before adding
any DG to determine the normal currents flow in each
Fig. 6 shows a general configuration for radial branch after that the proposed network is simulated for
distribution system when several DGs are connected; for three phase fault type at different buses and different
a distribution system with this topology, the following locations in order to find the maximum fault current
equations describe the current passing through circuit passing through each protection device. Based on those
breaker CB, the recloser R, and the fuse F during the currents, the appropriate protection devices are selected
fault. according to [21], [22]. The obtained results are
For upstream faults (respect to the recloser): summarized in Table III. Coordination of the protection
devices is shown via the time-current curves in Fig. 7.
(3)
 TABLE III
(5) RESULTS OF NORMAL OPERATION AND FAULT ANALYSIS WITHOUT DG
PD Max. Load Max. Fault
For downstream faults (respect to the recloser): Current (A) Current (kA)
(6) Circuit Breaker 120 2.2449
Recloser 60 0.9358
 Fuse 1 30 1.1990
(8) Fuse 2 30 0.8763
Fuse 3 30 0.6871
Fuse 4 30 0.5623

B. Effect on Fault Current of DG Location and Capacity

Variation.
It is clear from Table II that the current passing
through each protection device varies and depends on the
case and current injected from the DG; it means that the
time response for protection devices will be change and
mis-coordination may be occur. In order to study the
effect of distributed generators capacity on the system
behavior, the penetration level of DG can be calculated as
a function of the total complex power generation from
DGs ( ) over complex power peak load demand
( ).
Fig. 6 Radial distribution system with several distributed generators

 (9)

In order to satisfy the coordination conditions
described earlier and referring to the value of fault
To verify the effect of DG capacity and location on
currents passing through the recloser and the fuse, there
the fault current passing through each protection device, a
are two coordination margins. These margins are shown
in Fig. 3 and mathematically can be described as:

689
three phase solid fault at position P4 is applied to the test recloser and the value gradually decreases when the DG
network shown in Fig. 8. is located in front of the recloser.
1
PL=20%
PL=40%
0.9
PL=60%
PL=80%
0.8

0.7

Fault current(kA)
0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
DG Location
Fig. 10 Recloser fault current Vs. DG location
Fig. 7 Time-current curves for the proposed radial network
Fig. 11 shows the value of fault current flowing
through the fuse 4; as the distance between the DG and
the fault location decreases, the value of the fault current
increases. On the other hand, as the penetration level
increases the fault current gradually increases.

1.6
Fig. 8 Schematic diagram for the test radial distribution network
1.5

Fig. 9 shows the value of fault current passing 1.4

through the CB with different values of PL; it can be 1.3
clearly seen that the DG have a significant effect on the
Fault current(kA)

1.2
fault current flowing from substation; as expected, larger
penetration level influence the substation fault current 1.1

more than smaller penetration level. Moreover, the effect 1

of DG is most significant near the middle of the feeder.
0.9
0.34
0.8 PL=20%
PL=40%
0.32 0.7 PL=60%
PL=80%

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
0.3
DG Location
Fault current(kA)

Fig. 11 Fuse 4 fault current Vs. DG location

0.28
0.26
0.24
0.22
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
DG Location
Fig. 9 CB fault current Vs. DG location
Fig. 10 shows the value of fault current passing
through the recloser; based on this graph, as the distance
between the DG and the recloser decreases the value of IR
increases when the DG source is located behind the
recloser and the value increases as the distance between
the DG and the recloser increases when the DG is located
in front of the recloser. The graph also shows that, as the
penetration of DG increases, the value of IR gradually
increases when the DG source is located behind the
C. Effect of DG on Protection Coordination
In particular, the integration of DG in the distribution
PL=20% system impacts the system protection devices ratings and
PL=40% coordination. Adding DG to the system leads to
PL=60%
redistribution of branches currents, hence the
PL=80%
conventional protection concepts must be revised. The
10 11
effect of DG on protective device coordination is
sensitive to distribution system configuration, DG size
and DG location. A comprehensive analysis was done in
order to test and verify the coordination requirements for
different cases mentioned in Table I; Table IV
summarizes the results; the penetration level for DGs in
all cases are varied from 5% to 100%. As an example for
scenario 1 mentioned earlier, consider a fault occurred at
position P3. Fig. 12 shows the value of IF3 versus DG
penetration level. It is clear that as the penetration level
increases the fault current gradually increases. On the

690
other hand, if the fault current exceed I F,max=1740 A (case mis-coordination occurred have been reviewed. It is
c3 and d), the coordination will be lost. shown that the fault current passing through each
protection device depends on the DG size, number, and
TABLE IV
COORDINATION TEST RESULTS
location. This fault current can be managed to stay within
Case Coordination of Protection the coordination limits, a comprehensive analysis must be
Devices done before integrating DG sources in a distribution
a Valid network, and then suitable devices will be chosen to
b1 Valid
b2 Valid recover the coordination.
b3 Valid
c1 Valid when PL < 56% REFERENCES
c2 Valid when PL < 48% [1] S. A. M. Javadian, M. R. Haghifam, and N. Rezaei, A
c3 Valid when PL < 28% fault location and protection scheme for distribution
d Valid when PL < 7% systems in presence of DG using MLP neural networks,
in Power & Energy Soc. Gen. Meet PES09 IEEE, 2009,
1.85 pp. 1-8.
[2] V. Cosentino, S. Favuzza, G. Graditi, M. G. Ippolito, F.
Massaro, E. Riva Sanseverino, and G. Zizzo, Smart
1.8
renewable generation for an islanded system. Technical
Fault current passing through Fuse 3 (kA)

and economic issues of future scenarios, Energy, vol. 39,

1.75 pp. 196- 204, Feb. 2012.
[3] S. Favuzza, G. Graditi, M. G. Ippolito, F. Massaro, R.
Musca, E. Riva Sanseverino, and G. Zizzo, Transition of a
1.7
distribution system towards an active network. Part I:
Preliminary design and scenario perspectives, in
1.65
International Conference on Clean Electrical Power
ICCEP11, Italy, 2011, pp. 9- 14.
Case b3 [4] V. Cosentino, S. Favuzza, G. Graditi, M. G. Ippolito, F.
1.6 Case c2 Massaro, E. Riva Sanseverino, and G. Zizzo, Transition
Case c3
Case d
of a distribution system towards an active network. Part II:
economical analysis of selected scenario, in International
1.55
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Conference on Clean Electrical Power ICCEP11, Italy,
DG Penetration Level (%) 2011, pp. 15- 20
Fig. 12 Fuse 3 fault current Vs. DGs penetration level [5] L.Dusonchet, S. Favuzza, F. Massaro, G. Morello, Analisi
economica finanziariadegli investimenti sul fotovoltaico in
Fig. 13 shows the value of fault current passing Italia, LEnergia Elettrica n.03/09 maggio-giugno 2009
through the CB when a fault occurred at position P 4; pp.37-51
based on this graph, the fault current through CB is [6] V. Di Dio, R. Miceli, C. Rando, and G. Zizzo, Dynamics
photovoltaic generators: Technical aspects and economical
decreasing as the penetration of DG increases, in this valuation, in Power Electronics Electrical Drives
situation; if ICB have a value lower than ICB,min=160 A, Automation and Motion (SPEEDAM), 2010 International
scenario 3 is valid and the circuit breaker will not operate. Symposium on, 2010, pp. 635640.
[7] V. Di Dio, S. Favuzza, D. La Cascia, and R. Miceli,
0.22
Economical Incentives and Systems of Certification for
Case c1
Case c2
the Production of Electrical Energy from Renewable
0.2
Case c3
Energy Resources, in Clean Electrical Power, 2007.
ICCEP 07. International Conference on, 2007, pp. 277
Fault current passing through CB (kA)

Case d
0.18 282.
[8] R. Candela, V. Di Dio, E. Riva Sanseverino, and P.
0.16
Romano, Reconfiguration Techniques of Partial Shaded
PV Systems for the Maximization of Electrical Energy
0.14
Production, in Clean Electrical Power, 2007. ICCEP 07.
International Conference on, 2007, pp. 716719.
0.12
[9] V. Di Dio, D. La Cascia, R. Miceli, and C. Rando, A
0.1
mathematical model to determine the electrical energy
production in photovoltaic fields under mismatch effect,
in 2009 International Conference on Clean Electrical
0.08
Power, ICCEP 2009, 2009, pp. 4651.
0.06
[10] M. Brenna, MC. Falvo, F. Foiadelli, L. Martirano, F.
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Massaro, D. Poli, and A. Vaccaro, Challenges in Energy
DG Penetration Level (%) Systems for the Smar-Cities of the future, in International
Fig. 13 CB fault current Vs. DGs penetration level Conference & Exhibition ENERGYCON 2012, Italy,
2012, pp. 818-825
V. CONCLUSION [11] M.L. Di Silvestre, S. Favuzza, M.G. Ipoolito, F. Massaro,
E. Riva Sanseverino, Analysis of impacts on electric
This paper has analyzed the effect of distributed power system operation of load management in resisdential
generators on fault current level and on protection and tertiary buildings, in International Conference &
Exhibition ENERGYCON 2012, Italy, 2012, pp. 777-782
devices coordination in the radial distribution networks. [12] H. Cheung, A. Hamlyn, L. Wang, C. Yang, and R.
Different scenarios for mis-coordination problems caused Cheung, Investigations of impacts of distributed
by DG have been discussed. The solutions to overcome generations on feeder protections, in Power & Energy
Soc. Gen. Meet PES09 IEEE, 2009, pp. 1-7.

691
[13] M. Dewadasa, A. Ghosh, and G. Ledwich, Fold back
current control and admittance protection scheme for a
distribution network containing distributed generators,
IEEE Generation, Transmission & Distribution, IET, vol.
4, pp. 952-962, August 2010.
[14] S. Chaitusaney, and A. Yokoyama, Prevention of
reliability degradation from recloserfuse miscoordination
due to distributed generation, IEEE Transaction on Power
Delivery, vol. 23, no. 4, October 2008.
[15] H. B. Funmilayo and K. L. Butler-Purry, An approach to
mitigate the impact of distributed generation on the
overcurrent protection scheme for radial feeders, in
Power Sys. Conf. and Exp. PSCE09, IEEE/PES, 2009, pp.
1-11.
[16] N. Rugthaicharoencheep, and S. Auchariyamet, Technical
and Economic Impacts of distributed generation on
distribution system, World Academy of Science,
Engineering and Technology 64, 2012.
[17] S. A. A. Shahriari, A. Y. Varjani and M. R. Haghifam,
"Cost reduction of distribution network protection in
presence of distributed generation using optimized fault
current limiter allocation," Electrical Power and Energy
Systems, vol. 43, pp. 1453-1459, August 2012.
692
[18] J. A. Martinez and J. M. Arnedo, impact of distributed
generation on distribution protection and power quality, in
Power & Energy Soc. Gen. Meet PES09 IEEE, 2009, pp.
1-6.
[19] S. Chaitusaney and A. Yokoyama, Reliability analysis of
distribution system with distributed generation considering
loss of protection coordination, in 9th International
Conference on Probabilistic Methods Applied to Power
Systems PMAPS, Sweden, 2006, pp. 1-8.
[20] A. Girgis and S. Brahma, "Effect of distributed generation
on protective device coordination in distribution system",
in Large Engineering Systems Conference on Power
Engineering LESCOPE01 IEEE, 2001, pp. 115 119.
[21] J. Glover, M. Sarma, T. Overbye, Power system analysis
and design, 5th ed., Cengage Learning, 2012.
[22] W. Ruschel, A. Ashley, Coordination of relays, reclosers,
and sectionalizing fuses for overhead lines in the oil
patch, IEEE Trans. Industry Applications, vol. 25, no. 6,
pp. 1041-1048, 1989.