214 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 20, NO.

1, JANUARY 2005

Coordination of Voltage Sag and Overcurrent

Protection in DG Systems
J. Carlos Gómez, Senior Member, IEEE, and Medhat M. Morcos, Senior Member, IEEE

Abstract—A study of a distribution system is presented where

the effect of distributed generation (DG) presence is analyzed. The
system is typical of a rural, industrial, and low-power (weak) distri-
bution scheme. The concept of specific energy for voltage sag immu-
nity of sensitive equipment (SE) under the new scenario created by
the DG presence is applied, especially studying the double magni-
tude/duration sag that is caused by the change in source impedance
due to the response of dissimilar protection devices. The new pro-
tection coordination concepts of the not-anymore-radial distribu-
tion systems are described. A new methodology for the study of SE
behavior under voltage sag when connected to a weak distribution Fig. 1. Simple radial circuit for voltage sag studies.
system with DG is proposed.
Index Terms—Distributed generation, fuses, power quality, pro- to protect DG would improve transient stability and also im-
tection coordination, voltage sag. prove power quality (reduce voltage sag duration) [2]. More re-
search is needed in regard to classical protection coordination,
I. INTRODUCTION as fuses still are widely used in distribution systems. One pos-
sible reason is based on the PD simplicity and, hence, reliability,

T HE GROWING concern on climate changes and the al-

ways-present oil crisis has recently increased the interest in
distributed generation (DG) from renewable and traditional (but
highly efficient) sources. Deregulation and growth of competitive
supply markets also multiply this interest. The impact of DG on
distribution systems depends on the penetration level, a presence
of approximately 20% on energy resources for the years 2010 to
2020 is predicted. During the first part of the year 2003, fewer
industrial and commercial businesses have expressed interest
in adopting onsite DG equipment [1]. The August 14, 2003,
blackout has greatly changed the previous trend. The widespread
use of DG or distributed resources has created a series of new
problems, such as selective coordination of overcurrent protec-
tion in addition to control of voltage sag magnitude and duration
by using overcurrent protective devices (PDs). The most feared
effect is the islanding that can be highly risky for user equipment,
utility elements, and personnel. The fear is based on the possible
frequency and voltage reductions, and the resulting out of phase
and magnitude, when the supply is restored. This situation can
be rightly controlled by the suitable protective devices.
The widespread use of DG defines old and new scenarios,
calling for highly sophisticated protection as the only way to
cope with the current distribution system scheme. It has been
reported that the use of novel fast-clearance protection systems
Manuscript received January 14, 2004; revised March 4, 2004. This work
was supported in part by the Engineering Experiment Station at Kansas State
University and in part by the Electric Power System Protection Institute at Río
Cuarto National University.
J. C. Gómez is with Río Cuarto National University, Río Cuarto 601-5800,
Argentina (e-mail: jcgomez@ing.unrc.edu.ar).
M. M. Morcos is with Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506 USA
(e-mail: morcos@ksu.edu).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TPWRD.2004.839216
0885-8977/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE
being able to operate even in extremely hard environments. New
protection systems need to be studied or restudied for this ap-
plication, until all of the traditional protection possibilities have
been exhausted.
II. STUDY OF A SIMPLE RADIAL SYSTEM
The present study is done on a simple distribution system
where the effect of DG presence can be easily analyzed. The
system is typical of a rural, industrial, or low-power distribution
scheme. Most of the distribution systems are operated radially
due to the simple and cheap overcurrent protection. The change of
the whole distribution protection—in order to allow the unlimited
DG penetration—is a very expensive, and perhaps unrealistic,
idea. The operation would be optimized under the present
situation in order to perform a certain corrective task only.
It should be taken into account that the type of fault is
strongly influenced by the generator and isolation transformer
connections. Transformers with ungrounded primary would
not contribute significantly to single line-to-ground faults;
thus, the utility protection would not detect the secondary fault
presence. In this case, a temporary fault can become permanent
with the disadvantage that a momentary interruption turns
into a sustained one and a voltage sag is now followed by an
outage [3]. The present work is carried out from two points of
view–voltage sags and overcurrent coordination.
A. Radial System From the Voltage Sag Coordination Point
of View
The classical study of overcurrent protection/voltage sag coor-
dination is given using the single-phase equivalent circuit shown
in Fig. 1, where PCC indicates the point of common coupling and
SE is the sensitive equipment (equipment that may drop out due
GÓMEZ AND MORCOS: COORDINATION OF VOLTAGE SAG AND OVERCURRENT PROTECTION IN DG SYSTEMS
Fig. 2. Circuit with DG for voltage sag studies.
to shallow voltage dips of short duration) [4]. Steps of the coor-
dination methodology have been reported in [5].
The voltage applied to SE during the three phase fault is
pu (1)
which can be rewritten as
pu (2)
When DG is introduced in the system, the circuit of Fig. 1
is transformed into the complex form of Fig. 2, where the clas-
sical concept of PCC, which considers the energy flow direction
to be unique, is no longer valid. The circuit now includes the DG
impedance ( ) and the interconnection impedance ( ), where
is a nonconstant value, usually represented by the DG tran-
sient impedance. Also, each of the two branches (where SE and
the faulted branch are connected) could be located anywhere be-
tween the DG and the power system supply points. Depending
on the locations, four main cases can be analyzed: Case I–with
the faulted branch connected at the power system side and the
SE at the DG side, Case II–both branches are at the system side,
Case III–both branches at the DG side, and Case IV–the SE con-
nected at the power system side and the faulted branch at the DG
side. For each of the four extreme cases, the circuit behavior and
equations would be different. From a quick analysis of the cited
cases, the following can be deduced.
1) Cases I and IV: DG power-supply combination deter-
mines a minimum voltage-sag magnitude at the SE
connection point. These minimum values, expressed in
per unit, are for case I and for
Case IV.
2) Cases II and III: The power supply is reinforced by the DG
collaboration, increasing short-circuit current at the PCC,
with in series with in the first case and with alone
in the second case. Depending on the power system and
DG relative sizes, impedance can represent a substan-
tial short-circuit current limitation. For these two cases,
there are no minimum voltage sag values.
In general, DG can be considered as to mitigate voltage
sags in two ways: increasing the fault level (reducing system
impedance to in parallel with ) and keeping up the
voltage at the neighboring load ( ) by feeding the fault [6].
215
Fig. 3. Typical rural radial system with distributed generation.
For the circuit shown in Fig. 1, the coordination study (car-
ried out by converting the protective device time/current char-
acteristic curve into a time/voltage curve) was relatively easy.
Now, besides the circuit complexities, an additional uncertainty
is provided at the instant when the DG circuit breaker opens,
changing the circuit behavior, and altering both fault current
and voltage-sag magnitudes. The study of this situation is given
below, using the specific energy concept [5].
B. Radial System From the Overcurrent Coordination Point
of View
Due to its simplicity and uniformity from the time/current
characteristic point of view, the study will be carried out for
fuses, explaining the main differences if circuit breakers would
be used instead. The DG presence in the circuit can cause fuse
blowing, since the fuse current now has two components–one
coming from the supply (already considered during the distri-
bution system design) and the other from the DG, which creates
an acceleration of the fuse operation [7]. Fig. 3, which is derived
from Fig. 2, shows a typical radial circuit with five possible fault
locations and subsequent fuse operations that require a special
analysis.
1) Fault : Current mainly supplied by the power system
(generator G) would cause fuse to operate, and if the
DG circuit breaker is not fast enough, it also would cause
fuse to operate. The operation of fuse would cause
some confusion on the task aimed at locating the fault
but would allow that part of the circuit to continue to be
supplied by the DG (islanding). It should be noted that
islanding is not always permitted by the local authorities.
2) Fault : Current supplied by the power system would
cause fuse operation. The DG CB would also trip (in
a shorter or longer time).
3) Fault : Current supplied by the power system as well
as by the DG would cause fuse operation. If the fuses
and have been properly coordinated without con-
sidering the DG, the new situation would enhance the co-
ordination by accelerating fuse fault interruption. The
DG circuit breaker can also open, depending on its coor-
dination with . In case the power system cannot supply
the loads without the DG, it would be desirable for the DG
breaker not to open.
4) Fault : The only fuse that needs to be operated is .
Fuse , if properly coordinated, would not operate. The
inconvenience comes from fuse operation caused by
the DG-supplied current (when fuse rated current is
similar to or lower than that of ), leaving part of the
216
Fig. 4. Faulted branch current and SE voltage for a circuit with double supply.
system operating as an island. This situation is possible
when an important load is supplied from the feeder but
its frequency of occurrence is very low. The possible ex-
istence of this situation needs to be analyzed further.
5) Fault : The only fuse that needs to operate is . Fuse
, if properly coordinated, would not operate. Also, it is
desirable that the CB remain closed.
From the cases mentioned above, the most conflictive situa-
tion is presented by fault , which requires special consider-
ation [8].
The coordination analysis is done using the circuit shown in
Fig. 3. Now, the specific energy of current needs to be ap-
plied instead of the classical time/current characteristic , due
mainly to the large variation of the DG current supplied during
the early part of the short-circuit process [7]. In our conflictive
situation, the specific energy of G and DG currents through
(pre-arcing + arcing) needs to be lower than the prearcing
energy due to G, and also lower than prearcing energy due
to DG. The new problematic application, when DG is connected
in the system, is analyzed below.
III. SE VOLTAGE SAG RIDETHROUGH CAPABILITY
The study is carried out considering the faulted branch being
protected by fuses and that the DG possesses a CB commanded
by a definite-time relay. The analysis is directed to determine
if the voltage sag caused by fault current, with the consequent
DG disconnection, would cause SE dropout. The specific energy
concept can be applied to this study based upon its capability
to analyze PD and SE behavior as time functions [9]. Specific
energy is represented by the quantity , which is normally
expressed in ; when the voltage is given (in per unit) and
is given in seconds, the unit becomes [5]. Fig. 4 shows
the voltage sag and current magnitudes due to change in source
impedance when the DG CB opens. The fault impedance was
assumed to initially produce a fault current (1 p.u.) five times the
prefault load, and a voltage sag to 0.45 p.u. It was also assumed
that the DG breaker opens after 200 ms, reducing the current to
0.6 p.u. and the voltage sag to 0.3 p.u. The PD operation—490
ms after the fault started—has restored the voltage to 1 p.u. The
comparison between the voltage sag-specific energy and the SE
ridethrough capability curve would indicate the SE withstand
or dropout conditions. In other words, the SE would drop out
if the energy deficit (due to 0.45-p.u. voltage for 200 ms and
0.30-p.u. voltage for 290 ms) was higher than the SE withstand
energy deficit.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 20, NO. 1, JANUARY 2005
Fig. 5. Generic circuit with DG for voltage sag studies.
TABLE I
IMPEDANCE FACTORS FOR THE FOUR EXTREME CASES
A generic circuit—derived from that shown in Fig. 2—is pre-
sented in Fig. 5, where the interconnection impedance has been
divided into three components in order to allow the locations of
branches to be considered. The components are derived from
the original impedance multiplied by three factors, whose
sum is always equal to one. The three factors transforming ,
, and allow the representation of any particular case.
Table I shows the values for the previously described Cases I
through IV.
The formula below, developed from the circuit in Fig. 5, is
the general expression for the SE voltage calculation
pu (3)
where . The situation after the DG breaker
opens can be easily calculated using the above expression and
considering as infinite. In conclusion, the coordination task
to be carried out consists of estimating the specific energy of
fuse current as a time function, together with calculating the
specific energy of SE voltage, also as a time function. The new
situation needs to be considered after the DG breaker opening, if
it happens. If the SE-specific energy value is reached before fuse
opening, the SE would suffer a dropout. The aim is to have the
fuse open before the SE stored specific energy is exhausted. The
SE lack of specific energy is greatly influenced by the operating
time of the DG breaker due to the fault backup given by the DG,
as can be concluded from Fig. 4.
The procedure can be applied also to determine the improve-
ment in the SE ridethrough capability when a DG of a given
power is somewhere connected to a simple radial circuit. Fig. 6
shows an example of the procedure (the values correspond to
Fig. 4); the thick curve represents the increase in the specific
energy (of current) as a time function. The thin curves–dotted
and solid–represent the defective-specific energy (of voltage)
GÓMEZ AND MORCOS: COORDINATION OF VOLTAGE SAG AND OVERCURRENT PROTECTION IN DG SYSTEMS
Fig. 6. Comparison of fuse and SE-specific energies.
for different DG operating times. The fuse would operate when
its curve reaches the prearcing + arcing specific energy; for our
case, 0.066 p.u. (of current, pointed by arrow 1), and the SE
would drop out for a value of 0.205 (of voltage, shown
by arrows 2 and 3). It can be seen that the DG breaker tripping
at 200 ms (the point at which the dotted and solid lines depart)
causes the SE dropout at 420 ms (shown by arrow 2), before the
fuse operation which takes place at 490 ms (shown by arrow 1).
The dropout could be avoided by delaying the breaker operation
to 380 ms (indicated by a change in the slope of the thin solid
line). The acceptability of the CB delay needs to be considered
carefully due to the possible damage to equipment and hazard
to personnel, even in the case of a weak distribution system.
IV. PROPOSED METHODOLOGY FOR COORDINATION OF SE
RIDETHROUGH CAPABILITY OVERCURRENT PROTECTION
The effect of voltage sag on SE usually is not more than
causing its dropout. The SE immunity or dropout susceptibility
to voltage sags is given i) as a time/voltage characteristic, or
ii) by the coordinates of a point on a time/voltage graph. An
example of the first methodology is the Information Technology
Industry Council (ITIC)—originally presented by the Computer
Business Equipment Manufacturing Association (CBEMA)
graph, the IEEE Standard 1346 uses the latter [4], [10], [11].
The specific energy concept has been proposed for the analysis
of SE immunity, showing its application not only to individual
SE but also to sensitive industrial plants, production lines, and
parts of distribution systems [5]. The extension of this concept
allows the coordination between SE ridethrough capability and
the protective device time/current characteristic by plotting the
data of both devices on a time/voltage graph [9]. ANSI/IEEE
Standard 1001 indicates that DG protection should trip for a
voltage lower than 50% in less than six cycles, which are the
coordinates of a point on the CBEMA curve.
In order to clarify the idea, the study begins with the anal-
ysis of the simple radial circuit shown in Fig. 1, from which
the expression for the voltage applied to faulted SE was ob-
tained. When a fuse is used as protective device connected on
the faulted branch, the fault current can be expressed as a mul-
tiple of the fuse current rating, with being the fuse rating
current and being the multiplier. For example, in Fig. 7, the
fuse under study (rated current 200 A) at a given current value
would operate in a time of one cycle, and the voltage drop due to
this current would create a voltage sag to 80%. Sensitive equip-
ment would withstand—during this time period—a voltage sag
217
Fig. 7. Example of fuse time/voltage characteristics and CBEMA curve.
as deep as 20%; thus, the equipment would withstand this event.
As the entire fuse characteristic is to the upper left side of the
SE curve, the equipment would be protected by fuse operation.
A similar procedure can be followed when CBs are applied,
using the methodology for transforming the characteristic
into characteristic with as a conversion factor [5]. Equa-
tion (1) can be rewritten as
pu (4)
where the product represents the system impedance
voltage-drop, considering the faulted branch as the only circuit
load. If there are other loads connected, the faulted branch
load can be represented as a per unit value of the total load,
expressed by , which is always less than one. Equation (4)
now becomes
pu (5)
This expression can be represented on a time/voltage graph,
together with the SE immunity data given either by CBEMA-
ITIC or IEEE standards, as shown in Fig. 7. For the present
work, the CBEMA curve was selected based upon its worldwide
application and due to its regular form. The fuse curve has been
determined for both and values.
A bigger generalization can be obtained by changing the scale
of the vertical axis to logarithmic, then the curves representing
fuse ratings, source impedances, and load percentage would
shift horizontally, taking the point defined by a 100% voltage
and 0.01 cycle as the new origin. In other words, once the study
has been done under basic conditions, it is very easy to im-
prove the results by changing any of the constants in (5), which
leads to the shifting of the fuse/time curve. The changeable con-
stants are , , , and , which implies modifications on
the short-circuit current, load sharing, fuse current rating, and
source impedance, respectively. Any of the four constants has
the same weight on the curve shifting, besides, the final curve
location can be obtained by a combination of changes in some,
or all, of the four constants. Fig. 8 shows the change obtained
by the modification of the source impedance.
218
Fig. 8. Plots of Fig. 7 with source impedance modified.
Fig. 9. Coordination of CBEMA and modern PD curves.
When the conditions are changed; for instance, the new fuse
characteristic has moved to the right and down, as shown in
Fig. 8, the point corresponding to one cycle would be withstood
by the SE, but as some crossing points are shown, some voltage
sag events would cause the SE dropout.
Following the same analysis, when DG is used, the SE and
the faulted branch have two energy sources–the mains and the
DG. When the fault starts, the PD of both sources would detect
the overcurrent and one of the devices would be open at first,
producing a sharp change in the source impedance. The pro-
posed methodology would allow the SE ridethrough analysis to
be carried out, as the device opening produces a change in the
source impedance as described above. For instance, if a short
circuit takes place, the voltage sag detected by the SE would
be 80%. If, after one cycle, the source impedance is changed,
the voltage would fall to 40%. As the fuse curve still is to the
left of the immunity curve, the protective device would clear the
fault, avoiding SE dropout. If the circuit modification produces
a slightly lower curve, the SE would not be able to withstand the
voltage sag due to the intersection of the two curves (Fig. 8).
In case of using more sophisticated PD, data management is
not so easy as with fuses due to the possible time/current char-
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON POWER DELIVERY, VOL. 20, NO. 1, JANUARY 2005
acteristic changes. Modern devices allow the modification to be
done with both instantaneous and delayed trips, as well as with
multiples of the pickup current. Fig. 9 shows both the CBEMA
immunity curve and one of the available characteristics after
being transformed into a voltage/time curve. The characteristic
curve is formed by several horizontal and vertical segments that
can be moved either vertically or horizontally, so each location
would have its own constants.
V. CONCLUSION
The new scenario changes the well-known protection con-
cepts. A simple methodology has been presented, and its funda-
mentals and difficulties are explained. The analysis is simpler
when fuses are used as protective devices than when using more
sophisticated equipment having variable TCC. The methodology
has been specifically explained when applied to circuits having
distributed generation, which produces a sharp impedance
change. The information needed to carry out the proper coordina-
tion studies under the new situation is readily available.
REFERENCES
[1] “Primen says distributed energy market has softened, but small, niche
market still exists,” in Transmission and Distribution World. Palo Alto,
CA: Elect. Power Res. Inst. (EPRI), 2003.
[2] R. C. Dugan and T. E. McDermott, “Distributed generation and power
quality,” in Proc. Power Quality Assoc. (PQA) North America, Memphis,
TN, 2000, pp. 343–357.
[3] IEEE Guide for Interfacing Dispersed Storage and Generation Facilities
with Electric Utility Systems, ANSI/IEEE Std. 1001, 1988.
[4] G. T. Heydt, “Electric power quality,” in Stars in a Circle, Scottsdale,
AZ, 1991.
[5] J. C. Gómez and M. M. Morcos, “Coordinating overcurrent protection
and voltage sag in distributed generation systems,” IEEE Power Eng.
Rev., vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 16–19, Feb. 2002.
[6] M. H. J. Bollen, “Understanding power quality problems,” in Voltage
Sags and Interruptions. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Press, 2000.
[7] “Electrical Distribution System Protection,” Cooper Power Systems,
Waukesha, WI, Bulletin 90 020, 1990.
[8] A. Girgis and S. Brahma, “Effect of distributed generation on protective
device coordination in distribution system,” in Proc. Large Eng. Syst.
Conf. Power Engineering, 2001, pp. 115–119.
[9] J. C. Gómez and M. M. Morcos, “Voltage sag and recovery time in repet-
itive events,” IEEE Trans. Power Del., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 1037–1043,
Oct. 2002.
[10] IEEE Recommended Practice for Emergency and Standby Power, IEEE
Std. 446, 1995.
[11] IEEE Recommended Practice for Evaluating Electric Power System
Compatibility with Electronic Process Equipment, IEEE Std. 1346,
1998.
J. Carlos Gómez (M’84–SM’01) received the Ph.D. degree in electrical engi-
neering from Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, U.K., in 1994.
Currently, he is a Professor of electrical engineering and Director of the
Electric Power System Protection Institute at Río Cuarto National University
(RCNU), Río Cuarto, Argentina. After working for four years at the National
University of Cuyo, Argentina, he joined RCNU, where he has been since
1980. His research interests are power quality and distribution protection.
Medhat M. Morcos (M’78–SM’86) received the Ph.D. degree in electrical en-
gineering from the University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada, in 1984.
Currently, he is a Professor of electrical and computer engineering and the
Distinguished Teaching Scholar at Kansas State University (KSU), Manhattan.
His research includes artificial intelligence applications in power quality and
power systems protection, power electronics, electrical machines, and high-
voltage engineering.
Dr. Morcos is a member of Eta Kappa Nu, Tau Beta Pi, Sigma Xi, and Phi
Kappa Phi. He is also a member of the American Society for Engineering Edu-
cation.